MARSEILLES TARIFF: SACRIFICAL TERMS OF THE EAST AND WEST

by T. A. Middlebrook B.A., Wheaton College, 2003 Campus Post Office - 1804

A paper Submitted to Dr. Younger in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Arts in Biblical and Near Eastern Archaeology and Languages at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

Deerfield, Illinois December 2010

Discovery: The Marseilles Tariff is the longest in a set of tariffs, for lack of a better word, inscribed in Punic for the regulation of fees associated with temple sacrifices. Probably due to its early discovery, 1844/5, the archaeological context (found during foundation repairs) is not strong grounds for dating the inscription. 1 For dating, epigraphic considerations and comparison to the other tariffs must suffice. The largest Carthage tariff (KAI 74, discovered by Nathan Davis in 1858) also shares several physical characteristics with that of Marseilles. First, both are carved from limestone. Second, each has roughly the same depth, 4 to 4.9 cm. Based upon their sizes, one can also notice that the script is written roughly the same size. 2 These features are not as momentous as the analysis of the script, but they may indicate a greater uniformity among contemporary inscriptions with similar functionality. 3 The origin of the inscription appears to be somewhat disputed with the majority of scholars asserting that it must have come from Carthage. Indeed, the texts of each tariff fragment are so similar, the original authors must have had a close proximity (oral or written connections) with one another. Some even note the similar type of stone used for the Carthage
Its early publication in the Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum would perhaps shed more light; alas it is a rare volume I could not survey. Fortunately, many have referred to its pages, such as Eric M Meyers, ed., The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1997), vol. 3, pg. 424; and Eran Lupu, Greek Sacred Law: A Collection of New Documents (NGSL), Religions in the Graeco-Roman World v. 152 (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2005), 391. 2 The size of KAI 74 is said to be 18 x 16 cm in Herbert Donner and Wolfgang Ro llig, eds., Kanaana ische Und Arama ische Inschriften(Wiesbaden, Germany: Harrassowitz, 1966), v. 2, p. 92. With respect, the measurements used here (28 x 22.5 cm) are those supplied by the artifact's present curator, the British Museum: accessed through http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/search_the_collection_database.aspx 3 The functionality of the tariffs, as works for general reference, would be aided by efficient use of space and letters neither too large to be scanned quickly or too small to be legible or to be on permanent display. Paolo Xella goes as far to assert that the tariff originally was affixed to the gate to the temple, which sounds reasonable. Meyers, OEANE, 424.
1

and Marseille tariffs. 4 Others note that there exists a neighboring quarry with stone matching that of the Marseilles Tariff, even naming the town Cassis. 5 Of course, the stone could exist on both sides of the Mediterranean, and just as pertinent, so could the Punic sailors. However, to postulate a local Punic temple or significant trading post is beyond my ability to confirm. Epigraphy and Date: The script is written in a semi-formal Punic that is distinct from the Neo-Punic influences that crept into the script from the end of the third century BC onward, gaining dominance after the fall of Carthage in 146 BC. 6 A late fourth century date is given by Peckham, based upon his sweeping paleographical analysis. 7 From his work, three peculiarities of the Marseilles Tariff should be noted, especially in light of the script in KAI 74. First, shin and mem in Marseilles are written more or less rectangularly with four strokes, a laborious amount that was expedited in most other texts.8 Also, the upper tip of the lamed (and the taw, not the nun) presents a small tick-mark to the lower right. This feature is most common to the century around Peckhams date. 9 All of these, as well as some shading (seen most clearly in the waw), are absent in KAI 74. That Carthaginian tariff presents a more uniform, though more cursive, hand. 10 Its samek

Cooke writes that the "geologic formation shows" Carthaginian origin in G. A Cooke, ed., A Text-Book of North-Semitic Inscriptions: Moabite, Hebrew, Phoenician, Aramaic, Nabataean, Palmyrene, Jewish. (Oxford,, 1903), 115; Johnston gives the popular explanation that the Marseille Tariff was used as ship ballast (after it became obsolete?) in Ancient Religions (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2007), 177; Rosenthal agrees but admits that local sources have not been thoroughly investigated in James B Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts: Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969), 656. 5 Georges Perrot, History of Art in Phnicia and Its Dependencies, ed. Walter Armstrong (London, U.K: Chapman and Hall, 1885), 47; Aldo Massa, The Phoenicians, trans. David Macrae (Geneva, Switzerland: Minerva, 1977), 70. 6 Peckham notes the distinctive features of Neo-Punic (especially the single-stroked kaph, two-barred samek, and the stronger cursive elements) which these inscriptions do not share. Brian Peckham, The Development of the Late Phoenician Scripts (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968), 221. 7 Ibid., 100. 8 Ibid., 217 and 212, n. 27. 9 Ibid., 211. 10 For some examples see Appendix A. Although the Carthaginian tariffs share more familiarity with later scripts than those from Marseilles, it seems to this author that the variations do not represent a significant chronological separation.

has begun to drift to the left of the shaft, where it will remain through the Neopunic era. Marseilles Tariff: 11 Transliteration: 1 bt. blpn, b[t. hm]tt. 12 hm]tt. t. [r. l] 14bl. 15 hp. bn. bdtnt. 16 bn. bd[mn. 17 wlbl. 18] 19
2

13 n[. lm. h. . l.

lbl. w[brnm. 20]

3

hp. bn. bdmn. bn.

Translation: Conjugations: 1 Temple of Bal-aphon. (The) tariff of n - ( )Piel Perf (priestly) fees was set up (by) [the thirty 3ms/p 21 men who are (in charge) over the fee]s, (during the) [governance of ille]bal, the mayor, (who was) the son of Bodtinnit, the son of Bod['emun also (by) illebal,] 2 the mayor, the son of Bodemun the son of illebal, and (by) their coll[eagues.]
3

In (the case of) a bull: (whether it be) a whole offering, or a presentation offering, lm. kll. lkhnm. ksp. rt. 23 or a whole wellbeing offering, the priests 10. bd. wbkll. ykn. lm. lt. receives ten (shekels of) silver for each. In the event of the whole offering, they pn. hmt. z. [r. mql. receive, besides this fee, [threehundred 24 4 l(t?). mt. 300.] wbwt. (shekels)-weight of] meat; 4also, in (the

Blp. 22 kll. m. wt. m.

ykn - ( )Qal Imprf 3mp + prep () wkn - ( )Disjunct waw + Qal Perf 3mp + prep ()

See bibliography for selected English publications; those in French cannot be treated justly by this student. My transliteration and translation is based largely upon the excellent works of Donner and Ro llig, Kanaana ische Und Aramische Inschriften , 69, 74, 75; and Pardee in William W Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, eds., The Context of Scripture (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1997), 1.98. 12 Feminine plural derived from , literally that which is raised up (for a gift/presentation). 13 Stanislav Segert, A Grammar of Phoenician and Punic (Mu nchen , Germany: Beck, 1976), 108. Hereafter I will use his numerations, ex: 51.43 - notes the prosthetic vowel occurs in Byblian, Punic, and Northern-Punic. 14 The origin of this reconstruction is not indicated in KAI 69, 74, or 75. 15 DNWSI hls1 - Qal Part. pass. the saved one. Though Segert 47:14 notes that the divine name is typically the subject, this would require a more active role, Baal saves. 16 Segert 56.711 (83.22:5) provides by the hand of, through for bd. Tnt is the female deity of the Carthage pantheon, KAI 81 Tinnit of Lebanon and her prolific symbol throughout Carthage inscriptions: 17 See note 5 and K. van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter Willem van der Horst, eds., Eshmun, in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999) for profile of this deity of health and his association with Sidon and its kings. 18 It is unclear if this is a separate person who happens to have the same title and name, though slightly different lineage. This individual could be the uncle of the first illebal mentioned, given their similar lineage. 19 The origin of this reconstruction is not indicated in KAI 69, 74, or 75. 20 DNWSI - br2 members of the same religious confraternity from br, (Pael) to make a partner. 21 DNWSI - tn - 3 p. pl. 22 DNWSI - lp2 (see Dussaud Orig 138) otherwise ox. 23 Segert notes this form as ten, though he sees as normative, 33.31, 33.54. The following mark is horizontal (productive of numerals of ten) with a small downward stroke on the right side (only a ten). The mark is redundant unless either the previous word is translated as as a tithe (see DNWSI - r) or perhaps redundant for convenience in a dispute with an illiterate offerer who would otherwise recognize the sign (raison dtre for tariff?). 24 The origin of this reconstruction is not indicated in KAI 69, 74, or 75.

11

case of) the presentation offering (they receive) the lower part of the legs and the whlbm. whpmm. wry. (leg)joints, whereas the hide, the ribs, the 26 feet and the rest of the meat go to the hr. lbl. hzb: lacuna owner of the sacrifice. 5 5 In (the case of) the calf whose horns are bgl. . qrny. lmbmsr. naturally missing or in (the case of) the bwm. 27 m. byl. kll. m. mature deer: (whether it be) a whole w[t.] m. lm. kll. lkhnm. offering, or a presentation offering, or a whole wellbeing offering, the priests ksp. mt. [5. bd. wbkll. receive five (shekels) of silver [for each ykn. lm. l]6t. pn. hmt. z. (animal offered). In (the case of) the 6 r. mql. mt. wmm. 150. whole offering they receive, besides] this fee, one hundred and fifty (shekels-) wbwt. qrt. wylt. wkn. weight of meat. In (the case of) the presentation offering (they receive) the hrt. whlbm. whp [mm. lower part of the legs and the (leg)joints, wry. hr. lbl. hzb.] whereas the hide, the ribs, the feet [and the rest of the meat go to the owner of the sacrifice]. 7 7 In (the case of) a ram or a goat: (whether bybl. m. bz. kll. m. wt. it be) a whole offering, or a presentation m. lm. kll. lkhnm. ksp. offering, or a whole wellbeing offering, 28 ql. 1. zr. 2. bd.wbwt. the priests receive one shekel of silver (and) two zr for each (animal offered). In yk[n. lm. lt. pn. hmt. z. (the case of) the presentation offering qrt.] 8wylt. wkn. hrt. [they] receive, [besides this fee, the lower part of the legs] 8and the (leg)joints, whlbm. whpmm. wzry. whereas the hide, the ribs, the feet and the hr. lbl. hzb. lacuna rest of the meat go to the owner of the sacrifice. 9 9 In (the case of) a lamb, or a kid, or a bmr. m. bgd. m. brb. young deer: 29 (whether it be) a whole yl. kll. m. wt. m. lm. offering, or a presentation offering, or a whole wellbeing offering, the priests k[l]l. lkhnm. ksp. rb. lt.
25

qrt. wylt. 25 wkn. hrt.

ykn - ( )Qal Imprf 3mp + prep () wkn - ( )Disjunct waw + Qal Perf 3mp + prep ()

ykn - ( )Qal Imprf 3mp + prep () wkn - ( )Disjunct waw + Qal Perf 3mp + prep ()

ykn - ( )Qal Imprf 3mp + prep ()

William W Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, eds., The Context of Scripture (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1997), 1.98, note, 17-18. Pardee has identified the qrt here and in RS 24.247 as above the hoof, below the ankle, while the ylt here and in Lev. 7:31-32 is equated with the thigh. In Leviticus, it is also the portion due to the priests. 26 A mark not unlike the soph pasuq precedes the end of this section. Four lacunae mark the end of sections that are still preserved, but this mark is unique. A single dot ends line 8; further discussion awaits a better photo. 27 Lupu is convinced that this a Greek loan word (, see p. 395) that serves as an age marker and cites a contemporaneous Greek inscription which emphasizes the inspection of the sacrificial animal for appropriate age, among other traits. See Lupu, Greek Sacred Law, 355-6. 28 This is an unknown monetary amount. 29 Deer are a rare example of a sacrificial animal that is not domesticated. Although deer were kosher in the OT (Dt. 14:4-5), they are not mentioned as desirable for sacrifice.

receive threequarters (of a shekel) of silver (and) [two] zr [for each (animal lm. l[10t.] pn. hmt. z. qrt. offered). In (the case of) the presentation offering they receive, besides] 10this fee, wylt. wkn. hrt. whlbm. the lower part of the legs and the (leg whpmm. wry. hr. lbl. )joints, whereas the hide, the ribs, the feet [hzb.] and the rest of the meat go to the owner of [the sacrifice]. 11 11 [In (the case of) a] bird of an enclosure [b]pr. 30 gnn. m. . lm. or a freeflying bird (as) a who[le] wellkl[l.] m. p. m. zt. being offering, whether a split-(footed) or a web footed (bird), the priests receive lkhnm. ksp. rb. lt. zr. 2. threequarters (of a shekel) of silver (and) bd. wkn. h[r. lbl. hzb.] two zr for each (bird offered) and the meat goes [to the owner of the sacrifice]. 12 12 [ In (the case of] every other) bird, []l. pr. m. qdmt. qdt. whether holy firstborn (birds), or gamem. zb. d. m. zb. mn. (bird) sacrifices, or fattened bird sacrifices, the priests receive ten [grt] 31 lkhnm. ksp. [grt.] 10. for each [and the meat goes to the owner lbd. [wkn. hr. lbl. of the sacrifice]. hzb.] 13 13 [In] all (cases of) presentation offerings [b]kl. wt. . yms. pnt. 32 which (anyone) brings before the god, the lm. ykn. lkhnm. qrt. priests shall receive the lower part of the legs and the (leg)-joints. And [in (the case wylt. w[b] wt. [] of)] presentation offerings [] 14 14 In [addition] to any (flouroil) mixture, []l. bll. wl. lb. wl. lb. and in addition to milk, and in addition to wl. kl. zb. . dm. lzb. fat, and besides any (other) sacrifice bmn[t---.] y[kn. lkhnm. which a man sacrifices as a gift offering, ] [the priests] shall [receive ]. 15 15 In (the case of) any sacrifice sacrificed bkl. zb. . yzb. dl. by a man who is poor as regards beasts or mqn. m. dl. pr. bl. ykn. birds, the priests shall not receive
30

zr. [2. bd. wbwt. ykn.

wkn - ( )Disjunct waw + Qal Perf 3mp + prep ()

wkn - ( )Disjunct waw + Qal Perf 3mp + prep ()

wkn - ( )Disjunct waw + Qal Perf 3mp + prep ()

yms - ( )Qal Imprf 3ms ykn - ( )Qal Imprf 3mp + prep () lzb - ( )Prep ( )+ Qal Inf Cstr ms ykn - ( )Qal Imprf 3mp + prep () yzb - ( )Qal Imprf 3ms

Although Younger notes the diverging translations for this word in Phoenician (stag/bird), he argues for "stag" in Azatiwada due to the graphical representation of a deer in HL (?) as well as the contextual linkage with the cult of Reeph (there and in Karatepe). K. Lawson Younger, The Phoenician Inscription of Azatiwada : An Integrated Reading., Journal of Semitic Studies 43, no. 1 (March 1998): 32; Also for contextual reasons (the avianrelated words that follow pr and the use of another word for a young deer earlier in the inscription), I have followed Mosca's translation here. For the tariffs, Mosca (405) claims a universal agreement for "bird." Paul G. Mosca, For the Birds: The Terms sp and Hzt in the Marseilles Tarif (Line 11), Ugarit-Forschungen 33 (2001): 403-418. 31 The origin of this reconstruction is not indicated in KAI 69, 74, or 75. Pardee notes that the Bible's term of a diminutive amount of silver (agrh, I Sam 2:36) is called upon to identify this word in Hallo and Younger, The Context of Scripture, 1.98, note 34. 32 The pe in this word is in a slightly damaged context, which would be less significant but for the corresponding text in KAI 74 that replaces the pe with a bet (creating the enigma bnt). Easily confused letters?

lkhn[m. mnm.] kl. mzr. wkl. p. wkl. mrz. lm. wkl. dmm. .
16

anything [at all].

16

ykn - ( )Qal Imprf 3mp + prep () yzb - ( )Qal Imprf 3ms/p t - ( )Qal Perf 3fs, [participial form ] t - ( )Qal Perf 3fs wntn - ( )waw (resulting action) + Niphal Imprf 3ms 35 ktb - ( )Qal Perf 3fs yq - ( )Qal Imprf 3ms 36 t - ( )Qal Perf 3fs wnn - ( )Niphal 3ms 37 ytn - ( )Qal Imprf 3ms

mt. l. zb. d. km. dt. t. bktb[t. ...]

18

yzb. [] 17hdmm. hmt.

Any drinking club, any clan, any drinking club of nobles, or any (other group of) men who sacrifice [],17 these men [must pay] a fee besides each sacrifice in accordance with what is set down in the document []. Any fee that is not set down in this plaque shall be given according to the document that [was written (by) the thirty men who are in charge of the revenues, in the time when illebal was head, (he being) the son of Bodtinn]19it, and (by) illebal the son of Bodemun, and (by) their colleagues. 20 Any priest who takes a fee contrary to what is set down in this plaque shall be fined [].
18

[ktb. hm. . l. hmtt. t. r. lbl. bn. bdtn] 3419t.

bps. z. wntn. lpy. hktbt. .

[k]l. mt. . ybl. 33 t.

wlbl. bn. bdmn. wbrnm. lacuna 20 kl. khn. . yq. mt. bd. l. t. bps. z. wnn[. ]

21

k[n 38--]l. hmt.39 . [] Structure and Genre:

kl. bl. zb. . ybl. ytn. t.

21

Any offerer who does not give with [] the fee that [is set down in this plaque].

The tariffs represent a work used for reference by two groups mentioned throughout, the priests and the offerer; though we presume the later is the party least familiar with the fees and in need of the information. The emphasis on overtly economic matters seems at home with this
The negations and are combined here. The origin of this reconstruction is not indicated in KAI 69, 74, or 75. 35 Segert 54.446 The Hebrew verb ntn is said to have taken a separate evolutionary track from Phoenician ytn; no mention of the yiphil form is made. 36 Segert 54.425 The lamed assimilates in Qal, not in Niphal; the Infinitive includes a final taw. 37 Segert 67.123 notes a consecutive meaning for the waw (he uses therefore; here, it is simply implied). 38 The vertical dash of a letter protrudes from the damaged portion which does not bear the typical "tickmark of the lamed or taw. I believe the likeliest letter to be a nun, which disagrees with Pardees reconstruction. 39 I have not altered this reading due to the prevalence of this word, but the shin appears to be full mem, not to mention the viability of reconstructing the he otherwise. Also, I have not found a more compelling reading.
33 34

group of sea-faring merchants. Even Aristotle noted the materialism of the Carthaginian constitution, bemoaning that, the two greatest magistracies [were] purchasable. 40 The dedication is made by a body of ranking individuals which follow the brief title, Temple of Bal Zaphon. The influence of this deity was widespread in the Mediterranean but the point of origin no doubt comes from the mountain north of Ugarit, known today as Jebel Aqraa. It was likely used as a navigational marker and was one of the four cosmic mountains that Philo of Byblos identifies in the Levant. 41 The deity may have been especially important to sailors, as is seen by his invocation to defend the treaty between Esarhaddon and Bal of Tyre by sinking the ships of the treaty breakers. 42 Brody notes the presence of a stela to Bal Zaphon along with a concentration of votive anchors in a specific temple at Ugarit. 43 Wherever the origin of our inscriptions are, the function of such temples in port cities and shrines on isolated promontories were sacred focal points which helped ensure the mariners link to his divine protectors. 44 Leaving the introductory matters, the tariffs proceed to delineate portions and prices for different sacrifices and sacrificial groups. There is a process of addressing the largest animals

Aristotle, The Politics of Aristotle, ed. William Newman (Oxford, UK: Claredon Press, 1887), 207-8. Albert Irwin Baumgarten, The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos: A Commentary, Etudes Prliminaires aux Religions Orientales dans l'Empire Romain t. 89 (Leiden, Netherlands: E.J. Brill, 1981), 152f. The prestige of this cult accounts for the naming of an Egyptian city Baal Zaphon, which is attested in the Bible during an era when Semitic peoples were more prevalent in that region (Late Bronze Age; cf. Ex. 14:2,9, Nu. 33:7). 42 "Baal" In Toorn, Becking, and Horst, DDD. p. 135. 43 In chapter three, Brody develops the idea of sacred space aboard Phoenician vessels wherein the hull becomes the protective barrier from the forces of chaos raging in the storm without. Aaron Jed Brody, "Each Man Cried Out to His God": The Specialized Religion of Canaanite and Phoenician Seafarers, Harvard Semitic Museum Publications no. 58 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1998), 13f. 44 Ibid., 38.
41

40

down to the smallest, for which the fees also decline. 45 Further, the catalogue is carried along with content markers at the beginning of most sections. Baker summarizes that the prepositions b and l which indicate major sections concerning blood and bloodless sacrifices, respectively, and kl which indicates separate general rules. 46 These markers consistently begin new lines, making reference that much easier. Those markers that merely continue the section further are directly preceded by a waw (seen in lines 4-7,9,13,14). It is largely upon this structural feature that one can establish this obvious ritual text as within a prescriptive genre. 47 This prescription came directly from a governing body, alluded to twice in the Marseille Tariff. The Carthage tariffs also begin with reference to a governing body but conclude with a name that is distinct from those in the Marseille Tariff, Pds, the son of Eshmunilles. 48 If this person is a similar figure to the illebal and company, then it is evidence that these specific regulations had some longevity. That would be further supported by the subtle changes coming from Carthage, namely that the hide is to be a priestly portion (seen three times). 49 Since we cannot definitively place one tariff earlier than the other, we do not know if this change is an inflation or relaxation of the fees. In addition to that, we can only guess at the level of

This hierarchical order is also observable in realm of Greek sacrifices. Lupu, Greek Sacred Law, 394. This also explains the goats and kids, who, although are they have biological similarity, are separated because of their economic inequality. 46 David W. Baker, Leviticus 1-7 and the Punic Tariffs: A Form Critical Comparison., Zeitschrift fr die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99, no. 2 (1987): 192. 47 Baker, Leviticus 1-7 and the Punic Tariffs, 197, passim. 48 KAI 75; Eshmunilles is found in another inscription discovered by Nathan Davis, as does illebal, albeit inverted to Balille. Those are found in the British Museum and have the numbers AN408114001 and AN394734001, respectively. 49 On one hand, this redundancy (and the good state of preservation) accounts for the relative agreement on the reading. On the other, it should be noted that subtle changes have the effect of increasing doubt on reconstructions like the end of lines 1 and 18.

45

dependence Punic priests existed upon these fees. The structure of Israelite society, via Torah, suggests at least their Semitic priests were fairly dependent upon their allotments. 50 Types of Sacrifices: The different sacrifices and the regulation of their allotments are interesting for their own sake, but honestly it is their comparison with terms and allotments in the Bible that gave this inscription such intrigue from the beginning. 51 The surprising aspect is that there is much correspondence at all given the vast distance in time and space, roughly 1850 miles and a millennium by my reckoning, between these inscriptions which codify even older customs. Those distinct sacrifices mentioned in the text are kll, wt, lm kll, mnt, and various avian sacrifices. All but the wt are mentioned in the Bible and have rough correspondence as regards allotments and manner of sacrifice. Each is treated below. As regards the missing wt sacrifice, Pardee notes that in the past a process of elimination from biblical norms equated this sacrifice with the sin offering. 52 Later scholarship has made equations with the wave-offering of the Bible, but also noting Milgroms work (stressing vertical over horizontal motions), Pardee has made a good revision to the presentation offering used in his translation. 53

Nu. 18:9f covers many of the priests perpetual due, and Lev. 7:7-14 discusses specific sacrificial allotments, including the hide. 51 C. J Ball, Light from the East, or, The Witness of the Monuments an Introduction to the Study of Biblical Archaeology (London, UK: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1899), 247; David G Hogarth, ed., Authority and Archaeology, Sacred and Profane: Essays on the Relation of Monuments to Biblical and Classical Literature, 2nd ed. (London, UK: John Murray, 1899), 138. 52 See Hallo and Younger, The Context of Scripture, 1.98, note 12.; Ginsbergs analysis is wont for the developments that were yet to come in the field. H. Louis Ginsberg, A Punic Note, The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 47, no. 1 (October 1930): 53. 53 Hallo and Younger, The Context of Scripture, 1.98, note 12; Jacob Milgrom, The Alleged WaveOffering in Israel and in the Ancient Near East, Israel Exploration Journal 22, no. 1 (January 1972): 35.

50

Returning to the kll sacrifice, the equation is with the of the Bible, being wholly consumed by fire. Their total consumption is clear from the absence of this sacrifice providing any leftovers, as is the case with the others. We should mention the exception of the hide of the animal which was removed before the sacrifice as per regulation in Lev. 7:8 and in the tariffs. As mentioned, this allotment is to the priests in KAI 74, as is also the case in Leviticus (returned to the donor in the Marseilles Tariff). Moreover, the placement of this sacrifice at the beginning of each episode probably corresponds to the function of the to attract or invoke the deity as in the Bible. 54 The next sacrifice of lm kll, I believe, is rightly distinguished from the kll sacrifice based upon its separate usage in line 11 and, following Levine, the unspoken allotment of all of the leftovers of this sacrifice to the donor. 55 This understanding presents the sacrifices in a list of descending consumption, from complete (kll) to partial (lm kll), and a list of descending allotments, from the priests receiving nothing (in light of its consumption) except for the hide in KAI 74, to the wt which had priestly and donor allotments, down to the lm kll which had either total or (in KAI 74) majority allotments for the donor. In any event, this separate lm(m) sacrifice, known in Ugarit (UT 611) and in the Bible (Amos 5:22) to be accompanied by communal meals, is well equated by scholars. 56

Levine details this trait, using the example of Elijah's contest atop Mt. Carmel to awaken Baal, among others. See Baruch A Levine, In the Presence of the Lord: A Study of Cult and Some Cultic Terms in Ancient Israel, Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity vol. 5 (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1974), 22f. 55 Levine, In the Presence of the Lord, 120-1; Also see the grammatical schema of dividing the sacrifices developed in S. Creason, The Syntax of and the Structure of the Marseille Tariff, Rivista di Studi Fenici 20 (1992): 158-9. 56 Levine, In the Presence of the Lord, 122.

54

10

The last term, mnt, is used only briefly here. It appears to include offerings of cereal, milk, and fat. 57 Taking into consideration the differing substances used for this sacrifice, we find some areas of biblical overlap. For, while the was generally associated with the offering of grain (Nu. 7:25, I Chron. 21:23, etc.), several types of homage and tribute are described thus (Gen. 32:14, I Ki. 10:25, etc.). Even within ritual settings, the is used for mixed offerings. For example, Cain and Abels offerings (fruit and flock respectively), or Manoahs presentation of goat with the grain offering are both describe as . 58 What is missing, of course, from the tariffs is any discussion concerning the spiritual value or theological development of these sacrifices. In what is perhaps a subset of the wt sacrifice in line 13 and in KAI 74, line 8, we receive the only mention of deity outside of the title or the theophoric elements in names. 59 The rule regards any who yms b/pnt lm. The verb connotes a similar activity in the Bible, albeit absent from ritual contexts. However, the approach of mankind into the presence of deity, sacrifice in hand, indicates the shared motivation of transcendence that is afforded by the act of cultic sacrifices. As the Marseilles Tariff notes, groups as well as individuals brought sacrifices. From the Bible, as elsewhere, clans are known to have practiced corporate sacrifice. Even more interesting are two mentions of the mzr. 60 McLaughlin condenses the key aspects of this term
See line 14 and KAI 74, line 10. Rosenthal notes the possibility that such cereal offerings might have been used as fodder for animals owned by the cult. See Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 657, n. 2. 58 Gen. 4:3-5, Judg. 13:19; HALOT notes "in older texts the sacrifice of homage (either with meat or grain) B, in The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (E.J. Brill, 1999). in Ludwig Khler et al., 59 For the usage of lm in line 16, see below. 60 For two good resources on the broader context of the mrz see Michael Patrick O'Connor, Northwest Semitic Designations for Elective Social Affinities., Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 18 (1986): 67-80 (of interest, are his treatment of associated words br and thiasoi); and John L McLaughlin, The Marze a in the Prophetic Literature: References and Allusions in Light of the Extra-Biblical Evidence, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum vol. 86 (Boston, MA: Brill, 2001).
57

11

as (1) extensive alcohol consumption (2) by members of the upper class (3) in a religious context. 61 In our inscription, the basic mzr is distinguished from another, which is in construct with lm. I have followed Mclaughlin and Fevrier in favoring the designation of nobles instead of god. 62 To begin, the context encourages a term delineating economic status, having just discussed the poor in the previous line. 63 Secondly, the prior groups mentioned are also secular in nature. Finally, the mention of differing payments for each mzr makes one seek to divide the mzr economically, not religiously. Furthering Biblical Illumination: The increased insight into terms like mzr are exemplary of the type of illumination the tariffs provide the reading of scripture. Secondly, and probably most importantly, the general structure given in an intact prescriptive ritual text hints at the possible original layout of similar sections of scripture, especially Leviticus 1-7. This referential function of such texts reinforces the divisions Rainey has given of Leviticus into didactic and administrative sections. 64 The patterns revolve around regulations as per each type of sacrifice (for their theological significance) as opposed to each type of animal (for their economic significance), but use of the pattern remains illuminating. As a last point of connection between the Bible and the tariffs (certainly not exhausting those connections), I will mention Solomons reign. In I Ki. 10:22-11:8 the text informs us that
McLaughlin, The Marze a in the Prophetic Literature , 214. The following argument is largely taken from McLaughlin, The Marze a in the Prophetic Literature , 42. Also critiqued is the designation of Baal as the unnamed deity, which is seen as too specific for broader application of the tariffs. 63 The consideration of the poor in the tariffs (line 15) has good parallel in the ritual texts of the Bible and without (Ex. 22:5, 23:3, Lev. 14:21, 27:8). 64 Anson F. Rainey, Order of Sacrifices in Old Testament Ritual Texts., Biblica 51, no. 4 (1970): 485-498.
61 62

12

Phoenician ships came every three years with goods from the Mediterranean that filled the coffers in Jerusalem. Did such sailors travel that far inland? At least, the wives of the Sidonians are named among Solomons wives. Further, Solomon was a great patron of the Temple, the religion of his own national cult, as well as others. We read of the pagan temples in Jerusalem, and so he did for all his foreign wives (Sidonians among them), who made offerings and sacrificed to their gods, in verse 11:8. Considering the conservative nature of religious rites and the shared culture of West Semitic peoples, could there have been rites comparable to the tariffs even in Jerusalem? The possibility exists.

13

Appendix A
KAI 69 KAI 74

These are the first seven mems from the Marseille and Carthage tariffs. It is clear there exists a uniformity in the Carthage assemblage (which is not restricted to this letter), not to mention its more rounded and efficient form (the right shoulder almost disappearing at times).

At least, it can be said a different hand produced our inscriptions. Though I would say, given the variability of Punic scripts, these two share enough structural elements (shared features are not featured here) to maintain a roughly contemporaneous date. 14

BIBLIOGRAPHY (Tariffs: ***photos, **drawing, *only transcription/translation) Ancient Religions. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2007. Aristotle. The Politics of Aristotle. Edited by William Newman. Oxford, UK: Claredon Press, 1887. Baker, David W. Leviticus 1-7 and the Punic Tariffs: A Form Critical Comparison.. Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99, no. 2 (1987): 188-197. Ball, C. J. Light from the East, or, The Witness of the Monuments an Introduction to the Study of Biblical Archaeology. London, UK: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1899.*** Baumgarten, Albert Irwin. The Phoenician History of Philo of Byblos: A Commentary. Etudes Prliminaires aux Religions Orientales dans l'Empire Romain t. 89. Leiden, Netherlands: E.J. Brill, 1981. Brody, Aaron Jed. "Each Man Cried Out to His God": The Specialized Religion of Canaanite and Phoenician Seafarers. Harvard Semitic Museum Publications 58. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1998. Bryan, David Burton. Texts Relating to the Marzeah: A Study of an Ancient Semitic Institution. (1973 Dissertation, Johns Hopkins) Ann Arbor, MI, 1984.* Cooke, G. A, ed. A Text-Book of North-Semitic Inscriptions: Moabite, Hebrew, Phoenician, Aramaic, Nabataean, Palmyrene, Jewish. Oxford,, 1903. *** (photo of Carthage tariff only) Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum. Paris, France, 1881*** Creason, S. The Syntax of and the Structure of the Marseille Tariff. Rivista di Studi Fenici 20 (1992): 143-159. Donner, Herbert, and Wolfgang Ro llig , eds. Kanaana ische Und Aramische Inschriften . Wiesbaden, Germany: Harrassowitz, 1966.** Euzennat, Maurice. Ancient Marseille in the Light of Recent Excavations. American Journal of Archaeology 84, no. 2 (1980): 133-140. Ginsberg, H. Louis. A Punic Note. The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 47, no. 1 (October 1930): 52-53. 15

Hallo, William W, and K. Lawson Younger, eds. The Context of Scripture. 3 vols. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1997.* Hogarth, David G, ed. Authority and Archaeology, Sacred and Profane: Essays on the Relation of Monuments to Biblical and Classical Literature. 2nd ed. London, UK: John Murray, 1899.* Johnston, Sarah Iles. Ancient Religions. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2007. Jongeling, K., and J. Hoftijzer, eds. Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions. Boston, MA: Brill Academic Publishers, 2003. Khler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner, Johann Jakob Stamm, and Mervyn Edwin John Richardson. B. In The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. E.J. Brill, 1999. Levine, Baruch A. In the Presence of the Lord: A Study of Cult and Some Cultic Terms in Ancient Israel. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity vol. 5. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1974. Lidzbarski, Mark. Kanaanische Inschriften (Moabitisch, Althebrisch, Phnizisch, Punisch). Geissen, Germany: Alfred Tpelmann, 1907.* Lupu, Eran. Greek Sacred Law: A Collection of New Documents (NGSL). Religions in the Graeco-Roman World vol. 152. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2005.* Massa, Aldo. The Phoenicians. Translated by David Macrae. Geneva, Switzerland: Minerva, 1977. McLaughlin, John L. The Marze a in the Prophetic Literature : References and Allusions in Light of the Extra-Biblical Evidence. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum vol. 86. Boston, MA: Brill, 2001.* Meyers, Eric M, ed. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1997. Milgrom, Jacob. The Alleged Wave-Offering in Israel and in the Ancient Near East. Israel Exploration Journal 22, no. 1 (January 1972): 33-38. Mosca, Paul G. For the Birds: The Terms sp and Hzt in the Marseilles Tarif (Line 11). Ugarit-Forschungen 33 (2001): 403-418. O'Connor, Michael Patrick. Northwest Semitic Designations for Elective Social Affinities.. Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 18 (1986): 67-80. 16

Peckham, Brian. The Development of the Late Phoenician Scripts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968. Perrot, Georges. History of Art in Phnicia and Its Dependencies. Edited by Walter Armstrong. London, U.K: Chapman and Hall, 1885. Pritchard, James B, ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts: Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969.* Rainey, Anson F. Order of Sacrifices in Old Testament Ritual Texts.. Biblica 51, no. 4 (1970): 485-498. Segert, Stanislav. A Grammar of Phoenician and Punic. Mu nchen , Germany: Beck, 1976. Toorn, K. van der, Bob Becking, and Pieter Willem van der Horst, eds. Eshmun. In Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999. Younger, K. Lawson. The Phoenician Inscription of Azatiwada : An Integrated Reading.. Journal of Semitic Studies 43, no. 1 (March 1998): 11-47.

17