The Mesopotamians

Clever: 

The Ugaritic Particle L

In early Ugaritic studies, there were three recognized particles of negation. Cyrus H. Gordon, in his 1940 Ugaritic Grammar,[1] notes first that whereas the particle of existence “is expressed by iṯ”[2] the particle of “(n)on-existence is expressed by in” (Hebrew = אֵין) For example, Anat 5.46 reads: in. bt[.] l b‘l (“there is no house belonging to Baal”). Gordon then continues, “(o)ther negatives are: ’al = ’al . . . [and] bl = bal” (Ibid). ’Al, like its Hebrew counterpart (אַל), is used to negate jussives. For example, ’al tdḥl (“Do not fear!”)(KTU 2.30,21).[3] And bal (Hebrew, בַּל), generally speaking (more on this below), serves to negate nouns.[4] For example, bl.ṭl.bl.rbb (45) bl.šr‘.thmtm.bl (46) ṭbn.ql.b‘l “may there be no dew, no rain, no flooding of the two deep seas, no goodness of Baal’s voice” (1 Aqht, 117, 131). However, while these three expected semitic particles were well attested to in Ugaritic, there was no sign of the semitic l’ (Aramaic = לָא; Hebrew = לֹא)—hence Gordon’s omission of this particle in his 1940 volume. The following chart summarizes an understanding of Ugaritic negative particles in the early 1940’s:

Table 1. A Comparison of Hebrew/Ugaritic Particles

Particle Type	Hebrew	Ugaritic
Non-existence	אֵין	’in
Jussive negation	אַל	’al
Noun negation	בַּל	Bl
Verb negation	לֹא	—

That there was no known semitic l’ in Ugaritic proved, however, to be problematic. For, if in is used utilized to express non-existence in nominal sentences, ’al used to negate jussives, and bl used to negate nouns, how does one express simple negation?[5]

Aware of the magnitude of the aforementioned problem, Julian Obermann in his 1946 JBL article “Sentence Negation in Ugaritic,” explains: 

It would seem remarkable indeed that within the rather extensive Ugaritic text material at our disposal we should not have come as yet upon a single instance of sentence negation, plain and simple; that is, negation of a declarative verbal sentence; and that we should thus be left in the dark as to how a negation of this kind was constructed. Moreover, on the assumption that in the dialect of Ugarit adverbs of negation were confined to . . . three particles . . . we would be missing in this dialect the vocable most widely employed as such an adverb in Semitic in general, namely, the vocable lā. This would be all the more striking in view of the fact that precisely this vocable is the standard means by which to express sentence negation in Hebrew and Aramaic, that it is very widely so used in Arabic, and it may be found so used in Akkadian as well. (Ibid., 234)

Obermann then proceeds to suggest that the particle l, which at that time was regarded to express “asseverative or optative meaning,” (lu and lū, respectively), can additionally be used as a vocable before the verb in Ugaritic in order to express negation.[6] This theory is then tested and applied to three Ugaritic texts which are virtually nonsensical apart from understanding l as a particle of negation. For sake of space, only one of Obermann’s examples is listed below:[7]

Table 2. A King’s Unsocial Conduct

Ugaritic	English
ytb‘ yṣb ġlšm	Yaṣṣib, the youth, departs.
‘l (40) abh y‘rb	He enters upon his father,
yśu gh (41) w yṣḥ	Lifts up his voice and exclaims:
šm‘ m‘ l kṛt (42) ṯ‘	“Hear thou, O Keret, the Noble,
ištm‘ w tqġ udn (43) . . .	“Hear well, and lend ear . . .
šqlt (45) b ġlt ydk	“Thou hast been disgraced by the greed of thy hand;
l tdn (46) dn almnt	“Thou hast not pleaded the cause of the widow;
l tṯpṭ (47) ṯpṭ qṣr npš	“Thou hast not judged the right of the dispirited;
l tdy (48) ṯš-m ‘l dl	“Thou hast not recompensed the cry of the injustice of the poor;
l pnk (49) l tšlḥm ytm	“Thou has not fed the orphan before thee,
b‘d (50) kslk almnt	“(Nor) the widow back of thee,
km (51) axt ‘rś mdw	“Alike the mate of the bed of the lowly,
anšt (52) ‘rś zbln	“And the compassion of the bed of the peer.
rd l mlk (53) amlk	“(Therefore) descend from the reign which now I shall reign,
l drktk aṯb (54) nn	“From (the throne of) thy kingdom, on which (now) I shall sit.

To take each l in the above chart as an asseverative (lu) would ultimately suggest that the culture at Ugarit despised caring for the poor, widow, etc. If there was any question, however, texts at Ugarit indeed attest to a genuine concern for such people (e.g. 1 Daniel: 23; 2 Daniel 5:7; Ibid., 245).[8]

Thus, with the publication of Obermann’s article, Ugaritic scholarship and all subsequent grammars began to recognize the vocable lā followed by a verb as a viable lexical option when approaching various texts.[9] Most interesting in observing the development of the aforementioned history is Gordon’s 1998 Grammar,[10] which is an expansion and revision of his 1940 volume. His section on negative particles again begins with discussion of the particle of non-existence (in), but then adds, “Other negatives are: . . . lā . . . al . . . [and] bl . . .” (§ 12.4, 107–08).

---

 [1]Cyrus H. Gordon, Ugaritic Grammar: The Present Status of the Linguistic Study of the Semitic Alphabetic Texts from Ras Shamra, Analecta Orientalia, vol. 20 (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1940).

[2]Gordon, Grammar, § 11.4, 77. Eg. Anat 3.17-18 reads: rgm (18) iṯ. ly (“A word exists belonging to me”). As evident, this particle corresponds with the Hebrew (יֵשׁ) and the Aramaic (אִית, אִיתַי), thus its validation is not difficult.

[3]Gordon: “’al ‘not’ (Heb. אַל) . . . may be used with yqtl to form the neg. imperative or a neg. clause of purpose” (Ibid., § 8.14, 54).

[4]Gordon doesn’t explicitly make this point, but Julian Obermann’s subsequent article in JBL (only 6 years later) demonstrates the presence of such a grammatical axiom. Obermann: “bl (bal), when followed by a noun, may be found employed in the sense of what the Arab grammarians term ‘denial of the genus,’ that is, in the sense of absolute negation . . .” (233) See Julian Obermann, “Sentence Negation in Ugaritic,” JBL 65.3 (1946) 233­–48. More on Obermann’s article below.

[5]Obermann, “Sentence Negation,” 233.

[6]Obermann explains that if his theory is correct, “. . . we would have to posit that two different vocables are represented by Ugaritic l when it is followed by a verb: one having the meaning of Akkadian lū or of Arabic la and li, the other being identical with common Semitic lā.

[7]The chart below is directly taken from Obermann’s article with only slight modification (242–45).

[8]Interestingly, such a concern for orphans, widows, etc., is illumining background material to similar biblical commands.

[9]E.g. Stanislav Segert, A Basic Grammar of the Ugaritic Language (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), 99–100; Daniel Sivan, A Grammar of the Ugaritic Language (Atlanta: SBL, 2001), 183–85; William M. Schniedewind and Joel H. Hunt, A Primer on Ugaritic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 178; Also see DULAT, et al.

[10]Cyrus H. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook: Grammar, Analecta Orientalia, vol. 38 (rev. reprint; Rome: Editrice Pontifico Istituto Biblico, 1998).

Free ePub to PDF Converter

This is free, no gimmicks. Works great. Click here.

SBL National Paper Proposal Accepted

As is common practice on the blogosphere, posted below is the title of my paper and abstract for the forthcoming annual meeting of the SBL in San Francisco (accepted for the Johannine Literature section). This is an adaptation of a regional SBL paper I recently gave.

Title: Traces of Ecclesiastes in the Gospel of John: An Overlooked Background and a Theological Dialectic

Abstract: This essay argues that Ecclesiastes is to be included with other Old Testament books and Jewish Wisdom literature as a background which influenced the thought and composition of the Gospel of John, as evidenced by various points of contact between the two books. The implications which arise from this are theological in nature. Namely, the Evangelist engages in a theological dialectic with at least three of Qohelet’s more pointed theological assertions: (1) the basis of one’s epistemological discovery, namely, testimony/tradition vis-à-vis empiricism; (2) belief in the afterlife (this of course is related to [1]); (3) a main focus for living for eternal pleasures vis-à-vis temporary pleasures.

Other bloggers who will be presenting include:

James McGrath

Jim Getz

John Anderson

Mark Goodacre (who has not yet posted his title nor abstract)

Pat McCullough

Daniel O. McClellan

If you are a blogger not listed but presenting please let me know and I will add you to the list.

PC and Mac: Incompatible Hard Drives?

I wanted to transfer files from a Mac to a PC and the size of the transfer was so big I could only use an external hard-drive. The problem with this is once a hard-drive was formatted to a Mac and the files were placed on the Mac, I could not put them on to my PC because the external hard-drive was now incompatible with my PC. If you’ve read this far, perhaps you have had a similar problem.

Solution? Download a free trial of this macdrive (it only takes seconds) and your problem will be fixed. Just a brilliant tool!

3 Books for Sale

I have duplicate copies and selling Seow, Ecclesiastes and Fox, Time to Tear Down (his new and revised eccl commentary) for 42.50 and 29.50, respectively. These are the cheapest prices online, both books in pretty good condition. On a quick skim through, no observable markings. $1.00 for shipping. Email me if you want to buy. Also for sale is Metzger and Ehrman’s Text of the New Testament 4th edition (the newest edition), in like new condition (looks brand new) for 28.00.

חרב, a Word-Play in Haggai 1

One of the major points of Haggai 1 can be observed by the writer’s use of a word play with חרב.

Hag 1.4, 9 reads as follows:

העֵ֤ת לָכֶם֙ אַתֶּ֔ם לָשֶׁ֖בֶת בְּבָתֵּיכֶ֣ם סְפוּנִ֑ים וְהַבַּ֥יִת הַזֶּ֖ה חָרֵֽב׃

פָּנֹ֤ה אֶל־הַרְבֵּה֙ וְהִנֵּ֣ה לִמְעָ֔ט וַהֲבֵאתֶ֥ם הַבַּ֖יִת וְנָפַ֣חְתִּי ב֑וֹ יַ֣עַן מֶ֗ה נְאֻם֙ יְהוָ֣ה צְבָא֔וֹת יַ֗עַן בֵּיתִי֙ אֲשֶׁר־ה֣וּא חָרֵ֔ב וְאַתֶּ֥ם רָצִ֖ים אִ֥ישׁ לְבֵיתֽוֹ׃

The point here is fairly straightforward, God’s temple lies חרב (desolate), while those of Yehud enjoy their newly rebuild homes.

God therefore declares he will make the land of Yehud חרב in 1.11:

וָאֶקְרָ֙א חֹ֜רֶב עַל־הָאָ֣רֶץ וְעַל־הֶהָרִ֗ים וְעַל־הַדָּגָן֙ וְעַל־הַתִּיר֣וֹשׁ וְעַל־הַיִּצְהָ֔ר וְעַ֛ל אֲשֶׁ֥ר תּוֹצִ֖יא הָאֲדָמָ֑ה וְעַל־הָֽאָדָם֙ וְעַל־הַבְּהֵמָ֔ה וְעַ֖ל כָּל־יְגִ֥יעַ כַּפָּֽיִם׃ ס

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a חרב for a חרב.

The Infinitive Absolute as a Wayiqtol

This is a fun little function of the Infinitive Absolute. In Hag 1.6, after introducing this section of discourse with a perfect (zr’a = you have sown much), there is a string of infinitive absolutes which continue the chain of verbal thought (all carrying the same force as the introductory perfect; though I do wonder if A line carries the force of the introductory perfect, while the B line is resultant in each case on account of the waw):

זְרַעְתֶּ֙ם הַרְבֵּ֜ה וְהָבֵ֣א מְעָ֗ט

אָכ֤וֹל וְאֵין־לְשָׂבְעָה֙

שָׁת֣וֹ וְאֵין־לְשָׁכְרָ֔ה

לָב֖וֹשׁ וְאֵין־לְחֹ֣ם ל֑וֹ

Al Groves Festschrift

Al Groves Festschrift just released:

Click here

The Beer Drinking Israelites

Michael Homan has quite a fun article in the Sept/Oct 2010 Biblical Archeological Review. It looks like drinking beer may not be of ‘the devil’ (in a sinful sense) after all, since the devil is not bad until the New Testament. Cheers!

HT: Jim Getz