No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011
Line 18 of the Moabite Stone is frequently quoted as the only early instance of the use of the divine name outside Israel. The sentence runs as follows: 
By comparison with 1.12 the lacuna was filled by 
, which Mr.Clermont-Ganneau long-ago rejected. In 1. 12 
is singular, its meaning is obscure, and it is used with the verb 
or 
, which is also obscure. Here the verb is 
and 
would be plural. The two passages are therefore clearly not parallel and the reading 
is not convincing. Hence it has been proposed more recently to read 
“the instruments of J.”, a very weak phrase. As a matter of fact I believe that the passage in to be understood in quite a different way, and I suggest the reading 
“and I took from thence what should be for myself (i.e. my own share, as king)”. In order to see if the original would admit of such a reading, I made a careful examination of the stone in the Louvre in April, 1914, when Mr. René Dussaud most kindly put all the material at my disposal. At the end of 1. 17 nothing is left on the stone after 
. The squeeze supplies 
, after which there is a stroke | which may belong to an aleph (usually printed as certain), and with a little good will I thought I could see a trace of its head. The lines are not all of equal length. There would be room for 
, or, if the line is long, 
. At the beginning of 1.18 
is clear. The verb“to be” does not occur elsewhere in the inscription, so that we do not know its form in the dialect of Moab. But in Isaiah 164(“the burden of Moab”)it has been suggested that 
is used in imitation of Moabite speech. If so, the verb was written with a 
.
page 176 note 1 I find that Neubauer took the word so in Records of the Past, n.s., ii, p. 201 +.Google Scholar
page 177 note 1 Burchardt, , Altkanaanäische Fremdworte, ii (1910), No. 92Google Scholar, following Bondi, compares with it the Egyptian(?) 'ir'ir in the Anastasi papyrus, which he translates “Held”, “Streiter”. Cf. also Müller, W. Max, Asien ti. Europa, p. 79Google Scholar. Gardiner in his edition of the papyrus (Egyptian Hieratic Texts, i, l (1911), p. 25Google Scholar*) thinks the context requires “guide”, but Burchardt's meaning would be equally suitable. It is very probable that the two words are the same, and that the meaning is “mighty man”, whether regarded as protector or as ruler and oppressor. Mr. Griffith, however, points out that 'ir'ir “is found only in Pap. Anast., i, 23, 9, which is full of foreign (Syrian) words, and this word itself has the foreign determinative, showing that it is not Egyptian”. It does not seem to be Semitic, and must therefore be a survival in Syria from some non-Semitic language (Hittite?). In the Bible 
was evidently adifficulty, and has often been corrupted to 
by a popular etymology, as if “lion of God”. In Isaiah 337
is parallel to 
(R.V. ambassadors) and must mean “champions” or representatives of some kind (cf. 2 Sam. 2320, 
, plural). Such a meaning is very suitable in 1. 12 of the inscription. The King of Israel had built up Aṭaroth(i.e. made a fortified place of it) and the 
was the governor appointed by him. A discussion of the word 
would involve too long a digression here.
page 178 note 1 See the account by Holscher in Mitt. d. Deutschen Pal.-Vereins, 1911, p. 26.
page 178 note 2 In names like 
, however, it has been retained from the root, though not sounded.
page 179 note 1 Similarly in pure Greek words an o often represents F (= w), as in ο
κος, ονος, for F
κος, Fνος, not for Fκος, Fνος. Cf. Οαδδω = 
in the Minæan-Greek inscription from Delos, Rev. Sém. 1909, p. 402.
page 181 note 1 See Weissbach, , Die Keilinschriften der Ach 
meniden, 1911, p. lxv.Google Scholar
page 181 note 2 So in O.P. cf. Elam. Maumišša, not for Vahumithra, as Sachau (and Justi), since Mithr- is found in the papyri, so that the change had not yet taken place. Greek “Ωμισος.
page 182 note 1 Even if a name Abaraham be found in Babylonian. See Clay, , The Empire of the Atnorites (1919), p. 41.Google Scholar
page 182 note 2 e.g. S. Daiches in ZA. 1908, p, 136, sums up the results of his inquiry in the statement “that the Tetragrammaton 
has so far not been found in cuneiform inscriptions”.
page 182 note 3 But even this does not necessarily represent the form 
. The addition of the final vowel may be simply a device to ease the pronunciation of Yāw in Babylonian.
page 183 note 1 The termination 
in names is not to be regarded as a shortening of 
, but simply as a Koseform, perhaps derived from Hittite usage. It may have been due to a desire to avoid pronouncing the divine name, just as 
is entirely dropped, e.g. in 
for 
, cf. Bab. Mannuki for Mannu-ki-ilu. The form 
, used independently or in 
, is purely orthographic (like the later 
, etc.), the mappik being the mark of abbreviation.