The ostracon in full flattened contrast (by Megavision laboratory)
1] 'a li ta `a na qa bi `a ba da 'u lu hi mi
2] sha pa t.a ka `a ba da 'u lu hi mi ba mi shi pi t.i ya hu
3] ma ta ta gu li yu tu ba `a la da wi di la `i ti na s.a h.i mi
4] ( ) 'i na qi mi wa na ri mi yi su du mu la ki ya
5] 'i ri mi `a ma `a ba di ya `a la s.i du qu ti wu
Tentative translation:
[1] You have cursed ('lt), Anak (`nq), against (b) the servant of God (`bd 'lhm);
[2] the servant of God (`bd 'lhm) has judged you (sha-pa-t.a-ka) with (b) judgements of Yahu (mi-shi-pi-t.i ya-hu);
[3] You are dead (mtt) Goliath (glyt), David (dwd) is master (b`l) for endless time (l`t ns.h.m);
[4] I am avenged ('nqm) and raised up (nrm) is the foundation (ysd) of my kingdom (mlky);
[5] I raise up ('rm) the people (`m) of my servant (`bdy) for his virtuous acts (`l s.dqtw).
[In transcribing the characters I sometimes use 'A for 'aleph (ox) and `O for `ayin (eye) for ease of distinguishing the two guttural sounds, rather than their simple transcription with ' and ` (remembering that they are the original sources of the Greco-Roman letters A and O);] Emphatic consonants have the dot next to them not under them (H. T. S.); Shin is shown as Sh.
[1] ' L T ` N Q B ` B D ' L H M
[1] 'LT `NQ B `BD 'LHM
[1] 'alita `anaqa bi `abada 'uluhimi
[1] Anak (Giant), you have cursed against the servant of God.
The first sentence could start with 'L as "El/God" (or 'LT as "Goddess"); or 'L as "not" ('L T`N. "Do not answer", or "Do not worry"); or 'L as the preposition 'el "unto". But the syllabic writing seems to restrict the choices to 'alita.
'LT "curse" or "cursing" or "curses" (Hebrew 'alah, plural 'alot); but `alita would be second person singular verb from the same root, "you have cursed", or "you have uttered a curse" (against the servant).
Note that the Philistine Goliath is said to have "cursed (qll, not 'lh as here) David by his gods" (1 Samuel 17:43).
`NQ "Anak" (`anaqa), or "Anaki" (`anaqi, gentilic form);`Anaqim were a "tribe" of giants who were located in Ashdod, Gaza, and Gath, all Philistine towns, as noted in Joshua 11:21-22, and presumably Goliath of Gath was one of them; this seems to confirm that supposition, as GLYT is named in line 3. The Anaqim have no known references outside the Bible, except where the Bible is quoted, as 'Einakeim in the Onomasticon of Eusebius (68.4; Rainey Bridge, 154c), followed by Jerome's Enacim in his Latin translation of the Onomasticon (Rainey 155a). However, Modern Hebrew has `anâq (noun) "giant", and`anâqî (adjective).
B (bi) "in" (here "on" or "against"; note the Hebrew expression ns' 'lh b, "lay a curse on", in 1 Kings 8:31).
`BD (`abada, Biblical Hebrew `ebed) "servant" or "slave".
'LHM ('uluhimi) "Elohim, God". In Biblical Hebrew this would be `bd ha-'lhm (Dn 9.11, Neh 10.30, 1 Chr 6.34, 2 Chr 24.9, referring to Moses in each case), and the absence of the definite article here and in line 2 suggests that it was not in current usage. Here "the servant of God is identified in line 3 as David (dawidi). As noted above, the opening words of Psalm 18 speak of "the servant of Yahweh, David". According to Psalm 78, "Yahweh (4), God ('lhym, 7), God Most High ('lhm `lywn, 56), the Lord ('dny, 65) chose David his servant, and took him from the sheepfolds ... to shepherd Jacob his people, and Israel his inheritance" (71-72).
[2] Sh P T. K ` B D ' L H M B M Sh P T. Y H
[2] ShP T. K `BD 'LHM B MShPT. YH
[2] shapat.a ka `abada 'uluhimi ba mishipit.i yahu
[2] The servant of God has judged you with judgements of Yahu
ShPT. K (shapat.aka) "he has judged you" (3rd person singular masculine, perfect tense, with 2nd p. m. pronominal suffix); the suspicion here is that it means "has passed judgement on", and the implication is that the death penalty has been executed; the next line apparently begins with MT GLYT (indicating that Glyt is dead).
`BD 'LHM (`abada 'uluhimi) "the servant of God" (as in line 1); "my servant" (`abadiya) in line 5.
ShPT. YH (shipit.i yahu) "judgements of Yahu"; the word shepet.("judgement", Akkadian shipt.u) is here possibly in its plural construct form, shipit.i; compare the use of the plural of this word in Exodus 6:6, "I YHWH ... will redeem you ... with (b) great judgements" (sh-p-t.-y-m). However, the MI is clear enough, preceded by superscript BA, yielding ba-mishipiti (mishpt.é), "with judgements of Yahu".
[3] M T G L Y T B`L D W D L`T N S. H. M
[3] MT GLYT B`L DWD LNS.H.M
[3] mata guliyutu ba`ala dawidi la`iti nis.ah.ama
[3] You are dead, Golyat, David is the master for endless time (evermore).
There is a space before G and some ink marks, possibly M T T, written vertically.
MTT (matata, BH matta) 2nd p. sg. m. pf.; this reading is rather intuitive, but it fits the context, and the prophet continues addressing the giant posthumously, as in the previous two lines. If it is mit-, it would say "Dead (mét) is Goliath".
GLYT (guliyutu) "Golyat" (Goliath from Gath, or the Gittite), the champion of the Philistines in the battle against Israel in the Elah Valley (1 Samuel 17:4); elsewhere it is reported that another Goliath the Gittite was slain by Elhanan the Bethlehemite (2 Samuel 21:19) though the Chronicler has Elhanan killing Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite (1 Chronicles 20:5).
B`L (ba`ala) "Ba`al", a title, meaning "Lord" (applied to the weather-god Hadad); as an epithet it could refer to Goliath here; as a verb it means "be master" or "possess", and it could have the following name DWD as its subject, "he has become the master".
DWD (dawidi) "Dawid" (David), a unique name in the Hebrew Bible, belonging to Dawid of Bethlehem, who became the second king of Israel; he is called "the servant of the LORD" (Psalm 18:1), and the word of the Lord to David was, "By the hand of my servant David I will save my people Israel from the Philistines and all their enemies" (2 Samuel 3:18). Here (in lines 1 and 2) he is "servant of God", and in line 5 he is "my servant".
L`TNS.H.M is not a clear reading, but if NS.H. is a verb it would mean "he has prevailed", and as an adverb it would say "ever" or "enduringly" (lânes.ah., or lns.h.ym); the preposition and the plural are not necessary (Amos 1:11, ns.h., "ever"); but the word `iti (Hebrew `ét "time") stands above the other word, on the same level as la ("to" or "for"), and la`iti ns.h.m would say "for time of endlessness", or "for endless time", that is, "for time and eternity". Compare the words attributed to David by the later Chronicler (1 Chronicles 28:4): "Yahweh God of Israel has chosen me out of all the house of my father to be king over Israel for ever (l`wlm)".
[2-3] The servant of God has judged you with the judgements of Yah.
Goliath is dead (or: You are dead, Goliath); David is the master for endless time.
[4] ' N Q M W N R M Y S D M L K Y
[4] 'NQM W NRM YSD MLKY
[4] 'inaqimi wa narimi yisudu mulakiya
[4] "I am avenged, and raised up is the foundation of my kingdom"
'NQM ('inaqimi) "I am avenged" or "I will have revenge" (1st person singular, imperfect tense, root nqm, "avenge", nip`al 'innâqém, "I am avenged"), I am avenged (w'nqm) wuth regard to the cursing against the :servant of Elohim, by the `ANAQ, who is now dead.
W (wa) "and"; the conjunction is connecting two verbs, both apparently imperfect tense, in which case it would be merely coordinating; but if the second verb is perfect tense, this could be an early case of "waw-conversive". There is an anomalous space at the beginning of the line, and some dots could be the remains of a letter, possibly W-, "and".
NRM (narimi ?) "we raise" (1st p. pl., imperfect tense, hip`il, root rwm, "be high"); or nip`al "is raised up".
YSD "foundation" (yisudu = Hebrew ysôd); the final -u would be silent and synharmonic with the preceding syllable su; if the case endings were functioning it would be -da, accusative, as the object of the verb NRM; but if NRM is passive, and yisudu the subject, then the -u ending would indicate tne nominative case.
MLKY "my king" (malakiya), or "my kingdom" (mulakiya, root mlk, "reign"); "my king" might be Saul, though he had been rejected by the LORD (1 Sam 16:1), and David had been anointed as the next king (1 Sam 16:2-14); so the king mentioned here might be David, to be "elevated" to kingship; and the internal war is imminent (2 Sam 3:1) between the "house of Saul" and "the house of David" (a term found in the Tel Dan Inscription). If the text was written down at the time of the battle of the Valley of Elah, then the reigning king was indeed Saul. However, if mulakiya is the correct reading, then it says "the foundation of my kingdom", and the implication is that the current king, Saul, would be replaced by "Dawid", "my servant", "the servant of God". The same word mulakiya is attested in Tablet D of the Byblos/Gubla documents, line 4: "they will guard for me the boundary of my empire" (Colless 1993:8-9); cp. Arabic mulk, Ugaritic mlk. Worthy of mention is the reading of Emile Puech (169 and 175) at this point: he recognizes the fish-sign for Samek, as I do, against a seawall of stubborn opposition, and proposes YSD MLK, "they establish a king", referring to King Saul. If the intended reading is "king" and not "kingdom", and the idea is that a new king shall be installed, then we might say "the re-establishing of my king shall be instigated".
[5] ' R M [`O M ] `O B D Y L S. D Q T W
[5] 'RM `M `BDY LS.DQTW
5] 'i ri mi `a ma `a ba di ya `a la s.i du qu ti wu
[5] "I raise up the people of my servant for his acts of righteousness."
'RM ('irimi ?) "I raise up" (1st p. sg., imperfect tense, hip`il, root rwm, "be high"); if there is a second M in the space, it could be polel, with the same meaning of "uplift".
`M (`ama) "people" (`am), or "with" (`im); this is written between the lines and is not easy to detect, but if there is nothing there why do the letters of line 5 dive down at this point?
`BDY (`abadiya) "my servant"; the same person as "the servant of God" in lines 1 and 2, identified as David in line 3. The people of David are presumably the tribe of Judah, or the whole nation of Israel (at that time under the rule of King Saul). In support of Judah we may turn to the Chronicler (1 Chronicles 28:4, a continuation of the verse cited in the notes on line 3 above) who has David declaring: "... he chose Judah (Yehuda) as ruler (ngyd); and in the house of Judah, the house of my father; and from among the sons of my father he gladly made me king over all Israel".
LS.DQTW (li s.iduqutiwu), the L (preposition "to" or "for") is small and not certain; it may have an `ayin above it, and thus `L, "on account of"; if the final Waw is really there, it would say "his", with a plural noun, "for his righteousnesses (acts of righteousness)"; compare this affirmation, "YHWH rewards me (ygmlny) according to (k) my righteousness" (2 Sam 22:21); thus the supposed `al or li might actually be ka. Note also that when David ascended to the throne of all Israel (2 Sam 8:15), he was deemed to have ruled with "judgement" (see line 2) and "righteousness" (as here in line 5).
Linguistic Considerations
Is shwa represented? by -u? ('u-lu-hi-mi) ('elohim)? by -i? (yisudu)
Same vowel for prepositions b- and l-? Always the same (-a? -i?) or -i before –a, and -a before -i (as in Byblos syllabic inscriptions)? Examples bi`abada (1), ba mishipit.i (2).
Are case endings still used? Possibly, but apparently they are obsolete in this text. In line 2, `abada 'ulihimi ("the servant of God") is the subject (nominative case) of a verb ("judged"), and so we might have expected the ending -du (nominative) rather than -da (-a is the singular accusative vowel). In line 1, `abada 'ulihimi is preceded by a preposition (b), and -di (genitive) would be called for; but `bd is in the construct state, and no vowel at all might be the pattern, as in Massoretic Hebrew; in this syllabic setting, the -a in `abada could be a "dead vowel", not pronounced, but the syllabogram bears the same vowel as the preceding syllable (ba) according to the rule of "vowel harmony" that applies in syllabic writing; but the form `abd is required in Hebrew and Arabic (`Abdullah, "servant of God") so the -a- and the -a are both silent, written with the same vowel as in the first syllable.
This constant contending with unpronounced vowels, as also juggling the stances of the letters, may have partly influenced the abrupt acceptance of the consonantal alphabet alone in the Levant; and similarly in Mesoptamia, where Aramaic and the Aramaic consonantal alphabet gradually replaced the cuneiform syllabic system.
The name dawidi is the subject of the verb ba`ala, so the -i must be a "dead vowel", and likewise the final -u in guliyutu.
The Izbet Sartah abgadary (line 5 of the ostracon) presumably has -a forms of letters. The others (-i and -u) are to be found in the text (lines 1-4).
Accordingly, we can establish the forms ba, ga, da, and so on, and seek the -i and -u forms in both inscriptions (and in the shorter texts also). This does not work as an absolute rule, unfortunately. Examples: his B is more like Qeiyafa bi, and like his own bi in bin in line 4, and like Phoenician B; his Tet is leaning towards the stance of Qeiyafa t.i and as in his own word t.it.i ("clay", end of line 2); his Y......
This search has led me to the hypothesis that when they decided to not show the vowels, and reduce the number of signs from 66 to 22, by dropping two of the three columns (A, I, U) it was the 'i, Bi. Gi, Di (etc) column that survived. The Q ostracon with its five lines of writing showed me that the letters were used syllabically by having three different stances for each of them (representing ba, bi, bu, for example).
On the other hand, a more likely hypothesis is that the -i column may have been the original set of signs and two other sets were devised for the -a and -u syllables. The Mesopotamian Sealand signature-graffiti are supposed to be Late Bronze Age, and they have the letter-forms of the Phoenician alphabet of the Iron Age.
So the Zayit abgadary shows the letters that at one time functioned as -i syllabograms in Israel; but they were simple consonantograms (with no indication of vowels) on the Gezer calendar in Israel, and on the Ahirom sarcophagus in Phoenicia.
The genre of the ostracon inscription
An oracle presumably delivered and recorded by a prophet.
Not preced by "Thus says Yahu", or ne'um, "oracle" (solemn declaration)
Poetry or prose?
Byproduct: we have an example of the language of Israel from the 11th century BCE, with the vowels represented.
The author of the oracle
The prophet who delivers this oracle is not named (but his name might have appeared in the unretrieved text at the bottom of the document). Three prophets (each accorded the title nabi') reportedly had a connection with David: [1] Shemu'el (Samuel, 1 Samuel 3:20; 16:1-13) secretly anointed David to be the next king; [2] Gad gave David counsel and direction (1 Samuel 22:5); [3] Natan (Nathan) was the official prophet of King David (2 Samuel 7:2, for example); all three are designated as recorders of David's doings in 1 Chronicles 29:29, where Samuel is a seer (ro'eh, cp. 1 Sam 9:9, man of God = seer = prophet), Nathan a prophet (nabi', cp. 2 Sam 7:2), and Gad a visionary (h.ozeh); and there were others, notably the band of prophets which Saul met (1 Samuel 10:10). David also consulted priests in Nob (1 Samuel 22:9-23), namely Ahimelek, who "gave him the sword of Goliath the Philistine" (22:10), and his son [4] Abiathar, who fled with David when Saul had all the priests in Nob slaughtered. Incidentally, Nob is near Jerusalem, and this might partly explain the statement that appears immediately after David had cut off the head of Goliath with the giant's own sword: "David picked up the Philistine's head and took it to Jerusalem" (more precisely to Nob?), though "he placed his weapons in his tent" (1 Sam 17:51, 54).
Another possibility for the prophet-scribe is [5] Eshbaal, the son of Saul. This name appears on the other Qeiyafa inscription, where he is described as BN BD`; the sequence BD` is not a known personal name, but B D` could be "house of knowledge" (B as logogram for bayt, "house", or "temple"); so Eshbaal might also have been "among the prophets", like his father Saul (1 Sam 10:11-12, 19:23-24). This might explain why he was not with his father and brothers at the battle of Gilboa (1Sam 31:2, 2 Sam 2:8-9): apparently he was not a warrior, though he was (literally though unsuccessfully) holding the fort on the road to Gath at that time. (See further part 2 below, on the jar inscription.) However, the Eshbaal inscription was found in the vicinity of the South Gate, and the David ostracon was in a room near the West Gate; and it is not likely that Eshbaal had the same affection for David as his brother Jonathan, including acceptance of David's kingship (1 Sam 18:1, 20:12-17, 41-42).
Weighing the evidence in the scales of probability, Samuel was the king-maker, in the case of Saul (1 Sam 9-10) and David (16:1-13); but he feared Saul would kill him for anointing David (16:2), and there came a point where Samuel in Ramah had no communication with Saul in Gibeah "until the day of his death" (16:34-35), though Saul summoned the spirit of Samuel from the realm of the dead, and heard again that David would replace him as King (28:15-19). It seems unlikely that Samuel was in Shaaraim at the time of this Battle of Elah, although the content of the document is certainly in accord with the oracles he had received from Yahweh, concerning the replacement of Saul by David (15:23-16:2).
Nathan the Prophet was a functionary at the court of King David, delivering the words of God on the matter of (not) building a temple in Jerusalem, and the establishing of "the house of David (2 Sam 7), and a rebuke for his taking another man's wife (12:1-15); and together with Zadok the Priest he anointed Solomon as King (1Kings 1).
Gad "the Prophet, David's Visionary" (2 Sam 24:11), was also serving David during his reign, and is prominent in the account of the sinful census and the ensuing plague
(2 Sam 24); but Gad was available to David when he set up his band of family members and outcasts at the Cave of Adullam (1 Sam 22:5), and Gad may have been the prophet who conveyed the will of Yahweh to David in various situations (1 Sam 23:1-5), together with Abiathar the Priest (22:19-23, 23:6-13).
Accordingly, if one of these three prophets delivered the oracle on the Qeiyafa Ostracon, Gad would have been the most likely to have done so.
It is a pleasant surprise to see in this ostracon inscription two Bible characters (Dawid the shepherd and Guliyut the giant) doing what they did in the Bible story (Goliath cursed David, and David slew Goliath in the name of YHWH 'Elohim), at the very place where it is said they did it (the Elah Valley), and at the very time in history when it happened (during the reign of King Saul, near the end of the 11th Century BCE).
Israel Finkelstein and Émile Puech independently and correctly connect Khirbet Qeiyafa with King Saul, not King David.
The Qeiyafa ostracon is indeed a Hebrew inscription, with regard to its language, though its handwriting is not the official Old Hebrew script, which came after it. However, it is not the oldest Hebrew inscription we possess, as is often asserted, nor the earliest known Israelian Hebrew inscription. For the present, that distinction possibly belongs to the Izbet Sartah ostracon, which was found at the site of an earlier battle between Israel and Philistia, namely Eben-ezer (1 Samuel 4); or else the ostracon from Beth-Shemesh, where the Ark of the Covenant arrived after its captivity in Philistia (1 Sam 6).
Please remember, this is "work in progress" and not my last word on the subject. There is a possibility that the Qeiyafa sherd is broken at the top, and that there was more writing preceding the present line 1. Also, the space at the bottom has many dots that could be the remains of letters.
However that may be, this text seems to merit the title "the David and Goliath inscription from Sha`arayim".
The Qeiyafa Ostracon is certainly a document about David and kingship, but not about King David. Rather it is a record from the time of King Saul, and it is Israelian/Israelite, not specifically Judean/Judahite. David was present at this fortress at least once, when the `Anaq was killed, and when this prophecy was delivered (perhaps not publicly, in the hearing of King Saul); and his presence remained there with his name Dawid written in this oracle on this ostracon, as "the servant of God", up to the time of the destruction of the stronghold, and it lay there for 3000 years until it was brought to light by archaeology.
(2) THE JAR INSCRIPTION
The ʾIšbaʿal Inscription from Khirbet Qeiyafa
Authors: Yosef Garfinkel, Mitka R. Golub, Haggai Misgav, Saar Ganor
Bulletin of the American Schools of Orie...
No. 373, May 2015 pp. 217-233
http://cryptcracker.blogspot.co.nz/2015/06/qeiyafa-jar-inscription.html
(Go there for picture))
We begin with a speculation: perhaps this shattered vessel was a victim of the rampaging destroyers of the town; it may have been singled out by Philistian invaders in revenge for the event recorded on the ostracon, since some other storage jars in the same spot were still intact. Even though the broken pot has been painstakingly reconstructed, important pieces containing parts of the text are missing.
It appears that there are fourteen letters, and half of them are now incomplete characters; but in the middle of the inscription we can read fairly securely (from right to left):
' Sh B ` L (Aleph, Shin, Beth, `Ayin, Lamed)
This looks like a personal name, and if ʾIšbaʿal is the correct rendering of the word (as in the title of the BASOR article) then it is masculine, meaning "Man of Ba`al" (though this is certainly not certain).
'Eshba`al happens to be the name of one of King Saul's sons, who had his own kingdom after his father's death (2 Samuel 2-4). But the late scribes of the Bible had him as Ishbosheth (Man of shame): 2 Samuel 2 (11x). Nevertheless, the Chronicler chose to call him 'Eshba`al (1 Chr 8.33, and 9.39): "Ner begat Qish ... begat Sha'ul... begat ... 'Eshba`al". Accordingly, 'Eshba`al was a son of King Saul.
But this Qeiyafa 'ShB`L apparently styles himself BN BD`. Is BD` another name of Saul? Or the mother's name? But Saul's wife was Ahino`am Bath-Ahimo`as (1 Sam 15:50); incidentally, the mother of Amnon, the firstborn son of David, was also named Ahinoam, of Jezreel, one of David's wives (1 Sm 25:43; 2 Sm 3:2). Saul had at least one concubine, named Rizpah, and when Abner took her as his own, Eshbaal objected, causing Abner to go over to David's side (2 Sm 3:6-12); she could have been Eshbaal's mother, and might have functioned as Queen Mother, but in any case Abner was possibly thinking of founding his own dynasty through her, but he yielded to the divine decree and popular support for David (2 Sm 3:17-19).
If the text of the inscription said BN BL`, instead of BN BD`(although the D is clear enough), we could presume that he was asserting his lineage in the tribe of Benjamin; that same chapter 8 of 1 Chronicles begins thus (8.1): "Benjamin begat Bela` his firstborn". This appears to be a definite possibility, as a scribal error.
Then again, is this ' Sh B ` L really a personal name? The place where the jar was found (Room B of Building C11, 6x5 m) possibly had no roof, and with its central hearth and water-basin, it could have been a sanctuary for performing sacrifices. (A cultic chamber, with a standing stone, has been excavated elsewhere in Area C, in C3.) The sequence ' Sh B ` L , if read as 'Eshba`al, could mean "fire of the Lord"; and if the Lord is not human but divine, he is not necessarily the weather god Ba`al Hadad, but Yahweh. Christopher Rollston (in his first account of this inscription) refers us to a Benjaminite in the service of King David with the personal name “Ba‘alyah” (1 Chr 12:5/6), a name that means “Yahweh is Ba‘al (or "Yah is Lord"). However, we have seen B`L as a verb in line 3 of the Qeiyafa Ostracon (above): BA`ALA DAWIDI, "David has prevailed".
Incidentally, we might ask whether the supposed BN sequence ("son of") might actually be BG. Below I suggest that the final sequence (BD`) could be interpreted as "house of knowledge", possibly referring to this Room C11; and BG could be understood as begaw, "within" or "inside". Hence we have: "the fire of Ba`al within the house of knowledge".
However, the reading BN can be defended: what looks like a G (an angle) is more likely to be the top part of a Nun, as represented on the Gerbaal arrowhead, and in the new inscription from Beth-Shemesh (it is N on its side, that is, like Z).
The presence of a hearth in the room where the storage jar was discovered suggests that it might be 'eš b`l, "fire of Ba`al", and the container held fuel (oil?) for this fire-place. Or does the basin in the room suggest the jar was for water?
The form ʾIšbaʿal seems to be confirmed in Ugaritic documents, showing initial 'i. But 'iš as 'man' has not been found at Ugarit, has it? Also, "fire" is 'št ('išat) in Ugaritic, but 'eš in Hebrew.
The idea of the name meaning not "Baal's man" but "Baal is" or "There is a Baal" or "Baal is really someone", is appealing; but would this be possible in early Israel? Yes, since Ba`al could refer to Yah/Yahweh in those days, as already noted, above.
Here is a relevant comment from William Foxwell Albright (1891-1971),
Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, Baltimore, 1968 edn.
'One of Saul's sons was called "Esh-Baal" (Baal exists)'. (p. 113)|
'The usual translation, "Man of Baal," is linguistically difficult, and must, in my opinion, be replaced by the rendering ... [Baal exists]. Note that in the Baal Epic of Ugarit the resurrection of Baal is greeted with the triumphant words, "And I know that triumphant Baal lives (h.y), that the Prince, lord of the earth, exists ('it, which would be 'ish in later Canaanite)." Moreover, there are several passages in the Bible where 'ish or 'esh is employed instead of classical yesh.' (p.207, n.62).
However, another possible Eshbaal has been found as the first person named among David's mighty men (2 Sam 23:8; S. R. Driver, Notes on ... the Books of Samuel ..., Oxford 1913, 362-364): y$b b$bt might be a corruption of 'y$-b$t, where Ba`l has been replaced by bosheth ('shame'); the Septuagint Greek translation has 'Iebosthe, and Lucian has 'Iesbaal. Was this outstanding warrior holding the double-gated fort for David at some time? He is further qualified as 'chief among the captains', and th.kmny ("a Takhkemonite"?). The Chronicler (1 Chron 11:11) has him as y$b`m bn h.kmwny, and the occurrence of the root h.km, referring to 'wisdom', hints at a connection with the bn bd` (son of the House of Knowledge?) of the Eshbaal jar inscription, though I am reluctant to accept this personage instead of Saul's son Eshbaal.
Another complication is that a name Eshbaal or Ishbosheth does not occur in the list of Saul's sons in 1 Samuel 14:49; in second place, between YWNTN (Jonathan) and MLKYShW`(Malkishua`) is YShWY (see Driver, Notes, 120-121). In the account of the death of Saul and his sons at the Battle of Gilboa (31:2), the name between Jonathan and Malkishua`is 'BYNDB ('Abinadab) (see Driver, Notes, 227), A later list (1 Chronicles 8:33, also 9:39) has four sons, of Saul, in this order: Jonathan, Malkishua`, 'Abinadab, and 'Eshbaal. Accordingly, it seems that 'Eshbaal, alias 'Ishbosheth, who survived the wrath of the Philistian hordes, and succeeded his father as king (2 Sam 2:8), was the missing YShWY; and this name apparently includes a form of YHWH (perhaps YW or YH, remembering that the divine name Yahu appears on the ostracon, at the end of line 2). It seems best, even though Israelites had worshipped "the Baalim and the Ashtaroth" (1 Sam 7:3-4), to accept that the original form of the second son of Saul was 'ShB`L, as on the Qeiyafa jar, but the intended Lord (B`L) was Yahweh, or Yahu (as on the Qeiyafa ostracon); in Judaism and Christianity words for LORD replace the divine name, to avoid blasphemy, "taking God's name in vain" (Exodus 20:7); and when the association of Baal with "strange gods" became strongly felt in Israel, Baal names were banned, and -baal was replaced by -yahu, as in 'Eliyahu (Elijah). Therefore, the name Eshbaal or Ishbaal or Yishbaal had to be Ishbosheth (man of shame), or Baal had to be replaced with YHWH, in the form Yahu or Yah. Conversely, when King Saul turned his back on Samuel and Yahweh, he may have directed his worship to Baal and `Asntart, and some members of the royal family (presumably not Yonatan) went with him into apostasy. In this case, YShWY would have changed his Yahwist name to 'ShB`L, as seen on this vessel.
In the present context, we are confronted by 'SHB`L BN BD`. A Hebrew root BD`is not attested, so it may be necessary to break this sequence of signs into more than one part. I have long maintained that the letters of the protoalphabet could be used as logograms; Beth represents a house (bayt) and could stand for "house" here, followed by d` (knowledge, a masculine noun, Job 36:3; or it could be the feminine noun d`h, without the -h, since the matres lectionis were not in use at that time); hence "house of knowledge", preceded by "son of", that is, a student of that school.
Adding to the uncertainty is the possibility that BN is not "son" but "builder", which would later be written with helping consonants as bwnh. An analogy might be found in the St Mark's Isaiah of the Dead Sea Scrolls (49:17), which has "thy builders", whereas the received text (Masoretic) has "thy sons"; but the term "builders" fits comfortably with the walls of Sion in the context (49:16), though "a son of her womb" is clear enough in 49:15. In the present instance Eshbaal would be the builder of the house of knowledge, presumably meaning its founder, but the nature of the edifice or institution remains mysterious, unless it is the room in which the jar was found (C11), or even the whole complex of sacred places (C10 + C11) associated with the South Gate.
Looking again at that D in the inscription: it could have had a stem, which has been lost in the break; it would then be R, like the 6th letter in line 4 on the ostracon, or the second character in line 5. This is "stretching" it, literally and figuratively, but we are now looking at a word BR`. This could be "house of evil", but also a personal name. There is Bera` (King of Sodom, Gen 14.2), and four instances of Beri`â, one of whom belonged to the tribe of Benjamin (1 Chron 8.13), as did King Saul. In the current square Hebrew script , Resh and Dalet are easily confused (both are basically a right angle) but at this stage, in the Iron Age, it is Q and R that cause us grief. And the fourth letter in the jar inscription has a stem and a missing circle (Q?) or triangle (R?).
We should contemplate BD` as an error for B`D, or perhaps even `BD ('servant"). A root B`D is found in Arabic, meaning "be distant", but not known in Hebrew; in Northwest Semitic b`d is a preposition, "behind". However, two names on seals have now been attested archaeologically: B`d'el on Beth-Shemesh Seal 48), and B`dyh on Seals 536 and 537 from Tell Beit Mirsim (DCH, II, 236); we could suppose that the B`D in both names are scribal errors for `BD, hence "servant of El" and "servant of Yahu"; but the double occurrence of B`D in the Yahu name seems to disallow this.
There is yet another possible interpretation of the sequence B N B D `, which involves "servant", and it is ingenious and appealing. Ada Yardeni (The National Hebrew Script up to the Babylonian Exile, Jerusalem 2018, 70-72) proposed that BD` is an abbreviation of `BD `ShTRT, "Servant of `Ashtart" (the goddess Astarte); this is an attested Phoenician name, and the omission of the initial `ayin in this and other `abd (servant) appellations is not unusual. (Yardeni's solution is also offered by Douglas Petrovich, Connecting Khirbet Qeiyafa to the proper Israelite King, JESOT 7.1 (2021) 98). The final `ayin is followed by a gap in the restored jar, and this could mean that the remainder of the text has been lost, or perhaps that the `ayin is an abbreviation of `ShTRT. However, I can offer a bold solution to the problem: the Sh and T are in fact discernible after the `ayin, and the R and T are available at the other end of the inscription, possibly but not probably placed there by mistake in the restoration process; at least they give an inkling of what was in the space after `ShT. In any case, if 'ShB`L BN `BD`ShTRT (Ishba`al bin `abd-`ashtart) is the intended designation of the owner of the jar, then this worshipper of Baal had a father who bore the epithet "Servant of Ashtart". Perhaps the name Saul (Sha'ûl) was also in the lost portion of the inscription, but in any case this hypothetical set of letters must refer to King Saul, and thus ties in with the scriptural evidence: the relationship between Saul, a worshipper of Yahweh (1 Samuel 15:31) and Samuel the prophet of Yahweh (1 Sam 3:19-21) had been broken (1 Sam 15:34-35), and Saul subsequently felt that he had been abandoned by Yahweh (1 Sam 15:35, 16:14), and he had the priests of Yahweh slaughtered at Nob (1 Sam 22:11-19), and so it may be assumed that he reverted to promoting the cult of Baal and Ashtart, which was endemic in Israel (Judges 2:13, 1 Sam 7:3-4,12:10), and both these deities are present in this jar inscription, in the name (as reconstructed) "Eshbaal Son of Servant of Ashtart". It now seems significant that the Philistines took Saul's armour to a temple of Ashtart (1 Sam 31:10).
The first word in the inscription could be KPQT or KPRT; and since the hypothetical P is represented only by a single horizontal stroke, a telegraph-pole Samek could also be constructed. The resulting sequence KS is found at the start of inscriptions with the meaning "cup"(written on beakers and bowls), but that does not seem applicable here.
But KSRT and KSQT are possible as restored readings.
However, we should explore some possibilities for the extremely uncertain reading kprt. The final letter is only half there, but it is probably T (a cross, +). It could mark -ot, the plural of a feminine noun, or singular -at (construct state). As a toponym it might be Kepirâ, one of the Gibeonite towns (Joshua 9.17). This is worth considering, as a place name is a likely word to appear as the source of the pot or its contents; and Gibeon is not far north of Khirbet Qeiyafa. If the H on the end of the Hebrew form (kpyrh) indicates an original -at ending, then it would fit the presumed KPRT nicely.
We could suppose that kprt refers to the contents of the pot. As a substance it could be koper, that is, henna, though its plural is in -im (masculine), and likewise koper, bitumen. Could it possibly be copra (coconut oil from India)? If the presumed "knowledge" (d`) at the end of the text implies mind-altering drugs, then a distinct possibility is cannabis, as found in a temple at Arad in the Beersheba Valley, in the Negev:
https://phys.org/news/2020-05-reveals-cannabis-frankincense-judahite-shrine.html
Note also that kprt can mean "henna bush" (Ugaritic), and perhaps that is what was in the jar. Would a man want to own such a shrub? Henna is an orange dye for use on the body (from the hair down to the toes). Or does this "cyprus flower", which grows wild in Israel, act here as a decorative indoor plant? Henna certainly has a place in the Song of Songs: a cluster in a vineyard (1:14); in the secret garden with pomegranates, nard, saffron, cinnamon (4:13); and out in the fields (henna rather than villages, kprym, 7:12).
As an object it might be a kepor (m), a bowl, or a kepir (m), a copper vessel, but it is neither.
As an abstract idea it could come from the root kpr, cover, make expiation, and we immediately think of Yom kippur, the Day of Atonement; and yet this word always appears as kippurim in the Bible. Another term with the same connection is, yet again, koper (m), ransom.
There is one KPR noun that would fit kprt, and that is kaporet (f), a mysterious word, said to mean the cover or lid of the Ark of the Covenant, and then "the mercy seat" where a propitiatory rite was performed on Atonement Day.
KPRT could be a verb: "Thou hast atoned, O Eshbaal". Incidentally, that is how I see the beginning of the Qeiyafa ostracon: "Thou hast cursed" ('LT). But that was on an ostracon; a sermon or oracle would probably not be engraved on a storage jar.
Actually, the first three letters of the supposed KPRT only have tiny remnants of their originals.
We must draw a veil over the possibility of kepir, young lion, which would raise the spectre of the Lion of Judah (cp Gn 49.9). We remember that Eshbaal did not take part in the Battle of Gilboa, with his brothers.
Another thought: if the final T (constructed from a remaining right angle) was in fact M (vertical), KPRM would suit kippurim, 'atonement'. However, it needs to be said that the drawings made by Ada Yardeni (her figs 15, 16, 17) are plausible in their reconstructing of the text.
Another possible interpretation of the damaged beginning has occurred to me, after reading the reconstruction published by Yariv Hacham (H. Yariv 2018), who proposes MGRT, "granary". I will tentatively accept his M (horizontal not vertical, to be compared with an M-sign on the Beth-Shemesh ostracon); and I propose Sh (as in the name 'ShB`L) instead of P or G; I would read Q not R; and retain T; the resultant sequence is MShQT.
Two ideas that I have already mentioned now come into play: the letters of the early alphabet could be used as logograms, so that B(ayt) could denote "house", and likewise Mem could represent "water"; the vessel could have contained water, as a basin was found in the room. Accordingly, the M stands for "water", and ShQT is from the root ShQY, which signifies "drink", and giving someone something to drink; in Hebrew there is a noun from this root, in the term KLY MSHQ(H), “drink vessels” (1 Kings 10:21), but this is masculine and could not have a –T ending; but ShQY (written ShQH in Hebrew) is a "Lamed He" verb, and its infinitive construct has final -t; so we possibly have a logogram with a verbal noun producing this meaning: "drinking water". This water pot had been specially made for Eshbaal, who was presumably the prince and governor of the fortress Sha`arayim.
Petrovich, JESOT 7.1 (2021) 99-100) KPRT : "According to the fruitfulness of Eshbaal"
The vessel would have contained grain for people who visit his house, as implied in the account of his assassination (2 Sm 4:6); but it is a small storage jar.
Part 3 of this essay is at:
https://sites.google.com/view/collesseum/qeiyafa-shaaraim