The world around the old.., p.42
The World around the Old Testament, page 42
The inscriptions of Yehimilk, Abiba‘al, and Eliba‘al reflect the same basic script typology as that of the Ahiram Sarcophagus Inscription, and they can be dated securely to the tenth century BCE. Significantly, however, the script of the Shipitba‘al Inscription from Byblos (fig. 8.7) contains features that reflect further typological development (i.e., when compared with the script of Ahiram, Yehimilk, Abiba‘al, and Eliba‘al).59 For example, the fifth stroke of mem has lengthened considerably, and it is readily apparent that some rotation of the head has begun (sometimes incipient, sometimes significant). Furthermore, the third stroke of nun has lengthened substantially, and there is some rotation of its head as well. The Shipitba‘al Inscription can be classed as the latest of the great Early Royal Byblian inscriptions. From this chronological horizon also comes the ‘Abda Sherd. Note that the morphology of bet in these two inscriptions is the same; this feature was ephemeral. In sum, during the tenth and very early ninth centuries the Phoenician script is well attested in the Phoenician homeland, and Shipitba‘al is the latest of the Early Royal Byblian (Phoenician) inscriptions. In short, in terms of script typology, Shipitba‘al (and the ‘Abda Sherd) is the latest of the Early Byblian Phoenician texts. In terms of archaeological context, it is important to note that this inscription was found near the wall associated with the acropolis of Byblos (note the reference to this wall at the beginning of the inscription). Regarding regnal sequencing of the Byblian kings, it should be emphasized that Shipitba‘al is of particular usefulness. Here is a translation of this inscription:
The wall that Shipitba‘al king of Byblos, son of Eliba‘al king of Byblos, son of Yehimilk king of Byblos built for Ba‘alat of Byblos, his lord. May Ba‘alat of Byblos lengthen the days of Shipitba‘al and his years over Byblos.60
Figure 8.7. Drawing of Shipitba‘al Inscription [Christopher A. Rollston]
Cumulatively, these Royal Byblian Phoenician inscriptions are interesting and important for a number of reasons, including the sorts of things that they reveal about Phoenician religion. For example, Ba‘alat of Byblos is certainly the divinity that receives the most attention.61 Within the Abiba‘al Inscription, she is the only divinity that is mentioned, and the bringing of the statue of Sheshonq from Egypt is something stated to have been done for (or facilitated by) her. Moreover, she is the divinity petitioned for the lengthening of the lifetime of Abiba‘al and his years upon the throne.62 Of course, both Eliba‘al and Shipitba‘al mention Ba‘alat in conjunction with these same basic motifs. Based on these inscriptions someone might wish to conclude that Ba‘alat of Byblos was the primary, or even the sole, divinity at Byblos. She may very well have been perceived as the most active patron deity of Byblos, but the Yehimilk Inscription refers not only to Ba‘alat of Byblos but also to Ba‘al Shamem and the Assembly of the Holy Gods of Byblos. And I would suggest that it is not inconsequential that of these, Ba‘al Shamem is mentioned first. It may be that Ba‘al Shamem was considered decrepit or otiose, but it seems reasonable to posit that he was considered the head of the pantheon at Byblos, and his prominence in the treaty between Ba‘al I of Tyre and Esarhaddon (dated to ca. 675 BCE) suggests that he also may have been considered the head of the pantheon at Tyre at that time.63 In addition to the discussion of the ranking of Ba‘alat of Byblos and Ba‘al Shamem, it should also be emphasized that the reference to the “Assembly of the Holy Gods of Byblos” reveals quite nicely the Phoenician acceptance of the standard ancient Near Eastern notion of a divine council (something also accepted within early Israelite religion).64
There have also been some very important inscriptions from later centuries. For example, an inscription from “the son of Shipitba‘al the king of Byblos” (often referred to as Shipitba‘al III) hails from Byblos and dates to the late sixth or early fifth century BCE (written in the Late Phoenician script). Although this inscription is fragmentary, it does refer to a divinity named Ba‘al ‘Addir.65 Also among the most substantive of the Late Phoenician inscriptions is that of Yehawmilk king of Byblos. The script of this inscription has been dated to the middle of the fifth century BCE.66 Because of the length of this rather stunning inscription, a summary of its contents will need to suffice.67 This inscription is essentially a dedicatory inscription, touting some of the building accomplishments of Yehawmilk. It begins with reference to the fact that Ba‘alat of Byblos made him king. Yehawmilk states that he called upon Ba‘alat of Byblos and she heard him, so in return he made for her a bronze altar, a golden gateway, a winged disk of gold, and a portico with pillars and capitals. Yehawmilk petitions the goddess to lengthen his days and years over Byblos, with the additional statement that he is the lawful king (mlk ṣdq). Also of import in this connection is the fact that the king requests that Ba‘alat of Byblos “give him favor (ḥn) in the eyes of the gods.” Similarly, he utters a fairly standard curse upon those that might subsequently remove his name from these public works, imploring Ba‘alat of Byblos “to destroy that person and his seed before all the gods of Byblos,” another important reference to the plurality of divinities within the pantheon.
The inscription of Tabnit was incised in the base of a black basalt sarcophagus found in a necropolis in Sidon and is usually dated to the end of the sixth century BCE. The inscription begins in the following manner: “I am Tabnit, the priest of Astarte, king of the Sidonians, the son of Eshmunazar priest of Astarte, king of the Sidonians, lying here in this coffin.”68 He goes on to state that no silver or gold or riches were buried with him in the coffin, but rather just his corpse. The inscription states further that to disturb his corpse would be an abomination to Astarte. The inscription concludes with a curse upon any that might disturb his remains, and the hope that such a person may have “no seed among the living under the sun with the Rephaim.”
Among the most interesting of Phoenician inscriptions is the Eshmunazar Sarcophagus inscription from Sidon, dating to the early fifth century BCE.69 The sarcophagus itself is simply breathtaking in workmanship. The inscription on it begins with a date formula (“in the month of Bul, in the fourteenth year of King Eshmunazar, king of the Sidonians”), a patronymic (“son of King Tabnit”), and a statement that the king had died a premature death. Within this first-person inscription, King Eshmunazar also states that he was “an orphan, the son of a widow.” After formulaic language cursing anyone who might attempt to open or remove the sarcophagus (and within this a reference to “the Holy Gods”), King Eshmunazar mentions that he is the grandson of King Eshmunazar, king of the Sidonians (note the practice of papponymy, naming a grandson after a grandfather), and he mentions his mother—namely, “Amotashtart the priestess [khnt] of Astarte, our great lady the queen, the daughter of King Eshmunazar king of Sidon.” Of some import (even if this is more of a title than a role) is the fact that his mother was said to be a priestess. (From the fourth century comes a funerary inscription of a woman named “Batnoam, mother of king ‘Azba‘al of Byblos, son of Palitba‘al, the priest [khn] of Ba‘alat.”)70 As the text of this inscription continues, there are references to building projects, including a temple for the god ’Eshmun, as well as multiple temples for “the Gods of the Sidonians in Sidon, land of the Sea,” a temple for “Ba‘al of Sidon,” and a temple for “Astarte the Name of Ba‘al” (note the terminology that reflects the notion of a local manifestation of a deity). Also of particular import is the fact that this inscription goes on to state that “the Lord of kings” (ʾdn mlkm)—a means of referring to Persian hegemony and the king himself—gave the Sidonians both “Dor and Joppa,” territories said to be located in the “rich lands of Dagon.” These territories are said to have been “added to the borders of the land” of the Sidonians.
Although the number of epigraphic remains in Phoenician from Beirut is minuscule, it should be emphasized that some fragmentary inscriptions have been preserved. Among the most interesting ones is a broken marble plate with an inscription on its rim that can be read “{to} my lady, to Astarte. May she bless [ ].”71 In sum, although one might wish for larger quantities and a greater diversity of Phoenician epigraphic materials, what we do have provides substantial data about the Phoenician language and script and gives us some sense for the political structure (including the names of some royal figures), most significant cities, and significant deities, as well as references to temples, temple personnel, and sacrifices.
Phoenician Inscriptions from outside Phoenicia
Because of Phoenician colonial activity, a number of Phoenician inscriptions have been discovered at sites that were originally Phoenician colonies or had some sort of a Phoenician presence. Among the most important is the Honeyman inscription of Cyprus, dating to the ninth century BCE. This inscription is quite fragmentary, but enough of it can be read to understand that its contents revolve around death and burial.72 The Nora Inscription from Sardinia is also arguably a reflection of Phoenician colonial activity (fig. 8.8). Although not complete, its contents are tantalizing. It refers to Tarshish, to Sardinia, and to some sort of peace, along with reference to a figure referred to as “Milkaton son of Shubna,” who is said to be the “general of (king) Pummay.”73
Similarly, the Kition Bowl (Cyprus; fig. 8.9) is also a reflection of the Phoenician presence on Cyprus. Its inscription is written in a fine cursive Phoenician script of the eighth century BCE. The bowl is quite fragmentary, and so the readings and interpretation are not at all certain, but this bowl is also the reflection of the presence of a sophisticated Phoenician scribal apparatus on Cyprus during the eighth century. Inscriptions from Carthage are also quite common (though narrow in scope), with a fair number hailing from the “Tophet” or “Precinct of Tanit,” which contains stelae with vows accompanying the sacrifices of small children.74
Figure 8.8. Drawing of Nora Inscription [Christopher A. Rollston]
Of course, the Phoenician script and language were for some time the prestige script and language of the region, and so it comes as no surprise that they were used in regions that were neither within the geographic confines of Phoenicia nor part of strong colonial activity. For example, the Kilamuwa Inscription (ninth century) is written in the Phoenician language rather than the local dialect and arguably also in the Phoenician script. Moreover, the Karatepe Inscription from the eighth century is written in the Phoenician language (and there is an accompanying Hieroglyphic Hittite text with the same basic material). The Tell Fekheriye Stela inscription is written in the Phoenician script, but the Aramaic language. In short, the Phoenician script was quite pervasive in the Levant during the ninth and eighth centuries as the prestige script, and sometimes the Phoenician language was used as an international language during this time frame. This was also the case in Israel, as the Phoenician script was used there during the tenth century and also the early ninth century.75
Figure 8.9. Drawing of the Kition Bowl [Christopher A. Rollston]
3. Evidence of Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Hebrew, and Greek References
The Phoenician inscriptions from the Phoenician homeland and Phoenician colonies provide some data about Phoenician history, but no annals in the Phoenician language have been discovered, nor have major literary works in the Phoenician language survived. To be sure, there are materials from later periods that demonstrate that such texts were produced in antiquity by the Phoenicians. For example, Philo of Byblos (writing in the late first or early second century CE, but whose work is known through subsequent citations of it, especially those of Eusebius of Caesarea) purports to have translated the work of Sanchuniathon. Porphyry of Tyre (ca. 234–305 CE), the famous Neoplatonic philosopher, considered this to be so and mentions that Sanchuniathon wrote in the Phoenician language and Philo of Byblos translated this work into Greek in eight volumes. Although some have argued that Sanchuniathon was not a historical figure, most consider him to have lived and to have been the author of a Phoenician history. Indeed, Albright has argued that “Sanchuniathon was a refugee from Tyre who settled in Beirut about the second quarter of the sixth century BC” and that his work contains much valuable data about Phoenician history and “is not a forgery of early Roman times.”76 It is often argued (quite reasonably) that the preserved portions of this history (mostly from Eusebius) are quite useful for discussions of Phoenician religion. Moreover, in terms of other sources, Josephus (ca. 37–ca. 100 CE) refers to Phoenician annals and claims to have used them in his own work, with some fairly detailed references to kings of Tyre. Within his material, Josephus also putatively cites material from Dius, a historian of Phoenicia, and the historian Menander of Ephesus.77 In any case, at this juncture the intent is to focus on primary sources from Mesopotamia and Egypt regarding Phoenicia, especially those from the late second millennium to the middle of the first millennium, while also referring at times to material from Josephus and (on occasion) the Hebrew Bible.
Among the most important references is one in the corpus of the Royal Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser I (1114–1076 BCE). Predictably, the focus of Tiglath-pileser’s campaign was the acquisition of Phoenician timber (i.e., cedars of Lebanon, referred to in this text as “tribute”). In addition, there is a striking statement about his killing a sea horse during a boating trip originating at Arvad (within some other texts there are statements about his receiving monkeys from the Phoenicians as well). Here is one of his lengthiest statements:
I marched to Mount Lebanon. I cut down (and) carried off cedar beams for the temple of the gods Anu and Adad, the great gods, my lords. I continued to the land of Amurru (and) conquered the entire land of Amurru. I received tribute from the lands of Byblos, Sidon, (and) Arvad. I rode in boats of the people of Arvad (and) traveled successfully a distance of three double hours from the city Arvad, and island, to the city Samuru which is in the land of Amurru. I killed at sea a nahiru, which is called a sea-horse.78
Of a similar nature (at least with regard to the desire for the acquisition of Phoenician timber) is the Egyptian “Story of Wenamun.”79 This narrative is set during the transitional period between the Twentieth and Twenty-First Dynasties—that is, during the reigns of Ramesses XI (r. ca. 1099–1069) and Smendes I (r. ca. 1069–1043), with reference also being made to Herihor (ca. 1081–1074), who was a high priest of Amun. Within this delightful piece of literature, Wenamun arrives first at Dor (where he was robbed) and then sails to Byblos (passing Tyre). However, the king of Byblos, a certain Zakarba‘al (Tjekerbaal), does not wish to welcome Wenamun (arguably showing the perceived weakness of Egypt at this time, at least as understood by this Phoenician king) or to provide him with the desired timber. In fact, Zakarba‘al is reported to have gone out to the harbor each morning and to have said to Wenamun “Leave my harbor!” However, a prophet figure of this region convinces Zakarba‘al that Wenamun’s journey is of God (i.e., Amun), and so (after much negotiation and dispute) Wenamun is given the requested timber, and he sails from the Byblian harbor.
Early Byblian inscriptions provide (as discussed above) the names of (most of) the Byblian kings of the tenth century, but without much additional historical data. Moreover, the Deuteronomistic Historian mentions some connections between the Israelites and the Phoenicians during the tenth century, especially Tyre. For example, it is mentioned in 1 Kings 5 that King Hiram of Tyre sent emissaries to King Solomon at the time of Solomon’s coronation, and Solomon requested from Hiram’s servants “that cedars from the Lebanon be cut for me” (5:6). Striking is the fact that Chronicles suggests that Solomon made the initial contact with Hiram and not the reverse (2 Chron. 2:1–16), and there are further differences between these two accounts. In any case, Hiram is stated to have agreed and is reported to have said that he would send the timber via the sea to a port that Solomon may choose. Solomon, in turn, is reported to have provided for the sustenance of Hiram’s workers and also to have supplied Hiram with massive amounts of wheat and oil to return the favor. In addition, Solomon is said to have sent tens of thousands of workers to assist Hiram’s workmen. Significantly, the book of Kings also mentions that the Israelites and the Tyrians were assisted by Gebalites—that is, Byblians (1 Kings 5:18).
Naturally, because the Phoenicians were famous for their artistic traditions, it comes as no surprise that the artistic motifs and décor of the Jerusalem Temple are in keeping with that tradition (1 Kings 6), something that the text nods to with its reference to an artisan of bronze named Hiram (7:13–47). Moreover, it should also come as no surprise that the Deuteronomistic History (1 Kings 9:26–28; 10:11, 22) and also Chronicles (2 Chron. 8:17–18; 9:10, 21) suggest that the Phoenicians assisted Solomon with things maritime as well. It is also worth noting that, according to the Deuteronomistic Historian, Solomon ceded some twenty cities to Hiram (1 Kings 9:10–14), basically as payment for services and commodities rendered (note the pejorative pun on the place-name Cabul in 9:13). This is not to suggest that all of the material in the Deuteronomistic History and Chronicles is historical, but it is reasonable to contend that Solomon (following in the tradition of kings near and far) used Phoenician cedars for his monumental building campaigns, and it is also reasonable that Phoenician artisanship was employed and embraced by the Israelites during this period as well. In addition, it is arguably important that Josephus cites Menander of Ephesus (who Josephus says was using Tyrian royal records) as recording some of the very same things (e.g., the symbiotic relationship between Hiram of Tyre and Solomon).80 Of course, the Deuteronomistic Historian also severely critiqued Solomon for his marital alliances, suggesting that these caused him to turn from Yahweh at times. Wives from Sidon are among those that are mentioned, and they are reported to have caused him to follow “Astarte the goddess of the Sidonians” (1 Kings 11:1, 5).
Josephus (stating that he is following the account of Menander of Ephesus, who was using royal records from Tyre) states that after the reigns of (1) Abibalus (Abibaal) of Tyre and his son (2) Hiram (who is said to have reigned thirty-four years), the throne of Tyre passed to (3) Balbazer son of Hiram (who reigned for seventeen years), then to (4) Abdastratus (‘Abdastarte) the son of Balbazer (who reigned nine years), and to (5) Methusastartus son of Deleastartus (who came to power because of a coup and then reigned for twelve years), (6) and then his brother Astharymus (who reigned for nine years). He was slain by his brother (7) Phelles (who had a brief reign of eight months), who was in turn slain by (8) Ithobal priest of Astarte (who reigned thirty-two years). He was succeeded by his son (9) Balezor (who reigned six years), who was succeeded by his son (10) Metten (who reigned twenty-nine years), and then came (11) Pygmalion (who reigned forty-seven years), whose reign arguably ended in the early eighth century BCE. At that juncture there is an interesting notation in Menander of Ephesus (as cited by Josephus) that “it was in the seventh year of his [Pygmalion’s] reign that his sister took flight, and built the city of Carthage in Libya.” Then, there is the following synchronism:
