The world around the old.., p.41
The World around the Old Testament, page 41
Phoenician Language
Phoenician texts and the Phoenician language have been the subject of major studies for some time now. Among the most important of the late nineteenth-century works on Northwest Semitic is Mark Lidzbarski’s Handbuch. This volume focuses on Iron Age, Persian period, Hellenistic period, and early Roman period Northwest Semitic languages, with Phoenician and Punic receiving substantial attention.32 Coming very much on the heels of Lidzbarski’s Handbuch was G. A. Cooke’s handbook, which also had as its focus the Northwest Semitic languages from the Iron Age through the early Roman period, with substantial attention given to Phoenician.33 Of course, during the late nineteenth century, Semitic inscriptions were beginning to be published in the Corpus inscriptionum semiticarum (Paris, 1881–), which was becoming the sine qua non—but because of its price most scholars were forced to settle for the status of sine (i.e., without it). For more than half a century, these two collections (Lidzbarski and Cooke) would be the vade mecum (i.e., ready reference) for scholars within the field. During the middle of the twentieth century, however, Herbert Donner and Wolfgang Röllig produced a compendium of Northwest Semitic inscriptions that would be the standard handbook for the remainder of the twentieth and the beginning of the twenty-first century—namely, Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften (KAI), with its first edition appearing in 1961. More than half of the inscriptions in KAI are Phoenician, Punic, and Neo-Punic.34 John C. L. Gibson subsequently produced a similar handbook, consisting of three volumes, with the third devoted entirely to Phoenician. Although a very useful set of volumes, Gibson’s work does not contain the sorts of philological and historical details that are the hallmark of Donner and Röllig’s KAI.35 Mention should also be made of two handbooks that focus just on Phoenician—namely, those of Maria Giulia Amadasi (focusing on Phoenician and Punic of the Phoenician colonies) and Pietro Magnanini (focusing on Phoenician, but not Punic).36 Of course, the production of scientific grammars began during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and has persisted. Among the most important are those by Zellig Harris, Johannes Friedrich and Wolfgang Röllig, and Stanislav Segert.37 Moreover, both Richard Tomback and Charles Krahmalkov have written dictionaries that focus on Phoenician and Punic.38 For the Phoenician script, P. Kyle McCarter’s volume discusses the Early Phoenician scripts in great detail, and J. Brian Peckham’s volume is the most authoritative treatment of the Late Phoenician and Punic scripts.39 More recently, Karel Jongeling and Robert Kerr have edited a useful (if brief) volume focusing on Late Punic epigraphy, replete with hand-copies of scores of inscriptions.40 Thus, there are some very fine resources for the study of the Phoenician language, dialects, and script.
The Phoenician language is classified as Canaanite.41 Regarding the writing system, there are twenty-two consonantal graphemes in Phoenician. It is normally argued that this is because the Phoenician language consisted of twenty-two consonantal phonemes (with “phoneme” being defined as “the smallest meaningful unit of sound”). Regarding the phonology of Phoenician (and this is related to the issue of the number of consonants in the Phoenician alphabet), a number of consonantal mergers are reflected in the Phoenician alphabet (vis-à-vis Early Linear Alphabetic). For example, etymological ð has merged with the letter z (hence, the spelling of “sacrifice” is zbḥ in Phoenician, rather than the historical spelling ðbḥ). Similarly, etymological ḍ has merged in Phoenician with ṣ (hence, the spelling of “earth” is ʾrṣ in Phoenician, rather than the historical spelling ʾrḍ). Furthermore, etymological ṯ has merged in Phoenician with š (hence, the spelling of “three” is šlš in Phoenician, rather than the original etymological spelling ṯlṯ). In short, the Phoenician writing system reflects a number of consonantal mergers. It should also be noted that the aspects of Phoenician phonology mentioned here are those that often distinguish the Canaanite dialects of Northwest Semitic from the Aramaic dialects of Northwest Semitic. Thus, within Imperial (and later) Aramaic, etymological ð is preserved as d (hence, the spelling of “sacrifice” in Imperial Aramaic is dbḥ), etymological ḍ is preserved as q in Old Aramaic and as ʿ in Imperial Aramaic (hence the word “earth” is written as ʾrq in Old Aramaic and as ʾrʿ in Imperial Aramaic), and etymological ṯ is preserved as t (hence, the word for “three” is written tlt in Imperial Aramaic).
Figure 8.2. Correspondence of West Semitic Consonants
*Proto-Semitic Phoenician Hebrew Aramaic
1. ʾ ʾ ʾ ʾ
2. b b b b
3. g g g g
4. d d d d
5. h h h h
6. w w (y) w (y) w (y)
7. ḏ z z z/d
8. z z z z
9. ḥ ḥ ḥ ḥ
10. ḫ ḥ ḥ ḥ
11. ṭ ṭ ṭ ṭ
12. y y y y
13. k k k k
14. l l l l
15. m m m m
16. n n n n
17. s s s s
18. ʿ ʿ ʿ ʿ
19. � ʿ ʿ ʿ
20. p p p p
21. ṣ ṣ ṣ ṣ
22. ẓ ṣ ṣ ṣ/ṭ
23. ḍ ṣ ṣ q/ʿ
24. q q q q
25. r r r r
26. ś š š š
27. š š š š
28. ṯ š š t
29. t t t t
Christopher A. Rollston
Regarding Phoenician orthography (especially the representation of vowels), throughout most of its history the Phoenician writing system was strictly consonantal. That is, short vowels were not represented in the writing system at all; and, although Iron Age Aramaic and Hebrew did develop a system for representing some final long vowels, Iron Age Phoenician did not. Thus, Phoenician did not use final matres lectionis (lit., “mothers of reading”; certain consonants representing certain long vowels—a system attested in the Iron Age Aramaic and Hebrew writing systems).42 Thus, for example, kī is spelled k (e.g., Yehimilk Inscription, line 6)—that is, without a mater lectionis for the final ī. Similarly, neither is ū represented in Iron Age Phoenician; thus, for example, Phoenician paʿalū (they made) is written pʿl (Kilamuwa Inscription, line 5), without the use of waw to represent the final ū. Similarly, although Iron Age Hebrew and Aramaic marked final ō, final ā, and final ē with a he mater, Iron Age Phoenician did not. Moreover, Iron Age Phoenician did not mark medial vowels (long or short) either. Furthermore, in terms of “vocalic changes” in Phoenician (e.g., compared with other Iron Age Northwest Semitic orthographic systems, such as Hebrew and Aramaic), the following are some of the most important: the diphthong ay consistently contracts in Phoenician (thus the word “house” is spelled bt [bêt] in Phoenician, rather than byt); the diphthong aw consistently contracts to ô (thus the word “day” is consistently spelled ym [yôm], rather than ywm); and historical ā becomes ō (this feature is referred to as the “Canaanite Shift” and serves as an isogloss for the Northwest Semitic Canaanite languages such as Phoenician and Hebrew vis-à-vis the Aramaic language family). Also of import is the fact that, within later Phoenician, ô becomes ū.
The basic features of the Phoenician nominal system should also be emphasized so as to reveal some of the fundamental features of the language. Regarding the pluralizing of nouns (and adjectives), masculine plurals in Phoenician are marked with m, signifying īm (as demonstrated by comparative Semitic data and by Greek and Latin transliterations of masculine plurals; note also the absence of the mater lectionis—that is, m is written rather than ym).43 Contrast, of course, the fact that the Aramaic dialects form the masculine plural with īn (i.e., with final nun), as does the Moabite language. Masculine plurals in construct are not marked in the Iron Age Phoenician writing system because ē (the construct ending) was, of course, a vowel (but in Punic and Neo-Punic there were attempts to represent this vowel—namely, by using aleph or ayin). Feminine plurals are marked with t, signifying ōt (as demonstrated by comparative Semitic data and by transcriptions in Greek and Latin).44 The feminine singular nominal was normally marked with t (hence in Phoenician the word for “widow” is ʿlmt; cf. Heb. ʿlmnh). Adjectives used the same system of marking plurals. Naturally, in addition to the singular and plural, the dual was arguably used as well.45
The Phoenician verbal system shares many features with various Iron Age Northwest Semitic languages. In terms of “conjugations,” the following are all attested: qal, niphal, piel (and arguably the pual), the yiphil (and arguably yuphal), the yitpael, yitpolel, and the qal with infixed taw. In terms of differences from Hebrew, it should be noted that rather than the hiphil of Hebrew, Phoenician has the yiphil (as the causative conjugation), and rather than the hitpael of Hebrew, Phoenician has the yitpael. Although the orthographic system in Phoenician makes it difficult to determine with certainty, it seems reasonable to conclude that the passive counterparts of the piel and yiphal (i.e., the pual and yuphal) were employed in the Phoenician verbal system. In terms of tenses, both the perfect (the suffix conjugation) and the imperfect (the prefix conjugation) were used, as were the imperative, the infinitives, and the participles.46 So as to convey the essence of the verbal system, the forms of the qal perfect and imperfect will be provided here, using קטל as the paradigm word (the vocalizations in Latin script are provided so as to reveal the basic way that these forms would have been pronounced in ancient Phoenician, as well as to demonstrate the manner in which the consonantal nature of the Phoenician writing system concealed the vocalic elements of the Phoenician language). Naturally, perusal of these paradigms will also make it quite apparent that in the Phoenician writing system there is much ambiguity (e.g., the qal perfect 3fs, 2ms, and 1cs are all written the same), but fortunately the context of an occurrence will normally reveal the way a form is to be understood.
Figure 8.3. Qal Perfect and Imperfect
Qal Perfect
3ms קטל (qaṭala) 3cp קטל (qaṭalū)
3fs קטלת (qaṭalat)
2ms קטלת (qaṭalta) 2mp [unattested]
2fs קטלת (qaṭalt) 2fp [unattested]
1cs קטלת (qaṭaltī) 1cp קטלנ (qaṭalnū)
Qal Imperfect
3ms יקטל (yiqṭul) 3mp יקטל (yiqṭulū)
3fs תקטל (tiqṭul) 3fp [unattested]
2ms תקטל (tiqṭul) 2mp תקטל (tiqṭulū)
2fs תקטל (tiqṭulī) 2fp תקטלנ (tiqṭulna)
1cs אקטל (‘iqṭul) 1cp [unattested]
Phoenician Inscriptions from the Homeland
There are a number of Phoenician inscriptions from the Phoenician homeland (modern Lebanon) that provide substantial data about the Phoenician script and language, as well as some data about Phoenician history (e.g., some of the rulers) and religion. Moreover, there are a number of important Phoenician inscriptions that were produced outside of the borders of Phoenicia during this early period, so brief reference also will be made to a few of these.
Among the most important of the early Phoenician inscriptions from the homeland is the Azarba‘al Inscription, often referred to as the Bronze Spatula Inscription.47 This prestige object was discovered during controlled excavations at Byblos (ancient Gebal, in Phoenicia). Six lines of Phoenician text (often considered enigmatic) are etched into the metal. I would suggest that although this inscription is difficult, it revolves around the subject of the payment of silver (I have collated this inscription in Lebanon and read ksp in line 2) and some sort of inheritance (note the root nḥl in line 4). The script reflects archaic features, such as the trident kaph, the mem with a strong vertical stance, samek with a short vertical shaft (i.e., not extending much below the bottom horizontal), and the box-shaped ḥet. Of import is the fact that the five strokes of mem are of the same approximate length, and the three strokes of nun are of the same approximate length (these are early features). Some have argued that this inscription reflects the terminal horizon of the eleventh century, but I consider a date in the (early) tenth century also to be tenable. The script is really quite impressive and reflects the presence of a fairly sophisticated scribal apparatus.
Figure 8.4. Drawing of Azarba‘al Inscription [Christopher A. Rollston]
There are several Early Royal Phoenician inscriptions from Byblos, coming from the chronological horizon following that of the Azarba‘al Inscription (fig. 8.4).48 Among the most impressive of these is that of the Ahiram Sarcophagus (fig. 8.5), an inscription commissioned by Ahiram’s son named Ittoba‘al (‘Ethba‘al).49 The majority of this inscription is written on the lid (the length of it) of a very impressive sarcophagus, but the initial component of the inscription is written on the end of the sarcophagus itself (i.e., not on the lid). Most of the letters were chiseled with care and substantial precision, although a diminution of letter-size is visible (and quantifiable) in the terminal portions of the inscription. It is likely that space constraints necessitated the diminution. That is, as the scribe began to realize that there was not sufficient space to complete the entire inscription using such large letters, he began to reduce the sizes of the letters. Here is my translation of the inscription:
The sarcophagus that ‘Ethba‘al the son of Ahiram king of Byblos made for Ahiram, his father, when he placed him in his eternity. And if a king among kings, or a governor among governors or a commander of an army should come to Byblos, and uncover this sarcophagus, may the scepter of his rule be ripped away, may the throne of his kingdom be overturned, and may rest flee from Byblos. And as for him, may his royal records [lit., “book”] be effaced from before Byb[los].50
The Phoenician script of the Ahiram Sarcophagus can be distinguished from the script of the Azarba‘al Inscription because of the presence of some discernible and diagnostic typological differences or developments. That is, the script of this inscription is later than that of the Azarba‘al Inscription. The differences that are among the most important are the distinct lengthening of the vertical shaft of samek, the occasional lengthening of the fifth stroke of mem, the occasional lengthening of the third stroke of nun, and the lengthening of the verticals of ḥet (i.e., no longer box-shaped). Note, however, that kaph remains trident-shaped (the trident form of kaph is an early feature). Based on the script, I consider this inscription to be datable with substantial certitude to the tenth century BCE.51 Also of substantial import is the high caliber of the art carved in relief on the Ahiram Sarcophagus. This is Phoenician art at its very best, and it has been discussed in substantial detail by the great art historian Edith Porada. Suffice it to say that this sarcophagus certainly reflects not just a sophisticated scribal apparatus but also the presence of some very skilled ancient artists.52 In addition, it should be noted that curse formulas such as are found on the Ahiram Sarcophagus are quite common in the ancient Near Eastern world.
Figure 8.5. Drawing of Ahiram Sarcophagus Inscription [Christopher A. Rollston]
Figure 8.6. Drawing of Yehimilk Inscription [Christopher A. Rollston]
Hailing also from Byblos during this same basic horizon are the Yehimilk Inscription (fig. 8.6), the Abiba‘al Inscription, and the Eliba‘al Inscription. Yehimilk is a monumental Byblian (Phoenician) inscription, chiseled into a stone tablet.53 It can be read as follows:
The temple [lit., “house”] that Yehimilk king of Byblos built. He restored all the fallen temples. May Ba‘al-Shamem and Ba‘alat Byblos and the Assembly of the Holy Gods of Byblos lengthen the days of Yehimilk and his years over Byblos because the righteous and just king before the Holy Gods of Byblos is he.54
The Abiba‘al Inscription is inscribed on a statue of Pharaoh Sheshonq I (r. ca. 945–924 BCE; biblical Shishak, a pharaoh of the Twenty-Second Dynasty and a figure mentioned in 1 Kings 14:25–28), and so it is among the most interesting and important of the early Byblian (Phoenician) lapidary inscriptions, especially since it is a reflection of the historic relationship between Egypt and Phoenicia.55 Although fragmentary, this inscription is fairly formulaic, and so the restorations are reasonably secure:
[The statue that] Abiba‘al king of [Byblos son of Yehimilk king] of Byblos brought from Egypt for Ba‘alat [of Byblos, his lord. May Ba‘alat of Byblos lengthen the days of Abiba‘al and his years] over Byblos.56
Similarly, the Byblian (Phoenician) inscription of Eliba‘al was inscribed on a bust of Pharaoh Osorkon I (r. ca. 924–889).57 Of consequence is the fact that within this inscription Eliba‘al provides his father’s name: Yehi[milk]. Here is my translation of this inscription:
{The statue} that Eliba‘al king of Byblos, son of Yehi[milk king of Byblos] made for Ba‘alat of Byblos his lord. May Ba‘alat [of Byblos] lengthen [the days of] Eliba‘al and his years over [Byblos].58
