A TEXT LINGUISTIC APPROACH TO THE SYNTAX AND STYLE OF THE PHOENICIAN INSCRIPTION OF AZATIWADA

PHOENICIAN INSCRIPTION OF AZATIWADA

35

Journal of Semitic Studies L/1 Spring 2005 doi:10.1093/jss/fgi003© The University of Manchester 2005. All rights reserved

A TEXT LINGUISTIC APPROACH TOTHE SYNTAX AND STYLE OF THE

PHOENICIAN INSCRIPTION OF AZATIWADA*

AARON SCHADE

TORONTO

Abstract

Despite numerous studies and treatments of Phoenician syntax, littlehas been done in relation to a text linguist approach. The present studyanalyses the Phoenician inscription of Azatiwada on a complete textualbasis, and highlights syntactic constituents that help mark segmentalbeginnings and ends throughout the text. It will be shown that demon-strable patterns occur that signal demarcations in syntax. Literary de-vices relevant to this study are also examined, insomuch as they con-tribute in defining and confirming the syntactic analysis. These devicesare viewed separately, yet cooperatively with the syntax, and afford aproper syntactic understanding from a different set of criteria. Two ofthese literary devices include anadiplosis and chiasmus.

I. Introductory Remarks

Over the past several decades the re-emergence of the study of Phoeniciansyntax has been witnessed. Many of these studies and works have con-centrated on grammar and syntax on the clausal and sentence level.This is, for the most part, true up until the present with the work ofKrahmalkov (2001). This work and the grammars produced by schol-ars such as Segert (1976), Friedrich and Röllig (1999) and Harris (1936)have contributed to our understanding of the Phoenician language —especially on the clause and sentence level. However, in recent yearsSemitic studies have begun turning more towards a text linguistic ap-proach, and the discipline finds itself in the incipient stages in thistechnique. Schüle (2000) begins to treat some Phoenician inscriptionson a text-level basis — including the inscription of Azatiwada. How-

* Portions of this article were presented as a paper at the Society of Biblical Litera-ture’s annual conference in the Ugaritic and North-West Semitic Epigraphy Sectionin November 2002 (Toronto).

7354-04_JOSS_fgi003 02-21-2005, 15:0035


36

ever, the concentration on the clause and sentence level overshadowslarger levels of syntax. Younger (1998) provides a syntactic breakdownof the Azatiwada inscription in light of the Luwian version. This is avery insightful study and draws attention to the importance of a com-parative approach to the text. The present study will admittedly andgratefully draw upon the works of the aforementioned (and other) schol-ars, and offer a syntactic interpretation of the Azatiwada inscriptionbased on a text linguistic approach. This analysis will be presented forthe most part on the merits of the Phoenician language, but the Luwianwill be compared where pertinent to this particular study.

In his recent work ‘Stories in Scripture and Inscriptions’ Parker statedthat ‘Little detailed attention has been paid as yet to narratives in North-West Semitic inscriptions. The inscriptions have been studied inten-sively, but much of that study, valuable and fruitful in various spheres,has neglected or ignored the narrative material qua narrative’ (Parker1997: 8). Within the course of this analysis I will examine and treatthe Azatiwada inscription as narrative, and approach it on a text levelor text linguistic basis. This approach is picking up steam in studies ofBiblical Hebrew syntax, and scholars such as Rainey (2001) are apply-ing it in North-West Semitic studies. Style in Semitic inscriptions hasalso long been outlined, and Parker (1997) and Younger (1990) haveconducted comparative studies within the context of generic similari-ties and formulaic compositions. Various literary aspects have been dis-cussed in other works and Younger (1986, 1998, and 2000) has begunto point out the nature of the literary character of various North-WestSemitic inscriptions — including that of the Azatiwada inscription —which includes similarities in biblical phraseology. Avishur (1975, 1976,1979, 1984, and 2000) has also done much work on standard word-phrases and phraseology in Phoenician and the Bible. Beyond stand-ard phraseology and structure, however, the Azatiwada inscription con-tains many literary devices that are similar to those found in the Bible— and consequently similar to the poetic devices described in workspresented by scholars such as Watson (2001) and Dion (1992). Thefocus of this study is not necessarily to compare similarities with Bibli-cal Hebrew, but to examine the text on the merits of Phoenician syntaxand style — though peripheral remarks will at times be made in rela-tion to Biblical Hebrew.

The present study will focus on a combination of approaches —each according to its own merits. This will include a study of syntax(the primary focus presented here), as well as a description of some ofthe literary devices that help define and confirm the demarcations ofsyntactic units based on grammatical and syntactic markers. Two vari-

7354-04_JOSS_fgi003 02-21-2005, 15:0036


37

ables or perspectives will confirm the proper syntactic interpretationsoffered here: syntax on its own terms and literary devices conveyed bythe syntax of the text. Concerning the study of syntax and literarydevices in Biblical Hebrew poetry Talstra (1999: 101) has stated:

What kind of position could the study of syntax have in the area ofstylistic studies?…poetic devices make use of the same grammar as doprose texts, though they exhibit a different selection, making repeatedand preferred choices from the available possibilities. One should differ-entiate between the linguistic system in general and special markers whichtogether create a specific poetic composition. This will help in the de-scription of a poetic text as a discourse, i.e. as a process rather than as a‘thing of beauty’, a more or less static picture, as is often done in propos-als on rhetorical analysis. The task, therefore, is to begin the analysis ofpieces of literary art in terms of a linguistic system: clause patterns, ver-bal system, pronominal reference, topicalisation, etc., before enteringthe world of lexical repetition, chiasms and inclusions.

The present study attempts to define the syntax of the inscriptionbased on grammatical and syntactic markers, and then offers examplesof literary devices that help confirm the syntactic interpretations (asthe syntax is the vehicle that conveys the literary devices). In this par-ticular study two major devices will be discussed insomuch as theyhelp define syntactic boundaries from a different set of criteria. Theseare anadiplosis (the repetition of the end of a line at the beginning of anew line) and chiasmus (a series and its inversion). Watson (2001: 163)speaks of larger units of Biblical Hebrew poetry in terms of stanzas andstates that ‘stanza division tends to be based on content’ and that ‘thereare certain stanza-markers showing where stanzas begin and/or end.’I will not use language such as stanza, as I am not claiming that thistext is poetic, but rather that it employs literary techniques typicallyassigned to Biblical Hebrew poetry. I will refer to larger units as seg-ments, which are broken down based on both syntactic and literaryconsiderations. The accuracy of a syntactic breakdown of a given seg-ment becomes especially convincing when both elements confirm theanalysis. This is especially obvious when chiasmus is present. Thoughthere is much to be discussed in relation to this inscription, I want toconcentrate solely on the syntax on a text-level basis, and only on thoseliterary devices that aid and confirm the accuracy of such an analysis. Iwill attempt to deal with the text from a Phoenician perspective, thusavoiding herein many aspects of the Luwian syntax and the contribu-tions of the Luwian in understanding the Phoenician. This analysisbreaks down the inscription into segments based on grammatical shiftsand changes in syntax, and defines the syntactic composition of the

7354-04_JOSS_fgi003 02-21-2005, 15:0037


38

text (Phoenician ‘A’ version) with some of its attending literary devices.It will be demonstrated that this composition is filled with literarydevices, or techniques that are typically not assigned to Phoenician,but generally limited to Ugaritic, Akkadian or the Bible.

The inscription can be broken down into 14 syntactic units that Icall segments, and each of these demonstrates grammatical, syntacticpatterns. They are thus not just a random sequence of clauses and sen-tences aligned according to topic (though topics are generally formedwithin their respective segments). Each segment is marked for begin-ning and/or end by shifts in syntax. These marked shifts include itemssuch as conjunctions, changes from paratactic to asyndetic clauses (orvice versa), shifts to modality, disjunction, changes from nominal toverbal clauses, shifts in verbal forms, and the like. I will describe theseshifts in more detail as they are encountered.

II. The Text and Analysis

Segment 1

’nk ’ztwd hbrk b{l nominal{bd b{l nominal’s ’dr ’wrk mlk dnnym nominal

(1) I am Azatiwada, steward of Ba{al, servant of Ba{al, a mighty man ofAwariku, king of the Danunians.

The opening lines of this inscription are fraught with difficulties.Fortunately, they are only minor in the context of the current discus-sion. The first that arises is of an etymological nature — what to dowith the term hbrk. The second derives from interpretive issues —how to take ’s (relative ‘whom’ or nominal ‘man’) — and carries syntac-tic implications on the clausal level. As indicated above, I have takenthis introductory portion of the inscription as a string of nominal clauseswherein the main character is being introduced with non-verbal clauses.1

I am not going to enter into the debate regarding the interpretation ofhbrk as it is not pertinent syntactically beyond the clause level, andconsequently does not affect the syntactic boundaries of this segment.2

1 Such a technique is used in other inscriptions such as Mesha and Bar-Rakib. It isnot, however, unusual to find relative clauses in the introductions of North-WestSemitic inscriptions.

2 I will not describe here my reasoning for interpreting hbrk as a non-verbal form— as the discussion is lengthy. It is hoped that this will not distract from the underly-

7354-04_JOSS_fgi003 02-21-2005, 15:0038


39

As for ’∞s, one encounters similar difficulties in interpretation in theDeir {Alla inscription.3 This is indeed the case within this inscriptionas on at least one other occasion the word presents difficulty in inter-pretation (Segment 5). I take it here as a noun, though I do not elimi-nate the possibility of its relative usage.4

The syntax of the introduction parallels that of the Bar-Rakib andMesha inscriptions in that they all begin with nominal clauses in whichgapping occurs. In this inscription, the introduction forms a chiasticpattern.

A ’nk ’ztwd A I — nameB hbrk b{l B Title — Ba{alB1 {bd b{l B Title — Ba{al

A1 ’s ’dr ’wrk mlk dnnym A Refers to himself — name

In order to introduce Azatiwada, the kingly title and patronymic areexcluded and other titles are inserted into this position. This worksnicely as the title ‘king’, which is usually present, is contained in thesecond half of the chiastic pattern (which helps legitimize Azatiwada’sauthority, having been a mighty man of the king of the land). No-where in the inscription does Azatiwada claim to be king. He thusappears to have served under Awariku.5 This introductory segmentdescribing Azatiwada concludes here.

ing focus of this paper. The debate is far from settled, and Younger’s (1998: 34) words— opposing the current interpretation — should suffice in at least conceding thepossibility of such an interpretation and permit the brevity in explanation offeredherein: ‘In fairness, it must be admitted that none of these arguments against hbrkbeing a loanword is insurmountable. Consequently, the interpretation of hbrk as aloanword from the Akkadian abarakku is not disproved, simply unproven’.

3 See Levine (2000: 142, n. 3).4 The issues discussed up to this point in S1 are rather incidental and peripheral

to the underlying focus of this study. How one interprets the problematic issues here-tofore mentioned will only affect the syntax of the introduction. The syntactic unitsthat follow remain unaffected regardless of how one chooses to interpret these clauses.And as was already mentioned, both nominal and relative clauses occur in the intro-ductory portions of North-West Semitic inscriptions. Younger (1998: 13–14) alsoregards the introduction as ending at this point in the inscription. The introductorysegment thus ends here regardless of how one interprets the aforementioned clauses.

5 In passing it is worth noting that the same title of hbrk b{l used in this inscrip-tion has also recently been found in the Urikki inscription (Tekaglu and Lemaire2000: 994). Both the king (Urikki) and Azatiwada possess this title. This segmentdiffers from the Urikki inscription in that the lineage of Azatiwada (and the title ofking) is not mentioned. This seems to suggest that he was not a king, but possessed asignificant title borne by the king.

7354-04_JOSS_fgi003 02-21-2005, 15:0039


40

Segment 2

p{ln b{l ldnnym l∞’b wl∞’m prf. + 1c. s. suff. + SyÌw ’nk ’yt dnnym inf. abs. (y-stem) + SyrÌb ’nk ’rÒ {mq ’dn lmmÒ’ sms w{d mb’y inf. abs. (y-stem) + S

(2) Ba‘al made me a father and a mother to the Danunians. I caused theDanunians to live. I enlarged the land of the valley of Adana fromthe rising of the sun to its setting.

The asyndetic 3m. s. perfect clause (by perfect I mean suffixed verbform) + 1c. s. pronominal suffix + proper name is followed by twoasyndetic clauses (y-stem) infinitive absolutes + 1c. s. personal pro-noun. All the main verbs are thus asyndetic. This change from nomi-nal non-verbal clauses to verbal clauses constitutes a syntactic changein the narrative. The use of the infinitive absolute is the narrative pref-erence in this inscription following the perfect. The perfect is also presentas the initial verb of choice in a majority of the segments preceding the‘blessing’ and ‘curses’. In segments 2–9 the initial clause is always aperfect verb form, and segment 10, which immediately precedes the‘blessing’ and begins with an infinitive absolute, acts as a summarizationof what has preceded. When the infinitive absolute is used, it is alwaysin the initial position of the sentence, and it is never used disjunctively.It will at times contain a pronominal, logical object. It should also benoted that the asyndetic clauses (which shift from the perfect to infini-tive absolute verbal forms) help define this syntactic unit.

Segment 3

wkn bymty kl n{m ldnnym waw + prf.wsb{ wmn{m

wml∞’ ’nk {qrt p{r waw + inf. abs. + Swp{l ’nk ss {l ss waw + inf. abs. + S

mgn {l mgnwmÌnt {l mÌnt

b{br b{l w’lm

(3) Now there was in my days every pleasure for the Danunians, andabundance and well-being. I filled the barren with fertility.6 I ac-

6 I have chosen this interpretation because the usual interpretation of ‘And I filledthe granaries of the city of Pahar’ — the apparent meaning intended in the Luwian —simply cannot be applied with confidence on the basis of the current understandingof the North-West Semitic terms (Hoftijzer and Jongeling 1995: 882–3, 929;Krahmalkov 2000: 385, 404–5). Furthermore, there are compelling reasons for ac-cepting the Phoenician on its own terms — as will be discussed in some measurebelow.

7354-04_JOSS_fgi003 02-21-2005, 15:0040


41

quired horse upon horse, shield upon shield, and army upon army,by the grace of Ba‘al and the gods.

The shift to a new, contrasting verbal form (inf. abs. > perfect), aswell as the shift from asyndetic to paratactic (waw initial) clauses con-stitutes the beginning of segment 3.7 The paratactic 3m. s. perfect clauseprecedes two paratactic infinitive absolutes + 1c. s. personal pronouns.The infinitive absolute is again used here as the vehicle of conveyingthe narrative following a perfect. As all of the initial main clauses com-prising Segment 2 were asyndetic, here the segment contains waw ini-tial main clauses. Topically, the segment describes the well-being thatexisted during Azatiwada’s days and ends with an adverbial modifierattributing the success to Baal and the gods.

Segment 4

wsbrt mlÒm waw + prf. + D.O.wtrq ’nk kl hr{ waw + inf. abs. + S

’s kn b’rÒwy†n’ ’nk bt ’dny bn{m waw + inf. abs. (y-stem) + Swp{l ’nk lsrs ’dny n{m waw + inf. abs. + Swysb ’nk {l ks’ ’by waw + inf. abs. (y-stem) + Swst ’nk slm ’t kl mlk waw + inf. abs. + S8

(4) And I broke the scorners. I shattered all the wickedness that was inthe land. And I caused the Adanean house (or house of my lord) tobe set up in pleasantness. I made pleasantness for the Adanean line-age (or root of my lord). And I caused it to sit upon the throne of itsfather. I established peace with every king.

The shift to the paratactic 1c. s. perfect that begins the segment isfollowed by five paratactic infinitive absolutes + 1c. s. personal pro-noun clauses. There is also a shift in topic here. Grammatical anaphorais present in relation to the preceding segment (waw + perfect > waw +

7 Walsh (2001: 157, n. 3) states: ‘In theory any clause that begins with a verb in aform other than the narrative tense also breaks the sequence, but examples of this areso rare in biblical Hebrew narrative that linguists are as yet unable to formulate con-vincing systematic conclusions about the function of such clauses’. This appears to bethe case here in this Phoenician inscription, as it occurs both frequently and consist-ently.

8 Theoretically it is possible that this is a perfect verb form. However, becausethere is a demonstrable pattern of infinitive absolutes preceding it, and because it fitswell within a literary pattern of parallelism and forms anadiplosis with the next seg-ment — which is subsequently marked with disjunction — it seems judicious toaccept this as an infinitive absolute.

7354-04_JOSS_fgi003 02-21-2005, 15:0041


42

inf. abs.).9 The 1c. s. perfect verb form is used here without any per-sonal pronouns. It marks a new segment and immediately returns tothe infinitive absolute + 1c. s. personal pronoun.10 The second andfourth infinitival forms are y-stem and the fourth (wysb) contains anunexpressed 3m. s. pronominal suffix. The use of the waw + infinitiveabsolute is again the preference following the initial perfect.

It is worth noting that this segment contains pairs that parallel eachother, similar to those which occur at times in the Mesha inscription.The conclusion of these pairs helps mark the end of the syntactic unit.There is also a clear shift in syntax marked by the disjunction used atthe beginning of the subsequent segment, as well as the shift in verbalform.

Pair one: sbrt // trq (break // shatter) > mlÒm // hr{ ’s kn b’rÒ (scorners// wickedness which was in the land) — this is an exam-ple of expanded parallelism

Pair two: †n’ / /trq (cause to set up // make) >bt ’dny // srs ’dny (house// root) nk // ’nk (I // II) > bn{m // n{m (pleasant // pleas-ant).

Pair three: ysb // st (cause to sit // establish) >ks’ ’by // mlk (throne-aking // king) ’nk // ’nk (I // II)

This literary structure helps confirm the syntactic breakdown of thesegment that was based independently on constituents of syntax. Aswill be seen, disjunction will mark the beginning of the next segment.

Segment 5

w’p b’bt p{ln kl mlk waw disjnct. + prf. + suff.bÒdqyw bÌkmtywbn{m lby

wbn ’nk Ìmyt {zt waw + inf. abs. + Sbkl qÒyt{l gblm

9 It has been observed that ‘There is also a type of semantic anaphora in (I.8)wsbrt, “and I smashed…” and (I.9) wtrq ’nk, “And I crushed…"' (Younger 1998: 24).However, another explanation will be offered here as our segmentations of the textdiffer.

10 Gevirtz (1990: 145) opposed wsbrt as a verbal form. However, the Luwianportrays this as a verbal construction (Younger 1998: 32), and it makes perfect sensein Phoenician. The perfect (suffixed verbal form) tends to start most segments in thisinscription.

7354-04_JOSS_fgi003 02-21-2005, 15:0042


43

bmqmm b’s kn ’sm r{mb{l ’gddm’s bl ’s {bd kn lbt mps

(5) Moreover, every king made me a father figure because of my right-eousness, my wisdom, and because of the goodness of my heart. Ibuilt strong fortresses at all ends, upon the borders, in places wherethere were bad men, a leader of gangs, a man who had not served thehouse of mps.11

This segment begins with the change from the infinitive absoluteform in the previous segment to a disjunctive, paratactic 3m. s. perfect+ 1c. s. pronominal suffix clause.12 An infinitive absolute verbal formthat is waw initial again follows the perfect.

A significant literary device must be pointed out here, as it helpsconfirm the syntactic analysis offered in this and the preceding seg-ment. Semantic anadiplosis is used in expounding upon the ideas insegment 4. Whereas Segment 4 ends with Azatiwada establishing peacewith every king (in an active role), in Segment 5 every king made hima father figure (passive role). He then goes on to explain why. Anadiplosisthus helps link these units in the text and affords a degree of continuityas one topic expounds upon another. Anadiplosis is demonstrated inthe emboldened portion of the translation.13

(S4) And I caused it to sit upon the throne of its father. I establishedpeace with every king.

11 I have come to this translation based on syntactic and literary considerations —as may be detected in my syntactic breakdown — that will not be discussed in depthhere. In short, the ‘man’ being referred to may have been Mita of Mushki, but this isthe topic of another discussion.

12 A series of tripartite adverbial modifier clauses is witnessed here. Though thesyntax of these clauses is important, the focus of this study is concerned with largerlevels of syntax beyond the clausal level, so I will not go into greater detail than justpointing out their existence. The major item of importance in light of the currentdiscussion pertains to the perfect > infinitive absolute pattern that syntactically marksthe segments and their topics, and the common technique of disjunction used tomark new beginnings.

13 Anadiplosis is present between segments 4–5 and helps distinguish the bounda-ries of two separate syntactic units. Topically, segment 5 builds upon segment 4, anda chiastic pattern exists between them. The inversion of the chiasmus begins withsegment 5 in the switch between active and passive roles. Walsh (2001: 25) points outa similar usage in 1 Kgs. 1:1–2:12a wherein the inversion of the chiasmus beginsin the shift between active and passive activities. Here the chiastic structure isA–A1(breaking scorners and evil in the land); B–B1(the successful ‘reigns’ of Azatiwadaand the root of his lord); and C–C1(making peace with every king).

7354-04_JOSS_fgi003 02-21-2005, 15:0143


44

(S5) Moreover, every king made me a father figure because of my right-eousness, my wisdom, and because of the goodness of my heart.

This literary technique of beginning a new syntactic unit as the pre-vious one ended will occur on several occasions throughout the in-scription. As the underlined portions demonstrate, we witness the fol-lowing parallels:

st ‘established’ // p{l ‘made’ > slm // b’ bt 14, and kl mlk // kl mlk.

Segment 6

w’nk ’ztwd stnm tÌt p{my waw disjnct. + prf. + suffwbn ’nk Ìmyt bmqmm hmt waw + inf. abs. + S

lsbtnm dnnym bnÌt lbnmw{n ’nk ’rÒt {zt bmb’ sms waw + inf. abs. + S

’s bl {n kl mlkm’s kn lpny

(6) And I, Azatiwada, set them under my feet. I built fortresses in thoseplaces so that they, the Danunians, could dwell with peace of mind.I subdued strong lands in the West that all the kings who were be-fore me did not subdue.

A disjunctive paratactic 1c. s. perfect + 3m. pl. pronominal suffixclause marks a change in syntax, as well as a new beginning. Azatiwadais reintroduced through disjunction (PN + perfect) and the negativeaccomplishments of his predecessors are mentioned — similar to theformat of the Kilamuwa inscription.15 Azatiwada was able to do thatwhich those who were before him could, or did not do. The syntax ofthe clause includes a pronominal suffix (nm ‘them’ referring back toS5) and a demonstrative pronoun (humat ‘those’ also referring back toS5), and uses these to build upon the previous segment before intro-ducing new material. It describes subduing the evil men mentioned in

14 It has been suggested that b’bt should be translated ‘as a father’ as found in Ps.109:14 (Dahood 1963: 70). Isa. 22:21 also contains this phrase and the Akkadianabattu may constitute a cognate, contextually meaning a father’s legal status and power(Younger 1998: 16). Whatever the exact intended meaning of the nuance the contextis clear: the appointment resulted in peace.

15 Again a chiastic pattern is found in this segment. Walsh (2001: 14) states ofchiasmus in BH: ‘In many cases comparison reveals constrast…the plot itself oftenruns in opposite directions: a process of growth, success, victory becomes a process ofdisintegration, failure, defeat, or vice versa’. Here we witness A (placing them underhis feet), B (building fortresses for peace), and A1 (subduing strong lands that otherkings did not subdue — the reversal of failure and the demonstration of success).

7354-04_JOSS_fgi003 02-21-2005, 15:0144


45

S5 by using suffix pronouns in referring to those events. The initialperfect clause is followed by two paratactic infinitive absolute + 1c. s.personal pronoun clauses. A modal infinitive is then used to describewhy those places were built.

Segment 7

w’nk ’ztwd {ntnm waw disjnct. + prf. + suff.yrdm ’ nk inf. abs. (y-stem) + suff. + Sysbm ’nk bqÒt gbly bmÒ’ sms inf. abs. (y-stem) + suff. + S

(7) Now I, Azatiwada, subdued them. I brought them down. I settledthem at the edge of my border in the East.

The segment begins with a disjunctive, paratactic 1c. s. personalpronoun + proper name + 1c. s. perfect + 3m. pl. pronominal suffixclause. It is followed by two asyndetic infinitive absolute (y-stem) + 1c.s. personal pronoun clauses. A grammatical anaphora (which also aidsin the division of the segments) is present here in connection withsegment 6 (waw + 1c. s. PP + PN + Perf. + nm suffix). Semantically,both segments also begin with a subduing process. The final infinitivalclauses in segment 7 are asyndetic rather than paratactic, and all threeverbs in the segment deal with issues of Azatiwada’s power of control.

This segment builds upon the previous one by using anadiplosis,wherein pronominal suffixes refer to elements described in S6 and simi-lar phraseology is used (S6 w{n ’nk ’rÒt {zt — I subdued strong lands S7w’nk ’ztwd {ntnm — I subdued them ). Just as 6 began by building on5’s end, 7 begins just as 6 ends.

(S6) I subdued strong lands in the West that all the kings who werebefore me did not subdue.

(S7) Now I, Azatiwada, subdued them.

As 7 builds upon 6, merismus is used in representing and describingthe far-reaching territory of the events (S6 subdued in the west > S7Settled in the east).16 In earlier segments anadiplosis was used in orderto build upon material from the previous segment. This is the case inS7 as well. However, it again goes beyond that. This portion of theinscription topically links segments 6–7 (as one builds upon the other)in a chiastic pattern that begins in the middle of S6:

A lsbtnm dnnym (S6) (that they, the Danunians, could dwell)B w{n ’nk ’rÒt {zt (S6) (I subdued strong lands)

16 The celestial object of the sun is here being used to describe space (Greenstein1995: 2430).

7354-04_JOSS_fgi003 02-21-2005, 15:0145


46

C ’s bl {n kl mlk (S6) (that all the kings did not subdue) (C-C1 failure shift>success)

C1 {ntnm (S7) (I subdued them)B yrdm ’nk (S7) (I brought them down — parallel term for w{m ‘subdue’)

A1 ys bm ’nk (S7) (I settled them — caused them to dwell)17

Segments 5, 7, and 8 have many words and phrases repeated.Segments 6–7 thus deal with subduing and settling. They each formtheir own distinctive segments based on syntactic structure, but arecontextually and literarily spliced together through the use of chiasmus.

Segment 8

wdnnym ysbt sm waw disjnct. + prf. (y-stem)wkn bymty bkl gbl {mq ’dn waw + prf. or inf. abs.

lmmÒ’ sms w{d mb’ywbmqmm

’s kn lpnm nst{m’s yst{ ’dm llkt drk

wbymty ’nk ’st tk lÌdy dl plkm waw disjnct. imprf.b{br b{l w’lm

(8) And the Danunians I settled there. And so it was in my days, in allthe borders of the valley of Adana, from the rising of the sun to itssetting, in places that were formerly feared, where a man would fearto walk the road, that in my very days a woman could walk alonewith spindles, by the grace of Ba‘al and the gods.

Disjunction marks the beginning of a new syntactic unit. The dis-junctive paratactic 1c. s. (y-stem) perfect is followed by the paratactic3m. s. perfect (Kn).18 A few syntactic features are worth mentioning.The first is the use of wkn as it is used in Biblical Hebrew, the familiar‘and it came to pass’ or ‘and so it was’ followed by a complement. Thisusage is unusual in Phoenician, but here a series of adverbial modifiersand clauses is dependent upon it. Many assume that an implied ‘they’

17 Technically the parallels can be expanded to cover all of the segment in 6. Thiswould include the earlier constituents wherein ‘those fortresses’ // ‘the end of myborder’ and ‘I placed them under my feet’ // ‘in the East’ (I settled them) describingwhere the subdued people were settled.

18 Theoretically this could be an infinitive absolute which would make it consist-ent with the syntactic patterns witnessed to this point. It really is difficult to ascertainsince we are dealing with a purely consonantal text. I am assigning the perfect here inorder to emphasize the seemingly parallel usage to the Hebrew והיה ‘and so it was’.This is a unique occurrence of such a usage in Phoenician. However, as will be de-scribed below, this appears to be the intended usage here.

7354-04_JOSS_fgi003 02-21-2005, 15:0146


47

(the Danunians) is the subject of wkn. However, this does not appearto be the case. First, the emphasis of the segment — and subsequentlythe sentence — is on the safety that prevailed in the region (not on‘they’ — the Danunians). The sense and fluency of the text is some-what choppy with the Danunians occupying the role of subject of theverb, as the focus of their residing in all the land must abruptly switchto the safety of the land (and a woman being able to walk within theborders of the land without fear). It seems more consistent for theextent of the land to remain the focus of the segment. Second, theLuwian appears to argue against such an interpretation. The Danuniansare not the focus — the boundaries and safety are — and Hawkins’s(2000: 53) translation of the Luwian maintains a focus on this with ‘soin my days even women walk…’ This corresponds to my interpreta-tion of the Phoenician that reflects the safety of the region as the focusand not the Danunians.

The opening clauses in the segment are essentially acting as the an-tecedent to the final occurrence of wbymty ’nk ’sk tk…, and the adver-bial modifier (‘by the grace of Baal and the gods’) describes the reasonfor the prevailing feelings of comfort and safety throughout the land.It is also syntactically significant that for the first time in this inscrip-tion the end is specifically marked. This occurs in the switch to modal-ity (’st tk ‘a women could walk’).19 Immediately preceding the modalclause are two relative clauses, one a Niphal participle, and the otheran imperfect used habitually —‘In places which were formerly feared,where a man would fear to walk the road’ (relative + imperfect + S),‘that in my very days a woman could walk alone with spindles’(S + imperfect modal). Such a change in situation is also an example ofantithesis (Schökel 1988: 89).

This segment also begins with semantic anadiplosis as it expoundsupon the previous one with expanded parallelism — though differentpeople are being settled.

S7 S8

ysbm ’nk (y-stem) > wdnnym ysbt (y-stem)gbly bmÒ ’sms > (expands to) gbl {mq ’dn lmmÒ’ sms w{d mb’y

(S7) I settled them at the edge of my border in the East.(S8) And the Danunians I settled there.

19 Walsh (2001: 157) lists modal clauses (causal or result clauses) as causing breaksin the narrative sequence in Biblical Hebrew.

7354-04_JOSS_fgi003 02-21-2005, 15:0147


48

The word sm is referring back to a now empty region and enablesthe settling of the Danunians in the place of the now repopulated com-munity.20

Segment 9

wkn bkl ymty sb{ wmn{m wsbt n{mt wnÌt lb waw + prf.ldnnym wlkl {mq ’dn

wbn ’nk hqrt z waw + inf. abs. + Swst ’nk sm ’ztwdy waw + inf. abs. + S

k b{l wrsp Òprm slÌn lbntwbny ’nk b{br b{l wb{br rsp Òprm waw + inf. abs. + suff. + S

bsb{ wbmn{m wbsbt n{mt wbnÌt lblkny msmr l{mq ’dn wlbt mps inf. cs. + suff.

k bymty kn l∞’rÒ {mq ’dn sb{ wmn{mwbl kn mtm ldnnym ll bymty

(9) And there was in all my days abundance and well-being, and a fa-vourable situation and peace of mind for the Danunians and for allthe valley of Adana. I built this town. I established its nameAzatiwadaya because Ba‘al and rsp Òprm sent me to build it. So I builtit by the grace of Ba‘al and by the grace of rsp Òprm in abundance andwell being, and in a favourable situation and with peace of mind,that it might be a protection for the valley of Adana and the house ofmps, for in my days there was abundance and well-being for the landof the valley of Adana, and there was not ever night to the Danunians.

The introductory paratactic perfect clause precedes three paratacticinfinitive absolute main clauses. The switch in syntax here seems slight,but is significant. This and the preceding wkn clauses are generallycombined together, as wkn follows wkn .21 However, the two clausesare being used very differently. In S8 wkn was being used as the He-brew whyh with a complement. A series of clauses dependent upon themain verb then followed. The syntax shifts here as the paratactic wkn isused as a finite verb with a subject. If this clause were intended to beincluded with the previous ones, why would the author(s) have notcontinued the gapped clauses that already consisted of ymty? Further-more, from a stylistic perspective, the segment begins, as do a majority

20 Walsh (2001: 122) writes: ‘Most narrative scenes take place in a single locale,and a change in that locale signals the end of one scene and the beginning of another’.Here no specific verb of motion is used, however, the movement away from an iso-lated event — via the reference back using the word sm — to an all-encompassingdescription of the entire land of Adana may additionally help confirm the syntacticchange to a new ‘locale’ and a new segment.

21 See Younger (1998: 17).

7354-04_JOSS_fgi003 02-21-2005, 15:0148


49

of the segments, by using anadiplosis to expound upon the content inthe previous segment, and a self-contained chiasmus is found withinthe segment (offering two more reasons and further confirmation fordividing the text in such a manner).

The employment of the infinitive absolute + 1c. s. personal pro-noun following the initial perfect clause is again prominent. It is ofinterest that the use of the infinitive construct (lkny) might help markthe end of the segment in the shift to modality. This would representthe second occurrence of a marked change at the end of a segment.From a stylistic perspective, the segment begins, as do a majority of thesegments, by using anadiplosis to expound upon the content in theprevious segment. Segment 8 ends by speaking of a lack of fear ‘in mydays’. Segment 9 also begins with ‘in my days’ and then continues todescribe the well-being and the activities of construction that took placeduring that time of peace and safety.

I would now like to point out a significant item in relation to theLuwian version. It is generally stated that the differences in this textbetween the Phoenician and Luwian versions are rather insignificantand miniscule. However, an extraordinary item does occur in the di-vergence between the bilingual versions, wherein a Luwian portion ishere missing. This missing part in the Luwian exhibits a chiasm in theextant Phoenician version. This occurs on a micro and macro level.

Chiasmus on a micro level

A b{l wrsp Òprm (the deity)B lbnt (to build it)B1 wbny (I built it)

A1 b{br b{l wb{br rsp sprm (the deity — expanded parallelism with b{br)

Chiasmus on a macro level

A wkn — ymty (my days) A wkn bkl ymtyB sb{ wmn{m (abundance and well being) B sb{ wmn{m wsbt n{mt wnÌt lb

C {mq ’dn (valley of Adana) C dnnym wlkl {mq ’dnD wbn — hqrt z (I built — this town) D wbn ’nk hqrt z wst ’nk sm ’ztwdy

b{l wrsp Òprm (Baal and rsp Òprm) ky b{l wrsp Òprm slÌn lbntD1 wbny (I built it) D1 wbny ’nk

b{l wr sp Òprm (Baal and rsp Òprm) b{br b{l wb{br rsp Òprm bsb{ wbn{m wbsbt…C1 {mq ’dn (valley of Adana) C1 lkny msmr l{mq ’dn wlbt mps

B1 sb{ wmn{m (abundance and well being) B1 k bymty kn l’rÒ {mq ’dn sb{ wmn{mA1 wbl kn — bymty (in my days) A1 wbl kn mtm ldnnym ll bymty

(S9) And (A) there was in all my days (B) abundance and well being,and a favourable situation and peace of mind for the Danuniansand for all the (C) valley of Adana. (D) I built this town. I estab-

7354-04_JOSS_fgi003 02-21-2005, 15:0149


50

lished its name Azatiwadaya because Ba‘al and rsp Òprm sent me tobuild it. So (D1) I built it by the grace of Ba‘al and by the grace ofrsp Òprm, in abundance and well being, and in a favourable situa-tion and with peace of mind, that it might be a protection for the(C1) valley of Adana and the house of mps, for in my days therewas (B1) abundance and well being for the land of the valley ofAdana, and (A1) there was not ever night to the Danunians in mydays.

This literary device helps confirm the accuracy of the syntactic analy-sis from a different set of criteria and demonstrates that this constitutesa segment of its own. It must be restated that this chiastic structure isabsent from the Luwian version of the bilingual.

Segment 10

wbn ’nk hqrt z waw + inf. abs.st ’nk sm ’ztwdy inf. abs. + Sysb ’nk bn b{l krntrys inf. abs. (y-stem) + S

(10) Now I built this town. I established its name Azatiwadaya. I causedBa‘al krntrys to dwell among it.

The switch back to the paratactic infinitival form constitutes a newbeginning. This segment is comprised of a paratactic infinitive abso-lute and two asyndetic infinitival clauses. This syntactic unit variesfrom the previous ones in that all of the clauses contain infinitive abso-lutes as the main verb. The relevant shift here within the segment isfrom the paratactic to asyndetic usage. Segment 10 uses identical lan-guage and repetition in relation to S9 (wbn ’nk hqrt z and st ’nk sm’ztwdy). The second clause beginning with st is asyndetic in S10, whereasit is paratactic in S9 (but it is possible that it is coordinate in S9). Themajor difference here is that in S10 there is no explanation (ky) as towhy the town was built. It is simply stated that it was and that it wasnamed. Segment 10 thus seems to be functioning as a summary of S9that is followed by the introduction of b{l krtrys. From this point on,the syntax of the inscription changes drastically as jussives and modalimperfects are used in the ‘blessings’ and ‘curses’ of the text.

Segment 11

wylk zbÌ lkl hmskt waw + jussive (y-stem)zbÌ ymm ’lpwb[{t Ì]rs swb{t qÒr s

7354-04_JOSS_fgi003 02-21-2005, 15:0150


51

wbrk b{l krntrys ’yt ’ztwd Ìym wslm waw + prf. or inf. abs.w{z ’dr {l kl mlkltty b{l krntrys wkl ’ln qrt l’ztwd

’rk ymm wrb snt wrs’t n{mt w{z ’dr {l kl mlkwkn hqrt z b{lt sb{ wtrs waw + prf. or inf. abs.

(11) So, let a sacrifice be brought to all the molten images:22 a yearlysacrifice of an ox; at the time of ploughing: a sheep; and at harvesttime: a sheep. May Ba‘al krntrys bless Azatiwada with life and wellbeing, and mighty strength over every king that he, Ba‘al krntrysand all the gods of the city, might give Azatiwada a length of daysand a multitude of years, and authority and mighty strength overevery king. May this city be a mistress of abundance and wine.

This portion of the inscription has been considered to be a benedic-tion, or a ‘semi-poetic’ blessing in nature, with features resembling thatof a Canaanite royal blessing (Barre 1982: 178). However, my inter-pretation as to where this ‘blessing’ begins varies greatly from the usualinterpretations. It is thus necessary to address the breakdown of thissegment, as it is one of the most problematic portions of the text. Theproblem is twofold: first, what to do with wylk; and second, what todo with wbrk. This portion of the inscription contains a clause thateverybody seems to translate as jussive (wbrk b{l krntrys ’yt ’ztwd …‘may Baal bless…’). This clause is generally situated within the ‘bless-ing’ portion of the text and at the beginning of a syntactic unit —presumably because ‘bless’ is supposed to have marked the beginningof a new unit.23 What is not so clear is how to get a jussive translationout of an initial perfect wbrk (the here asserted waw perfect in initialposition = jussive). It is preceded by (and usually separated from) whatmost people translate as an imperfect wylk (future ‘will’ or ‘shall’ —which technically could also be epistemic modality if it were to beexplained as such). Put simply there is no easy way to explain this typeof interpretation, if they are treated as separate from each other. Theeasiest explanation is by taking the initial clause of wylk as a jussive atthe beginning of a syntactic unit. Syntactically this is the most plausi-ble, especially in light of the syntax of the rest of the inscription. How-ever, this wylk clause is notoriously problematic. To take the subject of

22 There are several opinions on the meaning of the word hmskt. See for exampleYounger (1998: 36–7) and Amadasi Guzzo (1999: 72–80).

23 Reference and justification for such an interpretation has been made here inrelation to the YÌwmlk inscription (Younger 2000: 150, n. 30). There is, however,absolutely no question as to the prefix form used in that inscription. The jussivetranslation used for the seemingly initial perfect here is thus unwarranted.

7354-04_JOSS_fgi003 02-21-2005, 15:0151


52

the clause as anything but ‘sacrifice’ (zbÌ) is only creating more diffi-culties. Again reverting to the simplest explanation, taking this as ajussive requires the least amount of grammatical and syntactic defence.In 1948 Dupont-Sommer listed Yuph. imperfect as a possibility. AYuph. jussive actually would work nicely here, and there are attestedexamples of the Yuphal/il form.24 wbrk would then be one of two things:a waw ‘consecutive’ inf. abs., or, a waw ‘consecutive’ perfect. Either ofthese would be a waw ‘consecutive’ form, and both would carry thejussive force as a ‘consecutive’.25 One of the greatest obstacles here is inattempting to reconcile the potential differences between the Luwianand the Phoenician. Some recognize the potential for such divergences(Younger 1998: 40), but the tendency is to revert back to the Luwian,thus creating further difficulties in the interpretation of these clauses(at least in attempting to reconcile these apparent differences). Put sim-ply, there are deviations between the two versions (as is the case withother bilinguals, such as Fekheriye), some of them significant (as dem-onstrated in S9 with the chiasm). These may stem from stylistic con-siderations, or from the fact that different audiences are being addressedin each version. This may explain why the people of the river lands (theindigenous people stated in the Luwian) are the subject of that clause,and why the sacrifice is the subject, directed at a non-indigenous groupof residents, travellers, visitors, or merchants who might have foundthemselves in other places at the times of the sacrifices, and to whomAzatiwada will apparently appeal along with the indigenous peoplereading the inscription, to serve him as contained in the next segment.

The introductory jussive thus has the syntactic force of a wish orexhortation. The succeeding waw + perfect form maintains the effectsof the wish, thus rendering ‘may’ in the translation.26 The paratacticjussive clause is followed by three gapped clauses (the last two alsoemploy deletion). The subsequent clauses include two waw + perfects.

Segment 12

w{m z ’s ysb bnykn b{l ’lpm wb{l Ò’n wb{l sb{ wtrs waw + S + jussive

wbrbm yld waw + adv. mod. + jussive

24 See Segert (1976: 143) and Friedrich and Röllig (1999: 94).25 I am using this term ‘consecutive’ because (for better or for worse) it is a term

that is generally familiar to most readers of multiple disciplines.26 Theoretically it is again possible that these are infinitive absolute forms.

Krahmalkov (2001: 210) does list a few possible (though less convincing) examples ofthe infinitive absolute in the ‘consecutive’ role.

7354-04_JOSS_fgi003 02-21-2005, 15:0152


53

wbrbm y’dr waw + adv. mod. + jussivewbrbm y{bd l∞’ztwd wlbt mps waw + adv. mod. + jussive

b{br b{l w’lm

(12) And may this people who dwell in it be owners of oxen, owners ofsheep, and owners of abundance and wine. May they bear childrenabundantly; may they become immensely powerful; may theygreatly serve Azatiwada and the house of mps, by the grace of Ba‘aland the gods.

A new segment begins with the switch to disjunction and the use ofa prefixed verb, and is followed by three other disjunctive clauses thatall begin with wbrbm. All of the clauses are jussive — which helpsdistinguish it from the previous and subsequent segments — and thefirst clause has an extended noun phrase as the subject. The disjunctivewaw + the subject breaks the previous pattern ending in ‘consecutive’clauses and begins a new one. This segment also begins by buildingupon the previous one, as a suffixed preposition (bn) is used in refer-ring back to the last clause in S11. This is another example of anadiplosiswherein ‘May this city be a mistress of …’ ends S11 and S12 begins‘And may this people who dwell in it be owners of…’. Though I willnot go into details, S11 and S12 form a chiasmus wherein the clausesforming anadiplosis constitute the shift from the original constituentsto their inversions. This also helps confirm the syntactic analysis of-fered above.

Segment 13

w’m mlk bmlkm wrzn brznm waw + cj. nominal’m ’dm ’s ’dm sm cj. + nominal + rel.

’s ymÌ sm ’ztwd bs{r z imprf. in rel. Clausewst sm waw-prf.

’p yÌmd ’yt hqrt z cj. + imprf.wys{ hs{r z waw-prf. (y-stem)

’s p{l ’ztwdwyp{l ls{r zr waw-prf. (y-stem)wst sm {ly waw-prf.

’m bÌmd ys{ cj. + adv. mod. + imprf.’m bsn’t wbr{ ys{ hs{r z cj. + adv. mod. + imprf.

wmh b{l smm w’l qn ’rÒ wsms {lm wkl dr bn ’lm waw-prf.’yt hmmlkt h’ w’yt hmlk h’ w’yt ’dm h’ ’ s ’dm sm

(13) Now, if there is a king among kings or a ruler among rulers, if thereis a man who is a person of name who might efface the name ofAzatiwada from this gate and place his name; if he should desirethis city, and should tear down this gate that Azatiwada has made,

7354-04_JOSS_fgi003 02-21-2005, 15:0153


54

and cause it to become a different gate, and set his name upon it; ifout of covetousness he should remove it; if out of hate or malice heshould remove this gate, then Ba‘al smm and El, creator of the earth,and eternal sms, and all the generation of the children of the godsshall efface that kingdom, that king, or that individual who is aperson of name.

This portion of the inscription appears to be syntactically problem-atic. However, reconciliation seems to be achieved in a syntactic ar-rangement according to an initial conjunction (’m or ’p) — the firstparatactic, the remaining asyndetic.27 There are a few major indicatorsin the syntactic switch here: first, the change away from the patternwbrbm (adv. mod. ‘greatly’); and second, switching from the use of thejussive to clauses and sentences beginning with the conjunction ’im or’ap (here marking modality) and the use of the imperfect (i.e. the switchfrom all jussive to all imperfect modal clauses).28 The first clause iswaw initial + conjunction with extended noun phrases as the subject,the rest are bare initial conjunctions. These conjunctions are key sen-tence and clausal markers as a pattern occurs following each (cj. + im-perfect (modal) + waw consec. perfect).29 The cycle then repeats itself,where almost every clause or sentence that is connected to its initialconjunction (if ) has at least one consecutive perfect form attached toit. The final consecutive form (wmÌ — efface) is the ‘then’ clause fol-lowing a series of ‘if ’ clauses.30 It appears to be epistemic modality ascertainty with regards to the performance of the act is being expressed.31

27 For evidence of the use of ’p as the conjunctive waw in the Bible see Avishur(1999: 62–3 n. 7; 1984: 119–20). It may also link two clauses of equal syntactic statusand is equivalent to the Hebrew pn in that it introduces consecutive clauses (Lipinski1997: 471). For ’m in disjunction meaning ‘or’ see Lipinski (1997: 472). For ’m and ’pused as modal conjunctions in Phoenician see Krahmalkov (2001: 269–70), and inHebrew see Joüon (1993: 615). See also Friedrich and Röllig (1999: 324b).

28 For a treatment on the conditional clause in Biblical Hebrew see Joüon (1993:627–9, especially 627a 2) and 629 4) c). When speaking of juxtaposition in HebrewJoüon uses phrases such as ‘the forms are virtually in the jussive’ and ‘where oneshould probably read the jussive’. In such an ambiguous reference to the syntax of‘conditional clauses’ in Biblical Hebrew, I here attribute these Phoenician clauses tomodality.

29 Again, it is possible that these are infinitive absolute forms.30 These clauses parallel ‘conditional’ clauses in that they are almost hypothetical.

The protasis is introduced with ‘if ’—followed by a prefixed form of the verb—and isfollowed by a suffixed form of the verb. For this type of example in Biblical Hebrewsee Waltke and O’Connor (1990: 636 d 10; for another example similar in nature see644 #8).

31 See Shulman (2000: 178–9) for this in Biblical Hebrew.

7354-04_JOSS_fgi003 02-21-2005, 15:0154


55

The conjunctions (‘if ’) are followed by imperfect verbal forms, sug-gesting a modal designation. A succeeding waw-perfect clause thenpreserves the modality of the preceding clause with which it is affili-ated, and is again followed by a new clause marked with ’m or ’p. Asstated, this syntactic pattern repeats itself throughout the segment un-til resolution is reached in the concluding waw-perfect form that pre-serves the modality of the preceding imperfect (‘Baal shall efface’). Thewaw + perfect would seem to be necessary to maintain the modality ofthe conditional ’m clauses. Krahmalkov (1987: 78–9) describes theselines in terms of verbs unmarked for tense, assuming the future tensereference of the periphrastic future, ‘that is, …the Phoenician counter-part of the Hebrew so-called “perfect with waw-consecutive."' As Ihave tried to demonstrate, these constructions are functioning as He-brew ‘waw-consecutives’, and preserve the modality of the modal im-perfect clauses preceding them. The present model hinges on attribut-ing the wys{ and wyp{l to y-stem verbs in the perfect form. wys{ is at-tested, but I am unaware of the positive attestation of p{l in the y-stem.However, this inscription may indicate that it did exist. Lipinski (1997:341) suggests that wyp{l is a waw + old preterite form. The syntax hereseems to suggest a perfect (or inf. abs.), as wyp{l is preceded and suc-ceeded by perfect (or inf. abs.) forms. The syntactic construction thusseems to necessitate wyp{l in the consecutive construction in the midstof which it is located.

Chiasmus is again present in 13, which will help confirm the syntac-tic boundaries described above. A quick syntactic note is that only onceis the cj. ’p used instead of ’m. This occurs at the very centre of thechiasm, and it may very well have been used to mark this.

Segment 13 chiasmus

A mlk, rzn w’m mlk bmlkm wrzn brznmA. continued/ ’dm ’s ’dm sm ’m ’dm ’s ’dm sm

B. ymÌ (verb mÌy) ’s ymÌ sm ’ztwd bs{r zC1.wst sm wst smC2.yÌmd (verb Ìmd) ’p yÌmd ’yt hqrt zC3.wys{ hs{r z wys{ hs{r z

D. p{l ’s p{l ’ztwdD1.wyp{l (p{l) wyp{l ls{r zr

C1.wst sm wst sm {lyC2.bÌmd (noun Ìmd) ’m bÌmd ys{C3.ys{ hs{r z ’m bsn’t wbr{ ys{ hs{r z

B1.∞wmÌ (Verb mÌy) wmÌ b{l smm w’l qn ’rÒ wsms {lm wkl dr bn ’lmA1.∞hmmlkt, mlk ’dm, ’s ’dm sm ’yt hmmlkt h’ w’yt hmlk h’ w’yt ’dm h’ ’s ’dm sm

7354-04_JOSS_fgi003 02-21-2005, 15:0155


56

Now, if there is a (A) king among kings or a ruler among rulers, if thereis a man32 who is a man of name who might (B) efface the name ofAzatiwada from this gate and (C1) place his name; if he should (C2)desire this city and (C3) tear down this gate that Azatiwada has (D)made, and (D1) make it a different gate and (C1) set his name upon it; ifout of (C2) covetousness he should remove (it); if out of hate or malicehe should (C3) remove this gate, then Ba‘al smm and El, creator of theearth, and eternal sms, and all the generation of the children of the godsshall (B1) efface that (A1) kingdom, that king, or that individual who isperson of name.

The chiastic structure here is striking and rather complex, and con-firms the accuracy of the syntactic demarcations reached on its own setof criteria.33

Segment 14

’ps sm ’ztwd ykn l{lm km sm sms wyrÌ adv. + S + imprf

(14) Only the name of Azatiwada shall be forever like the name of thesun and the moon.

This last segment marks a change in the narrative syntax and statesthe conclusion of all that is communicated in the previous section. Italso concludes the inscription. Anadiplosis is present with sm and fig-ures representing rulers and officials (S13), and the sm of Azatiwada(S14). Merismus is used in contrasting the effacing process andAzatiwada’s name lasing forever.

III. Concluding Remarks

The intent of this study has been to demonstrate and define the syn-tactic structure of this Phoenician inscription on a text-level basis. Ithas been shown that there are demonstrable syntactic constituents that

32 It has been suggested that this phrase means an ordinary human being withouttitle of any sort. However, Younger (2000: 150) suggests the meaning of ‘a man ofrenown’. While it is true that there are examples of peasant revolts (EA 77) and instancesrecorded in the annals of Sargon II in which individuals with ‘no claim to the throne’sought such a position, as well as records in the annals of Tiglath-Pileser III in which ‘theson of nobody’ was set on the throne, the implication here seems to be of a reputableindividual as the insidious implications behind being ousted by a nobody are avoided atall costs. In later texts (Eshmunazor and YeÌawmilk) the general term ‘∞’s∞∞∞’ (anyone) isused in the description of the curse. If Modern Hebrew can be used with any degree ofconfidence, the parallel expression there also refers to a reputable individual.

33 In the C constituents three subunits are witnessed. For examples of such com-plex symmetry within chiasmus in the Bible see Walsh (2001: 40; 88–93; and 190).

7354-04_JOSS_fgi003 02-21-2005, 15:0156


57

help mark segments or units within the text. Thus, the syntax speaksfor itself. Where there are difficulties in syntactic interpretations anddemarcations, a literary analysis of the devices contained within eachsegment helps confirm the conclusions reached in the syntactic analy-sis. Thus, two separate approaches (syntax being the initial approach)work separately yet cooperatively in reaching accurate conclusions. Aproper understanding of the syntax also enables the detection of cer-tain literary devices. These devices include items such as chiasmus, whichis typically assigned to Ugaritic, Akkadian, and the biblical texts.Throughout the course of this study I have attempted to treat the in-scription as narrative that possesses an elevated literary style despite itsnon-poetic classification. It has been demonstrated that extensive andcomplicated literary and syntactic techniques are employed within thisinscription and that these should now be added and attributed to thePhoenician language when examined in comparative studies. A textlinguistic approach to the text has much to offer and little doubt shouldremain as to the literary character of this inscription.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Amadasi Guzzo, M.G. 1999. ‘MSKT a Karatepe’, Orientalia,72–80Avishur, Yitzhak. 1975. ‘Word Pairs Common to Phoenician and Biblical Hebrew’,

UF 7, 13–47—— 1976. ‘Studies of Stylistic Features Common to the Phoenician Inscriptions

and the Bible’, UF 8, 1–22—— 1979. Phoenician Inscriptions and the Bible. (Jerusalem)—— 1984. Stylistic Studies of Word-Pairs in Biblical and Ancient Semitic Literatures.

(Alter Orient und Altes Testament 210. Neukrichen-Vluyn)—— 1999. Studies In Biblical Narrative: Style, Structure, and the Ancient Near Eastern

Literary Background. (Tel Aviv)—— 2000. Phoenician Inscriptions and the Bible. (Tel Aviv)Barre, M.L. 1982. ‘An Analysis of the Royal Blessing in the Karatepe Inscription’,

Maarav 3, 177–94Dahood, M. 1963. ‘Karatepe Notes’, Biblica 44, 70–3Dion, Paul E. 1992. Hebrew Poetics. (Mississauga)Dupont-Sommer, A. 1948. ‘Azitawadda, roi des danouniens. Étude sur les inscrip-

tions phéniciennes de Karatepe’, RA 42, 161–88Friedrich, J. and Röllig, W. 1999. Phönizisch-Punische Grammatik3. (Analecta Orientalia

55. Rome)Gevirtz, Stanley. Spring 1990. ‘Phoenician wsbrt mlÒm and Job 33: 23’, Maarav 5–6,

145–58Greenstein, E.L. 1995. ‘Autobiographies in Ancient Western Asia’, in J. Sasson (ed),

Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, New York. 2421–32Harris, Z. 1936. A Grammar of the Phoenician Language. (American Oriental Series

Volume 8. New Haven)Hawkins, J.D. 2000. Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions Vol. 1. (Berlin)

7354-04_JOSS_fgi003 02-21-2005, 15:0157


58

Hoftijzer, J. and K. Jongeling. 1995. Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions,2 vols (Leiden)

Joüon, P. 1991. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. vol II part III, trans. T. Muraoka.(Subsidia Biblica — 14/II. Rome)

Krahmalkov, C.R. 1987. ‘The Periphrastic Future Tense in Hebrew and Pheonician’,RSO 61, 73–80

—— 2000. Phoenician-Punic Dictionary. (Louvain)—— 2001. A Phoenician-Punic Grammar. (Leiden)Levine, B. 2000. ‘The Deir ‘Alla Plaster Inscriptions’, in W.W. Hallo and K.L.Younger

Jr. (eds), The Context of Scripture, II: Monumental Inscriptions from the BiblicalWorld (Leiden). 140–5

Lipinski, E. 1997. Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar. (Louvain)Parker, Simon B. 1997. Stories In Scripture and Inscriptions: Comparative Studies on

Narratives in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions and the Hebrew Bible. (New York)Rainey, A.F. 2001. ‘Mesha and Syntax’, in J. Andrew Dearman and M. Patrick Graham

(eds), The Land that I Will Show You (JSOT Supplement Series 343, Sheffield).287–307

Schökel, L.A. 1988. A Manual of Hebrew Poetics. (Subsidia Biblica 11. Rome)Schüle, A. 2000. Die Syntax der althebräischen Inschriften. (Munich)Segert, S. 1976. A Grammar of Phoenician and Punic. (Munich)Shulman, A. 2000. ‘The Function of the “Jussive” and “Indicative” Imperfect Forms in

Biblical Hebrew Prose’, ZAH 13.2, 168–80Talstra, E. 1999. ‘Reading Biblical Hebrew Poetry — Linguistic Structure or Rhetori-

cal Device?’, JNSL 25/2, 101–26Tekoglu, R. and A. Lemaire. 2000. ‘La Bilingue Royale Louvito-Phénicienne de

Çineköy’, CRAIBL, 961–1006Walsh, J.T. 2001. Style and Structure in Biblical Hebrew Narrative. (Collegeville)Waltke, B. and M. O’Connor. 1990. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax.

(Winona Lake)Watson, W.G.E. 2001. Classical Hebrew Poetry. (JSOT Supplement Series 26 [re-

print]. Sheffield)Younger, K.L., Jr. 1986. ‘Panammuwa and Bar-Rakib: Two Structural Analyses’,

JANES 18, 91–9—— 1990. Ancient Conquest Accounts: A Study in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical

History Writing. (JSOT Supplement Series 98. Sheffield)—— 1998. ‘The Phoenician Inscription of Azatiwada: An Integrated Reading’, JSS

43, 11–47—— 2000. ‘The Azatiwada Inscription’, in W.W. Hallo and K.L. Younger Jr. (eds),

The Context of Scripture, II: Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World, Leiden.148–50

7354-04_JOSS_fgi003 02-21-2005, 15:0158

A TEXT LINGUISTIC APPROACH TO THE SYNTAX AND STYLE OF THE PHOENICIAN INSCRIPTION OF AZATIWADA

Documents

Transcript of A TEXT LINGUISTIC APPROACH TO THE SYNTAX AND STYLE OF THE PHOENICIAN INSCRIPTION OF AZATIWADA