Article
(to print)
Response
by Amihai Mazar
Article
in
Haaretz
Christopher
A. Rollston
Emmanuel School of Religion, A Graduate Seminary
rollstonc@esr.edu ; Phone: 423-461-1529
Recently,
Marjo Korpel has argued that a seal inscribed with the letters yzbl (IAA 65-321)
is the seal of Ahab's wife Jezebel (Biblical Hebrew spelling: 'yzbl).2
The putative chronological horizon for this royal couple of the Northern Kingdom
of Israel is the mid-9th century BCE. According to the biblical account (1 Kgs
16:31), Jezebel (whose name is arguably a rhetorical question meaning "Where is
the royal one?") was the daughter of a king of Sidon named Ethba'al. The marriage
of Ahab (son of Israelite King Omri) and Jezebel (a Phoenician princess) was presumably
a marital alliance establishing (or fortifying) a political relationship between
Phoenicia and the Northern Kingdom of Israel.
Avigad
published this seal (IAA 65-321 = Avigad Sass, 1997, 275 [#740]) some time ago
(Avigad 1964), but he sagely did not suggest that it belonged to the notorious
Phoenician princess that became an Israelite queen. In fact, Avigad stated that
"there is, of course, no basis for identifying the owner of our seal with this
famous lady," although he also stated that "they may have been contemporaries,
and the seal seems worthy of a queen" (Avigad 1964: 275). Avigad's caution is
commendable. Some might suggest that he was too cautious and that Korpel has drawn
cogent conclusions on the basis of the extant evidence. This is, however, not
the case.
________________________________________________________
*Photo
Courtesy of University of Utrecht.
________________________________________________________
(1)
Significantly, the root zbl is reasonably well-attested in Northwest Semitic,
including attestations as part of personal names and divine epithets. Thus, it
is present in the 2nd millennium corpus of Ugaritic texts, often as an epithet
for the god Ba'al (Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartin 2004, 998). It is also attested
in Phoenician. Note, for example, the personal names B'l'zbl and Šmzbl (Hoftijzer
and Jongeling 1995, 303; Benz 1972, 304). Furthermore, the root is also attested
in biblical Hebrew multiple times (e.g., Hab 3:11; 1 Kgs 8:13; 2 Chr 6:2) and
it is even the root for the personal name of the eponymous founder of the tribe
of Zebulun (e.g., Gen 30:20).3 In addition,
the root is arguably attested in Mari Akkadian (Huffmon 1965, 186). Therefore,
it is readily apparent that this root is not a particularly rare root in Northwest
Semitic and it is also readily apparent that it is used for multiple personal
names. Korpel's argument implies that zbl is a rather rare root and so the seal
(with the root zbl) can be understood as being that of Jezebel (a name that uses
that same root). However, the fact of the matter is that this is not a particularly
rare root and multiple personal names are formed with this root in Northwest Semitic.
Thus, any argument revolving around the rarity of the root and personal names
with the root would be a classic non sequitur.
(2)
Even more problematic is the fact that the seal contains no patronymic (i.e.,
no "Yzbl daughter of Ethba'al) and no title (such as "queen"). (a)
A patronymic is a critical component of any attempt to "identify" someone attested
in the literary corpus (e.g., Hebrew Bible, Greek New Testament) with someone
attested in the epigraphic corpus. Fortunately, patronymics are common within
the corpus of Iron Age ostraca, seals, bullae, and royal inscriptions. For example,
an Old Hebrew seal from Arad (Aharoni 1981, 119 [#106] = IAA 67-663) contains
the following text: "Belonging to Elyashib son of Ishyahu." An Old Hebrew bulla
from the City of David (Shoham 2000, 38 [#12] = IAA 84-145) reads: "Belonging
to Yada'yahu son of Meshullam." However, because the yzbl seal (IAA 65-321) has
no a patronymic (i.e., no "daughter of Ethba'al" on the seal ), there is simply
no convincing basis for assuming that this is the seal of biblical Jezebel. (b)
Sometimes a title is present in an ancient inscription. For example, the Ammonite
Tell Siran Bottle Inscription refers to "Amminadab king of the Ammonites" (Zayadine
and Thompson 1973; = J 12943). An Old Hebrew bulla from the City of David contains
reference to "[Tobšillem] son of Zakar, the physician" (Shoham 2000, 35 [no 6]).
From the Aramaic Persepolis corpus, there is reference to "Data-Mithra the treasurer"
(Bowman 1970, 71-74 [no. 1]). However, for the purported "seal of Jezebel," there
is no title at all (i.e., no "queen"). Ultimately, with neither patronymic, nor
title, it is not tenable to attempt to argue that the owner of this seal was indeed
Queen Jezebel of Israel (cf. also the useful protocols of Mykytiuk 2004).
(3)
Regarding the script of this seal, certain things can be noted. (a) The bet is
recumbent (and radically so). Recumbent bet is the norm for Old Hebrew seals,
ostraca, and chiseled stone inscriptions; however, it is not the norm for either
Phoenician or Aramaic inscriptions (Rollston 2006: 59-60). Thus, the stance of
bet is diagnostic for Old Hebrew, but a bet this recumbent could not be an early
Old Hebrew bet (cf. also Mesha and el-Kerak, as well as the early Old Hebrew inscriptions,
such as the Shema' seal from Megiddo for the stance of Old Hebrew bet in the early
period). (b) The morphology of yod is striking. The head of yod in this seal is
made with a flowing, rounded stroke. It has the graphic appearance of a single
stroke. However, within Old Hebrew inscriptions (including seals) the head of
yod is made with multiple strokes, normally quite angular: this is true of inscriptions
chiseled in stone (particularly so in later Old Hebrew), ink inscriptions on pottery,
and seals (based on my collations using a loop and also using a stereo microscope).
(c) The relative length of the vertical stroke of zayin is not characteristic
of the Old Hebrew script of the 9th century or early 8th century. Rather, it is
characteristic of the late 8th and 7th centuries (but note the absence of the
tick on the horizontals). I would suggest that it would be very difficult to date
this zayin to the 9th century, regardless of the series. (d) The lamed is angular,
rather than rounded. This lamed would not be the norm for the Old Hebrew script
of the 9th or early-8th centuries, because the hook of lamed in early Old Hebrew
(and also in the 9th century Mesha and Kerak inscriptions) has substantial curvature
(cf. Rollston 2003, 170-171). Rather, this angular lamed of the seal would be
characteristic of the late 8th century or early 7th century Old Hebrew lamed.4
Ultimately, I would not consider it tenable to argue that the script of this seal
could be 9th century Old Hebrew. It must be later.
Lemaire
has suggested that this seal is "Phoenician or Phoenicianizing" (Lemaire 1986,
97). The morphology of yod and lamed are indeed better Phoenician forms than they
are Old Hebrew (cf. the script of the Kition Bowl). I might be inclined to accept
this seal as being written in the Phoenician script, but the stance of bet is
not at all diagnostic for Phoenician (cf. the stance of bet in the Kition Bowl,
etc., for a nice example of Phoenician) and the stance of bet is a critical diagnostic
issue for the national scripts. Furthermore, I am disinclined to resort to the
assumption that space constraints would have forced the hand of an ancient Phoenician
seal maker to make such a radical change in the traditional stance of bet. Those
making seals were accustomed to working with space constraints (e.g., Lachish
seal IAA 36.1829 = Avigad and Sass 59), but radical stance modifications were
something that they avoided.
Someone
could suggest that this seal consists of a script mélange and argue that this
inscription is a modern forgery. Ultimately, this script does raise some (modest)
concerns for me regarding the alleged antiquity of this piece. Significantly,
Avigad noted that this seal comes not from a scientific excavation, but from the
antiquities market (Avigad 1964, 274). Furthermore, some of the results of Vaughn
and Dobler's analyses of seal iconography would also suggest that this seal's
authenticity cannot be considered secure (Vaughn and Dobler 2006: 764-767). For
the sake of argument, though, if I were to assume that this piece were ancient,
I would not be inclined at all to date it to the mid-9th century (the chronological
horizon necessary for Queen Jezebel of Israel). Rather, it would need to be dated
to some later chronological horizon.
(4) Finally, I should note that Korpel
restores two letters in the broken area at the top of the seal. To restore a lamed
is acceptable, as this is a dominant feature of a seal (lamed = "belonging to").
However, in addition to this she restores an 'alep. This is convenient, as it
would yield the personal name Korpel wishes to find. However, the fact of the
matter is that there is sufficient room for two or three more letters in addition
to a lamed. One could certainly, therefore, propose to restore in this area the
letters B'l and thus the personal name would be B'l- yzbl, with the yod marking
a yaqtul as Cross suggested long ago for this seal (Cross 1966 = 2003, 182 no.
17 ). Perhaps, though, we should restore Šm, and thus the personal name would
be Šm-yzbl. Of course, it is plausible to suggest that nothing at all should be
restored (i.e., maybe this part of the seal was not inscribed). The fact of the
matter is that restorations such as this are precarious. Those that propose them
(and those that read about them) must recognize that they are tenuous at best.
In
conclusion, it can be stated that it is difficult indeed to accept Korpel's argument
that this seal belonged to the Israelite Queen Jezebel, daughter of the king of
Sidon. After all, the root zbl is well-attested and could be used as the verbal
component for any number of personal names. Furthermore, there is neither patronymic
nor title on this seal, and data such as this is necessary for any compelling
identifications. In addition, the restoration of an 'alep is speculative. Finally,
the script would be difficult to date to the 9th century, regardless of the script
series to which one affirmed that it belonged. Moreover, this piece is from the
market and with such pieces caution must be the modus operandi. Ultimately, this
is an interesting proposal, but it is based on no real compelling evidence.
_______________________________________________________
1. I am grateful to Director
Hava Katz of the Israel Antiquities Authority, Michal Dayagi-Mendels of the Israel
museum and Director Fawwaz Al-Khraysheh of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan
for permission to collate some of the inscriptions discussed in this article.
I am also grateful to Heather Dana Davis Parker and Stephen Paul for assisting
me in bibliographic work for this article.
2. Korpel 2006. Note
that in this article, Korpel focuses on iconography, but she errs in supposing
that the iconography must be royal. According to the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz,
Korpel has stated in interviews that her research will be published in a forthcoming
issue of Biblical Archaeology Review. Dutch newspapers have carried articles about
this. See http://www.katholieknederland.nl/actualiteit/2007/detail_objectID613266_FJaar2007.html
3. Note that the divine name Ba'al Zebub (2 Kgs 1:2) is arguably
a polemical revision of Ba'al Zebul (cf. the Ugaritic references pairing the divine
name Ba'al and Zbl. Significantly, both "variants" of this divine name are preserved
in manuscripts of the Greek New Testament (cf. Matt 10:25 and the textual apparatus
thereof).
4. It should be noted that I do not think that the
Gezer Calendar is written in the Old Hebrew script. Rather, I believe that it
is written in the Phoenician script, as does Naveh (Naveh 1987, 65).
_______________________________________________________
Bibliography
Aharoni,
Y. 1981. Arad Inscriptions. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
Avigad,
N. 1964. The Seal of Jezebel. Israel Exploration Journal. 14: 274-276.
Avigad, N. and B. Sass. 1997. Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals.
Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
Benz. F. L. 1972. Personal Names
in the Phoenician and Punic Inscriptions. Studia Pohl 8. Rome: Biblical Institute
Press.
Bowman, Raymond A. 1970. Aramaic Ritual Texts from Persepolis.
University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications 91. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Cross, F. M. 2003. Leaves from an Epigrapher's Notebook:
Collected Papers in Hebrew and West Semitic Palaeography and Epigraphy. Harvard
Semitic Studies 51. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Del Olmo Lete, G. and Sanmartin, J. 2004. A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition, 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill.
Hoftijzer, J. and Jongeling,
K. 1995. Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions. Leiden: Brill.
Huffmon, H. B. 1965. Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Korpel, M. C.A.
Seals of Jezebel and Other Women in Authority. Journal for Semitics 15/2
(2006): 349-371.
Lemaire, A. 1986. Divinités égyptiennes dans l'onomastique
phénicienne. Pp. 87-98 in Studia Phoenicia IV: Religio Phoenicia,
eds. C. Bonnet, E. Lipinski. And P. Marchetti. Namur.
Mykytiuk, Lawrence J. 2004. Identifying Biblical Persons in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions of 1200-539 BCE. SBLAB 12. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
Naveh,
J. 1987. Early History of the Alphabet. 2nd ed. Jerusalem: Magnes.
Rollston,
Christopher A. 2003. Non-Provenanced Epigraphs I: Pillaged Antiquities, Northwest
Semitic Forgeries, and Protocols for Laboratory Tests. Maarav 10: 135-193.
Rollston, Christopher A. 2006. Scribal Education in Ancient
Israel: The Old Hebrew Epigraphic Evidence. Bulletin of the American Schools
of Oriental Research 344: 47- 74.
Shoham, Yair. 2000 Hebrew Bullae.
In City of David Excavations: Final Report VI, Qedem 41. Jerusalem: Hebrew
University of Jerusalem.
Vaughn, A. G. and Dobler, C. P. 2006 A Provenance
Study of Hebrew Seals and Seal Impressions: A Statistical Analysis. Pp. 757-771
in I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times: Archaeological and Historical
Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday,
eds. A. Maeir and P. de Miroschedji. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Zayadine,
F. and H. O. Thompson. 1973. The Ammonite Inscription from Tell Tell Siran. Berytus
11: 115-140.
