Sandra L.

Richter
The Deuteronomistic History
and the Name Theology
Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

Herausgegeben von
Otto Kaiser

Band 318

W
DE

G
Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York
2002
 Sandra L. Richter

The Deuteronomistic History

and the Name Theology
lesakkên semô säm in the Bible
and the Ancient Near East

w
DE

G_
Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York
2002
 ® Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI
to ensure permanence and durability.

Die Deutsche Bibliothek — CIP-Einheitsaufnahme

Richter, Sandra L.:

The deuteronomistic history and the name theology : l'sakkën s e mô
säm in the Bible and the Ancient Near East / Sandra L. Richter. -
Berlin ; New York : de Gruyter, 2002
(Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft ;
Bd. 318)
Zugl.: Harvard, Univ., Diss., 2001
ISBN 3-11-017376-X

© Copyright 2002 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin
All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. N o part of this book
may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permis-
sion in writing from the publisher..
Printed in Germany
Cover design: Christopher Schneider, Berlin
 Preface

The present book is a partial revision of my doctoral dissertation, "The

Deuteronomistic History and the Place of the Name," submitted to the Near
Eastern Languages and Civilizations Department at Harvard University in
2001. This thesis was completed under the supervision of Jo Ann Hackett.
My readers included John Huehnergard, Jon Levenson, and Paul-Alain
Beaulieu.
My interest in the Name Theology was originally sparked in a Hebrew
200 seminar in which I was asked to write a paper on the Deuteronomist and
the temple. In the process of researching that paper, I found that every study I
encountered regarding the temple in the Deuteronomistic History assumed
some form of the Name Theology. As the immanence-to-transcendence
paradigm of the Name Theology is clearly reminiscent of Julius Well-
hausen's developmental model of Israelite religion—a model unfavorably
critiqued decades ago—I was intrigued. Moreover, I was intrigued by the fact
that every form of the Name Theology I encountered eventually resorted to
the deuteronomic idiom, l'Sakkën fmô Mm, for substantiation. Hence, I set out
to evaluate this idiom based upon a comparative-linguistic method in order to
determine if the idiom actually supported the hermeneutical paradigm it had
supposedly fostered. The seminar paper grew into a SBL presentation, the
presentation into a prospectus, and the prospectus into a dissertation. The
present study is the end result of these labors.
Although the weaknesses of this study are my own, it is my pleasure to
express my sincere thanks to the individuals whose time and expertise have
expanded and enriched the project. My special thanks go to my committee
members. To my advisor, Jo Ann Hackett, I owe a great debt. Throughout my
years at Harvard she instructed me in many areas, from Hebrew grammar to
Epigraphy, from pedagogy to professionalism, and I am a better teacher,
scholar, and person for her tutelage. To John Huehnergard, for his patient
instruction in the nuances of Akkadian and Sumerian texts and grammar, his
exhaustive attention to the textual details of my work, and his unflagging
commitment to Proto-Semitic perfection, I wish to express my appreciation. I
would not have braved the deep waters of Assyriology without his guidance.
I am also indebted to Jon Levenson for his early support of this project, his
facility with the biblical text, and the classes in which I was privileged to
learn of his love for the Rabbis in his unique, ironic style. To Paul-Alain
Beaulieu I also owe my thanks for his willingness to take on the task of
vi Preface

reading for my dissertation in midstream, and the contribution of his mastery

of the texts and grammar of the Neo-Babylonian era.
Others to whom I owe my thanks include Daniel Fleming of New York
University, who freely contributed his expertise in the Mari texts, provided
more than one pre-publication article for my research, and repeatedly,
generously, volunteered his time and insight in reading drafts of this project.
My thanks to Otto Kaiser for his corrections and contributions to the final
project, as well as for publishing this study in the BZAW series. To Bill
Arnold, Frank M. Cross, Suzanne Heim, André Lemaire, Peter Machinist,
Glenn Magid, Kathryn Slanski, Piotr Steinkeller, Lawson Stone, and Brent
Strawn—who kindly participated in discussions which served to clarify
difficult issues and interpret enigmatic evidence—I am indebted. And to
Linda Henson, Nicholas Matthews, and Sujatha Pichamuthu, I am grateful
for their editorial and technical assistance.
My greatest debt, however, is to my husband, Steven Tsoukalas, to whom
this book is dedicated, with love.

Asbury Theological Seminary Sandra L. Richter

Wilmore, Kentucky
June, 2002
 Contents

Preface ν
List of Abbreviations ix
List of Figures xiii

I. Introduction 1

A. The Deuteronomistic History 1

B. The Deuteronomistic History & the Name Theology 7

C. Whence the Name Theology? 11

1. Nominal Realism 14
2. Julius Wellhausen and the Evolution of Israelite Religion 22
3. Wellhausen's Disciples 24
4. Modern Reconstructions of the Name Theology 26
D. A New Paradigm 36

II. The l'iakkèn fmô Mm Formula in Its Biblical Context 41

A. The Distribution of the fSakkén fmô Mm Formula and Its
Synonymous Reflexes lâsûm fmô iäm
and lihyôt fmô Mm 43

Β. The Biblical Occurrences of the Deuteronomic Formula ... 53

1. The Book of Deuteronomy 53
2. The Deuteronomistic History 64
3. 2 Samuel 7 & 1 Kings 8 68
4. Jeremiah, Ezra, & Nehemiah 91
5. Conclusions 95

C. The Translation of the Deuteronomic Formula 96

1. The verb $kn in its Biblical Occurrences 98
2. The verb Skn in Semitic 106
3. Conclusions 118

D. Could Deuteronomy's fSakken Be Borrowed into Biblical

Hebrew? 121
vili Contents

III. The FSakkên fmô Säm Formula in Its ANE Context 127
A. The Vocabulary: Suma + Sakänu 128

Β. The Corpus:
The Royal Monumental Inscriptions of Mesopotamia .... 130

C. Classifying the Inscriptions 136

1. Votive Texts 136
2. Triumphal Texts 139
3. Building Inscriptions 142
4. Foundation Deposits 144
5. Clay Nails 148

D. Suma Sakänu and the Monumental Corpus 153

1. The Old Akkadian Inscriptions and Suma Sakänu 153
2. Gudea and Suma Sakänu 158
3. The Victory Stelae of the Amanus Mountains
(or "Journey to the Cedar Forest") and Suma Sakänu ... 160
4. Building Inscriptions and Suma Sakänu 170
5. Correspondence and Suma Sakänu 174
6. Suma Sakänu as a Metaphor for "Acquiring Fame" .... 179
7. Conclusions 182

E. Suma Satra Sakänu and the Monumental Corpus 184

1. Vocabulary \ Suma + Satäru 184
2. Foundation Deposits and Suma Satra Sakänu 188
3. WaH-sikkätu a n d Suma Satra Sakänu 194
4. Conclusions 198

F. Suma Sakänu in the Levant 199

G. The Relationship Between Suma Sakänu and Deuteronomy 204

IV. Conclusion: The Meaning of the fSakkên fmô Säm formula in

the Deuteronomistic History 207

Bibliography 219
Index of Texts 243
 Abbreviations

AB Anchor Bible
AbΒ Altbabylonische Briefe in Umschrift und Übersetzung. Edited
by F. R. Kraus. Leiden, 1964-
ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols.
New York, 1992
ABL Assyrian and Babylonian Letters Belonging to the Kouyunjik
Collections of the British Museum. Edited by R. F. Harper.
14 vols. Chicago, 1892-1914
AFC Anales de filologia clásica
AfO Archiv für Orientforschung
AHw Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. W. von Soden. 3 vols.
Wiesbaden, 1965-1981
AJA American Journal of Archaeology
AJSL American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature
Akk Akkadian
ANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament.
Edited by J. B. Pritchard. 3rd ed.. Princeton, 1969
AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament
ArBib The Aramaic Bible
ARI Assyrian Royal Inscriptions. A. K. Grayson. 2 vols.
Wiesbaden, 1972-1976.
ARM Archives royales de Mari. Edited by André Parrot, Georges
Dossin, and Jean Marie Durand [vol. 21 onward]
AS Assyriological Studies
BAGD Bauer, W., W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. W. Danker.
Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature, 2nd ed. Chicago, 1979
BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
BDB Brown, F., with the cooperation of S. R. Driver, and C. A.
Briggs. The New Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old
Testament. Peabody, Mass., 1979
BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium
bH Biblical Hebrew
BiOr Bibliotheca Orientalis, Leiden
BWANT Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament
BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
CAD The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the
University of Chicago. Chicago, 1956-
CANE Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Edited by J. Sasson,
4 vols. New York, 1995
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
χ Abbreviations

CC Continental Commentaries
CHJ Cambridge History of Judaism. Edited by W. D. Davies and
Louis Finkelstein. Cambridge, 1984-
ConBOT Coniectanea biblica: Old Testament Series
COS The Context of Scripture. Edited by W. W. Hallo. 3 vols.
Leiden, 1997-
CTA Corpus des tablettes en cunéiformes alphabétiques
découvertes à Ras Shamra-Ugarit de 1929 à 1939. Edited by
A. Herdner. Paris, 1963
DH The Deuteronomistic History
Dtr The Deuteronomistic Historian
Dictionary of North-West Semitic Inscriptions. J. Hoftijzer and
DNWSI K. Jongeling. 2 vols. Leiden, 1995
Amama Letters
EA Encyclopaedia Judaica, 16 vols. Jerusalem, 1972
EncJud Albrecht Alt. Essays on Old Testament History and Religion.
EOTHR Garden City, N.Y., 1968.
Erlsr Eretz-Israel
F AOS Freiburger Altorientalische Studien
FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen
Testaments
GAG Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik. W. von Soden 2 ni ed.
Rome, 1969
GKC Gesenius ' Hebrew Grammar. Edited by E. Kautzsch.
Translated by Α. E. Cowley. 2 ηί ed. Oxford, 1910
HALOT Koehler, L., W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm, The Hebrew
and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and
edited under the supervision of Μ. E. J. Richardson. 4 vols.
Leiden,
1994-1999
HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs
HSS Harvard Semitic Studies
HTR Harvard Theological Review
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
ICC International Critical Commentary
IEJ Israel Exploration Journal
JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies
JE The Jewish Encyclopedia. Edited by I. Singer. 12 vols. New
York, 1925
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies
JNSL Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series
KAI Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften. Η. Donner and
W. Röllig. Wiesbaden, 1962-1964
ΚΑΤ Kommentar zum Alten Testament
K&D Keil, C. F. and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old
Testament. Translated by J. Martin, et al. 25 vols. Edinburgh,
1857-1878. Reprint, 10 vols. Peabody, Mass., 1996
 Abbreviations xi

Liddell & Scott Henry. G. Liddell and Robert Scott., A Greek-English

Lexicon. Revised and augmented by Henry Stuart Jones with
the assistance of Roderick McKenzie. Oxford, 1968
LXX Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament)
MAD Materials for the Assyrian Dictionary
MDP Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse, Paris
MT Masoretic Text (of the Old Testament)
NABU Nouvelles assyriologiques breves et utilitaires
NCB New Century Bible
(P)NWS (Proto) Northwest Semitic
OB Old Babylonian
OBAkk Old Babylonian Akkadian
OEANE The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East.
Edited by E. M. Meyers. New York, 1997
OTL Old Testament Library
Or Orientalia
OTS Old Testament Studies
PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly
PS Proto-Semitic
RA Revue d'assyriologie et d'archéologie orientale
RB Revue biblique
RLA Reallexikon der Assyriologie. Edited by Erich Ebeling et al.
Berlin, 1928-
RIMA The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods
RIMB The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Babylonian Periods
RIME The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Early Periods
RIMS The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Supplements
SANT Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testaments
SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series
SSS Semitic Study Series
TBAT Theologische Bücherei Altes Testament
TCL Textes cunéiformes. Musée du Louvre
TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J.
Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Translated by J. T. Willis, G. W.
Bromiley, and D. E. Green. 8 vols. Grand Rapids. 1974-
TLOT Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. Edited by Ernst
Jenni with assistance from Claus Westermann. Translated by
Mark E. Biddle. 3 vols. Peabody, Mass., 1997
TSSI Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions. John C. L. Gibson.
Oxford, 1971-82
TynBul Tyndale Bulletin
Ug Ugaritic
UF Ugarit-Forschungen
VAB Vorderasiatische Bibliothek
VAS Die Vorderasiatischen Schriftdenkmäler. Berlin Museum,
Berlin
VAT Vorderasiatische Abteilung Tontafel. Vorderasiatisches
Museum, Berlin
VT Vetus Testamentum
Waltke & O'Connor Bruce K. Waltke and M. O'Connor, An Introduction to
Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, Ind., 1990
xii Abbreviations

YOS Yale Oriental Series

ZA Zeitschriftfür Assyriologie
ZA W Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
ZTK Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche
 List of Figures

1. The l'Mkkën fmâ Mm Formula in Deuteronomy 44

2. The lâsûm fmâ Mm Formula in Deuteronomy 46

3. The lâsûm fmô Mm Formula in the Deuteronomistic History 49

4. The lihyôt and lâsûm Formulae in the Deuteronomistic History

and the Chronicler's History 51

5. The leMkkën S'mô Mm Formula in Jeremiah 7:12, Ezra 6:12,

andNehemiah 1:9 52

6. The libnôt bayit L'Sëm YHWH Formula in 1 Kings 8 80

7. The Qal & Piel in Biblical Hebrew 96

8. The Semantic Field of Biblical Hebrew Skn 99

8a Biblical Hebrew Skn 103
8b Biblical Hebrew íkn 105
8c Biblical Hebrew Skn 120

9. The Hiphil Occurrences of Skn in the Hebrew Bible 104

10. Skn in East & West Semitic 106-114

11. Stelae and Rock Reliefs 164

12. The Journey to the Cedar Forest 170

13. "to place the name until distant days" 179

 I. Introduction

Jon D. Levenson has written of the tendency in the theological study of the
Hebrew Bible to continue to evaluate the central institutions of ancient Israel in
a biased and pre-modem fashion "either by ignoring the new data or awk-
wardly fitting them into the inherited structures."1 Frank Moore Cross has
stated in his critique of Wellhausen's "inherited structure" that our only hope
of breaking free of such paradigms and gaining "revolutionary progress in
biblical studies" is the unbiased application of ANE archaeology and philology
to our exegesis.2 The goal of this study is to contribute to such "revolutionary
progress" by reassessing an inherited paradigm of deuteronomistic interpreta-
tion known as the Name Theology—a hermeneutical grid which has so pro-
foundly influenced the field of deuteronomistic studies that its framework may
be discerned in the majority of the modern works. My thesis is that a careful
and unbiased reexamination of the existing scholarship, bolstered by fresh
insights from ancient Near Eastern philology and archaeology, brings a new
picture into focus.
Keep in mind as you read this study that the tangle of ideas that we have
come to know as the Name Theology is composed of many individual threads,
many more threads than can be addressed intelligently in a single monograph. I
believe that there is one thread, however, that is primary, one that binds the rest
of the tapestry together. This thread is the focus of this inquiry: the name
formula of Deuteronomy, FSakkën fmô Mm, and its biblical reflexes in the
Deuteronomistic History, lâsûm fmô Säm and lihyôt fmô Mm.

A. The Deuteronomistic History

The Deuteronomistic History (DH) is presently defined as that historical

work encompassing the biblical books of Deuteronomy through 2 Kings. The
term itself was coined by Martin Noth in 1943 in his groundbreaking Über-
lieferungsgeschichtliche Studien. Noth changed the face of biblical studies by
proposing that the books delineated above were not an assemblage of various
independent works gathered under a single aegis by a succession of redactors,
but were the composition of a single person, an editor/writer with antiquarian

1 Jon Levenson, Sinai & Zion (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1985), 1-3.
2 F. M. Cross, "The Priestly Tabernacle," Biblical Archaeologist Reader, vol. 1 (ed. G. E.
Wright and D. N. Freedman; Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1961), 201-28.
2 Introduction

intent, who compiled and selectively rewrote a vast collection of source mate-
rial into a historical work characterized by a singular deuteronomic theology
and purpose. The history is named for this singular editor/writer, the Deuter-
onomistic Historian (Dtr). Although the existence of the DH has been broadly
accepted—"such that, to the extent that any position in biblical studies can be
regarded as the consensus viewpoint, the existence of the DH has achieved
almost canonical status"3—the array of suggested reconstructions regarding the
origins and formation of the DH, its sources, and the historians responsible for
its final form are staggering. It is methodologically necessary, however, to
choose one of these reconstructions by which to view the corpus and assess the
name formulae within it. Moreover, it is critical that the reader understand the
chosen reconstruction of this author in order to make use of my conclusions.
Hence, let me summarize my lens as briefly as possible.
In this study, I am presupposing much of Noth's original thesis regarding
the DH, particularly his assessment of Dtr as a historian with genuine antiquar-
ian intent. As Halpern states: "Noth's historian fits the mold of a thinker
emboldened by honest conviction to impose a meaningful order on his nation's
past." 4 1 am also assuming one of the most significant expansions upon Noth's
work, the theory of the double redaction of the DH.5 Although first developed
among the nineteenth-century critics, this theory gained its place in the field
through the work of F. M. Cross (1973)6, and has been furthered by his
students, J. D. Levenson (1975, 1979, 1981, 1984),7 Richard E. Friedman

3 Steven L. McKenzie, "Deuteronomistic History," ABD 2: 161. Noth was not the only
scholar to recognize Deuteronomy-Kings as a distinct literary unit; rather, Y. Kaufmann
(1960) and I. Engnell (1969) each arrived at this position independently (ibid.).
4 Baruch Halpern, The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History (San Francisco:
Harper & Row, 1988), 31.
5 This expansion of Noth's theory addresses what many have identified as its weakest
aspect—the belief that the singular objective of the DH was to explicate the well-deserved
outpouring of divine retribution upon the covenant-breaking nation of Israel. G. von Rad
and H. W. Wolff were instrumental in the initial critique of Noth's theory, arguing that it
failed to account for the equally powerful messages of hope and grace within the DH. For
von Rad's discussions see Old Testament Theology, (trans. David M. G. Stalker; 2 vols.;
HarperSanFrancisco, 1962 [1957]), 1:334-47; Studies in Deuteronomy (trans. D. Stalker;
London: SCM Press, 1953), 74-79; and for Wolffs discussion see, "The Kerygma of the
Deuteronomic Historical Work," in The Vitality of Old Testament Traditions (ed. W.
Brueggemann and H. W. Wolff; Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1975).
6 F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1973), 274-89.
7 Jon D. Levenson, "Who Inserted the Book of the Torah?," HTR 68/3-4 (1975): 203-33;
"The Davidic Covenant and its Modern Interpreters," CBQ 41/2 (1979): 205-19; "From
Temple to Synagogue: 1 Kings 8," in Traditions in Transformation (eds. B. Halpern and J.
Levenson; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1981), 143-66; "The Last Four Verses in
Kings," JBL 103/3 (1984): 353-61.
 The Deuteronomistic History 3

(1981),8 and Baruch Halpern (1988),9 as well as by Richard Nelson (1981). 10

As articulated by Cross in Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (1973), the thesis
is that the DH underwent a double redaction: one which dates to the days of
Josiah (Dtr1) and one from the early exile (Dtr2). In the second redaction, the
main corpus of Dtr1 was modified and updated in order to complete the History
and to suit it better to the exilic age in which "the bright expectations of the
Josianic era were hopelessly past."11 In contradistinction to Noth's view of a
single thesis within the DH of "unrelieved and irreversible doom," Cross
claims that throughout his history Dtr1 accommodated the themes of judgment
and grace by paradigmatically juxtaposing the sin of Jeroboam I and its
consequences with the faithfulness of David and its consequences. Hence, the
first redaction of the DH presents its readership with the theme of judgment
(the ultimate fate of the Northern Kingdom) and grace (the future and hope of
the Southern Kingdom).12 Moreover, Cross accounts for the History's periodic
message of inevitable disaster—warnings of the exile of the nation and a
revoked covenant—as the adaptations of the exilic Dtr2.

In the retouching of the original work by an Exilic hand, the original theme of
hope is overwritten and contradicted, namely the expectation of the restoration
of the state under a righteous Davidid to the remembered greatness of the
golden age of David. 13

8 Richard E. Friedman, The Exile and Biblical Narrative: The Formation of the Deuterono-
mistic and Priestly Works (HSM 22; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1981).
9 Halpern, The First Historians, 144-240.
10 R. D. Nelson, The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History (JSOTSup 18;
Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981), 13-22.
11 Canaanite Myth, 285.
12 According to Cross, this paralleling of judgment and hope was not merely an engaging
narrative strategy, it was the vehicle by which Dtr1 communicated the central concerns of
the Josianic reform: "The Deuteronomistic history, insofar as these themes reflect its
central concerns, may be described as a propaganda work of the Josianic reformation and
imperial program" (Cross, Canaanite Myth, 274-89; cf. Friedman, The Exile and Biblical
Narrative, 2-7). Moreover, Cross claims that Dtr1 knew nothing of the "ultimate demise"
of the Davidids at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar and the message of inevitable doom which
it conveyed. Rather, Dtr1 concluded his history with the climactic tale of Josiah's reforms
in the South which, from his perspective, forever purged Judah of 'êlôhîm 'âhërîm, brought
some level of political unity between the ravaged North and Judah, and vindicated "the
man of God who came from Judah" (1 Kgs 13:1-3; 2 Kgs 23:17,18).
13 Cross, Canaanite Myth, 288. What is common to all of Cross's Dtr2 passages is that they
speak of an exile for Judah, real or potential, as the result of covenant breaking. Friedman
lists the Dtr2 passages as: Deut 4:24-31; 8:19f.; 28:36f.; 28:63-68; 29:21-27; 30:1-10, 15-
20; 31:16-22, 28-30; 32:44 (Dtr2 is supposedly responsible for inserting the Song of
Moses); Josh 23:15f.; 1 Kgs 6:11-13; 9:6-9; 2 Kgs 17:19, 35-40a; 21:8-15; 22:16-20;
23:26-25:30 {The Exile and Biblical Narrative, 25).
Cross holds that this theme of unavoidable judgment is epitomized in the paradigmatic
Dtr2 pericope regarding the evils of Manasseh and the consequences which his irresponsi-
4 Introduction

Subsequent treatments of the double-redaction theory have added a

welcome nuance to Cross's theory by challenging his demarcation of Dtr1 and
Dtr2 passages according to their assessment of the Davidic Covenant. The
work of Nelson and Halpem is of particular significance in that they have
refuted the assumption that Dtr2 is responsible for "reinterpreting" the
originally ««conditional Davidic Covenant in 2 Samuel 7 as now conditional
(cf. 1 Kgs 2:2-4; 3:6, 14; 5:18-21; 6:11-13; 8:15-26; 9:3-9). Arguing with
Friedman and Levenson, Nelson and Halpern state that the pre-exilic percep-
tion of David's covenant was in reality both conditional and unconditional.14
Friedman and Levenson have also furthered the double-redaction theory by
addressing linguistic concerns. As opposed to identifying Dtr2 primarily on the
basis of content, they have searched for shifts in language and idiom as the
basis of their delineation.15 Although there is still much to be done regarding

bility brought upon Judah (2 Kgs 21:7-14). He claims that this passage was "retouched,
conforming Judah's fate to that of Samaria and Manasseh's role to that of Jeroboam"
(Canaanite Myth, 285-88; cf. Friedman, 10-12).
14 Cf. R. E. Friedman, "Covenant Fidelity and Covenant Stipulation in the Davidic Dynastic
Traditions," (unpublished, Harvard Hebrew 200,1973); Levenson, "The Davidic Covenant
and Its Modern Interpreters"; Nelson, The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic His-
tory, 104-5; B. Halpern's critique of Cross in The First Historians, 157-59 (cf. Cross,
Canaanite Myth, 287). See also Tryggve N. D. Mettinger and Matitiahu Tsevat who
discuss the conditional aspects of David's "everlasting" kingship (Mettinger, King and
Messiah The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite Kings [ConBOT 8; Lund:
LiberLaromedel/Gleerup, 1976], 284-86; Tsevat, "Studies in the Book of Samuel: The
Steadfast House: What was David Promised in Π Sam. 7:llb-16," HUCA 34 [1963]:
71-82).
Building upon Nelson, who recognized that the articulation of the conditional aspects of
the Davidic Covenant are concentrated in passages regarding Solomon's reign, and that the
conditional/unconditional nature of the Davidic Covenant can be better delineated as
promises regarding the entire nation and the "nlr of David," respectively, Halpern makes a
convincing case for abandoning Cross's pre- and post-exilic rubric regarding the condi-
tionality of the dynastic covenant. Halpern argues instead that the pre-exilic historian (Dtr1)
understood the success of David's sons as both conditional and unconditional: uncondi-
tional in regard to the enduring dynasty in Judah, and conditional in regard to the Davidids'
continuing reign over all Israel. Halpern's arguments focus upon 1 Kings 11 and the
schism of the kingdom of Israel as brought about by Solomon's sin. Moreover, Halpern
accounts for the potential of exile in the DH without resorting to an exilic historian:
"Although 1 Kings 9:7 raises the specter of dispossession for the people, nothing indicates
that any of these texts addresses the Babylonian exile. The hand of H(Dtr) is in evidence"
(The First Historians, 157-75, quotation, 157).
15 Friedman demonstrates that there is no linguistic evidence for attributing Cross's Dtr2
passages to a separate hand: "The remarkable consistency of the Deuteronomistic style and
terminology has long been recognized as an overwhelming barrier to identification of
plural hands in the work" (Friedman, The Exile and Biblical Narrative, 5). Having com-
pared the Tel 'Arad inscriptions (7th-6th centuries BCE) with the syntactical style of the
DH, Cross himself states that the Dtr 142 could be late pre-exilic, early exilic or both (Cross,
Canaanite Myth, 275-6 n. 8). In light of this, we must conclude that the syntactical style of
Cross's Dtr1 (pre-exilic) and Dtr2 (early exilic) would be indistinguishable. Cross has
 The Deuteronomistic History 5

the apparently contradictory messages o f the DH—-judgment and grace, d o o m

and h o p e — I am encouraged that w e are m o v i n g toward a thesis in which one
historian might be permitted to maintain a complex ideology w h i c h simul-
taneously recognizes both potentialities. 16 Toward this end, m y predilection
regarding the contribution o f Dtr 2 to the D H could be described as that o f a
"minimalist." M y assumption is that the hand o f Dtr 2 is most likely to be found
in the Manasseh pericope, the last four verses o f Kings, and in narrative
commentary w h i c h accounts for the ultimate demise o f Y H W H ' S vassal nation.
In sum, I am convinced o f the double-redaction o f the D H as the most
historically viable explanation o f the evidence: the historical and thematic
unity o f Deuteronomy through 2 Kings; the disproportionate emphasis w h i c h
this collection places upon the righteousness o f Josiah and the sin o f Manasseh
(cf. 2 Kings 21 and 22); the "laconic" conclusion o f the history ( 2 K g s 23:26-
25:30); and the all-pervasive themes o f deuteronomic law and hortatory
address first m o d e l e d in the B o o k o f Deuteronomy and emulated throughout

attributed these passages to Dtr2 because their content expresses his "subtheme" of inevi-
table rejection.
In contrast, Levenson argues that Dtr2 may be identified not only by content, but by
idiom as well. Levenson differs from Cross and Noth substantially regarding the overall
contribution of the exilic historian/redactor. Specifically, Levenson attributes the insertion
of the law code of Deuteronomy within the DH, the composition of its immediate frame-
work (Deut 3:29-4:43 and Deut 29: [16], 21-28; 30; 31:16-22, 24-29), the inclusion of the
Song of Moses (Deut 31:30-32:1-44), and all of the third (and probably fourth) address of
Solomon's address in 1 Kings 8 to Dtr2 ("Who Inserted the Book of the Torah?").
Levenson argues that the hand of Dtr2 may be distinguished in these and other passages by
distinctive idiom.
16 In recent years, the apparent contradictions of theme and perspective in the DH have been
dealt with by returning to Formgeschichte theories of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Chief among these are the critiques of Claus Westermann and J. G. McConville, both of
whom prefer to emphasize distinct books within a larger, and somewhat loosely edited,
corpus (Westermann, Die Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testament: gab es ein
deuteronomistisches Geschichtswerk? [TBAT 87; Gütersloh: Kaiser, 1994], 13-39; J. G.
McConville, The Old Testament Historical Books in Modern Scholarship, in Themelios
22/3 [1997]: 3-13). Ernst Axel Knaufs work is proving tobe equally influential. Knauf not
only considers the DH to be composed of a series of independent works, but regards these
books themselves as the result of "fundamentally unrelated exilic and postexilic
redactions" ("Does a 'Deuteronomistic Historiography' [DH] Exist?" in Israel Constructs
Its History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research [ed. A. de Pury, T.
Römer, J.-D Macchi; JSOTSup 306; Sheffield Academic Press, 2000], 388-98; quotation,
G. N. Knoppers, "Is There a Future for the Deuteronomistic History?" in The Future of the
Deuteronomistic History [ed. T. Römer; BETL 147; Leuven: University Press, 2000],
122). For a summary and critique of the more recent theories regarding the DH see the
collection of recent articles in the works cited above: The Future of the Deuteronomistic
History and Israel Constructs Its History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent
Research, as well as Gary N. Knoppers and J. Gordon Wenham, eds., Reconsidering Israel
& Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns,
2000).
6 Introduction

the History. I am also convinced of the redactional structure of the DH as first

proposed by Noth and refined by the double-redactionists. The aspects of this
framework which affect this study include: Dtr''s extensive use of source
material in his history;17 Dtr^s selection of the old deuteronomic law code as
the prolegomenon to his epic;18 Dtr''s use of transitional speeches to provide
theological structure to the corpus and to advance the narrative;19 and Dtr2's
reworking of the Manasseh pericope and his conclusion to the epic. The con-
tent of this redactional scaffolding20 and the broadly accepted social location of
Dtr1—a Judahite court personality, commissioned during the reign of
Josiah to compose a history garnered from the official documents of Israel's

17 Noth held that Dtr was extremely respectful of his source material and reticent to alter it:
"In general Dtr simply reproduced the literary sources available to him and merely
provided a connecting narrative for isolated passages" (Martin Noth, The Deuteronomistic
History [trans. J.A. Clines et al.; JSOTSup 15; Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 1981], 10;
trans, of Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien [2nd ed.; Halle: M. Niemeyer, 1943]).
18 The consensus is now nearly universal that this text, whatever its redactional history, is, in
form and ideology, patterned after the treaty documents of the ANE. Although most
concur that 1:1 -4:43 are supplemental to the original core, having been added by one or the
other historian as an introduction to the introduction of the history, and that chapters 29-34
are a collection of materials used as a conclusion to the Moses era and as a transition into
the Joshua era, it is generally accepted that 4:44-28:68 constituted the original text (of
which 12:1-26:15 constituted the law code within this text), and that this original text is
formatted as a treaty document (Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, 13-17, 33-35; Dennis
J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents
and in the Old Testament [Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963], 109-11, 131-35;
Shalom M. Paul, Studies in the Book of the Covenant in the Light of Cuneiform and
Biblical Law [Leiden: EJ Brill, 1970]; Moshe Weinfeld, "The Book of Deuteronomy,"
ABD 2:171-3). See Levenson's counter in "Who Inserted the Book of the Torah?," 224.
19 Throughout the DH, Noth proposed that Dtr had inserted speeches for the main characters,
which served to summarize major blocks of past material and to provide transition to an
upcoming segment. In this manner the "speech" which began the history (the sermon of
Moses = the Book of Deuteronomy) was mirrored throughout the History, with each
discourse having the dual purpose of giving theological structure to the corpus while
advancing the narrative itself. These orations include: Joshua's monologues in Josh 1:11-15
and Joshua 23, which initiate and conclude the era of the settlement; Samuel's presentation
in 1 Sam 12:1-24 which serves as a segue between the era of the judges and that of the
monarchy; and Solomon's prayer in 1 Kgs 8:12-51 which summarizes the era of the united
monarchy, introduces the temple era, and foreshadows the divided monarchy. Noth also
proposed that Joshua 12 (the summary of the Conquest battles), Judg 2:11-23 (our
narrator's discussion of the sin of Israel and its consequences in the era of the Judges), and
2 Kgs 17:7-18, 20-23 (the peroration on Samaria) served the same purpose although
appearing as the narrator's own reflections rather than actual monologue. Although Noth
excluded 2 Samuel 7 from this list of speeches-because of the pericope's optimistic view
of kingship and Noth's thesis that Dtr's premise was the inescapable judgment of the
monarchy-a major contribution of the double-redaction school has been to return 2 Samuel
7 to the list (see Dennis J. McCarthy, "II Samuel and the Structure of the Deuteronomic
History," JBL 84 (1965): 131-38).
20 Robert Polzin, "Reporting Speech in the Book of Deuteronomy" in Traditions in Trans-
formation (ed. Β. Halpem and J. Levenson; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1981): 194.
 The Deuteronomistic Histoiy and the Name Theology 7

monarchy, a history which climaxes with reforms galvanized by the discovery

of the b'rît in Josiah's temple—have convinced me that the lens of this narrator
was that of a political historian who was convinced that Israel's fate rose and
fell according to her performance as YHWH'S vassal. In conjunction with this
final point, I believe that we as interpreters must make every effort to allow Dtr
to speak for himself. As Halpern says:

But to isolate the authors of a text, one must break the textual vacuum, and
imagine them as human beings with human aspirations, not as by-products of a
hypothesis. To get at textual history, at the history of composition, one must
read historically, for the intention of the authors.21

Hence, whereas in the past it has been assumed that Dtr was using his
History as a platform to redirect the theological perception of the mode of di-
vine presence at Israel's central sanctuary, I believe that we should give more
credence to Dtr's historical intention as demonstrated by his chosen genre. As
Menahem Haran has argued in Temples & Temple Service in Ancient Israel?1
the distinctions between the D-Source and the Priestly Writer's treatment of
the cultic institutions of Israel are perhaps best understood not as the develop-
ments of an evolving cultic system, but as the distinctives of specialist and
non-specialist narrators. And whereas the goal of this study is to rediscover the
idiom of the biblical authors, Halpern's and Haran's cautions should be
heeded.

B. The Deuteronomistic Histoiy & the Name Theology

In the midst of his national history, Dtr interacts in a limited manner with
issues pertaining to the cult of Israel. Central to this interaction is his treatment
of the temple project, first introduced in his source document, D (generally
accepted as 4:44-28:68; see n. 18) and expanded under David (2 Samuel 7) and
Solomon (1 Kgs 8:1-9:9). Unique to Dtr's treatment of the temple project is the
fact that throughout the DH, the narrator repeatedly speaks not of Y H W H ' S
presence in the temple, but of the temple as that place in which Y H W H ' S name
might be found. This unique designation has long been understood by biblical
scholarship as evidence of a paradigm shift within the Israelite theology of
divine presence. This paradigm shift involves a supposed evolution in Israelite
religion away from the anthropomorphic and immanent images of the deity in
the JE sources, toward the more abstract, demythologized, and transcendent

21 The First Historians, 109.

22 Menahem Haran, Temples & Temple Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into the Char-
acter of Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School (Oxford: Claren-
don Press, 1978).
δ Introduction

image of the deity in the Ρ source. In this schematized assessment, Deuter-

onomy, and hence the DH, are identified as the transition point in the
progression of perception in that they replace the "older and more popular
idea" that God lives in the temple with the idea that he is actually only hypo-
statically present in the temple. Moreover, it is understood that the new
perception is communicated by "the theological differentiation between
Jahweh on the one hand and his name on the other."23
The hypothesis is that Dtr is intentionally correcting his predecessors by
introducing a new understanding of the mode of divine presence through his
use of name—name in this context being understood as a synonym for essence.
Furthermore, Dtr's use of name has been interpreted by modern biblical
scholarship as the indicator of this deuteronomistic corrective, a supposed
theologumenon which has been dubbed the Name Theology. As articulated by
Gerhard von Rad in his Studies in Deuteronomy (1947), Dtr has presumably
rejected the "old crude idea" of Y H W H physically inhabiting the cult site;
instead Dtr has substituted the presence of his name, a near material presence,
which "verges closely on a hypostasis."24 The tenacity of this proposition is
demonstrated by A. S. van der Woude's summary of the subject in his article
on rem in HOT:

Since the works of O. Grether and G. von Rad, scholars have generally agreed
that the stereotypical Dtn phrases 'the place that Yahweh will choose so that his
name may dwell there (l'Sakkënfmô Mm)' (Deut 12:11; 14:23; 16:2, 6, 11;
26:2; cf. Neh 1:9) and 'the place that Yahweh will choose to place his name
there (lâsûm S'mô Särnf (Deut 12:5, 21; 14:24; cf. 2 Chron 6:20) should be
interpreted as expressions of a unique abstract-theological Dtn construction in
which the Sëm of Yahweh is distinguished from the transcendent Yahweh as his
representative in an almost material and personal fashion.25

The evidence which has been used to substantiate and sustain this theory over
the last century may be summarized into two categories. The first is the afore-
mentioned use of "name" to indicate the abstracted presence of Y H W H in the
temple. The second is the DH's apparent "demythologization" of the temple
and the ark as found in Nathan's oracle (2 Sam 7:1-17) and Solomon's dedi-
catory address (1 Kgs δ: 1-9:9). Here interpreters have identified a repetitive
theme: the supposed reinterpretation of Y H W H as a transcendent, rather than
immanent, deity.
Foundational to the first of these categories has been the formulaic state-
ment that first appears in the Book of Deuteronomy:

23 Von Rad, Old Testament Theology (HarperSanFrancisco, 1962 [1957]), 1:184.

24 Von Rad, Studies in Deuteronomy, 38-9.
25 A. S. van der Woude, "op," TLOT(\997) 3:1361.
 The Deuteronomistic History and the Name Theology 9

hammâqôm
'äSer-yibhar Yhwh 'ëlôhêkem bô
le$akkën fmô Mm;

and its traditional translation,

the place
in which YHWH your God will choose
to cause his name to dwell

(Deut 12:11; 14:23; 16:2, 6, 11; 26:2; cf. Ezra 6:12; Neh 1:9; Jer 7:12). This
formula is found six (I will argue seven) times in Deuteronomy and is quoted
in Jer 7:12, Ezra 6:12, and Neh 1:9. Synonymous reflexes of the idiom can be
found throughout the DH and the Chronicler in the form of lâsûm fmô Säm and
lihyôt fmô Säm. As translated, this phrase is seemingly communicating that
YHWH intends to "cause" some new aspect of himself "to dwell" at the chosen
place, a new aspect indicated by "name." It is not difficult to discern how the
above translation of this idiomatic expression has corroborated the identifica-
tion of name in the DH as a hypostatized personality.
Foundational to the second category of evidence has been the application of
this deuteronomic formula to 2 Samuel 7 and to 1 Kings 8. In 2 Samuel 7 the
result has been the perception that the tension in this pericope is the "theolog-
ical distinction . . . between the Temple understood as the place of God's
throning and the Temple as the place for the Name of God." 26 In 1 Kings 8
commentators have concluded that the reference to Deuteronomy's name-
formula is part and parcel of "a 'relocation' of the Lord to heaven,"27 a re-
identification of the primary function of the temple as a house of prayer, and a
demythologization of the ark as "merely" the receptacle of the tablets of the
covenant (1 Kgs 8:21) rather than as the throne of the deity.28 When combined,
this supposed demythologization of the Presence, the temple, and the ark
become commanding evidence that Dtr is intentionally correcting his prede-
cessors by means of his new theologumenon, the Name Theology.
Even the briefest survey of modern deuteronomistic scholarship will
demonstrate the profound impact that this interpretative paradigm has had
upon the field of biblical studies. Walther Eichrodt's highly influential
Theologie des Alten Testaments (1933-61) interprets the Deuteronomist's use

26 T. N. D. Mettinger, The Dethronement of Sabaoth: Studies in the Shem and Kabod

Theologies, ConBOT 18; CWK Gleerup, 1982), 49.
27 Ibid.
28 See von Rad, "The Tent and the Ark," in The Problem of the Hexateuch (New York:
McGraw Hill Book Company, 1966), 103-24; Levenson, "From Temple to Synagogue:
1 Kings 8"; and Marc Z. Brettler, "Interpretation and Prayer: Notes on the Composition of
1 Kings 8:15-53," in Minhah le-Nahum: Biblical and other Studies Presented to Nahum M.
Sarna in Honour of his 7tfh Birthday (eds. M. Brettler and M. Fishbane; JSOTSup 154;
Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 17-35.
 10 Introduction

of name as representative of "a kind of alter ego"29 of the deity intended to

replace the older idea of YHWH'S physical presence at the cult site:

On the one hand there is the Deuteronomic school, which preserved the reality
of the divine presence at the holy place by substituting for the heathen
conception of God's personal dwelling that of the dwelling of his Name. 30

G. E. Wright (I960), seeking a solution to what he perceived as an immanence/

transcendence dilemma in Israelite religion, inherited from Canaanite theol-
ogy,31 argued for a similar paradigm shift in the theology of the DH:

it is clear that the Deuteronomic use of the name was a polemic reaction against
all attempts to localize God's being. 32

In the introduction of his regrettably unpublished dissertation, S. Dean

McBride (1969) assumes the same paradigm:

First, there is no mistaking the fact that ¡¡em in the various formulations of Name
Theology connoted a mode of divine immanence at least in part distinct from
God himself. 33

Moshe Weinfeld's (1972) work, although presupposing that Ρ predates D, re-

flects the same interpretive grid:

In contrast to this priestly anthropomorphism, the theological conceptions of the

book of Deuteronomy and the deuteronomic school are abstract ones. 34

And Tryggve Mettinger (1982), also presupposing the primacy of the P-source,
writes:

The Name concept of the D-Work is thus with abundant clarity seen to be an el-
ement in the rejection of the earlier theology . . . Thus, the ancient conceptions

29 W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (trans. J. A. Baker; 2 vols.; Philadelphia:

Westminster Press, 1961-1967[1933]), 1:207.
30 Ibid., 1:106.
31 See G. E. Wright, The Rule of God: Essays in Biblical Theology (Garden City: Doubleday,
1960), 55-72. See also Bernhard Stade, Geschichte des Volkes Israel (Berlin: G. Grote,
1887), 2:245-51, for one of the earliest precursors to Wright's argument.
32 "In Israel the transcendent nature of deity made his immanence in an earthly sanctuary a
theological problem such as did not exist among polytheists . . . " (G. E. Wright et al., "The
Book of Deuteronomy" in The Interpreter's Bible, vol. 2 (New York: Abingdon-Cokes-
bury Press, 1953), 411-12.
33 S. Dean McBride, "The Deuteronomic Name Theology,"(Ph.D. diss., Harvard University,
1969), 3.
34 M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisen-
brauns, 1972), 193.
 Whence the Name Theology? 11

of the divine presence are made obsolete by the idea of the 'Name' in the
temple.35

It is evident that this theory, which postulates that D and/or Dtr is reacting
against a previous perception of the mode of divine presence at the cult site
through his use of name, has found a fertile field in modern biblical studies.

C. Whence the Name Theology?

As noted earlier, the deuteronomic idiom, hammâqôm 'àSer-yibhar YHWH

'ëlôhêkem bô l'Sakkèn fmô Mm, and its traditional translation, "the place in
which YHWH your God will choose to cause his name to dwell" (Deut 12:11;
14:23; 16:2, 6, 11; 26:2; cf. Jer 7:12; Ezra 6:12; Neh 1:9) has been central to
the development of the Name Theology. In this deuteronomic phrase, two ex-
tremely important biblical-theological themes seemingly are linked: the name
of God and the presence of God. It is apparent that in a number of biblical
contexts, the "name" of YHWH is used in a substitutionary or near-substitution-
ary fashion for YHWH himself. This is most apparent in the Psalms where the
psalmists exclaim: "May YHWH answer you in the day of distress! May the
name of the God of Jacob protect you!" (Ps20:l); "for in him our heart
rejoices, because we trust in his holy name" (Ps 33:21); "with you we will push
back our adversaries, with your name we will trample those who rise against
us!" (Ps 44:5). In addition to these cited passages, there are numerous psalms
which speak of praising the name, giving thanks to the name, remembering the
name, and trusting in the name. Although many of these "name" occurrences
in the Psalms can be explained as references to the reputation of YHWH or the
actual act of speaking his name (i.e., "YHWH"), it is apparent that in certain
biblical contexts, to speak of the name of YHWH is to speak of the deity
himself. Additionally, although only partly related to the biblical convention,
by the end of the third century CE, haiSëm had superseded 'ädönäy as the
appropriate means by which to refer to the God of Israel in Jewish circles.
Hence, in the earliest stages of post-biblical criticism, the Name had become an
appellation for YHWH in certain contexts.36
On the other hand, the theology of the divine presence (the idea that YHWH
will dwell among his people) is absolutely fundamental to the faith communi-
cated in the Hebrew Bible. The paradise that was Eden, the paradise that is the
Holy of Holies, and the coming paradise which the prophets envision are all
characterized by this single concept: YHWH is present. Moreover, the great

3 5 Mettinger, Dethronement of Sabaoth, 48-50.

36 Ludwig Blau, "Tetragrammaton," JE (ed. Isidore Singer et al.; 12 vols.; New York: Funk
and Wagnalls, 1905), 12:118-20.
12 Introduction

pentateuchal theologian whom we know as the Priestly Writer expressed the

mode by which YHWH would be among his people by means of the common
bH verb Skn, "to settle for a certain period of time; to abide, dwell" 37 —a verb
which he transformed into a technical theological designation for the present,
yet ephemeral, presence of the deity.38 Hence, YHWH was understood to Skn in
the midst of Israel, housed in his holy residence, the miSkän. In Christianity,
this pentateuchal perception of divine presence is rearticulated in the Incarna-
tion: Jesus is "the logos who became flesh and eskènôsen (< skënoô "to live,
dwell in a tent" 39 ) among us" (John 1:14). What is more, the ultimate
fulfillment of the new covenant is synopsized in the promised eschaton:
"Behold, the tabernacle of God (hë skënë tou theou) is among men, and he shall
dwell (skènôsei) among them, and they shall be his people, and God himself
shall be among them" (Rev 21:3).
In sum, it is not difficult to see how Deuteronomy's juxtaposition of the
name and Skn might result in the idea that YHWH (the name) had come to dwell
(Skn) in the holy place. The fact, however, that the LXX does not translate the
Skn of the deuteronomic idiom with skënoô nor Sêm with kurios demonstrates
that these early translators had not yet made this association (we will address
the LXX in detail in the next chapter). Rather, the first such association may be
found in early Rabbinic Judaism.
Among the tannaitic rabbis, the pentateuchal theology of the Presence was
conceptualized in another application of P's Skn·. Shekinah: "the dwelling [of
God's presence]." By this term the rabbis sought to communicate the
"numinous immanence of God in the world" 40 while emphasizing his tran-
scendence and "man's incapacity to engage in any act which may appear to
bring him physically closer to God."41 Hence, we find that the Targumim
speak not of YHWH'S dwelling either in heaven or on earth, but as God causing

37 HALOT, s.v. "ptí" (p. 1496); BDB, s.v. "psT (p. 1015).
38 Cross, "The Priestly Tabernacle," 201-28; Canaanite Myth, 245-46 n. 114. As had others
before him, Cross theorized that this temporary, transcendent conception of the mode of
divine presence at the cult site was understood by the Priestly writer as distinct from the
more permanent mode of divine presence indicated by ySb.
39 Liddel & Scott, s.v. "σκηνόω" sub. "σκηνέο" (p. 1608); BAGD, s.v. "σκηι>όω" (p. 755).
40 Alan Unterman, "Shekinah," EncJud 14:1349. Unterman goes on to state that in early
rabbinic literature "[t]he Shekinah is God viewed in spatio-temporal terms as a presence,
particularly in a this-worldly context ... a revelation of the holy in the midst of the pro-
fane" (ibid.). Ludwig Blau makes the point, and Unterman concurs, that in the great
majority of cases Shekinah is used to designate God himself, particularly his presence in a
particular place. But with the frequent use of the word, and with the growing concern to
avoid any possible anthropomorphic interpretations, an array of nuances were added (Blau,
"Shekinah," JE 11:258-60). Unterman states: "it would be a mistake to overemphasize any
given use to the exclusion of the others . . . " (op. cit., 1352).
41 Bernard Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Genesis (ArBib 6; ed. Martin McNamaara
et al.; Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1988), 21, 30.
 Whence the Name Theology? 13

his Shekinah to dwell.42 This use of the Shekinah in translation marks the
beginnings of a larger movement in Jewish theology towards the "transcen-
dentalization of God," which in later years led to the complete circumlocution
of any anthropomorphic language used in relation to God.43 By the Middle
Ages, in their desire to protect the unity of the Godhead, the Jewish philos-
ophers had redefined the Shekinah as some sort of intermediary figure separate
from God himself.44 Meanwhile, the Kabbalists came to understand the
Shekinah as the Malkhut, the feminine principle in the world of the divine, the
tenth and last in the hierarchy of the seflrot45
The association of the name of God in the deuteronomic idiom with this
Jewish doctrine of the Presence can first be detected in the Targum of
Onqelos.46 Here the rabbi translates the deuteronomic passages in which
l'Sakkën fmô Mm or lâsûm fmô Mm appear as the place YHWH has chosen for
"his Shekinah to dwell" or the place YHWH has chosen "to rest his Shekinah.,A1
Because Onqelos translates references to the person, dwelling, or remoteness
of God as Shekinah throughout his Targumim, it is apparent that he understood
name in the deuteronomic passages as another designation for YHWH.
Different from the assumptions of the Name Theology, however, Onqelos's
broader use of Shekinah demonstrates that he did not consider the
manifestation of the deity in the deuteronomic formula to be in any manner

42 See for example Gen 9:27 in which Onqelos translates w'yiükön tf'öhöle-Sem "and He will
cause his Shekinah to dwell in the tents of Shem."
43 Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Genesis, 19. In the rabbinic writings memra = "word"
and yeqara = "glory" are also used in order to replace biblical references to God "where
the anthropomorphic expressions of the Bible were no longer regarded as proper" (L. Blau,
"Shekinah," JE, 11:258). Cf. Tg. Ps.-J, Deut 12:5: "But you shall seek the land where the
Memra of the Lord your God has chosen, among all your tribes, to cause his Shekinah to
dwell, and there as a site for his Shekinah you shall go" (Ernest G. Clarke, Targum
Pseudo-Jonathan: Deuteronomy [ArBib 5B; Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press,
1998], 38).
44 Rivka Horwitz, "Shekinah: In Jewish Philosophy," EncJud, 14:1352; cf. Moses Maimo-
nides, The Guide of the Perplexed (trans. Chaim Rabin; London: East & West Library,
1952).
45 Joseph Dan, "Shekinah: In Kabbalah," EncJud, 14:1354; cf. Joshua Abelson, Introduction
to The Zohar (trans. Harry Sperling and Maurice Simon; 5 vols.; 2nd ed.; New York: The
Soncino Press, 1984).
46 The Targum of Onqelos is often referred to as the "Babylonian Targum" as its interpreta-
tion of the Torah was recognized as canonical by the Babylonian school. This Targum has
been hugely influential upon the Jewish world. According to Le Déaut, although its
redaction was not complete until the fifth century, its consonantal form was probably fixed
by 259 CE, the date of Nehardea's destruction (Roger Le Déaut, "The Targumim," CHJ 2:
563-90).
47 Israel Drazin, Targum Onkelos to Deuteronomy (Ktav Publishing House, 1982), Deut 12:5,
11,21; 14:23, 24; 16:2, 6, 11; 26:2; cf. Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Deuteronomy.
 14 Introduction

different from the manifestation of the deity in earlier or later biblical eras.48
Rather, it would seem that Onqelos's translation of these phrases (followed by
Pseudo-Jonathon and later commentators) resulted from: (1) his association of
Skn with the Presence theology of the Pentateuch (an error inherent in the verb
itself; cf. the LXX translation of Ezra 6:12 and Neh 1:9 in comparison with
Deut 12:11, etc.49); and (2) an anachronistic reading of Sern resulting from the
emerging tannaitic designation for the Tetragrammaton as haSSëm.50
Nevertheless, Onqelos's early reinteipretation of the name in the deuteronomic
idiom as the Shekinah, and the rabbinic concern to overwrite anthropomorphic
language as applied to YHWH, may have planted the seeds of modern
speculations regarding the "evolution" of the God of Israel and the
hypostatization of his name.
The germination of these seeds, however, awaited the influences of the
modern era. A review of modern biblical scholarship demonstrates two streams
of thought, both of which commanded great respect at the turn of the century,
whose confluence stimulated the formation of the Name Theology as we now
know it. The first is best termed "nominal realism." The second is Well-
hausen's three-stage, evolutionary paradigm of Israelite religion. Presenting
these systems of thought in a chronological fashion is not possible because the
one is thoroughly intertwined with the other. I will begin therefore with nom-
inal realism and conclude with Wellhausen and his disciples. The second half
of this section will trace the Name Theology into its modem reconstructions.

1. Nominal Realism

The term "nominal realism" comes from the discipline of developmental

psychology and is used to describe pre-abstract thought in children.51 In this

48 Cf. Gen 9:27; Exod 25:8; 29:45; 33:14-15; Num 5:3; 6:25; 14:14, 42; 16:3; 35:34; Deut
1:42; 3:24; 4:39; 6:15; 7:21; 23:16; 21:17; 31:17-18. As the rabbi uses Shekinah to speak
of G o d ' s dwelling in heaven (Deut 3:24; 4:39) and on earth (Deut 23:16), in the tabernacle
(Exod 25:8) and among his people (Exod 33:14), it is apparent that unlike the Name
Theology, Onqelos did not see in our idiom the designation of a less immanent deity than
that of Sinai or a less transcendent deity than that of his own era. Note as well that Targum
Pseudo-Jonathan uses Shekinah to speak not only of God's dwelling in the temple (cf. 1
Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2; 1 Kgs 8:12, 13; Ps 74:2) but also of his dwelling in heaven (Isa 6:6,
33:5; Deut 3:24, 4:39).
49 "In later times, the abstract term ¡Sêkhîntâ' designated the Temple while simultaneously
designating the most worthy site for God's presence to rest. This fact led the Targum to
render all textual cases of Skn in reference to God by the phrase 'aire iëkhîntâ' (Exod 25:8;
29:45,46; Num 5:3; 35:34)" (Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Genesis, 30).
50 Wilhelm Bacher, "Shem Ha-Meforash," JE 11:262-64.
51 First pioneered by S. Freud and M. Janet by means of a comparison of the language of
"savages, imbeciles and young children," the concept is that speech is first expressed in the
form of command. Hence, in the "pre-logical mind," words and actions are equated. As
 Whence the Name Theology? 15

context, the term indicates the perception on the part of the child that there
exists "a concrete, ontological relationship . . . between words and the things
and actions which the words describe."52 The hypothesis that the ancients
shared this same understanding of their world was introduced to the study of
religion at least as early as the nineteenth century as one expression of the
history of religions movement. This movement postulated an evolution of
religion, common to all cultures, which begins with a pre-logical or "primitive"
stage comparable to the earliest developmental stage of the human child. As far
as I am able to determine, the actual term "nominal realism" was introduced
into the discussion of name in the ANE by S. D. McBride in his 1969 doctoral
dissertation on the Name Theology in Deuteronomy. As it is extremely well
suited to the topic, I will continue the convention. Hence, for our discussion,
nominal realism is defined as the supposed perception on the part of the
ancient Semite that the name of an item or person, as a symbol of the thing or
person named, was in fact real, having consubstantial existence with the name-
bearer.
Several strata of academic enterprise have contributed to this interpretive
principal in biblical studies. The oldest is the nominalist-realist debate, rooted
in Aristotle and Plato, which exploded under Thomas Hobbes and John Locke
in the seventeenth century and continues to this day in the ongoing discussion
regarding "the problem of universale."53 Herein the term is defined: "nominal,"

language evolves, words are separated from the action they represent, but the nature of
their shared origin is such that words alluding to an act "retain a definite emotional charge"
(J. Piaget, The Language and Thought of the Child [New York: Meridian, 1957, 26).
Such facts as these explain the very widespread tendency of primitive thought to
look upon the names of persons and objects, and upon the designation of events
as pregnant with the qualities of these objects and events. Hence, the belief that it
is possible to work upon them by the mere evocation of words, the word being
no longer a mere label, but a formidable reality partaking of the nature of the
named object (ibid., cf. E. Jones, "A Linguistic Factor in English Charactero-
logy," in International Journal of Psycho-Analysis 1/3 [1920]: 256, see quota-
tions from Ferenczi and Freud, 257).
52 McBride, "The Deuteronomic Name Theology," 67; cf. Jean Piaget, The Child's Concep-
tion of the World (trans. John and Andrew Tomlinson; The International Library of Psy-
chology, Philosophy and Scientific Method; ed. C. K. Ogden; Totawa, N.J.: Littlefield,
Adams & Company, 1967). Piaget states that in the mind of the child, "[t]he word is in the
thing, because it is part of the essence of the thing" (ibid., 73).
53 The debate involves the existence of particulars and universale. In his discussion of "The
World of Universals," Bertrand Russell states: "proper names stand for particulars, while
other substantives, adjectives prepositions and verbs stand for universals" (in Universals
and Particulars: Readings In Ontology [ed. Michael J. Loux; Notre Dame: University of
Notre Dame Press, 1976], 16-23, esp. 16). Hence, Realism, "as the word is used in
connection with the mediaeval controversy over universals, is the Platonic doctrine that
universals or abstract entities have being independently of the mind; the mind may
discover them but cannot create them." Hence, for the metaphysical realists following
Plato, the world of universals and the world of ideas, is real (Willard Van Orman Quine,
 16 Introduction

having to do with nouns, and "realism," having to do with the Platonic doctrine
that there is a realm o f universale above the material world in which universale
(the characteristic o f X-ness where X is the quality o f "red," "smart," or "free,"
etc.) have being independent of the mind and are as real as, if not more real
than, the individual objects themselves. 5 4
The second stratum is the philosophical discussion o f mythology and
language pioneered in the early 18th century by the Italian philosopher, Giam-
battista Vico. 5 5 Vico challenged his contemporaries by postulating that myths
were not simply false narratives or allegories, but were in fact evidence o f a
stream o f human conception which lay outside of discursive logic. His theory
was that myth represented "the collective mentality o f a given age," a
mentality which might be discovered by means o f a careful study o f the lan-
guage used to communicate that mythology. 5 6 Vico's theories were brought to
the height o f their influence more than a century later at the hands o f F. Max
Müller and Ernst Cassirer who succeeded in linking the conceptual process o f

"On What There Is" in Universais and Particulars: Readings in Ontology, 28; cf. Alasdair
Maclntyre, "Essence and Existence," The Encyclopedia of Philosophy [ed. Paul Edwards;
New York: Macmillan, 1967], 3:59-61).
Nominalism is defmed as the theory of knowledge which maintains that "universais" are
empty concepts that have no reality independent of their existence in the thought of an
individual. "In contrast to Platonic realism, nominalism insisted that reality was found only
in the objects themselves" (D. A. Rousch, "Nominalism," Evangelical Dictionary of
Theology [ed. Walter A. Elwell; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984], 778). This
debate, and particularly the doctrine of Realism, had a great deal of influence on medieval
thought. A classic presentation of the discussion of "universais" is found in volume two of
Frederick Copleston's, A History of Philosophy (Garden City: Image Books/Doubleday,
1985 [1946], 2:136-56).
54 Ultimately this discussion goes back to Plato's Cratylus. A good summary of Cratylus may
be found in John F. A. Sawyer's Sacred Languages and Sacred Texts: Religion in the First
Christian Centuries (New York: Routledge, 1999), 112-13. An excellent discussion of the
deliberations in and around Cratylus is taken up in Gérard Genette's Mimologics (trans.
Thaïs E. Morgan; Lincoln, Nebr.: University of Nebraska Press, 1995).
55 Vico's Scienza nuova was republished several times from 1725-1744. He was the first to
challenge the theories of knowledge advocated by philosophy, theories which Vico argued
had completely neglected branches of human activity such as art, law, and history in
preference for those of the mathematical and physical sciences. "Vico maintained that man
is a being who can be understood only historically" (Patrick Gardiner, "Giambattista
Vico," The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 8:247-51, quotation, 249). Rather than condemn-
ing mythology as falsehood, Vico was the first to suggest that: "the figures of legend and
fable represented for the men who created them pregnant imaginative embodiments of
truths that related directly to their material circumstances and preoccupations" (ibid.). Vico
wrote that "fables" are the "first histories of the Gentile peoples," and when properly
interpreted, they could be "immensely revealing and informative" (ibid.; cf. Lucien Lévy
Brühl, L'Ame primitive (Paris: F. Alean, 1927) chs. 7, 12; Otto Jespersen, Mankind, Nation
and Individual from a Linguistic Point of View [Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University
Press, 1946], ch. 9).
56 Alasdair Maclntyre, "Myth," Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 5:435.
 Whence the Name Theology? 17

myth-making to pre-logical thought.57 Cassirer concluded that for the pre-

logical mind, "[t]he word, like a god or a daemon, confronts man not as a
creation of his own, but as something existent and significant in its own right,
as an objective reality."58 Consequentially, pre-logical expression (i.e., the
language of the pre-logical mind) assumes an "essential identity between the
word and what it denotes."59 This hypothesis became absolutely fundamental
to future investigations of myth as well as to inquiries involving the religion of
the "primitive" mind.60
The third stratum of academic enterprise that established nominal realism as
a staple of biblical interpretation was the adaptation of the hypotheses of Vico,
Müller, and Cassirer to the study of religion as one aspect of the history of reli-
gions movement. One of the axioms of this movement was the notion that
universal truths underlie all expressions of human religion. Chief among these
truths was the notion that all religions progress through a comparable, three-
phase evolution, an evolution often delineated by "tribal," "national," and "uni-
versalistic" stages. Early on, this evolution was linked to the maturation

57 Müller attempted to interpret mythologies by means of principles derived from philology.

He theorized that myth is the product of the loss of the original meanings of words; hence,
words for sun, sky, moon were eventually confused such that the words came to be
understood as names of deities, and what had once been understood as an account of the
movements of natural entities metamorphosed into accounts of the activities of the gods. In
his critique of Miiller's basic theory, Cassirer states that Müller held that the creation of
myth is ultimately the product of the ambiguity of language (Ernst Cassirer, Language and
Myth [trans. Susanne Κ. Langer; New York: Dover Publications, 1953(1946}], 5-6; cf. F.
Max Müller, Comparative Mythology [New York: Arno Press, 1977(1856}], Lectures on
the Science of Language [New York: Charles Scribner, 1865], "The Philosophy of Mytho-
logy," in Introduction to the Science of Religion [London: Longmans, 1873], 353-55.
58 Cassirer, Language and Myth, 36; cf. Cassirer, Substanzbegriff und Funktionsbegriff
(Chicago: The Open Court Publishing Co., 1923).
59 Cassirer, Language and Myth, 49; William P. Alston, "Religious Language," Encyclopedia
of Philosophy, 7:172. Cassirer sought to correct Müller in his view that myth was the result
of a defect in mental activity. Cassirer instead stated that myth was the result of "a positive
power of formulation and creation" (op. cit., 6). Hence, like Vico before him, Cassirer
postulated that the philosophical constructs regarding human thought were inadequate in
that they began their quest for reason with the analysis of knowledge—recognizing only
discursive logic and damning creative imagination (and thereby myth-making) as error.
Based upon the evidence of language, Cassirer argued that the "philosophy of mind
involves much more than a theory of knowledge; it involves a theory of pre-logical con-
ception and expression, and their final culmination in reason and factual knowledge"
(Language and Myth, x; cf. Cassirer, Philosophy of Symbolic Forms [3 vols.; New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1953, 55, 57] and An Essay on Man [New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1944]).
60 As Cassirer stated: "The notion that name and essence bear a necessary and internal rela-
tion to each other, that the name does not merely denote but actually is the essence of its
object, that the potency of the real thing is contained in the name—that is one of the funda-
mental assumptions of the mythmaking consciousness itself' (Language and Myth, 3).
 18 Introduction

process of the human mind ("ontogeny recapitulates phytogeny"61). The

premise was that all religion begins with a tribal form in which Animism and
Spiritism predominate. This tribal stage is associated with that of pre-abstract
thought in the psychological model and was further modified by the idea that
the "primitive," like the child, is unable to experience religion in a transcendent
fashion.62 Moreover, this tribal stage of religion was equated to Cassirer's
"pre-logical" state, that is the "mythical consciousness" in which there is no
clear distinction between the subjective and the objective: symbol and object
are not distinguished.63 These credos were in turn linked to an analysis of
sympathetic magic as "an undiscriminating identification of a part with the
whole."64 The end result? The first phase of all religious development was
defined as that stage in which the "primitive" mind was unable to comprehend
the transcendent, and "primitive" religion was typified as the practice of
fetishes, naturalistic religion, and nominal realism. A quote from James George
Frazer's famous 1922 work on magic and religion, The Golden Bough,
synthesizes these ideas into a single thought:

61 This credo, that every human being is a compendium of the history of his race, may be
located in nearly every form of academic pursuit in the 19th century, and has been
identified as the ideological construct which characterizes that era (cf. loan P. Culianu,
"Mircea Eliade at the Crossroad of Anthropology," in On Symbolic Representation of
Religion [ed. Hubertus G. Hubbeling and Hans G. Kippenberg; New York: Walter de
Gruyter, 1986], 48-56, esp. 48). An example of the application of this tenet is Edward
Caird's seventh lecture on the "Main Stages in the Evolution of Religion," delivered at the
University of St. Andrews in the early 1890's. Here Caird regularly uses the development
of the human mind toward self-consciousness, i.e., abstract thought, as a paradigm for the
development of religion: "On a rough general view of the facts of history, it might seem
that in the earliest stages of man's life on earth, he was hardly to be called self-conscious,
and he was not conscious of God at all. The savage, like the boy, seems to live almost
entirely outside of himself. . . Regarding this earliest stage of religion, Caird concludes:
"Man at first looks outward, and not inward: he can form no idea of anything to which he
cannot give a 'local habitation and a name,' which he cannot body forth as an existence in
space and time" (The Evolution of Religion: The Gifford Lectures Delivered Before the
University of St. Andrews in Sessions 1890-92 [2 vols.; Glasgow: James Maclehose and
Sons, 1894], 1:177-78,189).
62 In his chapter on "The Beginnings and Growth of Religion," George Galloway states:
The religious significance of Animism is, that man fits the object for its religious
function by endowing it with a soul like his own . . . The primitive mind had no
idea of a purely illusory experience, just as it had no notion of a soul which was
not in some sense material... So man peopled his world with a host of spiritual
beings, who could be approached and reverenced through the material things in
which they made their dwelling, but who were themselves invisible . . . (The
Philosophy of Religion [International Theological Library; ed. Charles A. Briggs
and Stewart D.F. Salmond; New York: Scribner's Sons], 1923), 91, 93, 105).
63 Alston, "Religious Language," Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 7:172.
64 Galloway, The Philosophy of Religion, 100.
 Whence the Name Theology? 19

Unable to discriminate clearly between words and things, the savage

commonly fancies that the link between a name and the person or
thing denominated by it is not a mere arbitrary and ideal association,
but a real and substantial bond which unites the two in such a way
that magic may be wrought on a man just as easily through his name
as through his hair, his nails, or any other material part of his
person.65

A s Patrick Miller details, the reaction against the history o f religions school
was broad and fierce. Karl Barth, Rudolf Bultmann, G. von Rad, William F.
Albright, Thorkild Jacobsen, Henri Frankfort, and G. Ernest Wright are among
the giants w h o attempted to shift the tide of academic consensus. 6 6 B y different
means, each of these scholars emphasized the uniqueness o f Israel's experience
(in opposition to religionsgeschichtliche universalistic presuppositions 67 ).
However, somehow Cassirer's perception o f the "primitive mind" and his
magical and essentialistic views of names escaped critique. 68 On the contrary,
Cassirer's paradigm gained fresh strength as it was assimilated into the new
hermeneutic. Johannes Pedersen's highly influential work on the concept o f the
soul in Hebrew thought demonstrates the continuation and amplification o f the
concept o f nominal realism in biblical studies:

The soul in its entirety, with all its blessing and honour, finds expression in the
name, shèm . . . In so far it may be said that the name is part of the soul, seeing
that it is possessed by it like the body, and everything wherein it manifests itself
. . . It is to be understood quite literally that the name is the soul."69

Frankfort, Jacobsen, and Wright molded these same concepts into a

paradigm they termed "mythopoeic thought"—a celebration o f the ancients'

65 James George Frazer, The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion (Abridged ed.;
New York: The MacMillan Company, 1940 [1922]), 244. See chapter twenty-two,
"Tabooed Words," for the discussion.
66 See Patrick Miller, "Israelite Religion," The Hebrew Bible and Its Modern Interpreters (ed.
Douglas A. Knight and Gene M. Tucker; Decatur, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1985), 201-213.
67 A primary complaint against the history of religions school was their reliance upon the
"world-constructs" of philosophers like Hegel and Schelling: "explanatory systems that
were intended to hold generally for psychological processes, social organization, historical
successions, as well as for questions about epistemology and ontology" (Albert Cook,
Myth & Language [Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1980], 13).
68 The staying power of this theory is in large part due to the apparent theurgic use of names
in Mesopotamian literature and the phenomenon of damnatio memorae in Egyptian
literature. See Herman te Velde, "Some Remarks on the Concept 'Person' in the Ancient
Egyptian Culture," in Concepts of Person in Religion and Thought (ed. Hans G.
Kippenberg et al.; Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1990), 83-101. "The Egyptians themselves
seem to have regarded the name as an aspect of the person" (ibid., 88).
69 Johannes Pedersen, Israel: Its Life and Culture (2 vols.; Atlanta: Scholars Press, c.1991),
1:245; repr. oí Israel: Its Life and Culture (trans. A. Moller and A. I. Fausboll; 4 vols, in 2;
London: Oxford University Press, 1926-1940).
20 Introduction

"I-Thou" relationship with their world. A s set forth centuries before, this
"new" paradigm o f Israel's mythic-consciousness was in part defined by
Israel's supposed inability to separate the immanent from the transcendent,
symbol from reality, name from name-bearer. H. Frankfort's famous essay
articulates this concept: 70

Symbols are treated in the same way. The primitive uses symbols as much as we
do; but he can no more conceive them as signifying, yet separate from, the gods
or powers than he can consider a relationship established in his mind—such as
resemblance—as connecting, and yet separate from, the objects compared.
Hence there is a coalescence of the symbol and what it signifies, as there is a
coalescence of two objects compared so that one may stand for the other . . . An
example of the coalescence of a symbol and the thing it stands for is the treating
of a person's name as an essential part of him—as if it were, in a way, identical
with him.71

But a new breeze is blowing. Herman te Velde is representative o f those

who have critiqued Frankfort's perception of the coalescence of signifiant and
signifie as no longer tenable. "This mythopoeic thought, like the primitive
mentality o f Van der Leeuw, must now be dismissed as superfluous fiction." 72

70 H. te Velde states that Frankfort's term "mytho-poetic thought" is best described as "myth-
making thinking" and that Frankfort's term is his translation of the "mentalité prélogique"
of Levy-Bruhl and Van der Leeuw respectively (H. te Velde, "Frankfort and Religious
Symbols," in On Symbolic Representation of Religion: Groninger Contributions to
Theories of Symbols [ed. Hubertus G. Hubbeling and Hans G. Kippenberg; Berlin: Walter
de Gruyter, 1986], 35-56, esp. 43-44; cf. Levy-Bruhl, La Pensée Sauvage [Paris: Pion,
1955] reprinted in English as The Savage Mind [Chicago: University Press, 1966];
Gerardus van der Leeuw, Phänomenologie der Religion [London: G. Allen & Unwin,
1938] reprinted in English as Religion In Essence and Manifestation [Princeton: Princeton
University Press, c. 1986]).
71 Henri Frankfort, "Myth and Reality," in The Intellectual Adventure of Man: An Essay on
Speculative Thought in the Ancient Near East (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,
1977 [1946]), 3-27, esp. 12-13). Although Frankfort was critical of J. Frazer and a com-
parative method which served to "hypostasize the generalizations by means of which we
order our material," he was himself both a "product and a transmitter of the Netherlands
religio-historical school of Kristensen" and, therefore, deeply affected by the tenets of that
school (cf. "The Dying God," Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 21[1958]:
141-50, quotation p. 142; te Velde, "Frankfort and Religious Symbols," 40). Consequently,
Cassirer's theories may be detected throughout Frankfort's work.
72 Te Velde, "Frankfort and Religious Symbols," 43-44; cf. Te Velde, "Some Remarks on the
Concept 'Person' in the Ancient Egyptian Culture," in Concepts of Person in Religion and
Thought (ed. Hans G. Kippenberg et al.; Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1990), 83-101, esp.
88; Johannes Fichtner, "Die etymologische Ätiologie in den Namengebungen der ge-
schichtlichen Bücher des Alten Testaments," VT 6 (1956): 372-96; J. Baines, "Interpreta-
tions of Religion: Logic, Discourse, Rationality," Göttinger Miszellen 76 (1984): 25-54.
James Barr has challenged this same perception from a linguistic perspective. He evalu-
ates the linguistic evidence which has been gathered to support the idea that Hebrew
thought is "concrete," (i.e., pre-logical) whereas Greek thought is "abstract" or
 Whence the Name Theology? 21

As regards the impact of this theory upon the lexicography of "name" in the
Hebrew Bible, van der Woude has stated: "The thesis that in the entire ancient
Near East the name is 'not only a sign of the difference between various
entities but a definition of the essence of the entity named' requires
correction."73 Moreover, in his innovative article on biblical naming, Herbert
Marks (to whom I owe the genesis of this discussion), boldly states that the
"primitivist approach to the name traditions" arises from outdated theories and
"the comparatist's appeal to universale of human behavior," resulting in a
"naïve form of linguistic realism—a humbler version of the correspondence
theories assumed by the precriticai allegorists."74 And he, too, calls for change.
This review of name, myth, language, and the developmental schemes of
the nineteenth century is necessarily rudimentary and brief, and the appropriate
application of the implications of this discussion to biblical studies remains to
be explored on numerous fronts; still, it is important for the student of the
Name Theology to realize the seminal effects that nominal realism as an aspect
of "primitive" religion has had upon the engendering of what is now a standard
paradigm of deuteronomistic interpretation. It was this concept of nominal
realism that made it possible for Rudolf Smend in 1893 to conclude that the
peculiar use of "name" in the DH was an expression of the Semitic perception
that name and essence were "consubstantial" elements.75 It was these lines of
philosophical discussion which directed Friedrich Giesebrecht's religionsge-
schichtliche investigation of the name of God in the Hebrew Bible, and which

"philosophical" (i.e., logical) as "unsystematic and haphazard" (Semantics of Biblical Lan-

guage [London: Oxford University Press, 1961; repr. London: SCM Press, 1983], 21-45,
esp. 23). He speaks specifically of Pedersen's methodology and critiques it by means of a
quotation from Serrus: '"To expect a correspondence between grammar and thought-forms
is, since the development of scientific methodology, an illusion'" (ibid., 41-43; cf. Charles
Serrus, Le Parallélisme logieo-grammatical [Bibliothèque de philosophie contemporaine;
Paris: F. Alean, 1933], 385).
73 Van der Woude, TLOT 3:1350; cf. J. Fichtner, "Die etymologische Ätiologie in den
Namengebungen," 372.
74 Herbert Marks, "Biblical Naming and Poetic Etymology," JBL 114/1(1995): 23. In his
assessment of previously held notions regarding "name" as essence in the ANE, Marks
states that "[r]eports on the magical virtue of names were a staple of the classic
anthropological literature, and the same orientation was perhaps to be expected among
older critics attracted by the comparatist's appeal to universale of human behavior" (23). In
the course of his critique, he goes on to state that "even scholars at home with the skeptical
stances of modern literary theory . . . have tended to adopt the primitivist approach to the
name traditions" (ibid.). Marks traces the modern perception "that biblical naming intends
a direct rapport with the essential being of the object named" to Immanuel M.
Casanowicz's Paronomasia in the Old Testament (1894) and ultimately to "the speculative
pretensions of Cratylism" as derived from Plato's Cratylus (ibid., 23-24). Marks also
provides bibliography for those interested in pursuing the philosophical underpinnings and
evolution of this idea in literary, theological, and sociological studies.
75 Rudolf Smend, Lehrbuch der Alttestamentliche Religions-Geschichte (Freiburg: J.C.B.
Mohr, 1893), 281, η. 1. See next section.
22 Introduction

facilitated his conclusion that in ANE thought the name functions as a proxy
for its bearer.76 And it is the residue of this construct which, in the modern
discussion of the Name Theology, encourages biblical theologians such as
S. D. McBride, S. Terrien, and T. Mettinger to speak of a "concept of Sem" in
the ANE, and by this designation to mean a universal thought process in which
the Semite equates the symbol and the thing symbolized: "like is like . . . the
name of a person is a kind of other self."77

2. Julius Wellhausen and the Evolution of Israelite Religion

In 1878, Julius Wellhausen produced a reconstruction of the development of

Israelite religion that synthesized nearly a century of scholarship and which,
once disseminated, transformed the discipline.78 Weaving together Wilhelm
Vatke's Hegelian assessment of the history of Israelite religion and Karl
Heinrich Grafs hypothesis of source division in the Pentateuch, Wellhausen
proposed a three-stage progression of Israelite religion which radically
rearranged that assumed by the biblical text itself. A product of his age,
Wellhausen's paradigm postulated an evolutionary development from the
simple/natural/spontaneous religion of JE (sources found primarily in the
books of Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers) through the ethical monotheism of D
(the bulk of the book of Deuteronomy) to the complex/hierocratic/legalistic
religion of Ρ (found scattered throughout the Tetrateuch but predominately
located in the legal material of Leviticus). The resulting three-stage interpretive
grid was hailed as brilliantly coherent and has remained enormously influential
for decades. However, this same grid also clearly demonstrated Wellhausen's
dependence upon the "world constructs" of his day. Thus, although Well-
hausen's work with the pentateuchal sources is still highly respected, and the
Prolegomena continues to be acclaimed a masterpiece, the majority of modern
biblical scholarship currently regards Wellhausen's developmental framework
as passé: "The Prolegomena must be regarded as a period-piece, unthinkable
except for its setting in late nineteenth-century German biblical scholarship."79
Interestingly enough, however, even though modern scholarship has rejected
Wellhausen's evolutionary presuppositions, in the study of the theology of the

76 F. Giesebrecht, Die alttestamentliche Schätzung des Gottesnamens und ihre religions-

geschichtliche Grundlage (Königsberg: Verlag von Thomas & Oppermann, 1901).
77 McBride, "The Deuteronomic Name Theology," 77.
78 Wellhausen's Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels was initially published under the title
Geschichte Israels, volume 1 (Berlin: G. Reimer, 1878). But when the second volume did
not follow, the first was revised and updated in order to stand alone, retitled, and
republished in 1883.
79 Douglas Knight, foreword to Prolegomena to the History of Israel, by Julius Wellhausen
(ed. Harry W. Gilmer et al.; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994 [1883]), xvi.
 Whence the Name Theology? 23

• fif)
DH, Wellhausen's framework, seemingly unconsciously, lives on.
The reader will recall that Wellhausen's framework consisted of a three-
stage program of development from the simple to the complex, the immanent
to the transcendent, the pre-logical to the abstract—ran evolution which turned
upon the corrective of the D-source.81 Central to Wellhausen's thesis was the
concept that Deuteronomy, the linch-pin of his system, was a book of reform, a
corrective that affected a "fundamental shift that changed the very character of
the religion."82 Wellhausen argued that the consequences of the ideals of the
D-reform were brought to their full and profound fruition in the hands of the
Priestly Writer; one aspect of the realization of this transformation was the
evolution of the perception of divine presence in Israelite religion.83 In
comparison, the Name Theology has its own three-stage developmental pro-
gram: whereas JE (understood to be a depository of the theology of the early
monarchy) announced an anthropomorphic and immanent deity appearing at
multiple cult sites, the DH utilizes name to initiate a "deuteronomistic correc-
tion" by proclaiming instead a deity only hypostatically present at a single site.

80 Frank Cross, an important critic of the Wellhausian paradigm in this generation, voices a
similar critique in his assessment of the myth and ritual school. He speaks of how present-
day adherents to this school have discarded the "idealistic premises" of Wellhausianism,
but "extraordinarily enough, the idealistic framework of the evolution is kept" (emphasis
mine; Cross, Canaanite Myth, 82).
81 In Wellhausen's scheme, the principal reforms of the D-source included the theological
imperatives that Israel was to serve only one god in one locale. It is this corrective, or
antithetical, element within his rubric that has stimulated the often repeated accusation that
Wellhausen was a Hegelian. As for the character of the DH, although Noth's concept of a
Deuteronomistic Historian had not yet matured in Wellhausen's era, Wellhausen did speak
of deuteronomistic editors, who in their "revision" introduced what could be termed a
"correction" to the older sources: "This revision is, as we expect to find, alien to the
materials it found to work on, so that it does violence to them. They have been altered in
particular by a very one-sided selection, which is determined by certain religious views"
(Wellhausen, Prolegomena [1994], 280-81).
82 Knight, "Foreword," xiv.
83 In detailing the consequences of D's reforms as applied by P, Wellhausen speaks of the
introduction of the "universal congregation or church" which superseded Israel's
previously clan-oriented system of worship. He states that one of the consequences of this
shift in Israelite society was that, "[l]ike the worship itself, its subject also became
abstract, . . . The connection of all this with the Judaising tendency to remove God to a
distance from man, it may be added, is clear" (Wellhausen, Prolegomena [1994], 78-79).
In his footnote to this passage Wellhausen goes on to say, "the idea of God is here even
strikingly remote from the anthropomorphic . . . " (ibid.). This abstraction of the deity by
the Priestly writer as a result of D's reforms, an ingredient necessary to the future coupling
of the correction with the Name Theology, is further emphasized in another passage:
In this way the spiritualisation of the worship is seen in the Priestly Code as
advancing pari passu with its centralisation. It receives, so to speak an abstract
religious character; it separates itself in the first instance from daily life, and then
absorbs the latter by becoming, strictly speaking, its proper business"
(ibid., 81; cf. 104).
24 Introduction

Accordingly, this same deity is eventually transformed by the Priestly writer

into the fully transcendent and demythologized being of later Jewish and early
Christian belief. My argument is that the inter-relatedness of these two, three-
staged programs is not coincidental. Rather, Wellhausen's now disused
framework has served as the invisible scaffolding upon which the Name
Theology of modem deuteronomistic studies has been constructed. The
maturation of the modern idea of the deuteronomistic Name Theology which
occurred in the publications of those influenced by Wellhausen's work will
demonstrate this thesis.

3. Wellhausen's Disciples

It was nearly a decade after the initial appearance of the Prolegomena that
Wellhausen's contemporary, Bernhard Stade,84 first applied Wellhausen's con-
cept of a deuteronomistic correction to the issue of divine presence. Central to
Stade's treatment was the deuteronomic use of name.*5

The authors who redacted Deuteronomy and joined it together with the legend-
ary books of J and E take exception to the idea that Yahweh had elected Jeru-
salem as a dwelling, and replace (it) with the idea that Yahweh chose it, 'to put
his name there' or 'to make it dwell there.' They mean thereby that God does
not live in the temple himself... .86

Stade understood that the idiomatic phrase of Deuteronomy, "the place in

which I will cause My name to dwell" (Deut. 12:11, 14:23, 16:2, 6, 11; 26:2
and quoted in the temple dedication of 1 Kgs 8:16, 29), was in essence a cir-
cumlocution intended specifically to correct the older concept that YHWH
literally dwelt in the Temple, and to replace it with the idea that YHWH owned
the temple.

84 Stade's immersion in Wellhausen's paradigm is most evident in Wellhausen's review of

Stade's Geschichte des Volkes Israel. Not at all happy with the extensive similarities
between his own work and that of Stade, Wellhausen stated that if he were to attempt to
criticize Stade's work he would necessarily have to engage in self-criticism because,
"[o]nly in a few points does he deviate from me" (quoted and translated from Rudolf
Smend, Deutsche Alttestamentler in Drei Jahrhunderten [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1989], 136).
85 In Geschichte des Volkes Israel, Stade based his argument on an analysis of Solomon's
dedicatory address in 1 Kings 8 which he later detailed in his critical commentary on Kings
(1904). Stade argued that 1 Kgs 8:1-9:9 was a compilation of a pre-exilic, "old substratum"
(found with some later editing in 8:1-13) and a post-exilic, deuteronomistic corrective (in-
cluding some non-deuteronomistic additions of unknown origin in 8:14-9:9) (Geschichte
des Volkes Israel, 247; Β. Stade and F. Schwally, The Book of Kings [Sacred Books of the
Old Testament 9; ed. Paul Haupt; Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1904], 10-13, 98-110).
86 Translated from Bernhard Stade, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 247.
 Whence the Name Theology? 25

When the Deuteronomists replace the idea that God lives in the temple with the
idiom that he makes his name dwell there or places it there, they mean to say
that he has chosen it as his own and therefore gives it his continual attention.87

Rudolf Smend, a close friend and colleague of Wellhausen's, picked up on this

same idea in his Lehrbuch (1893).88 In agreement with Stade, Smend argued
that the Deuteronomist was indeed "advancing" Israelite religion by correcting
the older concept that YHWH physically dwelt in his temple, and that he had
communicated such by his use of the name formula both in Deuteronomy and
in Solomon's address. But Smend went fiirther than Stade. Influenced by the
myth and language discussions regarding nominal realism, and supported in
part by an indiscriminate blending of discrete idioms, Smend claimed that the
idiom of Deuteronomy was intended to communicate that YHWH, by placing
his name at the cult site, had in some sense placed himself there.89 Accord-
ingly, Smend argued that the name of the deuteronomic formula constituted a
certain cultic presence of Y H W H that could be invoked at a legitimate
shrine.90
Building upon Stade and Smend, and heavily influenced by the history of
religions school, Friedrich Giesebrecht published his very influential Die alt-
testamentliche Schätzung des Gottesnamens in 1901.91 Drawing upon a diver-
gent collection of religious phenomena, Giesebrecht argued that the use of name
in the biblical text was one expression of the larger phenomenon of hypostati-
zation of name in the ANE and throughout the world.92 Thus, for Giesebrecht,
YHWH'S name signified a real, but hypostatized, aspect of YHWH, ever present
and ever immanent in the sanctuary. His theory was that the name theologu-
menon was a Josianic attempt to reconcile the theology of Jeremiah (as Stade
had taught, YHWH only owned the temple [Jer 7:10; 25:29]) with the anthropo-
morphism of the JE sources. Although his hypostatized interpretation of name
in the DH was strongly contested in subsequent publications (for many of the
same reasons that inspired this study),93 these critiques were overlooked. As a

87 Ibid.
88 Rudolf Smend, Lehrbuch der Alttestamentliche Religions-Geschichte, 279-86; esp. 281, η.
1. Smend was convinced of much of Wellhausen's thesis (cf. Smend, "Julius Wellhausen
and His Prolegomena to the History of Israel," Semeia 25 [1983]: 4).
89 See previous section on "Nominal Realism," p. 14-21.
90 Smend, Lehrbuch der Alttestamentliche Religions-Geschichte, 281, η. 1.
91 F. Giesebrecht, Die alttestamentliche Schätzung des Gottesnamens und ihre religions-
geschichtliche Grundlage (Königsberg: Verlag von Thomas & Oppermann, 1901), esp. 68-
87; cf. Cassirer, Language and Myth, 51-53.
92 "For even a person's ego, his very self and personality, is indissolubly linked, in mythic
thinking, with his name ..." (Cassirer, Language and Myth, 49).
93 Benno Jacob's concerns were much the same as mine. He strongly contested the magical/
hypostatic interpretation of Sem YHWH, naming such assessments "imaginative" and
"exaggerated." He criticized his predecessors for their inability to assess rightly the
idiomatic construction involved. Moreover, he rejected the concept of a deuteronomistic
26 Introduction

result, in 1934, Oskar Grether94 distilled from these previous discussions a

single, typological scheme in which the name of God in theophany and
revelation, although an ancient idea (Exod 3:13; 20:24), emerged in the seventh
century as a deuteronomic theologumenon intended to correct the earlier con-
cept of an immanent deity, while maintaining the "nearness to save" of a hypo-
statized presence in the temple. This schema served to explain Israel's religious
evolution toward a transcendent deity according to Wellhausen's paradigm,
while incorporating the tenets of nominal realism in "primitive" thought. As set
forth in his foreword, Grether sought to prove that the name of Deuteronomy
established in Hebrew thought a means of revelation similar to the divine word
of both Old and New Testaments. The Name Theology was born.

4. Modem Reconstructions of the Name Theology

It was G. von Rad in his Studies in Deuteronomy (1947) who transported

the "deuteronomistic correction" as regards divine presence and the fledgling
Name Theology into the mainstream. Von Rad's classic formulation of this
doctrine states that Deuteronomy's use of the name communicated that not
YHWH, but only his name "as a guarantee of his will to save," dwelt at the cult
site, and that this proposition on the part of Deuteronomy should be understood
as a "theological corrective."95

correction in the use of name, stating that his colleagues were implicitly following a Well-
hausian developmental scheme in their identification of such a progression. Jacob was also
the first to introduce the use of the deuteronomic formula in the Amama Letters into the
discussion (Suma Sakänu in EA 287:60-3; EA 288:5-7). Jacob did not substantiate his
points of criticism, however, and his critique was, for the most part, ignored (B. Jacob, In
Namen Gottes, eine sprachliche und religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum Alten und
Neuen Testament [Berlin: Verlag von S. Calvary & Co., 1903]; cf. McBride's review of
Jacob's work in "The Deuteronomic Name Theology," 12-15).
94 Oskar Grether, Name und Wort Gottes im Alten Testament (BZAW 64; Glessen: Α.
Topelmann, 1934).
95 Von Rad, Studies in Deuteronomy, 38-39:
As we see it in Deuteronomy, it [the name] may be established in a particular
place, the conception is definite and within fixed limits; it verges closely upon a
hypostasis. The deuteronomic theologumenon of the name of Jahweh clearly
holds a polemic element, or, to put it better, is a theological corrective. It is not
Jahweh himself who is present at the shrine, but only his name as the guarantee
of his will to save; to it and it only Israel has to hold fast as the sufficient form in
which Jahweh reveals himself. Deuteronomy is replacing the old crude idea of
Jahweh's presence and dwelling at the shrine by a theologically sublimated idea"
It appears that von Rad is looking for the New Testament Logos in the Name of Deuter-
onomy: "Here we have a theologically very striking conception of the name, which is
present at the shrine in almost material form, is regarded almost as a person, and acts as a
mediator between Yahweh and his people" (von Rad, Deuteronomy, 90). Cf. 2 Tim 2:5:
"For there is one God, (and) one mediator also between God and men, (the) man Christ
Jesus" (cf. Gal 3:19, 20; Heb 8:6, 9:15, 12:24).
 Whence the Name Theology? 27

Deuteronomy is obviously attacking the older and more popular idea of

Jahweh's immediate presence at the place of worship and substituting
for it the theological differentiation between Jahweh on the one hand
and his name on the other . . . ,96

Accordingly, whereas JE were understood to reflect an early monarchical

theology of YHWH'S "immediate presence" in the temple, in Dtr's theology it
was no longer YHWH himself who dwelt in the temple, but only the hypostasis
of YHWH, his name.91 Hereby Wellhausen's idealistic, three-tiered evolution-
ary scheme was transported, by nearly a subliminal route, into conventional,
modern deuteronomistic studies. With some degree of distinction G. E. Wright
(1944), 98 W. Eichrodt (1933-61)," R. E. Clements (1965), 100 M. Metzger

96 Von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 1:184.

97 In von Rad's scheme, D's "name" is understood as a correction of the anthropomorphism
of JE and P's kâbôd theology is understood as a correction of D. Hence, P's theology
moves further toward transcendence in that even the hypostasis of D is rejected, and only a
temporary expression of YHWH'S glory, his kâbôd, is present at the temple. Von Rad
believed that the conflict between the name- and the glory-theologies might be most
clearly seen in 2 Samuel 7 and 1 Kings 8 in which the northern ideas of YHWH being
invisibly enthroned in Israel's midst as represented by the ark were superseded by the
concept of dwelling represented by ikn. According to von Rad, this dwelling concept was
later transformed into the kâbôd theology of the Priestly Writer. Von Rad's theories are
quite evident in the work of Frank M. Cross and Tryggve Mettinger (cf. von Rad, Studies
in Deuteronomy, Old Testament Theology, and Studies in Deuteronomy).
98 See nn. 31 & 32. As opposed to a reaction against the anthropomorphic theology of JE,
Wright understood that the evolution embodied in the Name Theology emanated from the
need in Israelite theology to resolve the immanence/transcendence dilemma posed by
Canaanite perceptions. Prior to the construction of the Jerusalem temple, worship sites
were understood as locales in which YHWH had temporarily revealed himself in a
theophanic manner. But once the temple was built, the concept of a permanent dwelling
place, engendered an immanence/ transcendence conflict. Wright argued that the Name
Theology, as articulated in 2 Samuel 7, was a solution to this dilemma (The Rule of God:
Essays in Biblical Theology, 55-76).
99 Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, 1:207, 219, 409-11. Drawing heavily
upon Giesebrecht's perception of "primitive" man's understanding of name which
emerged from the discussion of myth and language previously noted, Eichrodt claimed that
the name was "nothing less than an alternative term for Yahweh himself." His position was
that the Deuteronomic School made use of contemporary religious thought in their creation
of the Name Theology. Their goal was to "establish the reality of Yahweh at the cultic site
in the sense of his real presence, and at the same time to avert any physical or sensual
interpretation of this fact" (1:208). In some ways similar to Wright, Eichrodt sees the
Name Theology as a theologumenon which set Israel's cult apart from the surrounding
cultures (ibid., η. 4).
100 R. E. Clements, God and Temple (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1965). In a larger discus-
sion regarding the divine presence in Israelite theology and its relationship to perceptions
of divine presence in the ANE, Clements makes the standard argument that the conflict
which birthed the Name Theology may be most clearly discerned in Nathan's oracle: the
localization of YHWH'S presence (ibid., 58-59; cf. J. Schreiner's discussion of ySb and ikn
in Sion-Jerusalem Jahwes Königssitz, 90-92). However, Clements's argument is more
28 Introduction

(1970),101 M. Weinfeld (1972),102 M. Rose (1975),103 and T. Mettinger

(1982)104 have endorsed von Rad's position in that they have understood the

nuanced than many of his predecessors in that he does not schematize the two viewpoints
he perceives in the text: "It is impossible to maintain that this uniting of Yahweh's
dwelling in heaven and his abode on Zion is merely a consequence of a conflation of two
traditions in the post-exilic period, for both ideas appear so frequently throughout the
Psalms, and both can be found in psalms of undoubted pre-exilic origin (op. cit., 69).
Moreover, Clements argues that the deuteronomistic correction is actually the correction
of an error which resulted from "the loss of the true significance of the temple" (ibid., 64).
Like his Name Theology colleagues, however, Clements claims that the credo of the
deuteronomic school was that: "Yahweh is not said to dwell directly in Jerusalem, but his
presence is there by means of his name" (ibid., 85).
101 M. Metzger, "Himmlische und Irdische Wohnstatt Jahwehs," UF2 (1970): 139-58.
102 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, Deuteronomy 1-11: A New
Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 5; New York: Doubleday, 1991).
Weinfeld reverses von Rad's evolution of D to Ρ in that he understands the glory-
theology of Ρ as more primitive than the name-theology of D. Because of P's emphasis on
corporeality in theophany, Weinfeld understands Dtr's name-theology as an "advance"
toward abstraction. Thus, for Weinfeld, the D-work is reacting against the Priestly
theology that regarded the temple as the permanent dwelling-place of YHWH and Mt.
Zion as the "mountain of Yahweh's inheritance" in the sense of the Canaanite pantheon's
cosmic abode. Like many of his colleagues, Weinfeld holds that the most definite
expression of this conflict is to be found in 1 Kings 8. "The sanctuary is here conceived as
a house of prayer and not as a cult center. This tendency to minimize the cult is manifest
in the book of Deuteronomy and signifies a religious turning point. . ." (Deuteronomy
and the Deuteronomic School, 177).
103 M. Rose, Der Ausschliesslichkeitsanspruch Jahwes: Deuteronomische Schultheologie
und die Volksfrömmigkeit in der späten Königszeit (BWA[N]T 106; Stuttgart, 1975).
Rose addresses the deuteronomic centralization formula hammàqôm 'âSer-yibhar YHWH
'ëlôhêkem bô FSakkèn fmô Säm in a source-critical fashion, hypothesizing that our idiom,
FSakkën fmô Säm, was intended as an addition to the "short" formula: hammäqöm 'äSer-
yibhar YHWH 'ëlôhêkem. According to Rose, the short formula belongs to the original
Deuteronomy, while lëSakkèn is found in a pre-Dtr layer from the time before the Exile
("Dtn Schule"). The formula with làSûm is the result of a later, post-exilic redaction.
104 Tryggve Mettinger, Dethronement of Sabaoth: Studies in the Shem and Kabod Theologies
(ConBOT 18; CWK Gleerup, 1982). Mettinger's work is one of the most important
studies on the Name Theology this generation. In many ways his theory is an
amalgamation of that of von Rad and Weinfeld, with two distinctions: (1) he associates
the throne and cherubim iconography with JE and the "Zion-Sabaoth theology," and (2)
he actually dates the transitions from one theology to the next. His scheme may be
outlined as follows. Stage one: JE=Zion-Sabaoth theology of the monarchy which
expressed divine presence with the verb ySb; this is pre-exilic. Stage two: Ezekiel=kâbôd
theology which maintains much of the earlier enthronement imagery but is in transition as
a result of the prophet's message of judgment. Stage three: P's version of the kâbôd
theology which appears after 586 BCE and is theophanic in orientation (Skn). Stage four: Ρ
is superseded by the D-work which appears after 598 as a "consciously formulated
alternative to the Zion-Sabaoth Theology." Stage five is the re-emergence of the imagery
of Zion-Sabaoth theology in the 2nd Temple Period. According to Mettinger, the D-work
was targeted at the "cognitive dissonance" which had resulted from a desolated temple. In
sum, according to Mettinger, the Name Theology rejects the iconography of the Zion
 Whence the Name Theology? 29

Name Theology as some sort of correction to a previous perception of the

mode of divine presence at the cult site. For each, the Name Theology is
understood as a critical step in Israel's move toward a transcendent under-
standing of their deity. As Mettinger states, the Name Theology is "a grandiose
attempt by the Deuteronomistic theologians to expel the pre-exilic doctrine of
the Presence."105
In contrast to the "corrective" model above, but still dependent upon the
concept that the use of name in the DH is intended to communicate a more
transcendent mode of divine presence, are the publications of Fritz Dumermuth
(1958), 106 J. Schreiner (1963), 107 S . D . McBride (1969), 108 and S.Temen

Sabaoth theology and focuses instead on God's transcendence. The Name Theology com-
municates this new focus by replacing God's enthronement upon the cherubim with his
enthronement in heaven, transforming visual imagery into auditory imagery, and
executing a "programmatically abstract" presentation of the deity such that "God became
'relocated' to heaven" (ibid., 46,47).
105 Ibid., 48.
106 Fritz Dumermuth, "Zur deuteronomischen Kulttheologie und ihren Voraussetzungen,"
ZAW 70/1-2 (1958): 59-98. Dumermuth's goal was to identify which was "the place
which the Lord your God shall choose." In his study he discerned three theologies within
the text: the glory-theology of Psalms and Chronicles, the ark-theology of Jerusalem and
Judah, and a name-theology in the north. He postulated that the establishment of northern
sanctuaries after the dissolution of the northern kingdom, complicated by the unfortunate
selection of the substitutionary bull icon, resulted in widespread syncretism and apostasy.
The response of the Bethel priesthood was to attempt to correct these problems by means
of a call for reform, a call that shifted the focus of the northern Yahwists away from the
bull icon by propagating a new theologumenon which declared that YHWH was present at
Bethel by means of his name. Dumermuth concluded that the Name Theology was
incorporated into the text when Deuteronomy was discovered during Josiah's reign. See
McBride's critique, "The Deuteronomic Name Theology," 38-40.
107 Josef Schreiner, Sion-Jerusalem Jahwes Königssitz: Theologie der Heiligen Stadt im
Alten Testament (SANT 7; München: Kosel-Verlag, 1963), 159-60. Like Dumermuth,
Schreiner saw a connection between the ark and the Name Theology. Referring to 2 Sam
6:2, 18 and Jer 7:12 Schreiner postulated that there was a long-standing connection
between the ark and the name, resultant from the league traditions and the central
sanctuary at Shiloh. Schreiner's hypothesis was that once the Temple was built, and the
ark was installed in the privacy of the holy place, the ark lost its prominence and the
Name Theology which had been associated with it came, instead, to be associated with
the temple.
J. Gordon McConville has offered an important correction to Schreiner ("God's 'Name'
and God's 'Glory,'" TynBul 30 [1979]: 150-63). McConville's thesis is that name and
glory are not contradictory concepts, but complimentary. Having done a thorough review
of the standard corpus of texts, McConville concludes: "The indications are, on the con-
trary, that the use of the two terms is determined, not by the appropriateness of each to
one or other theological movement, but rather by their separate functions, which appear to
be recognized throughout the Old Testament" (161). Like Terrien, McConville sees the
revelation of YHWH at Sinai (Exodus 33) as determinative: whereas God's face and glory
were "unapproachable and dangerous," Moses is "permitted to become familiar" with his
name (156). McConville goes on to explain that the shift to name in the deuteronomic
narrative is the result of context and emphasis. Whereas glory is reserved for "dramatic,
30 Introduction

(1978).109 These scholars find in the Name Theology a separate stream of

Israelite tradition that emphasizes the theophanic, transcendent presence of
YHWH, which by various methods and motivations was either merged with, or
subsumed under, the southern, royal, temple theology, and incorporated into
the biblical text. These scholars concur that in the hands of D and/or Dtr this
alternative stream of tradition became a means by which "to assure Yahweh's
accessibility through the cult while avoiding any suggestion that He was

exceptional divine manifestations," name is used for situations reflecting "normal,

ongoing worship" (157).
108 McBride, "The Deuteronomic Name Theology." McBride offers a detailed history of the
scholarship associated with the Name Theology, a broad collection of ANE texts associ-
ated with name idioms, and his own theory regarding this supposed theologumenon in the
biblical text. Most importantly, his thesis represents several "firsts" in the discussion of
the Name Theology. Drawing from the work of his mentor, Frank M. Cross, McBride
was among the first to postulate a transitive translation for the verb Skn in the deuteron-
omic formula l'Sakkèn ïfmô Säm: "to place his name" as derived from Akkadian Sakänu:
"to put, to place." In addition, McBride did extensive work linking the deuteronomic
formula to other uses of name in the ANE (see ch. 2, "The ANE Context of the
Deuteronomic Name Theology").
McBride's objective was "to bring to the fore the issues which previous studies have left
unresolved" (ibid., 6). The as of yet unresolved issue that McBride believed to be the
most critical to the study of the Name Theology was the tradition-history of the
fSakkên S'mô Säm phrase, specifically the relationship between this "îêm theologu-
menon" and the "cult centralization formula" hammâqôm 'âSer-yibharYHWU 'èlôhêkem
bô found primarily in the book of Deuteronomy. His theory was that the centralization
formula represented the merger of two theological concepts: the abstraction of the divine
presence as expressed in the Sern theologumenon, and the southern theology of divine
election which was historically expressed by means of the centralization of Israelite
worship (ibid., 209). He argued that these concepts were originally "quite distinct," but
that once the idioms, and hence the concepts, were juxtaposed by the Deuteronomists, "a
new synthesis" emerged "which gave rise to the specific tradition which we mean by the
designation the 'Deuteronomic Name Theology'" (ibid., 3). McBride concluded that the
deuteronomic sentence was a "synthetic construction . . . an artificial sentence name
embodying the election terminology of Jerusalem and a North Israelite (but ultimately
Canaanite) notion of God's cultic presence through his name" (ibid., 209).
109 Samuel Terrien, The Elusive Presence: Toward a New Biblical Theology (New York:
Harper & Row, 1978). See in particular the chs. "The Name and Not the Glory," 138-52,
and "Presence in the Temple," 161-226. In the spirit of Grether, Terrien's work surveys
the theology of the Presence throughout both Old and New Testaments. Locating the
source of the Name Theology in the Sinai traditions, Terrien equates the revelation at
Sinai of God's face with glory-theology, and his back with name-theology (Exod 33:12-
23). He traces this paradigm throughout the Old Testament, arguing that the northerners
assimilated the latter theology while the southerners emphasized the former. In Terrien's
opinion, these theologies were sharply divided as to iconography (tabernacle vs. temple,
ark vs. cherubim, name vs. glory), the perception of the deity (dynamic vs. static), and
tradition (northern/nomadic vs. southern/royalist). Terrien concludes that the early name-
theology tradition was assimilated and superseded by the glory-theology of the
Jerusalemite Temple and he dates this incorporation to just before the exile under Josiah.
 Whence the Name Theology? 31

localized there."110 Hence, by means of the Name Theology, Israel's under-

standing of divine presence was altered, but altered by a more organic process
than suggested by von Rad.
An important transition in the discussion of the Name Theology is marked
by Roland de Vaux's 1967 monograph, "Le lieu que Yahwé a choisi pour y
établir son nom."111 Responding to a challenge articulated by von Rad in his
then-recent commentary on Deuteronomy that someone propose a reasonable
theory regarding the origin and intent of the deuteronomic formula, de Vaux
set out to understand the deuteronomic idiom by means of etymology and
comparative linguistics. In contrast to the previous discussion which presup-
posed the religionsgeschichtliche paradigm of Giesebrecht and his adherents,
de Vaux, as had Benno Jacob before him, cited the parallel use of the deutero-
nomic idiom in Amarna Letters: EA 287 and 288.112 He also investigated other
biblical name idioms which he believed were cognate to that of Deuteronomy,
primarily niqrâ'Sëm 'al in Jeremiah.113 De Vaux concluded, as had Jacob, that
llakkën fmô of Deuteronomy should be translated transitively as was its
Amarna equivalent: "to place his name." Furthermore, de Vaux deduced that
the formula communicated the concept of ownership: as the pharaoh owned
Jerusalem, so did Y H W H own the temple. Consequently, de Vaux concluded
that the Name Theology of Deuteronomy did not represent any fundamental
transformation of the Israelite perception of the mode of divine presence.
However, de Vaux went on to argue that there was a later phase of
deuteronomistic redaction which made use of lihyôt Sem and libnôt bayit le$ëm
("to build a house for the name") which did, indeed, intend to address the issue
of God's presence in the sanctuary.114 Although de Vaux's study exhibited
several methodological problems—particularly a failure to respect idiomatic
boundaries and dismissal of the Akkadian heritage behind the Amarna
idiom115—what de Vaux contributed was a radical shift in the discussion: a

110 McBride, "The Deuteronomic Name Theology," 51.

111 Roland de Vaux, "Le lieu que Yahwé a choisi pour y établir son nom," in Das ferne und
nahe Wort, Festschrift L. Rost (ed. F. Mass; Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1967).
112 See n. 93. The link between the deuteronomic formula and the Amarna Letters has long
been available through BDB (BDB, s.v. "Skn," meaning 2, Piel: "esp. in Dt, l'iakkën fmô
Säm establish his name there (cf. Sakan Suma as Canaanism WklTelA,n [p. 1015]).
113 De Vaux demonstrated that there were four "name" idioms which were linked to the
election formula in the biblical text: (1) "the place that YHWH has chosen in order to
establish his name (l'iakkën fmô Mm)"; (2) "the place where YHWH has chosen to place
his name (lâsûm fmô Mm)"; (3) "the place over which the name of YHWH has been
pronounced (niqrä' Sem 'al)"; and (4) "the place where YHWH has named his name" or
"mentioned, announced his name ('azkîr 'et-S'ml)" ("Le lieu que Yahwé a choisi pour y
établir son nom," 224).
114 Ibid., 225-28.
115 De Vaux opted to exclude the broader Akkadian context of the Amama idiom from his
study. He stated that such a broader understanding of the background of the Amama
idiom "does not affect" the interpretation of the deuteronomic formula (ibid., 221).
32 Introduction

shift toward a linguistic assessment of the formula and away from the
evolutionary and mythological presuppositions of his predecessors.
Following on the heels of de Vaux's analysis was that of S. D. McBride
(see n. 108).116 More than any other previous study, McBride employed the
tools of comparative social and linguistic analysis to determine the antecedents
of the Name Theology. The second chapter of his dissertation, "The Ancient
Near Eastern Context of the Deuteronomic Name Theology," is a veritable
treasure trove of name formulae from the ANE. Drawing from the work of his
mentor, F. M. Cross, McBride affirmed a transitive translation for the verb Skn
in the deuteronomic formula as derived from Akkadian Sakänu: "to put, to
place."117 Hence, like de Vaux, McBride translated FSakkèn fmô not as "to
cause his name to dwell," which had been the convention of Name Theolo-
gians for over a century, but as "to place his name," based on his comparative-
linguistic analysis. Furthermore, McBride noted the idiom's relationship to
earlier Akkadian traditions. McBride entered his inquiry, however, with one
fatal flaw: he failed to reassess his paradigm (the Name Theology) in light of
his new evidence. Rather, his study was built upon the assumption that there
was a biblical Name Theology: an expression of "the dynamism of the concept
'name' in primitive thought."118 In other words, McBride assumed the nominal
realism of Giesebrecht and his adherents. In my opinion, this presupposition
kept McBride from seeing the profound implications of his own study. Conse-
quently, because of his complete immersion in the mythopoeic construct of his
mentors, McBride presupposed that name as used in the deuteronomic idiom,
and in every reference to name or naming cited, must somehow be a statement
of essence, a reflection of the larger "concept of Sem" in the ANE. 119 In light of

Hence, taking his translation of the Amama passages as his starting point ("to take
possession"), he then proceeded to draw predetermined parallels between this evidence,
the deuteronomic idiom (l'Sakkèn fmô Särri), and other biblical idioms evidencing
Sêm and/or involving ownership. As we will examine in the following chapters, the
Akkadian background of this Amarna idiom is, in fact, the key to understanding the
deuteronomic formula. I believe its exclusion from de Vaux's study kept him from
advancing the same conclusions as will be presented here.
116 Although the dates of release imply differently, McBride's theory was already formulated
prior to the publication of de Vaux's work (cf. McBride, "The Deuteronomic Name
Theology," 215 n. 34).
117 AHw, s.v. "Sakänu(m)," meaning 1, "hinstellen, -setzen" (p. 1135), and CAD, s.v.
"Sakänu" meaning 1, "to place something for a particular purpose."(p. 116); cf. McBride,
"The Deuteronomic Name Theology," 204-7.
118 Ibid., 51.
119 Here McBride leaned heavily upon the study done by F. R. Kraus, "Altmesopotamisches
Lebensgefuhl," JNES 19 (1960): 117-132. McBride concluded that the deuteronomic
idiom was one of an array oí Namen setzen statements from the ANE in which "Sumum"
was, "an abstraction.... It defines the essential being of one person given form in another,
and the terms 'hypostasis' and 'manifestation' seem not at all inappropriate to what is
meant ("The Deuteronomic Name Theology," 99).
 Whence the Name Theology? 33

these assumptions, there was no need for McBride to reflect upon the deutero-
nomio phrase as a distinctive idiomatic expression, to analyze the idiom as a
syntactical unit, or to link it to cognate forms. In addition, his failure to
recognize idiomatic boundaries resulted in a failure to respect idiomatic
boundaries. Thus, although rightly translating the deuteronomic idiom (and
bringing to the forefront an array of pertinent historical-linguistic data),
McBride defined the deuteronomic idiom according to his presupposed
construct: the name of this formula was intended as the emblem of "a North
Israelite (but ultimately Canaanite) notion of God's cultic presence through his
»120
name.
A final stage in this discussion is represented by G. J. Wenham,121 A. S. van
der Woude, A. D. H. Mayes,123 Ian Wilson,124 and Martin Keller.125 Based
upon linguistic and comparative studies, the first four of these have asked the
question whether there actually is a Name Theology—specifically one which
posits a transcendent, as opposed to immanent deity. The last of these,
M. Keller, whose study attempts to integrate all of the preceding theories but
whose results derive primarily from the source-critical perspective of Rose and
Mettinger, has answered, "yes."
In his 1971 discussion of Deuteronomy and the central sanctuary, G. J.
Wenham made the statement that the dichotomy of immanence and transcend-
ence assumed in the discussion of the Name Theology (and may I add, the
Wellhausian paradigm) is "too sharp an antithesis." In support of his thesis,
Wenham points out that the cultic acts associated with the name formulae in
Deuteronomy occur ligné Yhwh—that is in God's presence.126 Van der Woude
has challenged the Name Theology on two fronts: its presupposition of a
universal "Sëm concept" in the ANE,127 and its presupposition of a dichotomy
of immanence and transcendence in the DH. In his discussion, Van der Woude

120 Ibid., 209.

121 G. J. Wenham, "Deuteronomy and the Central Sanctuary," TynBul 22 (1971): 103-18.
122 Van der Woude, TLOT(1997), 3:1348-67.
123 A. D. H. Mayes, Deuteronomy [NCB; London: Oliphants, 1979], 59-60.
124 Ian Wilson, Out of the Midst of the Fire: Divine Presence in Deuteronomy (SBLDS 151;
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995).
125 Martin Keller, Untersuchungen zur deuteronomisch-deuteronomistischen Namenstheolo-
gie (Bonner Biblische Beiträge 105; Weinheim: Beiz Athenäum Verlag, 1996).
126 Citing Wenham, Mayes states that in Deuteronomy YHWH is both transcendent and
immanent and that the Deuteronomist's use of name has been misunderstood:
In fact, however, this introduces a false distinction between Yahweh and his
name. The name and the reality signified thereby are not distinguishable; when
Yahweh is said to have caused his name to dwell at a sanctuary, the intention is
to indicate the real and effective presence of Yahweh himself at that sanctuary
(A. D. H. Mayes, Deuteronomy, 59-60).
127 Van der Woude, TLOT(\991), 3:1350-51, meaning 3a; cf. "Nominal Realism," 14-21.
34 Introduction

reiterates the evidence put forward by Wenham.128 Ian Wilson has made this
same issue the subject of his recently published dissertation. Wilson's study
represents a comprehensive treatment of the book of Deuteronomy by means
of a single question: does the biblical material support the thesis of the Name
Theology that YHWH himself dwells in heaven, whereas his name dwells on
earth? By means of an exhaustive study of the parallel pericopes in Exodus/
Numbers and Deuteronomy, Wilson convincingly demonstrates the following:
(1) in comparison with its Exodus/Numbers parallels, Deuteronomy does not
diminish or remove references to the earthly presence of YHWH; (2) the
"affirmation of divine Presence is a clear feature of some at least of the histor-
ical sections of Deuteronomy"; and (3) in the "old legal core" of Deuteronomy
(chapters 12-26), not only is the localized presence of YHWH at the central
sanctuary regularly articulated as the Israelites are commanded to perform their
worship ligne YHWH, but these same chapters are replete with the name
formulae.129 Wilson concludes that in neither its historical nor its legal sections
does the book of Deuteronomy show evidence of having "eliminated the Deity
from the earthly sphere."130

In view of these observations, therefore, the existence in Deuteronomy of a

thoroughgoing Name Theology as traditionally defined begins to look unlikely,
and the significance of the divine Name in relation to the 'chosen place' calls
for further investigation. 131

In contrast to Wilson, Keller asserts that there is indeed a Name Theology in

both Deuteronomy and the DH. Accepting many of the tenets of Giesebrecht

128 Using Akk naming formulae as his parallel (DN+iuma+i$kun/izkur/i[b]bi), and merging
the bH and Akk idioms Skn zkr with Skn Sm (as well as bH slm Sèm), van der Woude
concludes that the meaning of bH Skn Sm is the "pronunciation of the name" (cf. McBride,
"Deuteronomic Name Theology," 74, 98-99). Quoting Zimmerli, van der Woude states:
"It is rather the place where on divine instruction—and that no doubt also means on the
basis of Yahweh's manifestation—and with full authority the 'nyyhwh ( Ί am Yahweh')
is spoken and under its auspices Yahweh's merciful acts and law are proclaimed" (TLOT,
3:1361; cf. Walther Zimmerli, I Am Yahweh [ed. Walter Brueggemann; trans. Douglas
Scott; Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1969{1957}], 104).
Van der Woude's focus on linguistic issues and his refutation of the immanence/tran-
scendence paradigm are extremely significant. Problems with his treatment include: his
etymology of Skn Sm in Deuteronomy; an unlikely blending of this idiom with zkr Sm, and
a misapplication of the Akk use of Suma Sakänu for naming to the biblical idiom (cf. F. R.
Kraus, "Zu zikirSumim: Sumam zakârum," RA 65 [1971]: 99-112; Marten Stol, "Biblical
Idiom in Akkadian," in The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Wm.
W. Hallo [ed. Mark Cohen et al.; Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press, 1993], 246-49; CAD, s.v.
"Sakänu," sub "Sumu," meaning c: "to provide with descendants," [p. 144]).
129 He does concede that the absence of IT in Deut. 4:10-11 is "especially conspicuous"
(Wilson, Out of the Midst of the Fire, 213).
130 Ibid.
131 Ibid., 217.
 Whence the Name Theology? 35

and von Rad, Keller asserts that the Name Theology of Deuteronomy and the
DH is a post-exilic reinterpretation of the old Jerusalem Temple Theology in
which the validating Presence is now mediated through Y H W H ' S Extensions-
gestalt, his name. Building upon the conclusions of Mettinger, Keller sees the
Name Theology as the resolution of the "cognitive dissonance" of the post-
exilic era.

Das von den Dtr entworfene Theologumenon vom schem Jahwes ist der Ver-
such, in tempelloser Zeit die Präsenz Jahwes neu zu verstehen und zu sichern,
indem Jahwepräsenz pointiert als scAem-Präsenz interpretiert wird . . . Nach
dem in dieser Arbeit entwickelten Verständnis erweist sich icAem-Theologie als
Resultat einer Theologie der Krise, die sich unter den Bedingungen der Exilszeit
zu bewähren hatte. 132

Like Rose and Mettinger, Keller hypothesizes that the presence of this theol-
ogy, as evident through the name formulae in Deuteronomy and the DH, is the
result of later expansions of the originally Josianic "short form" of the centrali-
zation formula ("the place that Y H W H chooses [from one of your tribes]"), by
means of the l€iakkênm and lâsûm ië/n134 formulae. Different from Rose, Keller
attributes both of these expansions to deuteronomistic activity, and dates both
at or beyond the Exile. Although thoroughly versed in McBride and de Vaux's
comparative evidence, which points to a cognate relationship between bH
fïakken semô and Akk Suma Sakänu, Keller remains unconvinced of a semantic
relationship between the two. Rather, he affirms the traditional translation of
rSakkèn in the deuteronomic idiom. Moreover, like McBride, the author
assumes that all of the name formulae of the Hebrew Bible are somehow
related to one another and to the nominal realism of Giesebrecht. Hence, in this
most recent study of the Name Theology, we find a reincarnation of the

132 Keller, Untersuchungen zur deuteronomisch-deuteronomistischen Namenstheologie, 207.

133 According to Keller, the ]3tíVformula in the D-work owes its origins to several post-
exilic, deuteronomistic redactions. And although the author reviews the comparative
linguistic studies that preceded his study, he states that he is not convinced of a semantic
relationship between this biblical idiom and Akk Suma Sakänu. Rather, he holds that this
formula is unquestionably bound to the idea of YHWH dwelling at the cult site. He con-
cludes that the addition of the formula to the Josianic "short form" was intended to
reassure the post-exilic community of YHWH'S effective presence in the Jerusalem
temple, as well as to re-emphasize the need for centralization (ibid., 57-58,123-129).
134 Keller holds that the •lto'p-formula may be found only in the earliest post-exilic deuterono-
mistic contribution to the D-work, and that it is always explicitly linked to Jerusalem
(except in 1 Kgs 9:3). He states that this particular formula communicates YHWH'S pos-
session and sovereignty over the holy place, as well as hope for its eventual restoration.
Keller intimates that this biblical idiom may have some relationship to the Akk
Suma Sakänu idiom (specifically as employed in the Amarna Letters), but doubts any
semantic relationship. This conclusion is due primarily to his post-exilic dating of the
deuteronomistic redaction responsible for the formula's existence in the biblical text
(ibid., 109-115,170).
36 Introduction

"corrective" model which remains, for the most part, unaffected by the socio-
linguistic findings of the past generation.

D. A New Paradigm

In his classic work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas S.

Kuhn examines the cause and effect of paradigm-change within a discipline.135
He discusses at length the forces which must come to bear upon an existing
paradigm of interpretation in order to inspire those within the "community of
practitioners" to consider replacing it with another, and the impact upon the
discipline once such consideration begins. His thesis is that paradigm revolu-
tion, although more easily analyzed in the "hard" sciences, comes to all disci-
plines in the same general fashion. Surveying an array of such revolutions
within the history of physical science, he outlines that pattern of change. Vastly
simplified, Kuhn's progression involves, first, an accumulation of "anomalies"
(violations of expectation involving the previous paradigm) which eventually
move the discipline into a state of "pronounced professional insecurity."136
Second, the interpretive crisis inspires "the blurring of a paradigm and the
consequent loosening of the rules for normal research."137 Third, in the midst
of this crisis, the radical suggestion of a new paradigm is made "with the
ensuing battle over its acceptance."138 Fourth, eventually (typically in the
following generation), the new paradigm is accepted and, if it has substance,
takes over as the dominant theoretical construction of a given collection of
data.139 It is apparent from the survey of scholarship above that the interpretive
paradigm known as the Name Theology has reached a stage in which
anomalies have accumulated, and that in many cases the normal rules of
interpretation have been bent in order to maintain the old paradigm. Hence, it
appears that our discipline has passed through stages one and two as regards
the Name Theology and is, perhaps, ready for stage three: the suggestion of a
new paradigm.
I have stated that I believe two bodies of evidence have been employed to
establish and maintain the Name Theology: (1) the "demythologization" of the
Presence as expressed in the deuteronomic name formula, "the place in which
YHWH your God will choose to cause his name to dwell"; and (2) the apparent
"demythologization" of the ark and the temple throughout the rest of the DH
but concentrated in the temple passages of 2 Samuel 7 and 1 Kings 8. I have

135 T. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd ed.; International Encyclopedia of
Unified Science, vol. 2, no. 2; Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1970).
136 Ibid., 67-68.
137 Ibid., 84.
138 Ibid.
139 Ibid, 150-54.
 A New Paradigm 37

also stated that I believe several streams of misinterpretation have helped to

produce these two bodies of evidence. The first of these, as reviewed in this
Introduction, is the apparently unconscious survival of nineteenth-century
evolutionary presuppositions in deuteronomistic studies. The residue of this
credo is acutely evident in the immanence-to-transcendence scheme of the
Name Theology, a dichotomous paradigm that has been successfully chal-
lenged by Wenham, van der Woude, Mayes and Wilson.140 The second stream
is the mistranslation and misinterpretation of the deuteronomic idiom: hammâ-
qôm 'äier-yibhar YHWH 'ëlôhêkem bô fiakkèn fmô Mm. This second stream is the
focus of this study. I will argue, in agreement with B. Jacob, F. M. Cross, R. de
Vaux, and S. D. McBride, that the traditional rendering of the deuteronomic
formula as "the place in which YHWH your God will choose to cause his name
to dwell" represents a substantial mistranslation of the phrase—a mistrans-
lation resulting from a failure to recognize the Akkadian heritage of both the
verb ikn and the idiom as a whole. I believe that this mistranslation has helped
to engender the Name Theology by misdirecting scholarship such that the
actual intent of this formula has been obscured.
This brings us to the third stream of misinterpretation: the analysis of name
within the l'Mkkën fmâ Mm formula. Fostered by the religionsgeschichtliche
perception that there is a universal "concept of Sëm" throughout the ANE, and
fueled by "unsystematic and haphazard" linguistics, past scholarship has failed
to address the deuteronomic idiom as an idiom. From the days of Giesebrecht
to the present, the meaning of l'Sakkèn fmâ Mm has been sought by means of
what James Barr has dubbed "inner lexicography" and "illegitimate totality
transfer."141 By these terms I mean the practice of blending together the
numerous, distinct Egyptian, Mesopotamian, NW Semitic, and biblical name-
and naming-idioms in order to discover a quintessential theological concept
which informs them all. As Barr demonstrates at length, the result of this sort
of methodology is that an individual word is "overloaded" with meaning "in

140 See, p. 32-34.

141 James Barr, Semantics of Biblical Language (London: Oxford University Press, 1961;
repr. London: SCM Press, 1983). Barr defines "inner lexicography" as the study of the
history of concepts based upon the terms used to express them. He states that the end
result of this fallacious approach to lexicography is the confusion of the word with the
concept. "Illegitimate totality transfer" is a phrase "intended to stress the simple fact that
any one instance of a word will not bear all the meanings possible for that word" (M.
Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning, 25).
McBride's work is characterized by these methodological errors. In his section on
"Name and Nominal Realism in the ANE," the author investigates numerous name
idioms from multiple eras, cultures, and contexts and ties all together in their common
function of reflecting "the essential nature, power and existence of a thing." As a result of
his definition of a name as a "kind of other self," he concludes that all of these name
idioms somehow manifest the name-bearer ("The Deuteronomic Name Theology," 67-
141, quotation, 77).
38 Introduction

order to relate it to the 'inner world of thought'" of the subject audience as pre-
supposed by the interpreter.142 The decipherment of the deuteronomic formula
has been plagued by this hermeneutical error.
My goal in this study is to avoid the pitfalls of the past. Consequently, I will
approach the evidence without the presupposition that Deuteronomy and the
DH are moving along a developmental continuum in which immanence is
giving way to transcendence. I will set aside the idea that in the Hebrew mind,
name in all contexts communicates essence. And I will pursue the meaning of
rSakkèn fmô Mm by means of the standard tenets of comparative-linguistic
study. Barr has taught us that

lexicographic research should be directed towards the semantics of words in

their particular occurrences and not towards the assembly of a stock of persua-
sive and distinctive terms which could be regarded as a linguistic reflection of
the theological realities.143

What all of the previous treatments of FMkkèn fmô Mm have in common is that
in their eagerness to address a theological issue, they fail to address the phrase
within its "particular occurrences."144 Specifically, these studies have failed
either to recognize the phrase as an idiom, or they have failed to respect its
idiomatic boundaries.
An idiom is defined as:

An expression established in the usage of a language that is peculiar to itself

either in grammatical construction or in having a meaning that cannot be de-
rived as a whole from the conjoined meanings of its elements. 145

In other words, as regards idiomatic phrases, the sum of the parts is distinct
from the combined value of the individual parts,146 Consequently, to pull out

142 Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language, 246.

143 Ibid., 274.
144 This is exactly the error which engendered Barr's discussion of ό λόγος in New Testa-
ment studies. Barr's criticism here was that sloppy linguistic analysis had resulted in a
failure to recognize subtle differences in the use of particular words. The theological
speculation and lack of linguistic precision that has surrounded the study of λόγος in
New Testament studies has obvious, and unflattering, parallels to the analyses of Sem in
the Hebrew Bible.
The use of ό λόγος with the article in the very special case of John 1 is really a
special meaning which cannot be mingled indiscriminately with other cases
simply because they also contain the word λόγο?. In other words a simple syn-
tactic relation like the adding of the definite article and the absence of other
qualification can establish a different semantic field just as well as the
transition to another word can (ibid., 222).
145 Webster's New World Dictionary, s.v. "idiom."
146 J. A. Cuddon defines idiom as follows: "A form of expression, construction or phrase
particular to a language and often possessing a meaning other than its grammatical or
 A New Paradigm 39

one component of an idiomatic phrase (in this case name), reassign to that
component a broader meaning because of its occurrence in other contexts (in
this case essence), and to reinsert that redefined component into what should
be a closed syntactical unit (in this case i'Sakkën fmô Sâm) is simply grammat-
ically untenable. Rather, the laws of language require that we recognize that an
idiomatic phrase has a meaning distinctive to itself, often "other than its
grammatical or logical one." 147 Consequently, whereas the American English
idiom, "to give a hand to X" (to help) has no meaningful relationship to "to
give X a hand" (to applaud), neither does the Hebrew idiom Skn Sëm necessarily
have any meaningful relationship to Hebrew 'sh Sëm, zkrSêm, qr' Sëm, or bnh
IeSëm as suggested by de Vaux. Neither does I'Sakkën fmô Säm necessarily share
any meaningful relationship with the number of Egyptian, Akkadian, or NW
Semitic occurrences of name and naming that McBride presents. Rather, the
formula in Deuteronomy must be researched as a distinctive idiomatic expres-
sion, free from "illegitimate totality transfer," a closed syntactical unit which
may have antecedents and cognates as a unit.
My final goal in this study is to demonstrate that when the deuteronomic
formula is properly translated and interpreted, and the lens of the Deuterono-
mistic Historian in his adaptation of this phrase is rightly understood, the
hermeneutical paradigm embodied in the Name Theology as applied to the
mode of divine presence at the cult site in the DH begins to unravel. Further,
that aspect of the second stage of Wellhausen's evolutionary paradigm which
involves the "deuteronomistic correction" and the "demythologizing" of the
temple, the ark, and the Presence is shaken from its moorings as well.

logical one" (A Dictionary of Literary Terms [Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company,
1976], 321).
147 Ibid.
 II. The le8akkên fmô Mm Formula
in Its Biblical Context

As set forth in the Introduction, the biblical origin of the deuteronomistic

Name Theology is the DH's unique use of "name" in association with the
central cult site. Of the various deuteronomistic formulae involving "name,"
the most significant to the Name Theology is the Book of Deuteronomy's
fSakkên fmô Mm.1 This infinitival phrase occurs seven times in the Book of
Deuteronomy, and may be found scattered throughout the DH and Chronicler's
history in one of two synonymous reflexes: lâsûm fmô Mm and lihyôt fmô Mm.
In Jeremiah and post-exilic literature it reappears in its original form as
fSakkën fmô Säm. In each of the deuteronomic occurrences the construction is
identical: a Piel infinitive construct of $kn in combination with Sëm as its direct
object and Mm as the resumptive adverb of the clause. Because of its consistent
form and function, this phrase has long been recognized as formulaic.
The predominant view of past scholarship has been to read l'Sakkên in this
deuteronomic formula as a Piel factitivization of the common, intransitive Qal
Skn, "to settle for a certain period of time; to abide, dwell."2 Hence, the Piel of
Skn in this phrase is rendered "to settle X," and fSakkên fmô Mm is most often
translated, "the place in which YHWH your God will choose to cause/make his

1 See "The Deuteronomistic History & the Name Theology" in the Introduction, p. 7-11.
2 HALOT, s.v. "psi" (p. 1496); BDB, s.v. "]3D" (p. 1015). Building on A. Goetze's ground-
breaking work in Akkadian regarding the relationship between the G permansive (paris
"to be cut") and the D stem (purrusum "to make cut"), Ernst Jenni defined the factitivi-
zation function of the Piel as the causation of the state corresponding to the basic
meaning of the Qal intransitive verb (Das hebräische Pi 'el [Zurich: Evz-Verlag, 1968],
9-15). Although Bruce Waltke and Michael O'Connor's discussion regarding the Piel is
slanted toward stative intransitives, as opposed to fìentive intransitives such as Skn, they
affirm Jenni's paradigm stating: "In the Piel of this class of verbs, the basic sense of the
Qal is transformed: the Piel designates an effected state and governs an object" (Waltke
& O'Connor, §24.2b[p. 401]; cf. §24.1d-24.2e [p. 398-402]). In Das hebräische Pi'el,
Jenni lists forty-seven bH verbs which, like Skn are intransitive in the G/Qal and appear
in both the D/Piel and the C/Hiphil. Among these verbs are several which, like Skn, are
intransitive fientives in the Qal: b'r "to bum," bSl "to boil," hsr "to diminish," nht "to
descend; to penetrate," pnh "to turn," qûm "to stand up," and qrb "to draw near." Jenni
actually uses Skn "to dwell" as a case study for this particular class of verbs, analyzing
the Piel of Skn as a factitivized intransitive verb and translating it in the deuteronomic
formula as "an die Stätte, die Jahwe, euer Gott, erwählt, indem er seinen Namen daselbst
wohnen lässt," with an accidental as opposed to a substantive factitivization (op. cit.,
92-93).
42 The fSakkên fmô iäm Formula in Its Biblical Context

name (to) dwell." This traditional translation can be found in such standard
works as the KJV, the RSV, and the ASV versions of the Old Testament. 3
More significant to this study is that those who pioneered the Name Theology
adopted this translation as the point of departure for their work. 4 The
interpretive results of this assumed translation are apparent in the tenets of the
Name Theology—herein "name" is perceived as a persona, some new aspect
of the deity which YHWH intends to "cause to dwell" in the chosen place.
However, as discussed in the Introduction, although the traditional
factitivized translation of likn falls well within the confines of standard Semitic
grammar, a significant body of evidence calls this translation into question.
Hence, periodically, it has been proposed that l'Sakkën is better translated with
its Akkadian cognate iakänu, "to place something for a particular purpose, with
a particular intention."5 The result of this cognate translation is that the
deuteronomic phrase is rendered "the place in which YHWH your God will
choose to place his name." This alternate translation not only affects the
intended meaning of the phrase, but also serves to transform it such that it may
be identified as an idiom native to the Akkadian monumental tradition: ¡Suma
iakänu. Many have noted, however, that associating the Akk Suma iakänu with
Deuteronomy's Îiakkên fmô is also problematic. The most significant diffi-
culty is clarifying the distinctive diachronic development of Akk iakänu, a
transitive verb meaning "to put," and bH ikn, an intransitive verb meaning "to
dwell," such that a semantic borrowing might be defended. 6 Particularly
difficult to a loan-hypothesis is that the Akkadian idiom Suma iakänu uses
iakänu in the G and Gt stems, whereas the bH idiom appears only in the Piel.
All things being equal, a Piel in bH should be a reflex of a D-form in
Akkadian. These linguistic difficulties, as well as presuppositional structures
regarding the "concept of iëm" in ANE thought, have encouraged Name
Theologians to maintain the factitivized translation of Deuteronomy's idiom,
and thereby to corroborate the perception that the Deuteronomist is declaring
that YHWH is causing some aspect of himself "to dwell" at the temple.

3 The Bible: An American Translation goes so far as to translate Deut 12:11 as, "the
sanctuary that the Lord your God chooses as the abiding-place of his presence."
4 Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament·, von Rad, Studies in Deuteronomy and "The
Tent and the Ark"; Wright, "The Book of Deuteronomy" in The Interpreter's Bible, 411-
12 and The Rule of God: Essays in Biblical Theology·, Mettinger, The Dethronement of
Sabaoth-, Hulst, TLOT 3:1327-30; Jenni, Das hebräische Pi'el, 92-93. Cf. the
Introduction, "Modern Reconstructions of the Name Theology," p. 26-36.
5 CAD δ 1, s.v. "iakänu," meaning 1 (p. 116).
6 Ibid.; HALOT, s.v. "]DO" (p. 1496), BDB, s.v. (p. 1015). Note that it is typical for a
borrowed word or phrase to undergo some level of change in the receptor language as
the result of the native speakers adapting the borrowed form either phonetically or
syntactically to their own language (see Paul Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in
Biblical Hebrew [HSS 47; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2000], 1-14).
 The Distribution of the l'Sakkën fmô Säm Formula 43

As discussed in the Introduction, the first step in any accurate assessment of

l'Sakkèn fmô Säm must be a thorough linguistic analysis of the phrase within its
own "particular occurrences." Hence, we will begin our study with the form,
distribution, function, and meaning of this idiom in its biblical occurrences.
The objective of this chapter is not a topical survey of the use of Sem in biblical
parlance; the weaknesses of that sort of investigation in determining the
intended meaning of l'Sakkën fmô Säm have been documented in the Intro-
duction.7 Rather, my objective is to investigate a circumscribable idiomatic
expression that is repeatedly employed by the Deuteronomist at critical
junctures in his treatment of the central cult site, and then reutilized by Dtr in
his ongoing chronicle of Jerusalem and her holy place. The thesis is that our
only hope of recapturing the intent of the biblical writers, and thereby correctly
discerning their theology, is to first recapture their idiom.

A. The Distribution of the Fsakkën fmô Mm Formula

and Its Synonymous Reflexes
lâsûm fmô Mm and lihyôt fmô Mm

The infinitival expression FSakkën fmô iäm occurs six times in the biblical
text: Deut 12:11; 14:23; 16:2, 6, 11; 26:2 (see fig. 1). All of these occurrences
are in Deuteronomy, all appear in conjunction with what has long been
identified as "the centralizing formula" of the Josianic reform, and all are
identical in the MT:

hammäqöm
'äSer-yibhar Yhwh 'ëlôhêkem bô
fSakkên fmô Säm

The place
in which YHWH your God will choose
ÎSakkên his name. (Deut 12:11)

As most scholars continue to identify the legal core of the Book of Deuteron-
omy (12:2-26:15) with Josiah's "Book of the Law," and all of the occurrences
of the formula fall within this corpus, the assumption is that the repeated focus
on "the place" chosen by YHWH is critical to this oldest segment of the
deuteronomic law. Herein the stipulations of Israel's covenant with YHWH are
repeated, Israel's vassal status is reiterated, and here the laws of cult praxis
clearly articulate that Israel is to worship at one place, and one place alone: the
place that YHWH chooses l'Sakkên fmô Säm.

7 See the Introduction, "A New Paradigm," 36-39.

44 The l'Sakkën fmô Säm Formula in Its Biblical Context

Figure 1
The Fsakkën fmô säm Formula in Deuteronomy

Deuteronomy 12:11
To the place in which YHWH your God will choose l'Sakkën fmô Sam you will bring all
that I command you: your burnt offerings and your sacrifices, your tithes and the
contribution of your hand, and all your choice votive offerings which you will vow to
YHWH.
natii
ττ ottiτ latti: ! ρ· · Λ
- : l a w ·.····.·:
n b K mτr r ι π- α: ^· Ί ώ'·'"·,
κ n i Jp óτ n~ r rτrτn:
n a n n i o d ' r h w y n o ^ n a n o o v n t o o a n x n i s o taj« " ΐ ψ κ ? ? n x w a n
m-.n' 1 ? r n n -ιφκ DS-TU n n a p to·; O S T
Deuteronomy 14:23
And you shall eat in the presence of YHWH your God, at the place in which he chooses
l'Sakkën fmô Säm, the tithe of your grain, your new wine, your oil, and the first-born of
your herd and your flock, in order that you may learn to fear YHWH your God always.
otti tatti ρ Λ n i p a a ψ η 1 ? « m r r "os1? r t a i o
1
n i n ^ - n x ηχ-τ ? n a ^ r i ^NÛT ^ n p a n ' - o a i η η π ϊ η ^ ώ τ η ntoa

Deuteronomy 16:2
And you shall sacrifice the Passover to YHWH your God from the flock and the herd, in the
place in which YHWH chooses l'Sakkën fmô Säm.
n i n i η π Γ Ί ώ κ o i p a a i p a i ^κϋ f r i 1 ™ m / r 1 ? n o s rinati
:Otti lotti 13tt&
Deuteronomy 16:6
But at the place in which YHWH your God chooses l'Sakkën fmô Säm, you shall sacrifice
the Passover in the evening at sunset, at the time that you came out of Egypt.
n a r n ο ψ iorç pttí 1 ? j n ' 1 ? « m / p nna^-ittix o i p a n - ' n r o K ρ
¡ o n ^ o o f r e t s ' n a t a catán xiaa any a nçEn-n*
Deuteronomy 16:11
And you shall rejoice before YHWH your God, you and your son and your daughter and
your male and female servants and the Levite who is in your town, and the stranger and the
orphan and the widow who are in your midst, in the place in which YHWH your God
chooses l'Sakkën fmô Säm.
•^nox] Τ ^ ί Π ^ π ϊ ι ^ » ι η η χ η^π'1?« πιπ·; •os'? nnatoi
1
ηιη·; i r t a
" i p Q i p a a ^ a - i p a - \ m n j a ' p x n i Dln»m nan·) T ^ s t t í a - \ m "i^n-i
ratti tatti γη1?«
Deuteronomy 26:2
And you will take some of the first of all the produce of the ground which you will bring in
from your land that YHWH your God gives you, and you shall put [it] in the basket and go to
the place in which YHWH your God chooses l'Sakkën fmô Säm.
ηιη 1 ; ηψκ ^ η κ ο « " a n ηψκ n a n x n Ή?" 1 ?? η ^ ώ κ ΐ Ώ n n p b i
n i n 1 -ina? -ittix o i p a n - ^ N n a ^ n i w a a natoi ^"p ρ ^nVx
:Otti l a t í
 The Distribution of the l'iakkèn fmô Mm Formula 45

The deuteronomic idiom fSakkén fmô Mm has a synonym, lâsûm fmô Mm,
which occurs three times in the Book of Deuteronomy (Deut 12:5, 21; 14:24;
see fig. 2) and several times in the DH (1 Kgs 9:3; 11:36; 14:21; 21:4, 7; see
fig. 3). In Deuteronomy, this expression shares the same syntactical form and
literary context as FMkkèn fmô Mm:

hammâqôm
'äSer yibhar YHWH 'ëlôhêkâ
lâsûm fmô Säm

The place
in which YHWH your God will choose
to place his name. (Deut 12:21)

In the Samaritan Pentateuch and the LXX, two of the lâsûm passages, Deut
12:21 and 14:24, are read as FMkkên, indicating that at some stage in theo
history of Deuteronomy, these two formulae were considered interchangeable.
The third deuteronomic occurrence of lâsûm fmô Mm, Deut 12:5, is a difficult
text that requires special comment. In this singular text, both versions of our
idiom may be detected. The Masoretic pointing of the passage, however, has
made this reality less than obvious. As vocalized in the MT, Deut 12:5 reads as
follows:

•P'cqîr^sç mrp •"ΐρφΓΓ^αχ

' ' ΊΟψ-Πί? • r á ' p
:ΠΏϋ n x i Ϊ 2 Γ - Π IDC?1?

But to the place which YHWH your God will choose out of all your tribes
in which to place his name (lâsûm 'et-fmô Mm),
his habitation (l'îiknô) you shall seek, and there you shall come. 9

8 Whereas the standard LXX rendering of l'iakkèn in its deuteronomic occurrences is

epiklêthënai "to be invoked" (the aorist passive infinitive of epikaleö, "to summon a god
to a sacrifice; to invoke"), in Deut 12:21 and 14:24 the LXX translates lâiûm as
epiklêthënai as well. Although this rendering of the idiom demonstrates that the late first
millennium interpreters had lost the idiomatic sense of the phrase, it does show that
either they or their source considered the formulae synonymous. Deut 16:2 serves as an
example:
And you will sacrifice the Passover to the Lord your God, sheep and oxen in
the place which the Lord your God shall choose to have his name invoked (èv
τω τόττω, ώ eàv έκλέξηται κύριο? ó θεός σου αυτόν έπικληθήναι τό
όνομα αύτοϋ έ κ ε ΐ ) .
See Liddell & Scott, s.v. "εττικαλεω" (p. 635); Alfred Rahlfs, ed., Septuaginta (Stuttgart:
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979 [35]), 253; John W. Wevers, Bible: Deuteronomium
(Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum 3/2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1977), Deut 16:2.
9 Cf. Emmanuel Τον, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
1992), 42 n. 18.
46 The l'Sakkèn fmô Säm Formula in Its Biblical Context

Figure 2
T h e lâsûm tfmô säm F o r m u l a in Deuteronomy

Deuteronomy 12:5
But you shall seek the place in which YHWH your God will choose
out of all your tribes to place his name l'Sakk'nô (!)
and there you will come.

•P'rfri* πιπί c p s r r ' p i r c s ·ο

:rtQt¿ nxrn to'-ΠΓΙ iiçtô1?

Deuteronomy 12:21
If the place in which YHWH your God chooses to put his name is too far from you,
then you may slaughter of your herd and flock which YHWH has given you, as I have
commanded you; and you may eat within your gates whatever you desire.
DO 1Q0 mío1? -'-'"/Í? m r r - i n ? ' ηφκ αιραπ ηφο p o n ' - ' ?

ms bb? ^'.»trä " r ^ nt&p

Deuteronomy 14:24, 25
And if the distance is so great for you that you are not able to bring [the tithe], since
the place in which YHWH your God chooses to set his name is too far away from you
when YHWH your God blesses you, then you shall exchange [it] for money, and bind
the money in your hand and go to the place which YHWH your God chooses . . .

bDT. ì ò ηφο
ρΊΤ nei ιόψ ará1? -'Γίτκ r.yr -in?1 ί^ mpsn ηφα
rq*?m η τ ? ηςφπ ρ η ^ ' η ς ο ? nrr.r, nvr
na ΠΙΓΡ η π ? ' -ιφι$ • p a n - ' ? «

The oddity o f this passage is ir© 1 ?, which is vocalized in the MT as the noun
*Sëken with a third masculine singular possessive suffix: 'uptö1?, "his habita-
tion." 1 0 In isolation, this form could be understood as a Qal infinitive construct
as opposed to a noun in that the standard form o f the Qal infinitive construct
with a suffix, qotl, periodically is replaced by qitl.u However, the only extant
example o f ISkn as a Qal infinitive construct with a pronominal suffix, Exod
29:46, is vocalized, in contrast to Deut 12:5, as l'Soknî. Thus, it seems nearly

10 Τον, Textual Criticism, 42; cf. S. R. Driver, Deuteronomy (3rd ed.; ICC 5; Edinburgh:
T&T Clark, 1902), 140.
11 Cf. GKC, §61. There are several examples of likn as a Qal inf. cstr. with the /-prefix as
liSkôn: Gen 35:22; Num 9:22; 1 Kgs 8:12; Ps 68:19, 85:10; Job 30:6; 2 Chr 6:1.
 The Distribution of the leSakkën fmô Mm Formula 47

certain that the unique pointing of IE©1? in Deut 12:5 indicates that the
Masoretes intended it to be read as a noun. Moreover, the Masoretes have
accented the verse (note the position of the athnah) in order to identify this
noun as the object of tidr'M, "regarding it as resumptive of σιροπ *?X."12 As is
evident in figure 1, however, throughout the legal core of Deuteronomy, when
the centralization formula appears with Skn, ikn is vocalized as a Piel infinitive
construct pttí1?. Moreover, Emmanuel Τον states that the pointing of ir©1? in
Deut 12:5 as a noun meaning "'habitation' . . . is elsewhere not attested in
biblical literature and . . . is also grammatically problematic" in that, "one
seeks 'to a place' or Ίο God,' but not to 'His habitation' QUknô)."13 Because of
this anomalous use of Skn, and the resultant improbable reading of the passage,
the Samaritan Pentateuch, the LXX, the Targum Onqelos, Targum Pseudo-
Jonathan, and much secondary conjecture have understood the original
vocalization of Deut 12:5's ΐκΐΛ to have been a Piel infinitive construct of
ikn with a / prefix and a third masculine singular object suffix.14 The distinc-
tion between this rendering of the deuteronomic idiom in Deut 12:5 and the
other six occurrences of the deuteronomic idiom presented in figure 1 is that
rather than specifying fmô as the direct object of Skn, the object is indicated by
an object suffix. Τον explains the Masoretic vocalization and accentuation of
Deut 12:5 as a Masoretic solution to a word which they found difficult in
context: that is, exegesis rather than translation. Τον concludes that ir®1? in
Deut 12:5 was originally intended as a doublet to lasûm. This is exactly how
the LXX translates the passage.15 Hence, we will count Deut 12:5 with the now

12 Τον, Textual Criticism, 42.

13 Ibid.
14 In addition to the primary sources listed, see: BDB, s.v. "ptB," Piel meaning 1 (p. 1015);
Driver, Deuteronomy, 141 n. 3; de Vaux, "Le lieu que Yahvi a choisi pour y itablir son
nom," 219; Cross, Canaanite Myth, 246; Jeffrey Tigay, Deuteronomy (JPS Torah Com-
mentary; Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 120; Moshe Weinfeld,
Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992),
325 no. 4.
The LXX translates 1θΛ> in Deut 12:5 as epiklêthênai (aorist passive infinitive
'epikaleö, "to invoke"), which is its consistent rendering of leSakkên as found in the six
other deuteronomic occurrences. This demonstrates that the Septuagint translators of
Deuteronomy understood the meaning of 13310*7 in Deut 12:5 to be the same as the Piel
construction found in Deut 12:11; 14:23; 16:2, 6, 11; 26:2 (Liddell & Scott, s.v.,
"επικαλεω," [p. 635]; Wevers, Bible: Deuteronomium in Deut 12:11; 14:23; 16:2, 6, 11 ;
26:2). Seenn. 8,10, 15.
15 This is the only deuteronomic passage in which the LXX translates the FSakkên and
läsüm formulas differently. The LXX renders this text as:
αλλ' ή e l s τον τόπον, öv αν έκλέξηται κύριος ό θεός υμών έν μιςί των
φυλών υμών έπονομάσαι τό όνομα αύτοΰ έκεΐ έπικληθηναι, καί
έκ£ητήσετε και είσελεύσεσθε έκεΐ
But it will be in the place in which the Lord your God will choose from one of
your tribes to name his name there (aorist active infinitive < επονομάζω), to
48 The l'Sakkèn fmô Säm Formula in Its Biblical Context

seven deuteronomic passages which demonstrate the tSakkën formula and

vocalize it as follows:

m r r nn;r~K|?8 m p s n - ^ - Q N · ο

:niatö η κ η ί itö'-πη totöb

τ τ τ τ ; ~ :

But you shall seek the place in which YHWH your God will choose
out of all your tribes to place his name,
l'Sakk'nô, and there you will come.

It is my opinion that the corruption of this text affected more than the
misinterpretation of the Piel of Skn, and its proper decipherment has much to
say about the intended meaning of our formula. We will return to this in the
next section.
In the DH the fSakkèn formula disappears, and the läsüm formula takes its
place (see fig. 3). The läsüm formula is found in Y H W H ' S affirmation that
Solomon's temple will indeed be his "chosen place" (1 Kgs 9:3). It is further
employed to address the fate of the chosen city in light of Y H W H ' S judgment
against Solomon (1 Kgs 11:36), and Rehoboam's subsequent reign in the
South (1 Kgs 14:21). In contrast to Deuteronomy, the DH also employs the
idiom in a finite form: 'âsîm fml Mm, "I will place my name there." There are
two such occurrences in the DH: 2 Kgs 21:4, 7. Both of these occurrences have
to do with Manasseh's sedition, a crime the historian understands as a sin
against the temple and the city in which Y H W H had chosen to place his name.
Full of references to Deuteronomy's chosen place, Solomon's dedicatory
address in 1 Kings 8 introduces a second, periphrastic reflex of l'Sakkên fmô
Mm, lihyôt fmî Säm.16

From the day that I brought forth my people Israel from Egypt, I have not
chosen a city from all the tribes of Israel in which to build a house in order that
my name might be there (lihyôt fmî Säm), but I have chosen David to be over
my people Israel. (1 Kgs 8:16; cf. Deut 12:5, 14)

be invoked (aorist passive infinitive < εττικαλεω), and you will seek out, and
you will go in there.
Thus, although the LXX has chosen two verbs which have nothing to do with "placing"
or "dwelling" to represent läSüm and FSakkên, the chosen representatives are, in and of
themselves, synonyms: "to name the name" and "to be invoked" (see nn. 8, 14; Liddell
& Scott, s.v. "εττικαλεω" [p. 635]; "επονομάζω" [p. 676]; cf. Wevers, Bible: Deutero-
nomium, Deut 12:5).
16 Periphrastic is defined as "a method of speech lacking conciseness" (cf. Κ. -Η.
Bernhardt et al., "Π'Π," TDOT 3: 369-79). Note as well the similar occurrence in
prophetic speech in which the introductory elements of Jeremiah and Ezekiel begin to
evince the phrase: "The word of YHWH was (hâyâ) to Jeremiah" (ibid.).
 The Distribution of the le$akkën fmô Mm Formula 49

Figure 3
The lâsûm fmô säm Formula in the Deuteronomistic History

1 Kings 9:3
I have set this house apart which you have built in order to place my name there
forever (lasum-fmi Sâm 'ad-'ôlâm) and my eyes and my heart will be there
d are found
: c b b p Π Π Ί 1 OSfon'tötÖ: 23 53 3 1ΠΧΠ DÌO' Ο ϋ Π ^ Ν Ί Ο HXtÖ ]NQ1
¡T viébo: CD n n d t 2 ηπ κ τ π ο ο τι ι π & π ΰϋ: 44 53
π n e ? : - - : D η π ocra. 3 pora, o
's fifth case scenario (see n. 82) igive one tribe in order that there might be a fief of
David my
servant before me for all time in Jerusalem, the city which I chose for myself to
place my name there (lâsûm ifmí Säm).

T r n v n po'? nn^ra?® t^b)

'b ' n - i r i a i m Π^Γ.τξ D'irrrVs
:nò Otp'miö 1 ?
1 Kings 14:21
Now Rehoboam the son of Solomon reigned in Judah. Rehoboam was forty-one
years old when he became king, and he reigned seventeen years in Jerusalem, the
city which YHWH had chosen from all the tribes of Israel to put his name there.
And his mother's name was Naamah the Ammonitess.

ΠΠΝΙ r i / ' z - . î T ] ? ΓΠΊΓΡ} πίΛίξΤ]? n i n r n i

D^tOIT? ^ Q Π]ψ' Π ΐ ί ϋ ΰ D ¿ 5 n V Πΐ'φ
,
N a n t i r ' ύ ν ^ Q Dtp ώ φ τ ι χ m t o V m n ' ' i n 3 " - i i ö x T¿n
: Π ' ώ ΰ Π HOW ΙΏΝ ΟϋΊ
2 Kings 21:4
And he built altars in the house of YHWH, of which YHWH had said, "In Jerusalem
1 will put my name."

n r à x • ' t o i t ? m r ¡T "iQK i m ¡"ηιη r n ? n n ? r a nn=i

2 Kings 21:7
Then he set the carved image of Asherah that he had made, in the house of which
YHWH said to David and to his son Solomon, "In this house and in Jerusalem
which I have chosen from all the tribes of Israel, I will put my name forever."

ΠΊΓΡ "ION -I0N I T 3 3 Π ϋ ΰ Π Ί ώ ^ Π ^ΟΕΓΠΧ Dtö'1

ο'ρφη'ηι πίπ n g a ' i i ^ n b ' p t p - ^ ]
D'tox ^ΝΓ,έΓ '1530 b i p 'ΓΙΙΠΒ
50 The leSakkën fmô Mm Formula in Its Biblical Context

This second reflex is found in the DH only in Solomon's prayer (v. 16, lihyôt\
v. 29, yihyeh), and in the quotation of this prayer in 2 Kgs 23:27 (yihyeh). Here,
following Dtr''s glowingly optimistic epilogue of Josiah's reform, Dtr2 offers
his exilic postscript regarding the ultimate futility of the reform because of
Manasseh's great sin. In the Chronicler's History, lihyôt fmô Säm is utilized
more often than in the DH (2 Chr 6:5, 6; 7:16; 33:4). It is employed in the
same contexts as was lâsûm fmô Säm (the temple and Jerusalem as Y H W H ' S
chosen place). Very significant is the fact that on two occasions the Chronicler
uses lihyôt and yihyeh to quote passages in which the DH had employed lâsûm
and 'âsîm. This substitution of lihyôt for lâsûm clearly indicates that the
Chronicler understood the lihyôt formula as a synonymous reflex of the lâsûm
formula, and may indicate an evolution away from one formula toward the
other in biblical usage (cf. Chr 7:16; 33:4). The evidence is somewhat mixed,
however, in that the Chronicler opts for lâsûm in 2 Chr 6:20, the parallel of 1
Kgs 8:29 in which Solomon is quoted with yihyeh. In sum, the distribution of
this second reflex indicates that it was first introduced in 1 Kings 8 as a
periphrastic quotation of Deut 12:5, perpetuated in quotations of 1 Kgs 8:29,
and eventually more broadly employed by the Chronicler (see fig. 4).
Three final occurrences of our idiom are found in Jer 7:12, Ezra 6:12, and
Neh 1:9. Jeremiah and Ezra make use of a finite form of l'Sakkèn fmô Sâm\
Nehemiah utilizes the infinitive with a slight deviation from the deuteronomic
formula (the insertion of 'et- and a first person pronominal suffix on Sern).
Jeremiah uses the idiom in reference to the central cult site, Shiloh, as a
facsimile of Jerusalem; Ezra places the idiom in the mouth of King Darius in a
statement which could arguably have to do with Jerusalem or its larger
environs; Nehemiah applies the idiom to the land promised in Deut 30:5 (see
fig. 5). Thus, we see that the deuteronomic idiom l'Sakkèn fmô Säm, although
absent from the DH and from the Chronicler's History, was still being used in
Josiah's era and in the Second Temple period. The fact that this idiom is placed
in the mouth of a foreign, Persian king adds an interesting twist to the
investigation. We will return to this later in the study.
In conclusion, the distribution of the deuteronomic idiom demonstrates an
evolution of both form and application. The FSakkën fmô Mm formula, which
takes precedence in Deuteronomy, disappears in the DH and the Chronicler's
History but reappears in Jer 7:12, Ezra 6:12, and Neh 1:9. This formula
attracted a synonymous reflex, lâsûm fmô Säm, which is found three times in
Deuteronomy in infinitival form, five times in the DH in finite and infinitival
forms, and three times in the Chronicler in finite and infinitival forms. This
form, lâsûm fmô ¡Säm, is clearly the DH's "idiom of choice." A periphrastic
version of the idiom, lihyôt fmô Säm, appears first in Solomon's oration in 1
Kgs 8:16 and 29, is used once more in the DH in a Dtr2 pericope, and then
occurs three more times in the Chronicler. As regards application, in the Book
of Deuteronomy the idiom is used exclusively of the singular, chosen "place"
 The Distribution of the l'Mkkên fmô Mm Formula 51

of worship and audience. In the DH and Chronicler, however, the idiom is

expanded to include the city in which the cult site might be found. In
Nehemiah, it is further expanded to include the promised land. This evidence
indicates that the various forms of the deuteronomic idiom roughly serve to
identify the author and era in which they were utilized: FSakkèn fmô Mm seems
to be original to the legal core of Deuteronomy but continues with limited use
in the books of Jeremiah, Ezra, and Nehemiah; lâsûm fmô Mm is preferred by
Dtr1; and lihyôt fmô Mm, outside of 1 Kings 8, may be unquestionably
associated with the exilic and post-exilic eras. Furthermore, whereas we will

Figure 4
The lihyôt and lâsûm Formulae
in the Deuteronomistic History and the Chronicler's History

The Deuteronomistic History The Chronicler's History

1 Kgs 8:16 (temple) lihyôt lihyôt 2 Chr 6:5, 6

1 Kgs 8:29 (temple) yihyeh lâsûm 2 Chr 6:20

1 Kgs 9:3 (temple) lâsûm lihyôt 2 Chr 7:16

1 Kgs 11:36 (city) lâsûm — —

1 Kgs 14:21 (city) lâsûm läs um 2 Chr 12:13

2 Kgs 21:4 'äslm yihyeh 2 Chr 33:4

(temple & city)

2 Kgs 21:7 'äslm 'äslm 2 Chr 33:7

(temple & city)

2 Kgs 23:27 (temple) yihyeh — —

52 The l'Sakkên fmô Mm Formula in Its Biblical Context

see that fiakkèn fmô Mm and lâsûm fmô Mm were understood by their native
audience as dynamic equivalents (that is, syntactical constructions sharing the
same semantic content), lihyôt fmô Mm is better characterized as a periphrastic
substitution. Hence, the introduction of lihyôt fmô Mm may indicate that the
original idiomatic sense of the formula was fading, or had been lost.

Figure 5
T h e fsakkën s'ntô säm Formula in
Jeremiah 7:12, Ezra 6:12, Nehemiah 1:9

Jeremiah 7:12
But go to my place which is in Shiloh, in which I Sikkantl fml Säm in the beginning,
and see what I have done to it because of the wickedness of my people Israel.

' 0 0 'rastf -m "I?*? ' Q l p Q · / ^ XriD 1 ?

r u n ' a s o f ? Ή'ίΜΓ-ιφ^ n x w n ráictfk-o' π φ

Ezra 6:12
And may the God who has Sakkin his name there overthrow any king or people who
attempts to change (it), so as to destroy this house of God in Jerusalem. I, Darius,
have issued (this) decree, let (it) be carried out with all diligence!

n*?t{r Din " W nan π ο φ ptö τ κπ'ρκ]

dr-π ο ' ρ φ η η ' V j i x n ' p r r p ? n'pan'p rntpn'? πι·;
' Η Ι•ϋ Ι Τ
: •
ΝηΞΟκ'ηϋΟ'
τ : - : τ •• :
ΠΟΙΟ
ν τ

Nehemiah 1:9
But if you will return to me and keep my commandments and do them, (even) if
your scattered ones are at the edge of heaven, from there I will gather them, and I
will bring them to the place in which I chose l'iakkên 'et-fml Sâm

r v i r - c x c n x Dirröin τή$η ΟΕπαφι •¡π^ΦΊ

• ' m x ' á r j l c ^ p s e s q α ' ό φ π n y p a nprjîiD
,
qtö _ ni< ρ φ 1 ? - η - i r a rnpan
 The Biblical Occurrences of the Deuteronomic Formula 53

B. The Biblical Occurrences of the Deuteronomic Formula

1. The Book of Deuteronomy

As stated in the Introduction, the Name Theology identifies the Book of

Deuteronomy as the transition point in the evolution of Israel's perception of
her deity. This interpretive scheme began with Julius Wellhausen's proposal of
a "deuteronomic correction" and was expanded and amplified by those
affected by his work: Bernhard Stade, Rudolf Smend, Friedrich Giesebrecht,
and Oskar Grether.17 The final form of the theory holds that whereas the
theology of JE envisioned an anthropomorphic deity physically present at the
cult site, D announced a deity only hypostatically present, his new
theologumenon being subtly communicated by means of his use of "name."
Since Wellhausen, the theological catalyst for this reinterpretation of the mode
of divine presence has been re-articulated in several forms: the desire to do
away with "the heathen conception of God's personal dwelling";18 a solution
to an immanence/ transcendence dilemma in Israelite religion as inherited from
Canaanite theology;19 "a polemic reaction against all attempts to localize
God's being,"20 and a resolution to the "cognitive dissonance" regarding the
Presence in the temple resulting from the Exile experience.21 But in all
reconstructions, the final conclusion is the same. The use of name in the Book
of Deuteronomy in association with the central cult site, marks a transition in
Israelite thought in which previous perceptions of divine presence are being
cast off in favor of a new theology.
The deuteronomic idiom has served as "exhibit one" in these proceedings.
As we have seen, the idiom makes its debut in the Book of Deuteronomy,
occurring seven times in the form of fSakkên fmô Säm (Deut 12:5, 11; 14:23;
16:2, 6, 11; 26:2; see fig. 1) and three times in the form of lâsûm fmô Mm,
(Deut 12:5, 21; 14: 24; see fig. 2). The context for these occurrences is entirely
consistent: the idiom is always associated with Deuteronomy's so called
"centralizing formula." Twenty-one times the Book of Deuteronomy speaks of
the divine election of Israel's future, central holy place: hammâqôm 'äSer-yibhar
YHWH 'ëlôhèkem bô, "the place that Y H W H your God will choose." All but one
of these twenty-one occurrences (Deut 31:11) fall within what has long been

17 See the Introduction, "Wellhausen's Disciples," p. 24-26.

18 Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, 1:106.
19 See Stade, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 2:245-51; Wright, The Rule of God: Essays in
Biblical Theology, 55-76.
20 Wright, "The Book of Deuteronomy," 412.
21 Mettinger, Dethronement of Sabaoth, 46-47; Keller, Untersuchungen zur deuterono-
misch-deuteronomistischen Namenstheologie, 207.
54 The l'Sakkên fmô Mm Formula in Its Biblical Context

identified as the oldest portion of the book, the "legal core" or "old law book"
found in 12:2-26:15. Here the stipulations of the Mosaic covenant are
reiterated and expanded in light of Israel's occupation of the land and
"advanced stage in economic history."22 The clear intent of the centralizing
formula and its associated legislation is to communicate that, unlike the days
prior, Israel is to worship at one place, and one place alone: the place that
YHWH chooses (bhr). Jeffrey Tigay summarizes the particular election of this
site and the detailed discussion of festivals, offerings, secular slaughter, and
pilgrimages found in these chapters as expressions of YHWH'S sovereignty in
Israel: "[t]he principle that God, rather than man, chooses the way [and place]
in which God is to be worshiped."23 Nine times this election formula is
augmented by our idiom—the place YHWH chooses l'Sakkên or lâsûm fmô Sàm.
Moreover, each one of these nine occurrences may be found in the old legal
core.
The biblical discussion of the elect place, however, begins well before the
old law book of Deuteronomy. In Exod 15:16-17, Moses's dramatic Song of
the Sea, we read:

Until your people passed over, YHWH,

until the people whom you have purchased24 passed over.
You will bring them and you will plant them
in the mountain of your patrimony,
the place (mâkôn 25 ),
which you made for your enthronement, YHWH.
You will bring them and you will plant them, YHWH,
in a sanctuary, YHWH,
which your hands have established.

Exod 23:20 speaks of the angel sent to guide Israel into this place (hammâqôm)
that YHWH has prepared. In Num 10:29 Moses invites Hobab to come along to
"the place (hammâqôm) of which YHWH said, Ί will give it to you,'" and in

22 Von Rad, Deuteronomy (OTL; London: SCM Press, 1966), 14. For a detailed discussion
of the relationship between Deuteronomy's legislation and that of the Book of the
Covenant, as well as that between Ρ and H, see Driver's classic presentation in
Deuteronomy, iii-xiv.
23 Tigay, Deuteronomy, 122.
24 Cross and Freedman argue that '"whom you created' . . . is now well established in
Ugaritic and biblical Hebrew" as the meaning of qnh (Studies in Ancient Yahwistic
Poetry [The Biblical Resource Series, eds. Astrid Beck and David Noel Freedman;
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1997 {1975}], 44 n. 54). I maintain qnh as "to purchase" in
this passage because I believe that the redemption theme in the poem is central to its
intent. Also see Ps 78:54 in which qnh is used in the same context and best translated
"purchased" or "acquired."
25 There are seventeen occurrences of this noun which are translated either "place,
location" or "position, support." According to G. Mayer, in the singular, this noun
always refers to holy places (K. Koch, "p= kûn," sub "nouns" TDOT7-.90-91).
 The Biblical Occurrences of the Deuteronomic Formula 55

Num 14:40 the faithless spies decide that in spite of their sin, they will go up
"to the place (hammâqôm) that YHWH has promised." Although rarely
associated in the secondary literature, it is this same locale—YHWH'S place
which becomes Israel's place—that is the focus of the old legal core of the
Book of Deuteronomy.
As the forthcoming discussion will demonstrate, many scholars are troubled
by the fluctuating role of Deuteronomy's place in post-deuteronomic commen-
tary. In the DH, hammâqôm becomes habbayit and hair, in Jeremiah 7,
hammâqôm is both the temple and the "land I gave to your fathers forever and
ever"; in the Chronicler, hammâqôm is again hâ'îr but is specified as Jerusalem;
in Ezra 6:12, hammâqôm is probably the Persian province of Judah; and in Neh
1:9, once again, it is the land promised.26 The shifting identity of the place in
pre- and post-deuteronomic biblical commentary, however, is simply one
expression of a theological perspective common to the ANE: the microcosmic
role of sacred space. Here the temple, as the "navel" of the universe, that place
at which heaven and earth meet and in which humanity can touch the divine,
stands as a symbol for the entire relationship of a nation with its deity and that
deity's kingdom on earth. In the written word, this relationship may be
expressed with synecdoche—the part stands for the whole and the whole for
the part. Hence, it is possible to speak of the deity's entire land-holdings by
means of speaking of the critical center of them, the temple. This is particularly
evident in Exod 15:17 in which the promised land is spoken of as the
"sanctuary which your hands have established." As Frank Moore Cross and
David Noel Freedman point out in their Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry,
the images in this song are quite ancient, so much so that the concepts and the
vocabulary appear in the poetry of Ugarit.27 In Ugarit and in the Song of the
Sea, we see that to speak of an entire region by means of the singular, central
sanctuary—which at the same time is understood as the cosmic mountain
dwelling of the deity—is standard for the ANE literary tradition. Furthermore,
"the place of your enthronement" (mäkön l'Sibfkä', see η. 70), which is clearly
Canaan in the Song of the Sea, is reinterpreted in Solomon's dedicatory prayer
as the temple (1 Kgs 8:13). Hence, for the Deuteronomist and his later
colleagues to identify the place, which was first identified with the promised
land, with the central sanctuary and with the regal-ritual capital city in which it
is housed is perfectly consistent with the worldview of the biblical text.
Returning to the deuteronomic context of our idiom, Deuteronomy's legal
core opens with the declaration that the promised land must be purged of the

26 For a partial listing of the passages involved, see Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the
Deuteronomic School, 324 nos. 1, la.
27 Cross and Freedman point out the parallel use of ars.nhlth and ks'u.tbth, "land of his
inheritance" and "dais of his throne," in the description of Mot's kingdom in I AB 11:15,
16. "These phrases . . . were current in Canaanite long before the Israelite conquest"
(Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry, 31-45, esp. 45 n. 56).
56 The l'Sakkèn fmô Säm Formula in Its Biblical Context

multiple cult sites of YHWH'S rivals. The place must be stripped of their claim
upon it ("you shall obliterate their name from that place," Deut 12:328) in order
that the people of Israel might bring their tribute to YHWH at the singular place
that he would choose fSakkën fmô Mm (12:11). Chapter fourteen reiterates the
elect nature of the central site, commanding that the tithe must be eaten only
here, lipnê YHWH (14:23). Moreover, if "the place is too far for you"
(yirhaq mimmekâ hammâqôm), then the tithe must be exchanged for money and
brought "to the place which YHWH your God chooses lâsûm fmô Mm" (14:24,
25). In chapter 16, the legislation regarding the three great pilgrimage feasts is
reviewed. The climax of the chapter is the legislation regarding the Passover,
the festival that commemorates YHWH'S redemption of his people, the
historical prologue of the Mosaic covenant. This festival, too, is to be
celebrated at hammâqôm 'äSer-yibhar YHWH 'ëlôhêkem bô fSakkên fmô Mm. The
corpus moves on to other legislative foci, but in its concluding chapter, the
place is again brought to the fore in a final inclusio. Although the law of the
first fruits is detailed in Deut 18:4, here in chapter twenty-six the law is
repeated. All Israelites are commanded to celebrate the culmination of their
exodus and settlement by bringing a portion of their first fruits, the "tangible
proof that they were in possession of the land,"29 to the place. And while
making their offering, they are to recite the creed.

With these words the speaker has taken his place in the story of salvation and, in
a splendid foreshortening of time, has acknowledged himself to be a direct
recipient of the act of salvation which was the gift of the promised land. 30

This ceremony "provides the Israelite with the means of periodically

reminding himself, before God, of the obligations under which he
lives"31—obligations which, if fulfilled, will result in secure land tenure under
the suzerain's watchful eye. Hence, in our idiom's immediate context, the
focus is proper cultic behavior at the place. This cultic behavior is designed to
commemorate and celebrate YHWH'S patronage of Israel, a patronage that has
resulted in his enthronement in their midst and in their secure possession of his
land, the place,32

28 Weinfeld compares this command with the vassal-treaty of Esarhaddon which concludes
with the following charge:
that should Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, die during the minority of his sons,
either an officer or a courtier put ASSurbanipal, the crown prince, to death, take
over the kingship of the land of Assyria, that you will not make common cause
with him . . . That you will seize and slay the perpetrators of rebellion. You
will destroy their name and their seed from the land (Deuteronomy and the
Deuteronomio School, 89).
29 K&D, 3:426.
30 Von Rad, Deuteronomy, 159.
31 Driver, Deuteronomy, 288.
32 In his discussion of Jeremiah's Temple Sermon, R. E. Clements states:
 The Biblical Occurrences of the Deuteronomic Formula 57

Widening the circle further, the Book of Deuteronomy as a whole is best

described as the constitution of the nation of ancient Israel. It comes to us in a
form familiar to the biblical era, that of the b'rît.33 As a result, the realities of
religious fidelity and service in this book are expressed in the language of
politics.34 Spoken by Moses, the authority of this constitution is incontestable.
Moreover, the biblical authors have situated the delivery of this charter-
document on the Plains of Moab, just prior to the Conquest under Joshua. As
presented, the suzerain-vassal relationship reaffirmed in this text launches
Israel into the warfare that will result in the long-awaited fulfillment of the land
tenure first promised to Abram. By means of military conquest (his
"outstretched arm"), YHWH will bring Abram's children back to "the land of
their sojournings." He will "plant them in the mountain of [his] patrimony"
(Exod 15:16). Thus, in its larger context our idiom is, again, intimately
associated with the place in which YHWH has sworn to settle his vassal nation,
Israel.
In sum, the deuteronomic context of our idiom has to do with proper cultic
behavior as an expression of Israel's client relationship with her patron, YHWH.
Here the central cult site is depicted as the pulse-point of Israel's relationship
with YHWH in that it is the only place in which Israel may seek their suzerain,
the only place to which tribute must be brought, and the special place at which
the redemptive acts of Israel's conquering champion should be celebrated. This
legislation is so critical to Israel's national identity, particularly Israel's
continuing right to land tenure, that these passages, and hence our idiom, may
be found cited throughout the national history. The larger message is clearly

An interesting feature of this temple speech is not simply that the temple is
destroyed, but that this carries with it, by implication, the ejection of the
inhabitants of Judah from their land. As we have shown, the possession of the
temple as Yahweh's dwelling-place on Mount Zion, was regarded as the
entitlement to possession of the whole land. Yahweh's sacred mountain in
Jerusalem was symbolic of his land, and was the means through which his
blessing flowed out to it. The destruction of the temple, and the withdrawal of
Yahweh's presence, meant the removal of Judah from its territory (God and
Temple [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1965], 85).
33 The consensus is now nearly universal that the Book of Deuteronomy is fashioned after
the covenant documents of the ANE. Although most concur that 1-4:43 is introductory
material that is supplemental to the original core, and that chapters 29-34 are a collection
of materials used by Dtr as a conclusion to the Moses era and transition into the Joshua
era, it is generally accepted that 4:44-28:68 constitute an original text, formatted as a
treaty document, which identified Yahweh as Israel's suzerain. "Is there, therefore, a text
in the Old Testament which exemplifies with sufficient fullness the treaty form? For an
affirmative answer we need only look at the basic elements of the Book of
Deuteronomy" (Dennis J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the
Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament [Rome: Pontifical Biblical
Institute, 1963], 109).
34 Cf. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 83; William Moran, "The
ANE Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy," CBQ 25 (1963): 77-85.
58 The fíakkén fmô $äm Formula in Its Biblical Context

Israel's security in the place as an outgrowth of YHWH'S sovereignty over the

place.
The most glaring question as regards the use of our idiom within this
deuteronomic context regards the two distinctive forms in which it appears:
FMkken and lâsûm fmô Mm. As detailed above, the FMkken form of the idiom is
clearly the preferred reflex within the book, occurring seven times in the old
legal core (see fig. 1). The läsum form of the idiom may only be found in Deut
12:5, 12:21, and 14:24 (see fig. 2). Moreover, whereas the FSakkèn reflex takes
precedence in the Book of Deuteronomy, this reflex does not appear at all in
the DH; rather, the historian(s) clearly prefer the lâsûm reflex. Past
considerations of this dilemma have either assumed that both of the name
idioms are original to what Moshe Weinfeld would call "the main strand" of
the book (for Weinfeld 4:44-28:68, for others, following Wilhelm M. L. de
Wette's original proposal, the old legal core, 12:2-26:1535), or assumed that the
name idioms in Deuteronomy are in reality period-sensitive, theologically-
motivated expansions of the "original" centralizing formula. The theory behind
this second solution is that the centralizing formula has a "short" version which
is original to the core of Deuteronomy ("the place that YHWH will choose")
and a "long" version which is not original to the core ("the place that YHWH
will choose FSakkën or lâsûm fmô Mm").
Mettinger summarizes this position in his Dethronement of Sabaoth.
Building upon F. Horst and M. Rose, Mettinger makes the argument that the
original short centralization formula was expanded prior to 597 BCE (the date
of his Dtr1) by FSakkèn. He states that it was expanded later still by lâsûm in
"what is probably DtrN [an exilic redactor]."36 The basis of these conclusions
is a source-critical treatment of Deuteronomy 12 that identifies w . 1-7 as a
"later redaction of DtrH [i.e., Dtr2]," w . 8-12 as pre-597 BCE but edited in 597
BCE (FSakkèn), w . 13-19 as the "oldest part of this text" (the short formula),
and w . 20-28 as an addition which "seems prior to the D-work [i.e., prior to
the final redaction of the DH]."37) He concludes that "[i]n all probability,

35 Weinfeld, "Deuteronomy," ABD 2:179. For a recent review of the scholarly literature
regarding the D-source within the DH, see T. Römer and A. de Pury, "Deuteronomistic
Historiography (DH): History of Research and Debated Issues," in Israel Constructs its
History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research, 32-44.
36 The Dethronement of Sabaoth, 55, cf. p. 46-56. Horst argues that the short formula
belongs to a pre-Exilic deuteronomic layer, lâsûm to an Exilic one, and lêSakkèn to a
post-Exilic one. Similarly, Rose has argued that the short formula belongs to the old
legal core, while FSakkèn emerges from a pre-Dtr, pre-exilic interpolation. He holds that
the lâsûm idiom is the result of a later, post-exilic redaction (F. Horst, Gottes Recht,
Gesammelte Studien zum Recht im Alten Testament [Theologische Bücherei 12; Munich:
C. Kaiser, 1961], 26-29; and M. Rose, Der Ausschliesslichkeitsanspruch Jahwes:
Deuteronomische Schultheologie und die Volksfrömmigkeit in der späten Königszeit
[BWANT 106; Stuttgart, 1975], 59-94).
37 Mettinger, Dethronement of Sabaoth, 54.
 The Biblical Occurrences of the Deuteronomic Formula 59

certain of the passages containing lëSakkèn Sem are both pre-Dtr and pre-
exilic... [o]n the other hand, it is difficult to argue that any of these
occurrences belonged to the original law code, where the short form alone
seems to have been used."38
The most recent incarnation of this theory is M. Keller's. He holds that the
shortform is pre-exilic and Josianic, was associated with the old Jerusalem
temple-theology, and was founded upon the concept that YHWH was present.
He holds that the long form, on the other hand, is a post-exilic, deuteronomistic
expansion of the short formula, which was created in order to resolve the
cognitive dissonance of YHWH's apparent vulnerability in the temple, while
promoting the post-exilic community's need to recentralize upon their return to
Judah. Unlike Mettinger, he concludes that the post-exilic lâsûrn expansion of
the short formula preceded that of the leSakkën expansion, and that both of these
expansions add to the short form the nuance of fame and possession—ideas
Keller feels are most appropriate to the post-exilic context. 9 Like Mettinger,
Keller's theory begins with a source-critical assessment of Deuteronomy 12
that he feels substantiates the progression of his expansions.
S. Dean McBride approaches this issue from another angle: the traditio-
historical origins of the Name Theology. Having reviewed the numerous
attempts to locate the origins of the Name Theology in either the North or
South,40 McBride concludes that the final version of Deuteronomy's
centralization formula reflects the merger of northern (the name idiom) and
southern (the short formula) theologies in "an artificial sentence name
embodying the election terminology of Jerusalem and a North Israelite (but
ultimately Canaanite) notion of God's cultic presence through his name."41
Apparently, however, McBride believes that this hybrid formula was original
to Deuteronomy, having been created in order to facilitate the unified reform
envisioned by Josiah.42
Although these short- versus long-form treatments of the centralizing
formula are certainly possible, and do offer some explanation for the presence
of both FSakkën and läsüm in Deuteronomy, I believe that the distribution of the
idioms within the book, complemented by the text critical and linguistic
evidence, points a different, less speculative, direction. Since the distribution of

38 Ibid., 56.
39 Keller, Untersuchungen zur deuteronomisch-deuteronomistischen Namenstheologie, 57-
58, 113-15, 187-99, 207.
Das lässt den Schluss zu, dass die Kurzform als die älteste Gestalt der
Zentralisationsformel einerseits fest mit den dtn Zentralisationsgesetzen
verbunden ist, andererseits in den jüngeren Schichten von den dtr Redaktoren
aufgenommen und als Referenz auf die von ihnen geschaffenen Langformen
verstanden worden ist (57).
40 McBride, "The Deuteronomic Name Theology," 31-52.
41 Ibid., 209.
42 Ibid., 204.
60 The l'Sakkèn fmô Säm Formula in Its Biblical Context

the formulae in Deuteronomy indicates that the FSakken form is primary, and,
in my opinion probably stems from the hand of the Deuteronomist himself, the
key to this puzzle must be the aberrant lâsûm passages.
Of the three lâsûm passages, let us begin with Deut 12:21 and 14:24. These
texts have to do with secular slaughter and tithing, respectively. They stand
apart from the rest of the old law code in that they are the only legislation that
specifies "if the place is too far from you" (yirhaq mimrrfkâ hammâqôm). The
pericope in which Deut 12:21 occurs reads as follows:

(20) When YHWH your God expands your borders as he promised you, and you
say, Ί will eat meat,' for the desire of your soul is to eat meat, according to all
the desire of your soul, you will eat meat.(21) If the place which YHWH your
God chooses to place his name {lâSûm fmô Säm) is too far from you {yirhaq
mimm'kâ hammaqôm), then you may slaughter from your herd or from your
flock as YHWH your God has given to you, as I commanded you, and you may
eat in your gates according to all the desire of your soul. (22) Even as the
gazelle and the wild ram is eaten, so you shall at (of) it; the unclean and the
clean together may eat of it. (23) Only be sure not to eat the blood . . . (24) but
upon the ground you will pour it out like water . . . .

This pericope in which lâsûm fmô Säm appears is immediately preceded by

another pericope, which reiterates all of its essential content and much of its
specific language, w . 13-19. A portion of this preceding law will illustrate the
parallel nature of the two pericopes:

(13) Be careful that you do not offer your burnt offerings in every cultic place
you see, (14) but in the place which YHWH will choose in one of your tribes,
there you shall offer your burnt offerings, and there you shall do all that I
command you. (15) However, according to all the desire of your soul you may
slaughter and eat meat, according to the blessing of YHWH your God which he
has given you, within any of your gates; the unclean and the clean may eat of it
as of the gazelle and the deer. (16) Only you shall not eat the blood; upon the
ground you will pour it out like water.

Thus, although juxtaposed within the text, these two passages clearly articulate
the same law. There are two distinctions, however between the articulation of
the law in w . 13-19 and w . 20-24. The first distinction is that w . 13-19 use
neither yirhaq mimm'kâ hammaqôm nor lâsûm fmô Mm. The second distinction is
that w . 20-24, in which lâsûm fmô Säm appears, offers a somewhat expanded
or clarified version of the law. Keller resolves this redundancy by arguing that
w . 13-19 represents the oldest law of centralization in the old legal core of
Deuteronomy, and w . 20-24 represents an interpolated, later version of the
same. 43 I concur, and would suggest that the best solution for this apparent

43 Keller, Untersuchungen zur deuteronomisch-deuteronomistischen Namenstheologie, 22-

24; cf. Mettinger, Dethronement of Sabaoth, 54.
 The Biblical Occurrences of the Deuteronomic Formula 61

doublet in the text is to assume that here we have either a synthesis of two
sources behind the old law code, or an updated, later expansion of one pericope
by the other.
Deut 14:24 is the second text in which lâsûm fmô Mm appears in
Deuteronomy. It is also introduced with the special phrase, "if the place is too
far from you" {yirhaq mimrríká hammaqôm). Although the law of Deut 14:24 is
not repeated as is the law of Deut 12:21, the problem of the distance and the
deuteronomic idiom is repeated—both as l'Mkkën fmô Mm and as lâsûm fmô
Mm.

(23) And you will eat before YHWH your God in the place in which he chooses
to place his name (leSakkèn Semô Säm) your grain, your new wine, and your oil,
and the first-born of your herd, so that you will learn to fear YHWH your God all
the days.

(24) But if the way is too far for you to carry it, for the place which YHWH will
choose to place his name (lâsûm Semô Säm) is too far from you (kl-yirhaq
mimmekahammäqöm), when YHWH your God blesses you, ( 2 5 ) then you shall
exchange (it) for money . . . .

As did Deut 12:21, Deut 14:24 contributes a specific nuance to a previously

stated statute of proper cultic behavior: a practical solution for the individual
who finds the chosen place too far away. Moreover, Deut 14:24 articulates this
nuance with the same unique language as did 12:21 (yirhaq mimmekâ ham-
mâqôm). Additionally, like Deut 12:21, Deut 14:24 also speaks of the chosen
place with lâsûm Semô Mm. Because Deut 12:21 and 14:24 both show evidence
of being doublets, are unique in their concern that the place be "too far away,"
and are two of only three deuteronomic occurrences in which lâsûm as
opposed to rSakkën fmô Mm is used, I conclude that Deut 12:21 and 14:24 are
best understood as later interpolations upon the older law code. Remembering
that the preferred reflex of the deuteronomic idiom in the Book of Deuter-
onomy is clearly the FMkkèn formula, whereas the preferred reflex in the DH is
the lâsûm formula, this evidence indicates that the interpolations of Deut 12:21
and 14:24 are the work of the Deuteronomistic Historian (specifically Dtr 1 ),
who was either incorporating an alternate version of these particular laws into
the old law code in order to preserve them or, because of his place in Israel's
history, felt the need to update the original laws with his exclusion, "if the
place be too far from you."
This, at last, brings us to Deut 12:5, the third and final occurrence of
lâsûm fmô Mm in Deuteronomy. As discussed in the previous section, in this
verse we find, in a somewhat garbled fashion, both ÎMkkënfmôMm and
lâsûm fmô Mm. We concluded with many others that the best reading of this
passage in the MT is as follows:
62 The l'Sakkèn fmô Säm Formula in Its Biblical Context

D^rfrs mrr n n r r - i ^ ΰροπ-ι?κ-πχ

Dttf ίαψ-Π^' DÌÌ07
1
: n sτt öτ nτ x nτ ì i t ö ': - π η liDtö
: - :
?

But you shall seek the place

in which YHWH your God chooses
out of all your tribes
to place his name, to place it (TSakk'nô)
and there you will come.

Let us also recall that Τον explains the vocalization and accentuation of Deut
12:5 as a Masoretic solution to a word which they found difficult in context
(that is, exegesis rather than translation), and he concludes with many others
that ißei1? was originally intended as a doublet to lasûm (cf. the LXX44). I
completely concur with Tov's revocalization of the MT, yet even with the
correction of the Masoretic pointing, we are still left with a redundant passage:

But you shall seek the place in which YHWH your God will choose out of all
your tribes to place his name, to place it (fSakk'no) and there you will come.

How will we resolve this redundancy? As will become more apparent as

this study progresses, làsûm fmô Säm was not only understood as a synony-
mous reflex of l'Sakkên fmô Säm, but as a gloss as well. Hence, I believe that
the best explanation for the garbled presence of both idioms in Deut 12:5 is
that the historian, in his effort to incorporate the deuteronomic source into the
DH, provided his readers with an external, interlinear gloss in order to translate
the difficult idiom l'Sakkèn fmô Mm for his readership.45 As we have already
observed, the appropriate translation of l'Sakkèn fmô Säm has been a point of
confusion for generations of scholars. I believe that the historian intended to
spare his readership that same confusion by means of an interlinear gloss

44 The LXX translates this text as: "But it will be in the place in which the Lord your God
will choose from one of your tribes to name his name there (aorist active infinitive <
επονομάζω), to be invoked (aorist passive infinitive < επικαλεω), and you will seek
out, and you will go in there." See n. 15; cf. Liddell & Scott, s.v. "επικαλεω" (p. 635);
"επονομάζω" (p. 676).
45 Τον defines an external gloss as a marginal or interlinear interpretation of a difficult or
obsolete word which, originally, had been intended to remain outside the running text
{Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 276). Since we do not have manuscript evidence
for the first stage of any biblical text, the existence of early glosses which were eventu-
ally incorporated into the running text must remain speculative. However, the existence
of this practice in the scribal tradition of Babylonia and Assyria, where glosses were
often included in the text itself although set apart by either special symbols, the size of
the script, or the gloss's placement on the tablet, argues for its existence in the biblical
scribal tradition as well. "Explanatory short notes, explaining difficult or obsolete words,
which were not meant to be integrated into the syntax of the running text, may have been
added by ancient Hebrew scribes in the margin or between lines" (ibid., 277).
 The Biblical Occurrences of the Deuteronomic Formula 63

which clarified the translation (and meaning) of the unusual idiom of the
Deuteronomist. I assume that this gloss was intended as an external gloss, and
it was not the intention of the scribe that it ever be incorporated into the
running syntax of the passage. Apparently, however, at some point it was; and
once incorporated, this inclusion served to muddle the sentence such that the
intended syntax was permanently confused.

mrr " i n y - i ® ? οιρφίτ^ΓΠΝ

αύ -iberna eró 1 ? ' :notö nkzn ^ " n n 'to® 1 ? • ¿ O n ç r ' p r ç

But to the place

in which Y H W H your God will choose
out of all your tribes [to place his name]
to place it, you will seek
and there you will come.

Hence, even with the suggested correction, Deut 12:5 is left without a clear
object for FSakkèn. There are many possible reconstructions here. The easiest is
to assume that once làsûm 'et- fmô Mm found its way into the text, later redac-
tors "corrected" the redundancy by replacing the Sern of ÎSakken Sêm
with a pronominal suffix, and eventually reinterpreted the infinitive as a noun.
What motivation might lie behind this postulated interlinear gloss? Let us
recall that Deut 12:5 is the first occurrence of ÎSakkên fmô Mm in the biblical
text. It falls within the first occurrence of the centralizing formula and within
the first chapter of the old legal core of Deuteronomy. Hence, I propose that
our scribe's intention was to translate the difficult idiom in its first occurrence,
at the beginning of the legal corpus, in order to render the following six
occurrences understandable to his audience. Like the interpolations in Deut
12:21 and 14:24, which also display Dtr''s preferred reflex of the idiom, our
scribe obviously felt that this reflex was more understandable to his audience
than the difficult reflex he had inherited.46 In the following sections we will
discuss why the FSakkèn fmô Mm idiom was difficult for Dtr1 's readership.

2. The Deuteronomistic History

As stated in the Introduction, Dtr1 selected and reworked the Book of

Deuteronomy to serve as the prolegomenon to his epic, embracing both its

46 Note that unlike Deut 12:21 and 14:24, Deut 12:5 includes the direct object marker
within the idiom, lâiûm 'et-fmô Mm. The object marker is only used in Deut 12:5, 2
Kgs 21:4, 7, and Neh 1:9. As discussed in the previous section, 2 Kgs 21:4 and 7 are
quite possibly post-exilic contributions, and Neh 1:9 is obviously post-exilic. Hence, it is
possible that whereas the interpolations of Deut 12:21 and 14:24 are the work of Dtr1,
the interlinear gloss of Deut 12:5 is the work of a later hand—possibly Dtr2, who was
seeking to clarify his text with the idiom of the first historian.
64 The l'Sakkèn fmô Säm Formula in Its Biblical Context

content and literary form as the scaffolding of his history. As mentioned, I am

convinced that the pre-exilic redaction of the DH is characterized by true
antiquarian intent and a careful, extensive use of source material.47 Toward this
end, Dtr''s redactional scaffolding is particularly apparent in his introduction
and conclusion to the Book of Deuteronomy, his summary commentaries on
Israel's various leaders, and in the transitional speeches of key figures which
he uses to bind his corpus together.48 Dtr2, on the other hand, is best described
as an exilic individual who

was attempting to salvage a treasure, a cultural legacy in papyrus, from a

historical maelstrom. He accounted for the exile in light of his source, and an
economical view of his enterprise dictates a minimalist view of his editorial
w o r k . . . 49

Halpem makes the point that because of the linguistic and thematic
relationship between historians and their sources, it is often difficult to "isolate
the historian's contributions—verbal and substantive—from inherited
information."50 This is particularly true regarding Dtr2. Most scholars have
attempted to differentiate Dtr2 from Dtr1 based on the presence of certain
themes: typically either the conditional nature of the Davidic covenant or the
exile. As both of these themes may be explained in many circumstances as
native to Dtr1, this sort of delineation is risky, and, although periodically
successful, is best avoided. Thus, my assumption is that the hand of Dtr2 should
be particularly apparent in the Manasseh pericope, in the last four verses of
Kings, and in summary commentary which explains the ultimate demise of
YHWH'S vassal nation.
According to the Name Theology, these historians (Dtr1 and Dtr2 and/or
their disciples) either inserted the deuteronomic idiom or "endowed it with a
specific theological meaning . . . in order to give expression to the new
theology";51 in this manner, the Name Theologians find evidence of a
"deuteronomistic correction" in the "name" language of Deuteronomy and the
DH. In an attempt to assess the validity of this claim, our focus in this section
will be (1) to disentangle our idiom from the other "name" language in the DH
in order to properly assess its "particular occurrences," and (2) to determine
whether any sort of pattern can be detected in the use of our idiom in this
corpus that might support the thesis of a "deuteronomistic correction."
The first pattern to be noted is that the deuteronomic idiom, FSakkën fmô
Mm, is completely absent from the DH. In its place we find what I have named

47 See the Introduction, "The Deuteronomistic History," p. 1-7.

48 See the Introduction, n. 19.
49 Baruch Halpern, The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History (San Francisco:
Harper & Row, 1988), 181.
50 Ibid., 196.
51 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 193.
 The Biblical Occurrences of the Deuteronomic Formula 65

its dynamic equivalent, lâsûm fmô Mm. This dynamic equivalent makes its first
appearance in YHWH'S approval of Solomon's temple in Jerusalem, 1 Kgs 9:3.

I have set this house apart which you have built in order to place my name there
forever (lâàûm-fmî iäm 'ad-'ôlâm), and my eyes and my heart will be there
perpetually.

In this passage, Deuteronomy's place has been reinterpreted as habbayit, and

the name formula has been rendered in a form understandable to its audience.
Nelson and Friedman argue in agreement with C. F. Burney that the pericope
from which this passage emerges, 1 Kgs 9:1-5, is both deuteronomic and pre-
exilic, and, therefore, they attribute it to Dtr1.52 As this passage is assumed by
the author of 1 Kgs 8:29 (see following discussion), and there is no historical
or linguistic evidence that compels me to date this beyond the seventh century,
I agree that it is pre-exilic, being either the work of Dtr1 or source material that
he has included.
The next DH passage to cite our idiom is 1 Kgs 11:36. Here Ahijah
announces the impossible: the hegemony of the Davidic house over all Israel
has been revoked. Because of Solomon's unfaithfulness, the majority of the
kingdom will now be given to Jeroboam.

But to his son I will give one tribe in order that there might be a fief 53 of David
my servant before me for all time in Jerusalem, the city which I chose for
myself to place my name there ( l â f û m ftrii Säm). (1 Kgs 11:36)

Here, for the first time, the referent of the idiom is hâ'îr. The consensus of the
double-redactionists is that this pericope is Dtr1. Building upon Nelson and
Friedman, Halpern argues that this pericope is, in fact, pivotal to the pre-exilic
message of Dtr1. Although David was indeed granted a perpetual dynasty per 2
Samuel 7, this royal grant included a caveat: a lack of fidelity would result in
penalty. The penalty? The imposition of a territorial sanction. According to
Halpern, nowhere is Dtr u s apologetic for the divinely sanctioned secession of
the North more clearly articulated than in 1 Kings 11, a chapter that has no
parallel in the Chronicler's History. As Halpern demonstrates, without this

52 Richard D. Nelson, The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History (JSOT 18;
Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981), 73-76; Richard E. Friedman, Exile and Biblical Narrative:
The Formation of the Deuteronomistic and Priestly Works (HSM 22; Chico, Calif.:
Scholars Press, 1981), 25; cf. C. F. Burney, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of
Kings (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1903), 129-33.
53 This particular translation of nîr was first proposed by Paul Hanson in "Song of
Heshbon and David's Nîr (Num 21:26-30)," HTR 61(1968): 297-320. Here Hanson
postulates that bH nîr comes from Akk nlru. This Akk noun means "yoke." But as it is
used over one hundred times in Akk as a metaphor for the power or dominion of a king
over his subjects, Hanson theorizes that in this bH context it should be translated as
"land holding."
66 The l'îakkën fmô Säm Formula in Its Biblical Context

chapter Dtr 1 's message regarding the cause o f the division o f the kingdom
makes no sense. 5 4 Therefore, Halpern affirms with Nelson and Friedman that
this chapter is definitively Dtr 1 .
The next occurrence of our idiom is 1 Kgs 14:21. It is similar to 1 Kgs
11:36 in that the referent o f the idiom is again hair. Here the first post-
secession king, Rehoboam, is reported to have reigned for seventeen years in
Jerusalem, "the city which Y H W H had chosen from all the tribes o f Israel
lâsûm fmô Säm" (cf. Deut 12:5). Because o f the configuration o f the regnal
formula, the association of Jerusalem with hammâqôm, and the chosen reflex o f
our formula, Nelson identifies this passage Dtr1 as well. 5 5
In the next two occurrences, 2 Kgs 21:4, 7, w e see that the narrator has
begun to merge habbayit and hair. Indeed, Manasseh's sin is against habbayit,
but the house is identified as sacred because it is located in the chosen city.

(4) And he built altars in the house of YHWH, of which YHWH had said, "In
Jerusalem I will put my name ('âsim 'et-fmî)." (5) For he built altars for all the
host of heaven in the two courts of the house of YHWH. (6) And he made his son
pass through the fire, practiced witchcraft and used divination, and dealt with
mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the sight of YHWH provoking [him]
to anger. (7) Then he set the carved image of Asherah that he had made, in the
house of which YHWH said to David and to his son Solomon, "In this house and
in Jerusalem, which I have chosen from all the tribes of Israel, I will put my
name forever ('âsîm 'et-fmî le'ôlâm)."

There is debate among the double-redactionists as to whether this pericope is

Dtr or Dtr 2 . 56 A s regards our idiom, there is some distinction between this
passage and those already considered: specifically, what up to this point had
been an infinitival form begins to be utilized in finite form. This might indicate
a post-exilic hand. The fact that this author is clearly synthesizing previous

54 See Introduction, n. 14. Nelson and Halpern have argued that it is this chapter of the DH,
completely missing from the Chronicler's account, which articulates and fulfills the
conditional yet unconditional message of the Davidic covenant. They claim that the
message of the DH embraces both: an inalienable Davidic dynasty which is at the same
time subject to provisional territorial sanction. "When the provisions are violated, a
minimal territory remains" (Nelson, The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic
History, 109-115; see also Halpern, The First Historians, 167). Halpern goes on to point
out the commonality between the DH's treatment of David's covenant and other ANE
promises of dynasty.
It is a rule that Near Eastern promises of dynasty identify the state or
territory, just as the land grant, a transaction to which the unconditional
dynastic grant is often likened, stipulates what land is being granted. The
silence of 2 Samuel 7 is peculiar enough to demand explanation—and H(Dtr)'s
treatment of the schism is distinctive enough to furnish it (ibid., 163).
55 Nelson, The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History, 34, 68.
56 Friedman identifies 21:8-15 as Dtr2 (The Exile and Biblical Narrative, 25-26); Nelson
identifies 21:1-18 as Dtr2 (Nelson, The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic
History, 65-68).
 The Biblical Occurrences of the Deuteronomic Formula 67

material (i.e., Deut 16:21; 1 Kgs 9:3; 1 Kgs 11:36; 1 Kgs 14:21) may also
indicate the second historian. However, since Jeremiah (clearly a pre-exilic
figure) makes use of the idiom in finite form, and the texts alluded to in 2 Kgs
21:4, 7 are all pre-exilic, in keeping with my minimalistic tendencies, I identify
this pericope as Dtr1.
Unlike those preceding, our final occurrence in 2 Kgs 23:27 must be
assigned to Dtr2. Here, following the pre-exilic summary of Josiah's righteous-
ness, "before him there was no king like him . . . nor did any like him arise
after him," is appended the following:

However, YHWH did not turn from the fierceness of his great wrath with which
his anger bumed against Judah, because of all the provocations with which
Manasseh had provoked him. And YHWH said, "I will remove Judah also from
my sight, as I have removed Israel. And I will cast off Jerusalem, this city which
I have chosen, and the temple of which I said, "My name shall be there (yihyeh
fml Säm)."i7 (2 Kgs 23:26, 27)

Unlike any passage so far considered, this final occurrence of the deuteron-
omic idiom in the DH employs the lihyôt reflex. Moreover, this passage is the
first to distinguish between hâ'îr as the place "chosen" and habbayit as the place
58
YHWH said "my name shall be there." It would seem that both his chosen
idiom and his theology marks this biblical author as distinct from the previous
passages considered.
Up to this point, several trends are apparent in the DH's use of the
deuteronomic idiom. The most apparent is its preference for the lâsûm variant.
The FMkkën reflex is completely absent from this corpus and the lihyôt reflex
appears only in 2 Kgs 23:27 and 1 Kgs 8:16, 29 (see figs. 3 and 4). Of the lihyôt
occurrences, the first is clearly the post-exilic commentary of Dtr2, the second
two occur in Solomon's dedicatory address. Because the 1 Kings 8 occurrences
are distinctive for several reasons, they will be discussed in a separate section
below. Of the lâsûm occurrences, the infinitival uses all fall within the pre-
exilic version of the History, and it may be argued that all occur within the
redactional scaffolding of Dtr1. The finite uses are both debated, but I will
attribute them to Dtr1. Lastly, all the passages which utilize our idiom in any
form are all found in 1 & 2 Kings.

57 As Nelson states, Manasseh's "sins . . . reached such satanic proportions that the whole
'game plan' of history which the exilic editor had inherited from the Deuteronomistic
historian had to be set aside" (The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History,
126; cf. 58-60, 67-68,126).
58 This mutation of the deuteronomic idiom on the part of the exilic historian both here and
in 1 Kgs 8:16 may be the source of McBride's theory that the centralization formula
resulted from the joining of northern and southern theologies in "an artificial sentence
name" (cf. McBride, "The Deuteronomic Name Theology," 209).
68 The l'Sakkèn tfmô Mm Formula in Its Biblical Context

3. 2 Samuel 7 & 1 Kings 8

These two texts represent critical junctures in the history of the cult of
Israel. In 2 Samuel 7 the first permanent cultic structure in Israel is proposed
when King David inquires of the prophet Nathan whether he might build "a
house" for YHWH, and in 1 Kings 8, Solomon at long last dedicates that very
structure in Jerusalem. As was mentioned in the Introduction, both of these
pericopes are recognized as "transitional speeches"—key monologues
employed by Dtr to provide theological structure to his history and to advance
the narrative itself.59 As important texts within the history of the Israelite cult,
these pericopes have also been conscripted as chief witnesses for the defense of
the Name Theology. As summarized by Mettinger, the theory is that YHWH
(through Nathan) rebukes David for wanting to build a house for God to "dwell
in" (2 Sam 7:5), but reassures David that his descendent will be allowed to
build a house "for my name" (2 Sam 7:13).60 Thus, the temple which Solomon
builds is accepted by the deity because it was "not a house in which God
himself would dwell (bayit l'Sibtì, v. 5), but only an envelope for his Name
0bayit liSmî, v. 13 [cf. 1 Kgs 8:17, 18, 19, 20, 44,48])." According to Mettinger,
in these two pericopes (in conjunction with Deuteronomy's l'Sakkên fmô), "the
ancient conceptions of the divine presence are made obsolete by the idea of the
'Name' in the Temple." 61

59 See the Introduction, n. 19. Although Noth's original proposal excluded 2 Samuel 7
from the list of Dtr's "transitional speeches" in the DH—because of its optimistic stance
regarding the nation and the monarchy—a major contribution of the double-redaction
school has been to return 2 Samuel 7 to the list (see Dennis J. McCarthy, "II Samuel and
the Structure of the Deuteronomic History " JBL 84 [1965]: 131-38).
60 See the Introduction, n. 104. Because the Chronicler's parallel to 2 Sam 7:13 replaces
fmt with l'i (1 Chr 17:12), and the LXX reads this passage "he will build for me a house
to my name" (αυτός οικοδομήσει μοι οίκον τω ονόματι μου), the conclusion of the
Name Theology has been that the original reading of 2 Sam 7:13a was actually lì, and
this was replaced by the deuteronomic interpolation tfml. As McBride summarizes, 2
Sam 7:13a is therefore considered the "first reference to Name Theology in the
Deuteronomic History . . . the 'house' became the abode of Yahweh's 'name' rather than
Yahweh himself' ("The Deuteronomic Name Theology," 187-88; cf. H. Gese, "Der
Davidsbund und die Zionserwählung," ZTK 61[1964]: 21-22). The broad conclusions
that have been drawn from this supposed deuteronomic interpolation are surely unwar-
ranted. The parallel passage in Chronicles may be explained a number of ways, not the
least being the most obvious: to build a structure in order to commemorate or honor
someone is equivalent to building that structure for that person, hence fml becomes Γι.
The LXX reading is clearly the result of the historian harmonizing his Dtr and
Chronicler sources. Furthermore, if Dtr is indeed trying to insert his theologumenon into
2 Samuel 7, what does this say for the Chronicler? Has he returned to the anthro-
pomorphic theology of JE with his use of II and therefore he believes that Solomon did
indeed build a house "in which God himself would dwell"? (cf. Mettinger, Dethrone-
ment of Sabaoth, 49).
61 Mettinger, Dethronement of Sabaoth, 49.
 The Biblical Occurrences of the Deuteronomic Formula 69

2 Samuel 7

The reality is, however, that our idiom, l'Xakkën/lâsûm/lihyôt fmò, is not
employed in 2 Samuel 7. Rather, the word play in 2 Samuel 7 involves bayit
and an idiomatic use o f Sëm distinct from Deuteronomy's formula. What is the
particular "name" idiom used in this pericope? One w h i c h reflects the
establishing o f a memorial in order to perpetuate a reputation. A n d although
this pericope has long been misunderstood as a debate regarding the m o d e o f
divine presence at the cult site—because o f presuppositional structures
regarding the "concept o f $êm" in A N E thought and the inattentive blending o f
discrete idioms—in m y opinion, this pericope is actually a debate regarding the
nature o f Israelite kingship. This theme is clarified w h e n (1) the wordplay is
correctly translated, (2) David's request is interpreted in light o f YHWH'S
response, and (3) both request and response are set in their appropriate
sociological context.
W e begin with the bayitJSëm wordplay mentioned above. Will D a v i d build a
"house" for YHWH {bayit, i.e., temple, v. 5)? 6 2 N o , YHWH will build a "house"
for D a v i d {bayit, i.e., dynasty, v. 11). And as YHWH will m a k e for David a
"great name, like the name o f the great ones w h o are in the earth" (we'äsltl Fkä
Sëm gâdôl k'Sëm hagg'dôlîm 'äSer bä'äres] i.e., reputation, 63 v. 9), as a result, the

62 Reading after the atnah in verse five, note the emphatic position of the "you" in YHWH'S
question: ha'attâ tibneh-lí bayit?(pi^ NNSN). In verse eight YHWH also begins his
response, with a prepositive pronoun, "I": 'ànî fqahtikä (Ί'ππρ1? '58).
63 'âSâ Sém ( αρ nça) has long been recognized as an idiomatic expression in bH meaning
"to make a reputation" (HALOT, s.v. "DB," meaning 2b [p. 1549]; s.v. "ΠΌΫ," meaning 6
[p. 891]). The idiom appears in the tower of Babel pericope "let us make a name for
ourselves" (Gen 11:4). It is frequently used in regard to YHWH'S reputation earned by
means of his redemptive acts: "to make for himself an everlasting name" (Isa 63:12),
"you have made a name for yourself' (Jer 32:20; Neh 9:10; cf. Dan 9:15). In 2 Sam 8:13
it is employed in an uncertain text regarding David's military exploits: "David made a
name [for himself]."
Biblical scholars most often associate this bH idiom, in a less than analytical fashion,
with the Akk idiom Suma Sakänu "to place the name" (ibid., cf. Ε. Α. Speiser, Genesis
[AB 1; Garden City: Doubleday, 1964], 76; Claus Westermann, Genesis 1-11 [CC 1;
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994], 546-549; Thomas and Dorothy Thompson, "Some
Legal Problems in the Book of Ruth," VT 18 [1968]: 79-99, esp. 85-87). The proposed
Akk cognate idiom, Suma Sakänu, is the subject of the second chapter of this study. As
will be presented, this idiom derives from the royal monumental tradition of
Mesopotamia and has to do with the creation of inscriptions for the purpose of claiming
the inscribed object (be it architecture, a victory stele, statue, or votive) as one's own and
recording the creation of this object for posterity. As placing an inscription ultimately
resulted in preserving someone's accomplishments for posterity, in certain contexts, this
literal practice of "placing the name" developed into a metaphor for "becoming famous."
As Mankowski states, it is not unusual for a borrowed word or idiom to be recreated in
the receptor language as the result of native speakers reproducing a borrowed form
within their own particular dialect (Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew, 4). Hence,
it is not impossible that Hebrew speakers borrowed the metaphorical meaning of
70 The tSakkên fmô Säm Formula in Its Biblical Context

heir of David's "house" (i.e., dynasty), Solomon, has been appointed to build a
"house" (i.e., temple) for Y H W H ' S "name" {liiml, i.e., memorial [<
reputation],64 v. 13). The end result of this wordplay? David's prayer of

Suma Sakânu into bH but recreated it as f'àsôt Sêm. This proposed loan translation
would certainly help to explain the uncertain text in 2 Sam 8:13 as the erection of a
victory stele in celebration of David's victory over Aram/Edom. The problem with this
proposed borrowing, however, is that Akk has several constructions for
"making/having/enhancing a reputation" including: Suma iSû "to have a name";
Suma raSû "to acquire a name"; and Suma leqû "to take a name" (CAD, s.v. "Suma,"
meanings 2a, b [p. 292]; l c 2 ' b ' [p. 289]). Moreover, the common denominator for all of
these idioms is the very widespread idea that "name" = "reputation." As this idea that
"name" = "reputation" is common to Akk and bH and to many other languages, it is
more probable that bH la'àSôt Sêm is not genetically related to Akk Suma Sakânu but is
an independent bH development which means simply, "to make a name [reputation]"
(cf. CAD, s.v. "Sumu," meaning 2, "fame, reputation" [p. 284]; HALOT, s.v. " α ϊ , "
meaning 2, "standing, reputation" [p. 1549]; A. S. van der Woude, "DIP," 7 1 0 7 3 : 1 3 5 6 -
57; Prov 22:1 : "An honored name is better than great wealth").
64 "Reputation, standing; fame; memorial; commemoration" are regular secondary
meanings for bH Sêm and these appear throughout the Hebrew Bible (cf. HALOT, s.v.
"D®," meaning 2 [p. 1549]; BDB, s.v. "00," meaning 2b [p. 1028]). They are also
meanings common to Akk Sumu (see n. 63). Unfortunately, the syntactical constructions
in which this particular use of Sèm occur are quite diverse and extremely flexible. In 2
Sam 7:13, the particular construction is hû'yibneh-bayit liSmî, a Ie prefix + Sèm + a
pronominal suffix. Of its various manifestations, the meaning most often indicated by
this particular construction is either the reputation of some individual, a memorial
established for the continued existence of the reputation of some individual, or simply
"fame" itself (Deut 26:19; Josh 7:9; 9:9; 2 Sam 23:18, 22; Isa 26:8; 42:8; 55:13; Jer
13:11; 33:9; Ezek 36:22; Zeph 3:19, 20; Ps 86:9; 92:2; 115:1; 2 Chron 20:8). There are
dozens of these occurrences. In parallel constructions, the primary distinction is the
function of the Ie prefix—in certain contexts it serves as a prepositional complement to
the verb, in some as the preposition to the noun: "as, to, for, in regard to, for the sake of,
etc." A survey of these various occurrences shows that the closest parallels to the usage
in 2 Sam 7:13 are Josh 7:9; 9:9,1 Kgs 10:1, and Isa 55:13.
For the Canaanites and all the inhabitants of the land will hear of it,
and they will surround us and cut off our name from the earth. And what will
you do for your great name (ûmah-ta'âsêh fSimkâ hag-gâdôl)? (Josh 7: 9)

And they said to him, "Your servants have come from a very far country
because of the fame of YHWH your God (bâ'û 'abdeykâ l'Sëm yhwh 'ëlôheykâ);
for we have heard the report of him and all that he did in Egypt." (Josh 9:9)

Now when the queen of Sheba heard about the fame of Solomon, concerning
the name of YHWH (IeSèm YHWH), she came to test him with difficult
questions." (1 Kings 10:1)

Instead of the thorn bush will grow the pine tree, and instead of briers the
myrtle will grow. This will become YHWH'S memorial (w'hâyâ layhwh IeSem),
an everlasting sign which will not be cut off." (Isa 55:13)
 The Biblical Occurrences of the Deuteronomic Formula 71

thanksgiving ( w . 18-29) declares that although David's bayit had been

insignificant, YHWH has promised to establish it into the distant future. A n d by
building this "house," YHWH will make his o w n "name" (i.e., reputation) great
forever (w'yigdal Simkä 'ad-'ôlâm, v. 26). 6 5 Hence, what had begun as a question
regarding YHWH'S "house" is answered with a decree regarding David's
"house." Furthermore, the reader is informed that it is by building David's
"house" {bayit 'ebneh-lläk, v. 27; cf. Deut 25:9, Ruth 4:11 6 6 ) that the rem o f both
YHWH and David is built up. 67
In order to interpret this bayitßem wordplay correctly (issue one), the
modern reader must rightly understand the essence o f David's request (issue
two). Although the king's behavior is draped in pious intent (cf. Psalm 132),
his true motivation is revealed in YHWH'S response. " Y o u will build a house for
my enthronement?" (v. 5). 6 8 According to David's dialogue with Nathan, the
reader is led to believe that David's request is based upon his concern that
YHWH'S reputation is being damaged by the fact that his abode is both humble
and temporary (v. 2). YHWH, however, states that he has no such concern and
has issued no order to David to alter the situation. Rather, YHWH has
sovereignly chosen to abide among his tribes as he decreed in Deut 12:5 (v. 7).
Furthermore, David should be reminded that he has been enthroned (as nâgîd,

There are also a series of passages which make use of IeSêm without the pronominal
suffix in a fairly standard list: "for praise, a memorial, and honor" (Jer 13:11; 33:9; Isa
55:13; Zeph 3:19, 20). These may arguably be understood as strong parallels to Sam
7:13's IiSmí. This series makes use of the verbs ntn, hyh, and sîm; hence, the F prefix
may be serving as a verbal complement such that the verbal sense is "that you might
become." Thus, this usage might be semantically equivalent to la'âSôt Sëm (see η. 63).
He shall set you high above all the nations which he has made as a praise, a
memorial, and an honor (lithillä ûleSèm ül'tip'äret), so you might be a people
consecrated to Y H W H , your God, as he has decreed (Deut 26:19; cf. Jer 13:11;
33:9; Isa 55:13; Zeph 3:19, 20).
65 In his prayer of thanksgiving, King David rehearses the mighty acts of God. He states
that Y H W H redeemed his people lâsûm Id Sem, "in order to make a name for himself'
(7:23). This use of lâsûm lô Sèm as a synonym for 'sh lô Sèm is unique; it should not be
mistaken for the deuteronomic idiom which never includes an indirect object.
66 BDB, s.v. "nn," meaning 2a "to perpetuate and establish a family" (p. 124).
67 In use, the idea of Sèm as "memorial" overlaps the idea of Sèm as "progeny" as both a
monument and a child preserve the memory of the individual (cf. Isa 14:22; 55:13;
George Β. Gray, The Book of Isaiah [ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975 {1912}], 262).
Hence, it could be that Y H W H ' S wordplay is intended to tie David's progeny (Solomon)
to Y H W H ' S memorial (the temple) in the sense that both may be designated idiomatically
as Sëm and bayit.
68 See n. 62. In his question to David, ha'attâ tibneh-ll bayit l'Sibtî, Y H W H alludes to Exod
15:17: mâkôn fSibfkä pâ'altâ. By phrasing his question in the language of Exod 15:17,
Y H W H highlights David's presumption in thinking that he can build for Y H W H what
Y H W H has already built for Israel. (For a discussion regarding the relationship between
mâqôm and mâkôn see n. 70.)
72 The l'Sakkên fmô Sâm Formula in Its Biblical Context

not as mélek69) and has succeeded in his position solely because YHWH has
willed it so ( w . 8, 9). After this somewhat strident reprimand, the m o n o l o g u e
takes an odd turn—although David w a s asking permission to build a temple,
YHWH responds b y promising a secure nation complemented b y a secure
dynasty. 7 0 This pericope should leave the modern reader asking the following
questions. (1) W h y such a harsh reply to such pious intent? (2) W h y the
promise o f a secure nation and dynasty in response to a temple-building
request? The answer to both o f these questions is found in the sociological
context from w h i c h this narrative emerges (issue three).
In the world o f the A N E , kingship and temple building were inextricably
linked. A s the servant o f the gods, and the conduit through w h i c h the gods
interacted with the nation, "[p]rominent amongst the consequent duties o f the
king was, therefore, his responsibility for the house o f the god." 7 1 Hence, as the
royal monumental inscriptions o f Mesopotamia amply Ilústrate, "[1]'édification
et l'entretien des temples étaient une des principales préoccupations religieuses

69 YHWH refers to David as nâgîd, and the only references to David as mélek in this
pericope come from the narrator ( w . 1, 2, 3, 18). Albrecht Alt made the argument that
these two terms are applied to Saul in order to "differentiate between what Saul had
become through the designation of Yahweh and the status he was given by the
acclamation of the people; as the chosen of Yahweh he was merely called nägld and it
was the nation which conferred upon him the title of melek 'king.' A clear distinction is
made between his divine ordination and his human rank" (Albrecht Alt, EOTHR, 195;
cf. Westermann, "tu," TLOT 2:716). As YHWH'S essential message to David is to
remind him of his client status, this use of vocabulary is probably quite intentional.
70 Again, note the allusions to Exod. 15:17. Compare 2 Sam 7:10, "I will make a place for
my people Israel (samti mäqöm) and I will plant them (ûn'ta'tlw)," to Exod 15:17: "You
will bring them and you will plant them (w'tittâ'êmô) in the mountain of your
inheritance, the place (mâkôn)... the sanctuary that your hands established."
The shift in these passages (and in 1 Kgs 8:13,20-21, 29, 30, 35, 39, 43, 49) between
mäqöm and mâkôn for "place" is troublesome. It is not my intention to over-synthesize
these distinct words, yet it does seem that the shift from one to the other carries no
particular semantic cargo. Note for example that the author(s) of 1 Kings 8 use mäqöm
to speak of the "place" of the ark, the temple itself, and God's dwelling in heaven (v. 21,
v. 29, v. 30), and mâkôn is used to speak of the temple (v. 13; cf. Exod 15:17) and
heaven as well ( w . 39, 43, 49). Outside of its use in Exod 15:17 and 1 Kings 8,
mâkôn only occurs 5x in the Hebrew Bible: 2 Chr 6:30; Pss 89:15, 97:2; Isa 4:5; Dan
8:11. In these occurrences it speaks of the "foundation" of God's throne, his dwelling
place in heaven, the "area" that is Zion, and the "place" of the sanctuary. In contrast,
mäqöm is very common, occurring 84x in a variety of contexts. It does seem by its use in
Exod 15:17 and its distribution in 1 Kings 8 (in which it is used either to quote Exodus
or to refer to God's dwelling in heaven) that mâkôn had perhaps come to be considered a
more exclusive term that should be reserved for God's heavenly dwelling or sacred
space on earth. It is also possible that the distribution in 1 Kings 8 might indicate
distinctive sources characterized by distinctive vocabulary: mäqöm (vv. 20, 21, 29, 30,
35) mâkôn ( w . 13, 39, 43, 49).
71 H. W. F. Saggs, The Greatness that was Babylon [New York: Hawthorn Books, 1962],
361-63.
 The Biblical Occurrences of the Deuteronomic Formula 73

des souverains." 72 For the new king, the successful participation in this ancient
and sacred duty conveyed specific implications regarding the legitimacy o f his
rule. Thus, it was customary for the newly crowned king, especially the
usurper, to celebrate his ascension by building or refurbishing a temple for the
deity who had assisted him in his successful acquisition of the throne. 73
According to Thorkild Jacobsen, one motivation behind such temple building
was to ensure the presence of the numinous power.

Like a human dwelling, the temple was the place where the owner could be
found. Its presence among the houses of the human community was a visible
assurance that the god was present and available ...,74

For the new king, this presence meant the security o f his throne. 75 And, o f
course, this theological motivation was intertwined with the political reality
that a king who could boast the favor of the gods was a king to w h o m
allegiance was due. From a sociological perspective, such temple-building
"simultaneously actualized and symbolized the divine sanction of human
rule," 76 communicating to the populace the legitimacy of the newly ascended
ruler. Israelite participation in this cultural phenomenon is clearly evident in
2 Samuel 7.

72 René Labat, Le caractère religieux de la royauté assyro-babylonienne (Études

d'Assyrologie 11; Paris, 1939), 12.
73 The inscription of Eanatum I of Lagaá (ca. 2400-2350 BCE) demonstrates how early this
paradigmatic response was evident in the ANE.
[When Lu]galurub granted the kingship of LagaS to Eanatum, put all foreign
lands in his control, and [set] the rebellious lands at his feet, then Eanatum
[bui]lt the I[bgal] for Inanna ....For his master who loves him, Lugal-rub, he
built the palace of Urub, decorated it for him with gold and silver, and
furnished it (J. S. Cooper, PreSargonic Inscriptions [New Haven: The
American Oriental Society, 1986], 51 La. 4.9.iii-iv).
This archetypal pattern is also found in the oldest myths in which the victories of the
ruling gods are marked by the construction of palaces, "big houses" for their habitation
(see Victor Hurowitz, I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible
in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings [JSOTSup 115; Sheffield
Academic Press, 1992], 103; cf. Mark Smith's recent translation of the Baal Cycle in
Simon Parker, ed., Ugaritic Narrative Poetry [vol. 9 of Writings from the Ancient World
Society of Biblical Literature; ed. S. Parker et al; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997], v:38-39
[p. 118]). For further discussion of this phenomenon see "Foundation Deposits" in
Chapter Two, p. 144-48, n. 82).
74 Jacobsen, Treasures of Darkness, 14-16.
75 The Tukulti-Ninurta Epic demonstrates that in the milieu of the ANE, the departure of
the numinous was equivalent to national (and certainly royal) disaster (cf. Peter
Machinist, "Literature as Politics: The Tukulti-Ninurta Epic and the Bible," CBQ 38/4
[1976]: 455-82).
76 Carol Meyers, "David As Temple Builder," in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in
Honor of Frank Moore Cross (eds. Patrick D. Miller, et al.; Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1987), 357-76, quotation, 363.
 74 The l'Sakkèn fmô îâm Formula in Its Biblical Context

Now it came about when the king lived in his house, and YHWH had given him
rest on every side from all his enemies, that the king said to Nathan the prophet,
"See now, I dwell in a house of cedar, but the ark of God dwells within tent
curtains." (2 Sam 7:1,2)

The uniqueness of Israel's experience, however, is also evident in 2 Samuel 7.

Rather than the battle-victory-temple building paradigm that the student of the
ANE would expect, the conquering king is refused permission to build a
temple.77 Yet the security he seeks—the assurance of the presence of the
numinous power to protect him, his people, and his dynasty—is promised (w.
8-16). In fact, this security is pledged to David in the form of an irrevocable
oath: a covenant of Royal Grant.78 Hence, David is first refused permission to
ensure his throne by temple-building, and then confirmed as a secure client.
What is the message intended by this apparently contradictory response?
According to David, he is concerned that Y H W H ' S reputation (i.e., iëm) is
being damaged because of the lack of a bayit (temple). The substance of
YHWH'S response makes it clear, however, that Y H W H thinks that David's real
concern is his own Sëm, which is being damaged because of the lack of a bayit
(dynasty). Both the biblical text and our knowledge of ANE royal custom
demonstrates that David is really asking for permission to secure his throne
and his people by building a permanent cultic structure in his capital city. This
building project would ensure the presence of the numinous, legitimize his
rule, and, of course, aggrandize his own ego.79 In other words, David intended
to use his client relationship with Y H W H to advance his career as king of Israel.
YHWH'S response in verses five through seventeen cuts to the heart of the
matter and could be paraphrased as follows: "Who are you to give orders
regarding my kingdom? If I wanted a temple, I would ask for one. Be reminded
that it is / who have taken you from tent-curtains and enthroned you.
Furthermore, as regards the question you are really asking, yes, I intend to
make both my nâgîd and my people secure in this place (mâqôm) that / have

77 The belief that a temple must be both initiated and designed by the deity is a very ancient
concept in Mesopotamian thought. See "Foundation Deposits" in Chapter Two, n. 82.
For a thorough and insightful discussion of Israel's inheritance of this complex of ideas,
see Hurowitz, I Have Built You an Exalted House, esp. 131-70.
78 M. Weinfeld first brought this particular form of patron/client relationship into the
discussion in "The Covenant of Grant in the OT and in the ANE," J AOS 90 [1970]: 184-
203. See his more recent (and condensed) discussion in " i m , " TDOT2-.270-75. See also
Gary N. Knopper's partial correction in "Ancient Near Eastern Royal Grants and the
Davidic Covenant: A Parallel?" JAOS 116/4 (1996): 670-97.
79 The somewhat tense relationship between the ego of the king and the satiation and
glorification of the deity in the ancient Mesopotamian world is apparent from even the
most casual reading of the royal building inscriptions. Here what is identified as sincere
piety and what appears to be aggressive self-aggrandizement go hand-in-hand in
hundreds of inscriptions (cf. Saggs, The Greatness that was Babylon, 359-89).
 The Biblical Occurrences of the Deuteronomic Formula 75

given to them. I will do this by establishing your dynasty. I will also enlarge
my reputation by doing so. But get this straight, David, / am the king of Israel."
Hence, the answer to both of our questions is made clear in YHWH'S
response to David's request. The king had misunderstood his steward-like
relationship with his patron YHWH. David, operating under a set of
assumptions regarding kingship which were typical to his world, is rebuked for
overstepping his bounds. Yet YHWH, having rebuked his regent, affirms him as
a secure client all the same. The latter half of this message demonstrates that
80
YHWH is addressing not only David's ego, but his insecurities as well. When
the nature of David's request is properly understood, the anxious impulse
behind the request becomes apparent—David, like the kings of his era, seems
to believe that he must pacify his deity with a temple in order to maintain the
deity's favor.81 But the biblical narrator has another message. This message
comes to the fore in David's prayer of thanksgiving: "For the sake of your
word, and according to your own heart, you have done all this greatness" (v.
21). YHWH will cause David to succeed simply because he, as the suzerain of
the nation, has decided to do so. Hence, the chiastic structure of the bayit/iëm
wordplay in this text economically conveys an ironic reversal that, in a single
stroke, cuts David's legs out from under him ("you are only a client"), only to
set his feet "on higher ground" ("but be assured that I am a faithful patron").
Thus, the ultimate message of this text is that the nâgîd of Israel will stand
forever under the authority of the mélek of Israel, and Israelite kingship will not
be "like all the nations" (1 Sam 8:5). Moreover, as regards our study, not only
is the deuteronomic idiom absent from this text, but it is clear that the Sëm
idioms of 2 Samuel 7 are idioms of reputation, not hypostasis.

80 Henri Frankfort has written of the "anxiety" which characterized the relationship be-
tween the divinely elected monarch and his gods in the ANE. The king was only secure
so far as the gods were content (Kingship and the Gods: A Study of ancient Near Eastern
Religion as the Integration of Society & Nature [Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1948], 262).
81 Nebuchadnezzar's dedication prayer of Ebabarra is representative of this common theme
regarding the (re)building of temples in the ANE: "O Samas, great lord! Upon my good
works look joyfully! Life, long days, ripe old age, stability of throne and longevity of
reign grant me as a gift!" (Stephen Langdon, Die neubabylonischen Königs-
inschriften [Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1912], Nebukadnezar II, no. 23: i:10-14 [p. 190]; cf.
Hurowitz, I Have Built You An Exalted House, 298).
Esarhaddon's inscription regarding the rebuilding of the temple at Assur clearly
communicates the same: "For my life, for length of days, for the stability of my reign,
for the welfare of my posterity, for the safety of my priestly throne, for the overthrow of
my enemies, for the success of the harvests) of Assyria, for the welfare of Assyria, I
built it" (R. Borger, Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, Königs von Assyrien [AfO supp 9;
Graz, 1956], 5 vi:28-34).
76 The l'Sakkën fmô Säm Formula in Its Biblical Context

1 Kings 8

Unlike 2 Samuel 7, 1 Kings 8 does employ our idiom. There are two such
occurrences, verses sixteen and twenty-nine. Both of these occurrences fall
within Solomon's dedicatory address ( w . 12-61). Although numerous theories
regarding the structure of this lengthy pericope have arisen from the more
numerous source critical assessments applied to it, we will adopt as our model
that of Jon Levenson. 82 Here Solomon's oration is divided into four distinct
speeches: w . 12-13, w . 14-21, w . 23-53, and w . 56-61. The first is excerpted
from what seems to be an ancient poem and is "most likely the oldest piece in
1 Klings 8" (cf. the epilogue of the LXX version in v. 53, "Is it not written in
the Book of the Song?").83 The second rehearses the history of YHWH'S
patronage of David, announcing to its contemporary audience "the present
fulfillment of the promise to David which is first articulated in 2 Samuel 7."84
The third oration is a seven-part, contractual prayer in which the new vassal,
Solomon, reminds the suzerain of his responsibilities toward his people in light
of this new, permanent house of audience.85 The fourth is a brief deuteronomic

82 Jon D. Levenson, "From Temple to Synagogue: 1 Kings 8," in Traditions in Transfor-

mation (eds. B. Halpern and J. Levenson; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1981), 143-
66. Levenson's final conclusion regarding the source critical history of this text is that
"[c]ritical opinion on the composition of this chapter is bewildering. The only thing it
establishes definitively is that the field of literary criticism is . . . proof of the inability of
modem man to attain a sure enough grasp of the literary mind of Semitic antiquity to
carry on the endeavor of documentary analysis" (ibid., 152, 145). I must agree. All the
same, Levenson's summary of these critical efforts is particularly insightful.
83 Ibid., 153. Hurowitz has provided an extensive bibliography of the ongoing debate
regarding this poetic excerpt, particularly important because of its connection to the
Mesopotamian monumental corpus (J Have Built You An Exalted House, 285 n. 1).
84 Levenson, "From Temple to Synagogue," 153.
85 The contractual nature of this segment of the oration is evident in the grammatical
structure. The stipulations are stated in a series of conditional clauses answered by con-
sequential independent clauses: "If this happens, then may you do thus-and-such" (see
Waltke & O'Connor, §38.2, [p. 636-38]). The first condition is laid out in v. 31: "if/
when a man sins." (Although the MT reads 'et 'âSer yeh'tä' Ίί, this odd formation is
probably an error. 2 Chr 6:22, the Syriac, and Vulgate read instead 'im yeh'tä' OS.) The
series continues in vv. 33, 35 by a temporal construction be + an infinitive. These
conditions are answered by the following formula: "then you hear [from] heaven (v/'attâ
tiíma' haSSâmayim)." The conditional structure shifts in v. 37 where the narrator clumps
numerous disasters into a single condition, but the condition is answered by the same
formula in v. 39: we'attâ tiSma' haiiämayim. In v. 40 the purpose of the first set of (four)
stipulations is marked by the coordinating adverb I'ma'an: "So that all those who are
living upon the face of the land which you gave to our fathers will fear you forever." A
second coordinating adverb introduces v. 41: "And even to the foreigner (w e gâm 'el-han-
nokrl)." Here the passage shifts from those in the land, to those outside of it, either
because of their identity as foreigners, campaigning soldiers, or exiles. Here the contrac-
tual language begins again, but as Levenson points out, with a change in grammatical
presentation. The conditional clauses (vv. 42, 44, 46) are now marked with kl + an
 The Biblical Occurrences of the Deuteronomic Formula 77

epilogue in which the author reviews YHWH'S acts of faithfulness to Israel and
exhorts Israel "to keep his commandments and his statutes" (Mmôr miswôtâyw
w'huqqäyw) as was commanded to "our fathers" through Moses. Our idiom is
located in speeches Π and ΠΙ. Both of these occurrences are in the second
synonymous reflex of the idiom, lihyôt fmô Säm, one is infinitival, one is finite.

1 Kgs 8:16

• n s a p ^ Ν Ί δ τ η κ ' Ώ Γ Π Χ 'ΓΙΝ^ΙΠ i m cn'rrjQ

Γ'3 ninVMincir 'cntö T i n ''rnnrnò
^κηφ' ' s r W nr'-V i r a -105$ at 'ottf nVri1?

From the day that I brought my people Israel out of Egypt

I did not choose a city from all the tribes of Israel to build a house
that my name would be there (lihyôt F ml Säm),
but I chose David to be over my people Israel.

1 Kgs 8:29

•vi njn r r a n - ^ mnn? n'vn1?

'•ttf ί Τ Π ' ΠΊΟΚ C'pç-·^
:π.|Π 9?2Π "itö'iC Π^ΓιΓΓ^ '^φ 1 ?
;

May your eyes be open toward this house night and day,
to the place which you said, "My name will be there" (yihyeh Fml Säm),
to hear the prayer which your servant prays to this place."

In addition to these two allusions to the deuteronomic idiom, there are

twelve separate references to "name" {Sem) in Solomon's dedication of the
Jerusalem Temple as recorded in the DH. As a result, Bernard Stade was the
first to argue that whereas 1 Kgs 8:1-14 expressed an "older tradition" in which
YHWH himself was thought to have dwelt in the temple (his glory filling the
structure when the ark was installed), 1 Kgs 8:15-9:9 contained the
"deuteronomistic corrective" in which only the divine "name" dwelt in the

imperfective. And although the first of the consequential clauses is nearly as expected,
'attâ tiSma' haSSâmayim (v. 43), the final two are now marked with w'Säma'tä haS-
Sâmayim. Although this use of ki + the imperfective to mark the protasis with the
w'qataltd construction to introduce the apodosis of a conditional sentence is completely
standard, and is considered by the grammarians as equivalent to 'im + the imperfective
with another imperfective (cf. GKC §159.1 [p. 494-95]), the modification in grammatical
presentation between the two sections of the third oration has often been seen as
evidence of a second author: the first pre-exilic, the second exilic. I suspect, instead, that
the shift in idiom has more to do with the shift in subject matter—those in the land
versus those outside the land. For whatever reason, the biblical author feels that the
subjunctive nature of the two sets of stipulations must be distinguished. As Gesenius
says: "[t]he great variety of construction in conditional sentences is owing to the fact that
it frequently depends on the subjective judgement of the speaker, whether he wishes a
condition to be regarded as capable of fulfillment" (ibid.).
78 The FSakkên fmô Säm Formula in Its Biblical Context

sanctuary.86 The subsequent expansions of this initial theory are evident in

Moshe Weinfeld's statement: "[t]he most definite expression of this [Name]
theology is to be found in the Deuteronomic litany of Solomon in 1 Kgs 8."87 It
is from Solomon's dedicatory prayer more than any other single text that the
Name Theologians have identified the "demythologization" of the Presence.
Here YHWH is "relocated" to heaven such that the reader is presented with "a
transcendent God who is invulnerable to any catastrophe which might
conceivably affect his Temple."88 These conclusions regarding the theology of
1 Kings 8 are built primarily on the supposition that Solomon's oft-repeated
refrain regarding "the house which I built for your name" is to be understood
as a temple where "YHWH'S name [i.e., hypostasis] resides."89 Accordingly,
the assumption is that the Name Theology, first articulated in Deuteronomy,
"the place I choose FSakkën fmô Säm," was written into 2 Samuel 7 by means
of verse thirteen, "he will build a house liSmi," and was brought to its fullest
expression in 1 Kings 8 in which Solomon claims to have fulfilled David's
quest, "to build a house IeSèm YHWH" ( W . 17, 18, 19, 20, 44, 48), and thereby
facilitated lihyôt fmî Sâm (w. 16, 29). The preponderance of "name" language
in the chapter is typically understood as a further articulation of this theological
slant.
As was the case in 2 Samuel 7, however, the use of "name" in this pericope
needs closer examination. In 1 Kings 8, we find fourteen references to "name"
which may be grouped into as few as five or as many as seven separate
idiomatic expressions, each with a distinctive semantic field. As defined in the
Introduction, an idiom is

[a]n expression established in the usage of a language that is peculiar to itself

either in grammatical construction or in having a meaning that cannot be
derived as a whole from the conjoined meanings of its elements. 90

It is my thesis that past assessments of "name" language in the DH have been

crippled by the inability to recognize and respect idiomatic boundaries, largely
because of what James Barr has named "illegitimate totality transfer" (see the
Introduction, "A New Paradigm"). Particularly in 1 Kings 8, the practice has
been to remove the term "name" from some, not all, of the various idiomatic
phrases in which it is employed, infuse the term with the meaning of
"essence," and then reintroduce this one component into its host idiom in order

86 Stade, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 2:247; cf. the Introduction, p. 24-26.
87 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 195.
88 Mettinger, Dethronement of Sabaoth, 49-50.
89 Marc Z. Brettler, "Interpretation and Prayer: Notes on the Composition of 1 Kings 8:15-
53," in Minhah le-Nahum: Biblical and other Studies Presented to Nahum M. Sarna in
Honour of his 7(fh Birthday (eds. M. Brettler and M. Fishbane; JSOTSupp 154; Shef-
field: JSOT Press, 1993), 18.
90 Introduction, p. 38; Webster's New World Dictionary, s.v. "idiom."
 The Biblical Occurrences of the Deuteronomic Formula 79

to achieve a theological reality never intended by the idiom itself. As Barr has
stated, however,

lexicographic research should be directed towards the semantics of words in

their particular occurrences and not towards the assembly of a stock of persua-
sive and distinctive terms which could be regarded as a linguistic reflection of
the theological realities.91

Thus, in order to isolate the meaning of the deuteronomic idiom in this dis-
course, we must first consider the various name idioms of 1 Kings 8 in their
particular occurrences, and then return to the specific function of the
deuteronomic idiom in its particular occurrence.

libnôt bayit leSëm yhwh

Six of the references to "name" in 1 Kings 8 come from a single formula:

"to build a house for the name of YHWH" (1 Kgs 8:17, 18, 19, 20, 44, 48; see
fig. 6). These passages are, transparently, quotations of YHWH'S promise in 2
Sam 7:13:

—rp XÇOTIX τιip) ν φ ΙΤ3-ΠΕΓ wn

He will build a house for my name and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever

Obviously, the "he" of 2 Sam 7:13 is Solomon. Thus, it is no surprise that

Solomon would quote this passage early and often in his temple address.
Furthermore, the bulk of these six quotations occur in rapid-fire succession in
the second oration, w . 14-21, of which Levenson has stated:

Its great theme is the present fulfillment of the promise to David which is first
articulated in 2 Samuel 7. In fact, if the reader will compare these verses with 2
Sam 7:8-16, he will immediately recognize that the author of this second
address of Solomon had the very words of Nathan's prophecy in mind as he
composed. The likeness is too strong to admit any other conclusion.92

As we discussed regarding 2 Samuel 7, the particular "name" idiom used in

this formula reflects the establishing of a memorial in order to perpetuate a
reputation (see nn. 63, 64). The bayit built for David and the bayit built for
YHWH will serve to perpetuate the Sem of both. In Hebrew idiom, to do
something because/for the name of someone means to do something
because/for the honor, reputation, and commemoration of that individual.

91 Introduction, p. 38; Barr, Semantics of Biblical Language, 274.

92 Levenson, "From Temple to Synagogue," 153.
80 The l'Sakkên fmô Säm Formula in Its Biblical Context

Figure 6
libndt bayit fsëm YHWH in 1 Kings 8

1 Kings 8:17
So it was with the heart of my father David to build a house for the name of YHWH the
God of Israel
^ Ν Ί φ 1 •»¡fpg r n r r • φ ' ? r a ni]? 1 ? - a x τ π a a ^ - Q y ' ì t i

1 Kings 8:18
And YHWH said to David my father, "Because it was with your heart to build a house for
my name, you have done well that it was in your heart"
r m a 1 ? ^ a a ^ ' o v ΓΡΠ ρ: nx " η τ ^ rnrr; - ι ο χ ή
" p a V - n y γρπ ο n i r i a n W ? r a
1 Kings 8:19
... however, you will not build the house, but your son, who has come forth from your
loins, he will build the house for my name
--^DQ η κ τ α χ ' a r a n n s n *ö π η χ pi
''ÇÎÔ1? Γ.-3Π Π3Τ"Ν1Π
1 Kings 8:20
And YHWH has raised up his word that he spoke and I was raised up in the place of my
father, David. Thus, I sit on the throne of Israel as YHWH spoke, and I have built the
house for the name of YHWH, the God of Israel
•ox τ π η π η π ρ χ ι n a n ί - α τ η * ? m r r ηρτ]
r a n -ζ®} m/p ì i i T & p 'arSp' xoa-^Vadx]
^ î o c t t í ^ s π ι / ρ πώ 1 ?
1 Kings 8:44
When your people go out to battle against their enemy, in the way that you will send
them, and they pray to YHWH, toward the city which you have chosen and the house that I
have built for your name
•π'ρφη ηφχ i n ' i c b i J non 1 ?!? 1 ? ηαι>
τ
' n a r o n z i -ΐφ^: τ ΰ π ^ / Γ 1 ^ ^εηη";
' t-Qtç?1? ' η ή ή ϋ κ r a n i
1 Kings 8:48
And they return to you with all their heart and with all their soul in the land of their
enemies, who have captured them, and they pray to you, toward their land which you
have given to their fathers, the city which you have chosen, and the house that I have built
for your name
n r i , 3 , s p x a •φΕΓι??3!ι n a a ^ a a αφι
n n r a icpx -TJ "^V ^ s b m ens αφ-ιφχ
ηόφ'? τ ' ά " " 1 ^ ΓΠΠ3 -ρι?π Π Π Ώ Ν ^
 The Biblical Occurrences of the Deuteronomic Formula 81

Hence, the first of our 1 Kings 8 name idioms, the one repeated seven times, is
a quotation of Solomon's predicted role in the Davidic promise. These are
clearly not quotations of Deuteronomy's fSakkën fmô Säm; moreover, rather
than being expressions of hypostasis, they are expressions of memorial and
reputation.

lema'an fmekä
kî yiSme'ûn 'et-Simkä haggädöl
yêct'ûn 'et-fmekä

The next set of "name" occurrences to be considered are found in

Solomon's third speech (w. 23-53), in what many scholars have named the
conclusion of the pre-exilic version of the address onto which w . 44-53 were
later appended.93 The section in question is Solomon's fifth case scenario (see
n. 82) in which the king turns his attention to the foreigner who is outside of
the land. (Up to this point, the requests cited have had to do with citizens of
Israel who are in the land; at v. 41 the focus shifts first to foreigners who come
to the land, then to YHWH'S people who are outside the land, first, because of
war, and then because of exile.) According to Solomon, the foreigner will
come to the temple from a distant land because of YHWH'S "name" (Fma'an
fmekä), for they will hear of "your great name" (kî yiSrn'ûn 'et-Simkä haggädöl)
and "your mighty hand and . . . your outstretched arm." Thus, when the
foreigner prays "to this house . . . may you hear from heaven . . . so that all the
peoples of the earth will know your name {yêct'ûn 'et-fmeka) to fear you . . . . "

1 Kgs 8:41-43

Kin η α ΰ ΐ τ ί ό ittfi? n p a r r ^ ^ : m i
:ήοφ p o ' ? npin-yf-i^Q ι ο ί
ηρτΓΓΠ ηττίΝΐ Vnan η ρ ώ τ ^
:πτπ η ^ π - ^ χ V e r i n i i o γ π μ π ' ^ n n
η Γ η ρ ]iDo σ ό ώ π ' ΰ ο φ η π π κ
η53π κηρ'—ιφχ
τ ν
ηώ'ηι? ' '' '

ίτβ πτπ η ^ π - ^ ΰ *np? ηφ(ζτ , 3 n p f ^ i

93 For summaries of the debate regarding the division and dating of Solomon's third
speech, see Levenson, "From Temple to Synagogue," 152-57; Nelson, The Double
Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History, 69-73; and Halpern, The First Historians,
144-80. Cf. James Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of
Kings (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1951), 185-203. Marc Brettler has proposed that vv.
41-43 are actually the first of three post-exilic addendums to Section III which comprise
vv. 40-51 ("Interpretation and Prayer," 25).
 82 The l'Sakkën fmô Säm Formula in Its Biblical Context

Also concerning the foreigner who is not from your people Israel,
when he comes from a distant country because of your name
(for they will hear of your great name and your mighty hand,
and your outstretched arm); when he comes and prays toward this house,
may you hear in heaven, your dwelling place,
and may you act according to all that the foreigner calls to you,
in order that all the peoples of the earth may know your name,
to fear you, like your people Israel,
and that they may know that this house which I have built belongs to you.

These occurrences of "name" are also clearly references to the "fame" or

"reputation" of YHWH. This is confirmed by the further parenthetical
description offered in v. 42, "your mighty hand and outstretched arm." These
images are used throughout the biblical text to speak of YHWH'S saving acts on
Israel's behalf. Consider the parallel in Josh 2:8-14 where Rahab recognizes
YHWH as "God of heaven and earth" because she has "heard" of his mighty
acts, or 2 Kings 5 where Naaman comes to "know" that there is "no God in all
the earth but in Israel" because he has experienced one of those mighty acts.
Thus, we have accounted for nine of twelve references to "name" in this
oration by means of a single idiomatic use of "name" having to do with
memorial and reputation. In light of the seminal role of 2 Samuel 7 in the
formation of this oration, this focus on the reputation of YHWH, as opposed to
the reputation of the king, is wholly predictable and appropriate. As regards our
larger discussion, it is significant that this particular use of "name" is distinct
from the deuteronomic idiom and, as used here, it does not communicate
anything regarding the mode by which the Presence abides at the temple.

hôdû ifmekä

In the second and third case scenarios of Solomon's third speech, the king
employs another "name" idiom (see n. 82). Here the subject is YHWH'S people,
defeated by an enemy and afflicted by drought. Solomon asks that when they
repent, hôdû Fmekâ, and pray either "in this house" or "toward this house," may
YHWH forgive and restore. The name idiom here consists of the Hiphil form of
bH ydh and its direct object Sëm. According to Koehler and Baumgartner, bH
ydh is used in the Hiphil with and without a Ie complement for both "to praise"
and "to confess."94 The meaning which ties these nuances together is "to
acknowledge."95 Most of the occurrences of this form are in the Psalms,96 and

94 The distinction between the Hithpael and Hiphil uses of this root is debated. In most
cases the intended meaning of these two stems seems indistinguishable. HALOT states
that the Hithpael of ydh is used for "to confess," and with the 'al complement, "to
confess in regard to" (s.v. "πτ" [p. 389]); G. Mayer argues that the Hiphil is particular to
poetry whereas the Hithpael is particular to prose ("ΠΤ," TDOT5: 428).
95 Westermann, "πτ," TLOT 2:502-508.
 The Biblical Occurrences of the Deuteronomic Formula 83

G. Mayer summarizes the semantic range of this verb as follows: "To praise
the name of Yahweh, people go up to Jerusalem, to the temple . . . The setting
of praise is worship, its site the temple."97 Of course, in v. 35 the narrator is
assuming that the people are only praying toward the temple, but surely Mayer
is correct that the typical setting of the action described by this verb is the
temple. Thus, the king is asking that when YHWH'S people repent from their
sin and "acknowledge" his name (typically in the temple setting), may he
restore them.

1 Kgs 8:33

• ^ ί ν β ι τ -m 3:1k ^D*? ^Ν^φ·· ^ a a η ; : - ?

:Π5Π r v z a ^ π π π Υ i ^ s ç i r n - ç î p t i n Hirn - - / Κ ¿ φ ι

When your people Israel are defeated by an enemy because they have sinned
against you, and they come back to you, acknowledging your name
and praying and making supplication to you in this temple . . .

1 Kgs 8:35
• ^ X Ç I T "O -IÇÇ ίΤ.ίΤ-χ'η D'QtÖ "ΒΰΠΞ
πιπΥπίπ ' D i p o n -
^ V^sbrn
:05ρη f a ^ ' αηκΕίπαί

When the skies are closed so that there is no rain because they have sinned
against you, and they pray toward this place, acknowledge your name,
and forsake their sin, then may you answer them.

In this particular idiomatic use, the word "name" doubles as a substitutionary

reference for YHWH (cf. Pss 54:8; 109:30; 111:1; 118:19). Hence, unlike the
name language considered so far, here "name" does equal "YHWH." In this
context, the substitution is probably a functional outgrowth of the use of lan-
guage: to "acknowledge" someone in a public setting involves speaking their
name.

Simká niqrä' 'al-hab-bayit haz-zeh

The final "name" idiom of 1 Kings 8 is also found in Solomon's third

speech, in the purpose clause of the case of the foreigner in v. 43.

96 Sixty-seven out of one hundred occurrences of the Hiphil and Hithpael of ydh are in the
Book of Psalms. Exact parallels to our passage include Pss 138:2; 142:8. Parallel pas-
sages without the direct object marker include 44:9; 54:8; 99:3. There are many occur-
rences that replace 'et-Sèm with Y H W H (cf. Ps 109:30; Ps 111:1), and a few which
replace it with 'ef-YHWH (cf. Gen 29:35; Jer 33:11). Cf. Westermann, TLOT2:503.
97 Mayer, TDOT5 A36.
84 The fîakkèn fmô Säm Formula in Its Biblical Context

1 Kgs 8:43
1
ηοφ-ηχ p x n w ? ? pin'. p o ' ?
^tift ΠΚΤ*?
, ,
: n 33 γγτγτ i r s i r ^ i t a p : ^ptp-'s niiVi
In order that all the peoples of the earth may know your name,
to fear you like your people Israel, and that they may know
that your name is called over this house (Simkä niqrä' 'al-hab-bayit haz-zeh)
which I have built.

This particular idiomatic use of "name" is well known and, unlike some of the
uses of Sem for "reputation," it has clearly defined syntactical boundaries: the
Niphal of qr' + Sem + 'al. The consensus is that this phrase signifies ownership
by means of the transfer of property.98 This is demonstrated in secular terms in
2 Sam 12:28 where Joab sends a message to David telling him to hurry to the
battle scene, "lest I [Joab] capture the city myself and my name be called over
it," and in Isa 4:1 where the prophet predicts that "seven women will take hold
of one man in that day saying . . . 'let your name be called over us; take away
our reproach!'" As de Vaux states: "De fait, l'expression est calquée sur le
langage juridique. Le transfert de la propriété est effectué par la prononciation
du nom de l'acquéreur sur une personne ou sur une chose."99 As employed by
YHWH, the phrase is applied to his ark (2 Sam 6:2), his people (Isa 63:19; Jer
14:9), his temple (1 Kgs 8:43; Jer 7:10, 11, 14, 30; Jer 32:34; 34:15), his city
(Jer 25:29), his prophet (Jer 15:16), and even "all the nations" (Amos 9:12).
This particular idiom is understood to be quite ancient, but is employed so
often in the DH and Jeremiah that it has become closely associated with these
two biblical corpora.100 It is probable that its use in both contexts was inspired
by Deut 28:10.
jnxn w 1 ? ?
,T
xnjp] m / r ?

So all the peoples of the earth shall see

that the name of YHWH is called over you

98 HALOT, s.v. "00," II2cß "as an expression of the right to possession and rule" (p.
1550); s.v. "¡ηρ," Niphal, meaning 5 "my/your/his name is called over (as an
expression of ownership and control)" (p. 1130); C. J. Labuschagne, "Nip," TLOT
3:1162; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomio School, 325; Wilhelm Rudolph,
ΚΑΤ 13/2:281-83.
99 "Le lieu que Yahvé a choisi pour y établir son nom," 223. See the Introduction, η. 113.
100 In Jeremiah's "Temple Sermon," the idiom is employed four times (Jer 7:10, 11, 14,
30). Clearly the prophet's intent is to contrast the temple, which belongs solely to
YHWH, with the Israelites' abuse of the same (cf. de Vaux, "Le lieu que Yahvé a choisi
pour y établir son nom," 222; cf. Driver, Deuteronomy, 306).
 The Biblical Occurrences of the Deuteronomic Formula 85

(i.e. that you belong to Y H W H ) ,

and they shall be afraid of you.101

In 1 Kgs 8:43, Solomon reapplies this exact language to the temple. In Deuter-
onomy, the idiom communicates the elect nature of the people of Israel whose
redeemed state stood as a testimony to the nations of Y H W H ' S power to save. In
1 Kings 8, the idiom communicates the elect nature of the temple which also
was intended to stand as a testimony to Y H W H ' S past and present power to
save—to save even those foreigners who would come to it because of YHWH'S
reputation as a God who acts on man's behalf.
Because of the idiom's association with the DH and Jeremiah, and
because of his perceptions regarding the concept of Sem in Israelite thought,
Mettinger associates the Simkä niqrä"al- idiom with the Name Theology.
Thus, even though the phrase is known to communicate the ownership of
property (not hypostasis), Mettinger holds that it somehow speaks of divine
presence:

the niqrâ' Sêm formula could be used to describe the presence of God. This may
perhaps explain how it was possible for this expression to serve as an alternative
to the usual phrases making use of the Name which describe God's relation to
his Temple. Thus we find this formula in 1 Kgs 8:43 in a text bearing the ear-
marks of the Deuteronomistic Name theology. 102

This sort of idiom-blending is characteristic of the development of the Name

Theology and is aprime example of Barr's "illegitimate totality transfer."

lihyôt if ml Sam

At last we return to the deuteronomic idiom. Solomon's oration has two

references to this second reflex of FSakkèn tfmô Mm: w . 16, 29. Outside of 2
Kgs 23:27, these are the only occurrences of the lihyôt reflex in the DH. The
first occurrence, 1 Kgs 8:16, is in Solomon's second speech, w . 15-21.

Since the day that I brought my people Israel from Egypt, I did not choose a city
out of all the tribes of Israel in which to build a house that my name might be
there (lihyôt Fmí íám) . . . .

The Name Theologians assert that this passage should be interpreted: "that my

101 Chapters 27-29 of Deuteronomy list the blessings and cursings which conclude the
covenant interactions between Y H W H and Israel on the Plains of Moab. The general
opinion here is that 28:3-6, 16-19 belong to an ancient covenant ceremony upon which
Dtr1 elaborates in vv. 7-14, 20-69. The reason for the assumed shift in authorship is the
number of similarities between these latter verses and the Assyrian and Aramaic
treaties of the 8lh-7lb centuries (Weinfeld, "Book of Deuteronomy, " ABD 2172; cf.
Weinfeld, "nna," TDOT 2:266-70).
102 Mettinger, Dethronement of Sabaoth, 64.
 86 The l'îakkên fmô Säm Formula in Its Biblical Context

name (i.e., the dwelling of my hypostasis) might be there." Moreover, they

teach that this passage is intended as the fulfilment of 2 Samuel 7—whereas
David's request was denied because he sought to build a house for YHWH,
Solomon will be allowed to build a house for the Name. According to the
classical formation of the Name Theology, it is by this substitution of the
Name for YHWH that the deuteronomistic writers corrected the anthropo-
morphic theology of the JE sources and began the task of demythologizing the
Presence in the temple. Although it is true that the periphrastic nature of this
second reflex of the deuteronomic idiom, lihyôt fmî Mm, leaves the exact intent
of the biblical author ambiguous, there are textual clues here which will guide
our exegesis.
The most imporatant clue is the recognition that our orator has created this
passage from previous benchmarks in Israel's cultic history. He has borrowed
Deut 12:5,103

But you shall seek YHWH at the place which YHWH your God will choose from
all your tribes, to place his name, l'Sakk'nô (!), and there you shall come,

and conflated it with 2 Sam 7:6, 7, and 13

(6) For I have not dwelt in a house since the day I brought up the sons of Israel
from Egypt, even to this day . . . (7) Wherever I have gone with all the sons of
Israel, did I speak a word with one of the tribes of Israel. . .'Why have you not
built me a house of cedar? . . . (13) he will build a house for my name (hû'
yibneh-bayit M ml)...

in order to come up with his hybrid version, 1 Kgs 8:16:

Since the day that I brought my people Israel from Egypt, I did not choose a city
out of all the tribes of Israel in which to build a house that my name might be
there (lihyôt fmî Mm), but I chose David to be over my people Israel
(lihyôt 'al-'amml yisrâ'êl).

This synthesis of texts indicates that whoever wrote Solomon's second speech
had Deut 12:5 and 2 Samuel 7 at his disposal, but, more importantly, it indi-
cates that this speech writer intended to juxtapose Y H W H ' S election of the
place, with his election of David's dynasty, and with the city of Jerusalem.
One result of this juxtaposition is that the idiom of 2 Sam 7:13, "he will build a
house for my name (yibneh-bayit liïmï)" and the idiom of Deut 12:5 "to place
his name" (lâsûm fmô Mm) are merged into a hybrid as well: libnôt bayit lihyôt
fmî Mm, "to build a house that my name might be there."
The second clue is the content of the second clause of 1 Kgs 8:16: "but I
chose David to be over my people Israel." Here the heir selected to build the

103 Cf. Brettler, "Interpretation and Prayer," 20.

 The Biblical Occurrences of the Deuteronomic Formula 87

temple speaks of Y H W H ' S election (bhr) of David's dynasty by means of the

infinitive lihyôt. In the previous clause he speaks of the elect place by means of
the same infinitive. The repetition of lihyôt in regard to both subjects clearly
communicates their intended association. It is therefore quite possible that the
second reflex of the deuteronomic idiom was pioneered in this passage—the
speechwriter has altered the deuteronomic idiom in order to make the
association between David and the place (and thus Solomon and his temple)
blatant.

1 Kings 8:16

nn^QD ^ntO'Tix Ήρ-ηχ 'rurcin ~\m m'ir-p

nrrt1? r z n ü a V ^ n i í r 'eqd T i q "'n^nrnò
hsnir. 'asrVa nr'n*? n r a "îrqr. ctì -qtó
Since the day that I brought my people Israel from Egypt,
I did not choose a city out of all the tribes of Israel in which to build a house
that my name might be there (lihyôt fmî Säm),
but I chose David to be over my people Israel (lihyôt 'al-'ammî yisrâ'él)

As discussed in the first section of this chapter, the distribution of this reflex
(1 Kgs 8:16, 29; 2 Kgs 23:27; 2 Chr 6:5, 6; 7:16; 33:4) may indicate the hand
of a later author/redactor. Although many have argued that Solomon's second
speech is "Dtr 1, pure and unalloyed,"104 like 2 Kgs 23:27,1 Kgs 8:16 not only
makes use of lihyôt fmô Mm, but it distinguishes the election of the city of
Jerusalem (lô'-bahartl b'tr) from the placing of the name (libnôt bayit lihyôt
fmî Mm). This dichotomous view of the city and the temple can be found only
in 1 Kgs 8:16 and 2 Kgs 23:27 (cf. 2 Chr 6:5, 6). Since the latter is undoubt-
edly Dtr2, it is quite possible that this particular abstraction of the deuteronomic
idiom is the innovation of the exilic historian.

yihyeh fmî Säm

Solomon's third speech introduces a finite form of the periphrastic version

of the deuteronomic idiom.

1 Kings 8:29

• v i n^ 1 ? π?π r r a n - ^ nina ^ n'vn1?

ntö ΓΓ,ΙΤ r n o x c'pçn-^K
:njn • ρ φ π - ' ^ ^ s r r -ίώκ n ^ r r ^ ^ η φ
[I]n order that your eyes may be open {lihyôt 'ênekâ p'tûhôt)
toward this house night and day, toward the place in which you said,

104 Levenson, "From Temple to Synagogue," 154.

88 The l'Sakkèn fmô Säm Formula in Its Biblical Context

"My name will be there (yihyeh fml Mm),"

in order to hear the prayer that your servant will pray toward this place.

This passage occurs in the king's general introduction to his sevenfold suit.
Here he summarizes his requests in a single statement: may YHWH be attentive
to the prayer of the king and the prayers of all Israel.105 In opposition to many
years of speculation regarding the pre-exilic nature of w . 22-43 and the exilic
nature of w . 44-53, Levenson has argued for the unitary composition of
Solomon's third speech. Halpern concurs. (Although Halpern argues for a pre-
exilic date and Levenson for post-exilic106). One of Levenson's more compel-
ling points of evidence for his theory is that the opening phrase of this passage,
lihyôt 'ênekâp'tûhôt, can only be found in this precise form in 1 Kgs 8:29 and 52
(cf. the Chronicler's parallel passages: 2 Chr 6:20 and 40). 107 Thus, precisely
where the consensus has argued that we should find distinctive language indi-
cating separate sources, we find instead the repetition of distinctive language
suggesting a singular source. Let us also notice, however, that a version of this
rare phrase may also be found in 1 Kgs 9:3 (cf. 2 Chr 7:15):

ηη-πιτπίη - γ ^ ε γ γ π χ τ φ α φ ν'ρκ mir ί ώ κ ί

γτ?π π^Γτηίί τ φ - ρ π 'B^Yiraannn -î&ç
•'p-iir-w d ¿ W - r a ó V π π η
ώ ή• τΤ -γ 1 ^τ ütöτ ' ^ ι 'ry vm
. . . . . . γ :

And YHWH said to him, "I have heard your prayer and your supplication,
which you have made before me; [thus] I have consecrated this house
which you have built by putting my name there forever,
and my eyes and my heart will be there perpetually (w'hâyû
'ênay w'libbî Säm kol-hayyâmîm).

This passage is presented in the DH as YHWH'S response to Solomon's dedica-

tory prayer. Solomon's statement in 1 Kgs 8:29, "in order that your eyes may
be open toward this house night and day, toward the place in which you said,
'My name will be there (yihyeh fml Säm),'" however, presupposes the existence
of YHWH'S affirmation in 1 Kgs 9:3 that he has now consecrated the place "by
putting [his] name there forever." Thus, there is no antecedent for Solomon's
claim in 1 Kgs 8:29 that YHWH has already said his name "will be there" (i.e.,
in the temple). Rather, it would seem that whoever composed Solomon's third

105 A careful reading of this pericope shows that w . 28-30 consist of a series of resultative
clauses all of which are dependent on the opening jussive statement: "May you turn to
the prayer of your servant... in order to hear (v. 2 8 ) . . . in order that your eyes would
be open (v. 2 9 ) . . . in order to listen (v. 2 9 ) . . . . " A less than careful reading results in
the word "name" of v. 29 becoming the subject of the following clause: " . . . 'my name
will be there' to listen to the prayer which your servant will pray."
106 Halpern, The First Historians, 144-75, esp. 168.
107 "From Temple to Synagogue," 156.
 The Biblical Occurrences of the Deuteronomic Formula 89

speech is presupposing 1 Kgs 9:3. Moreover, as Solomon's prayer constitutes

the first appearance of yihyeh and lihyôt as regards the name of YHWH in the
biblical text, and, in fact, it constitutes the first DH quotation of the deutero-
nomic idiom in any form outside of Deuteronomy, it is difficult to separate this
passage from 1 Kgs 8:16. Rather, it would seem that either the formation of
v. 29 is dependent on v. 16, or speeches two and three are contemporary. This
interdependence may indicate that the version of Solomon's dedicatory prayer
found in 1 Kings 8 is entirely post-exilic. The fact that the Chronicler's parallel
to 1 Kgs 8:16 uses lihyôt as does 1 Kings (cf. 2 Chr 6:5, 6), but his parallel of
1 Kgs 8:29 uses lâsâm (in accord with 1 Kgs 9:3 and in contrast to the yihyeh of
1 Kgs 8:29) further demonstrates the peculiarity of 1 Kgs 8:29, and these
occurrences may further demonstrate the dependence proposed (see fig. 4).
Thus, looking through the narrow window of this word study, the use of
lihyôt in 1 Kgs 8:16 and the use of yihyeh in 1 Kgs 8:29 are quite peculiar. We
have seen only three occurrences of this reflex in the DH: two of them are in
1 Kings 8, and the third, in 2 Kgs 23:27, is demonstrably post-exilic. More-
over, the author of Solomon's oration distinguishes between Jerusalem as the
place chosen and the temple as the place in which YHWH'S name would be.
This distinction is imitated only in 2 Kgs 23:27. Lastly, the use of the idiom in
1 Kgs 8:29 appears to be dependent upon, as opposed to formative for, 1 Kgs
9:3 and 1 Chr 6:20. This distribution pattern may indicate that Solomon's
speech in 1 Kings 8, and therefore the second reflex of our idiom, lihyôtjyihyeh
ifmí Mm, is a late, synthetic creation. The motivation for this synthetic creation
is best explained by 1 Kgs 8:16's juxtaposition of the election of David with
that of the place.
In sum, there is no question that Solomon's oration in 1 Kings 8 is riddled
with "name" imagery. I propose that the catalyst for this imagery is the seminal
role of 2 Sam 7:13 ("he will build a house for my name") in the formation of
this dedicatoiy address. The distribution of this quotation is significant: five
occur in Solomon's second speech and two occur in his third speech. The two
occurrences in Solomon's third speech are used in summary fashion in verses
forty-four and forty-eight. In addition, the second and third speech each have
one occurrence of the lihyôt reflex of the deuteronomic idiom. Moreover, the
third speech has six additional references to name. This distribution seems to
support the primacy of the second speech. Whereas the author of the second
speech used the 2 Sam 7:13 formula as his primary unifying motif,
complimented by that formula's association with the deuteronomic idiom, the
author of the third speech expanded this motif with further name imagery,
using the 2 Sam 7:13 formula only for the sake of continuity in his
conclusions. Not only does this suggest that there may be two post-exilic
contributions to 1 Kings 8, it clearly indicates that whoever composed these
two speeches intended to use name language as a unifying literary device.
90 The fiakkèn fmô Mm Formula in Its Biblical Context

Hence, in 1 Kings 8 there are a total of seven quotations of 2 Sam 7:13, two
near-quotations of l'Sakkën fmô Säm from Deuteronomy, and five uses of name
idioms having to do with neither text. These final five name occurrences—
although unassociated with the deuteronomic formula or the seminal passage
in 2 Samuel 7—could be associated with the Psalms (hôdû haSSëm), the Exodus
event (kí yiírrí'ún 'et-Simkâ haggädöl), and Jeremiah (Simkä niqrä' 'al-habbayit
hazzeh). Leaving conclusions regarding the meaning of the deuteronomic idiom
in 1 Kings 8 aside for the moment, it is apparent that this oration has utilized a
series of name idioms in order to not-so-subtly make of the temple the ultimate
symbol of the essentials of Israelite faith. The temple is spoken of as elect
(Simkä niqrä' 'at), the fulfillment of the deuteronomic promise (lihyôt fmî Säm),
the fulfillment of the Davidic promise (libnôt l'Sëm yhwh), and the place in
which the Israelites will preserve the covenant relationship by means of
humble confession and praise (hôdû fmekä). If the use of Simkä niqrä' 'al-hab
bayit hazzeh is an allusion to Jeremiah's Temple Sermon, the speech-writer
might also be reflecting upon Israel's future apostasy. In concert with this
name motif, Solomon also refers to the place (rendered both as mäkänm and
mâqôm) nine different times. Thus, Solomon's oration announces that the
temple is both the symbol and the embodiment of the place promised to Israel,
which is marked by YHWH's name. This dedicatory prayer makes it clear that
the bayit built by Solomon is the ultimate symbol of YHWH'S past and present
relationship with his people—a symbol which serves to memorialize and
perpetuate YHWH'S acts of redemption in the midst of Israel and the nations
(Iema'an yëdi'ûn kol-'ammê hä'äres 'et-fmeka). The reputation (Sern) of YHWH,
about which David was so concerned in 2 Samuel 7, has found its memorial in
the temple. It is also clear that the majority of name idioms used in this text
have nothing to do with divine presence. The use of the periphrastic version of
the deuteronomic idiom in 1 Kings 8 (which may have something to do with
divine presence), because of dialect, date, or theology, is new with this oration
and is potentially distinct from the pre-exilic redaction of the DH (cf. fig. 4).

4. Jeremiah, Ezra & Nehemiah

Although they fall outside of our corpus, three final allusions to the deutero-
nomic idiom must be considered: Jer 7:12, Ezra 6:12, and Neh 1:9. Each of
these passages utilizes the first reflex of the idiom: l'Sakkën fmô Säm. Jeremiah
and Ezra quote the idiom in finite form, Nehemiah in infinitival form. The Ezra
passage stands out in that the idiom is rendered in Aramaic and is spoken by a
foreign king. Considering these passages in chronological order, we begin with
Jer 7:12.

108 See nn. 25, 70.

 The Biblical Occurrences of the Deuteronomic Formula 91

Jeremiah 7:12

The larger context of this passage is Jeremiah's famous "Temple Sermon"

(Jer 7:1-15). The consensus is that this oracle was delivered in the first
Jerusalem temple precinct in 609 BCE, the year of Jehoiakim's accession.109
Here, standing at the gate of the temple,110 YHWH'S messenger announces that
not even the presence of his holy place in Jerusalem will hold back the wrath
of Y H W H from his covenant-breaking people.111 Judah has violated the deu-
teronomic stipulations ( w . 9-10),112 she has committed high treason by having
"walked after other gods whom they had not known" ('ahàrê 'ëlôhîm 'âhërîm,
v. 9),113 and YHWH'S people have defiled YHWH'S house (v. 11). If they would
repent, Y H W H would forgive. If they would not, they would be cast off and
driven from "the land that I [YHWH] gave to your fathers forever and ever"
(v. 7). As proof of this seemingly impossible message, the prophet reminds his
audience of the destruction of Shiloh,114 identifying both the Jerusalem temple

109 William Holladay specifies "probably in late summer or early autumn" (Jeremiah I: A
Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah, Chapters 1-25 [Hermeneia; Phila-
delphia: Fortress Press, 1986], 240).
110 Von Rad and Kraus have suggested that Jeremiah was orating "Entry Torah," law
recited at the entrance to the temple in order to remind the incoming worshipper that
"unless he satisfied certain conditions relating to his spiritual state and moral conduct,
he was not fit to take part in temple worship" (G. von Rad, OT Theology, 1:377; H. J.
Kraus, Worship in Israel: A Cultic History of the Old Testament [Oxford: Blackwell,
1966], 211-13).
111 It has often been suggested that the miraculous deliverance of Jerusalem during the
siege of Sennacherib had convinced the Judahite populace that the presence of the
temple in their midst would deliver them from every distress. It is hypothesized that this
historical reality, coupled with the fact that Josiah's reforms had made the Jerusalem
temple YHWH'S only "place," had created in the mind of the typical Judahite the
perception that Jerusalem was inviolable.
112 "The degree of correspondence between Jer 7:9 and the clauses of the Decalogue should
not be missed: the charges which are implied by a series of questions are stealing,
murder, adultery and pequry" (William McKane, Jeremiah 1 [ICC; Edinburgh: T&T
Clark, 1986], 162).
113 Cf. Deut 5:7; 6:14; 7:4; 8:19; 11:16,28; 13:2,6, 13; 17:3; 18:20; 28:14, 36, 64; 29:26.
114 The historical referent here is the Battle of Ebenezer (ca. 1050 BCE) during which
Shiloh was destroyed and abandoned. Khirbet Seilün is the accepted site of biblical
Shiloh. First excavated by the Danish in the 1920's and 30's, then by the Israelis in the
1980's, it is confirmed that the western slope of Khirbet Seilün was destroyed by an
11th century conflagration. No sanctuary has yet been located, but the top of the tell, the
likely site of a sanctuary, was leveled and rebuilt during the Roman era and is presently
badly eroded—making the discovery of any pre-Roman material there unlikely. Finkel-
stein postulates, however, that the impressive buildings of Area C were public buildings
associated with the elusive sanctuary. The Iron I population abandoned the site after the
11th century destruction and the site was resettled in Iron II (see Marie-Louise Buhl,
Svend Holm-Nielsen, and Flemming Andersen, Shiloh: The Danish Excavations at Tall
Sailun, Palestine in 1926, ¡929, 1932 and 1963 [2 vol.s; Copenhagen: National Muse-
um of Denmark, 1969]; Israel Finkelstein, Zvi Lederman, and Shlomo Bonimowitz,
92 The fîakkên fmô Säm Formula in Its Biblical Context

and the Shiloh shrine with that predicted in Deuteronomy: the place in which
YHWH chose fSakkën fmô Säm.

Jer 7:12
'"frtö? i m ' Q i p Q ' b ^ ΧΓΌ 1 ?
mräirm εφ 'çiôTqkj - m
'•6 'JTtpy-'-f $ ηκ w'n
•· τ
'Ώΰ• -
r u n
- τ
' B D
·· : ·

But go to my place which is in Shiloh,

in which I Sikkantl my name in the beginning,
and see what I have done to it
because of the wickedness of my people Israel.

A s Shiloh was abandoned, so will Jerusalem be; as Ephraim was rejected, so

will Judah be. A s Deut 28:36-37 forewarns:

YHWH will bring you and your king, whom you shall set over you, to a nation
which neither you nor your fathers have known, and there you shall serve other
gods, wood and stone. And you shall become a horror, a proverb, and a taunt
among all the people where YHWH will drive you.

A careful reading o f this sermon demonstrates that the issue at hand is YHWH's
pending revocation o f land tenure in response to Judah's unrelenting noncom-
pliance to the deuteronomic covenant (cf. w . 7-10). Hence, in Jer 7:3 w e read:

These are the words of YHWH Sabaoth, the God of Israel: "Amend your ways
and your deeds so that I may settle you (wa-'àiakk'nâ 'etkem) in (i.e., give you
secure tenure of1 ) this place."

and in Jer 7:7,

If you will truly amend your ways . . . I will settle you (w'iikkantl 'etkem) in this
place (i.e., give you secure tenure of" 6 ) the land which I gave to your fathers
forever and ever.

The linchpin o f this sermon, its "hook," is the genetic relationship between
Israel's occupancy o f the land and YHWH'S occupancy o f the temple; Israel's

"Shiloh 1981" IEJ 32/2-3 [1982]: 148-50; "Shiloh 1982" IEJ 33/1-2 [1983]: 123-26;
"Shiloh 1983" IEJ 33/3-4 [1983]: 267-68; and for an updated summary, Finkelstein,
The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement [Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society,
1988], 206-34).
115 McKane, Jeremiah, 1:158.1 will deal with the debate regarding the Qal/Piel vocaliza-
tion of these passages in the next section, "How to Translate the Deuteronomic
Formula."
116 Ibid.
 The Biblical Occurrences of the Deuteronomic Formula 93

claim upon the place (i.e., the land117) is microcosmically represented by

YHWH and Israel's peaceful cohabitation in his place. And as the prophet
intends to make it clear that Israel's disregard for the sanctity of the covenant
and the temple is a matter of national security, he repeatedly cites the berît that
facilitated Israel's land grant. Hence, the prophet makes perfectly clear that the
ultimate barometer of Israel's security in the place is the well-being of the
place in which YHWH had tSakkën fmô.

Ezra 6:12

Ezra 6:12 falls toward the end of Darius's letter to Tattenai, "the governor
of Beyond the River." The pericope begins with Darius's affirmation that
Cyrus's original decree had been located in the royal archives, and, therefore,
the interfering bureaucrats of the western Persian provinces were to "[l]eave
this work on the house of God alone" (Ezra 6:7). The king quotes his
predecessor's decree in Aramaic, which in good Mesopotamian tradition
specifies that the new temple be built according to the footprint of the one
destroyed (see Chapter Two, "Foundation Deposits"). After reciting the words
of Cyrus, Darius orders Tattenai and his colleagues to help defray the costs of
the building project and to provide the sacrifices the priests will need to "offer
pleasing sacrifices to the God of heaven and pray for the life of the king and
his sons" (v. 10). This generous (and empire-building) act on Darius's part is
not extraordinary in that concern for rehabilitating the religious institutions of
captive peoples was a matter of Persian policy.118 Moreover, concern for the
benevolence of all the gods was an age-old tradition among the Mesopotamian
monarchs. In standard form, Darius closes with an imprecation against any
who would violate his edict. This imprecation includes a civil punishment
(impalement) and a plea to the deity to "overthrow any king or people who
attempts to alter [it]" (v. 12). What is intriguing, however, is that Darius does
not invoke his own deity, but the one whom he understands reigns in the
region, YHWH.

Ezra 6:12

non nocp ρ ώ η SH^Sl

rntön1? ΓΤΤ n'pèr ^ π ρ ι nag'
" c ^ r r q ' τ η-ι ν π ^ Π Τ ? π ^ π 1 ?
• ΰ φ r.Qíp t ö i n i r w
' nn^o'snsps

117 The land is referred to as hammäqöm in Deut 1:31; 9:7; 11:5; 26:9.
118 Jacob Myers, Ezra'Nehemiah (AB 14; Garden City: Doubleday, 1965), 51.
94 The l'Sakkên fmô Säm Formula in Its Biblical Context

And may the God who has Sakkin his name there (Fmêh tammâ)
overthrow any king or people who attempts to change [it],
so as to destroy this house of God in Jerusalem.
I, Darius, have issued [this] decree;
let [it] be carried out with all diligence!

Because Darius's letter is directed to the governor of the "province Beyond the
River (<àbar-nahàrâ)," and his instructions include the collection of taxes in that
province, the referent of his quotation of the deuteronomic idiom is probably
both Jerusalem and the broader region. It has customarily been understood that
Darius's quote of the idiom is the result of "[t]he influence of the Jewish scribe
in the composition of the order . . . ." U 9 If indeed the deuteronomic idiom is
the theological creation of the deuteronomic school, this conclusion is
unavoidable. But if the idiom has been borrowed into Deuteronomy, other
conclusions may be called for.

Nehemiah 1:9

Whereas, Jeremiah's perspective on the ultimate curse of the deuteronomic

covenant was "before" the fact, Nehemiah's is "after." The larger context of
Neh 1:9 is Nehemiah's divine call to return to post-exilic Jerusalem to rebuild
the fallen walls of the city. The immediate context is his prayer to YHWH on
behalf of his people. In this beautiful pericope, Nehemiah couches his
desperate plea in the form of a lament.120 In accordance with this genre,
Nehemiah's heartfelt acknowledgment of Israel's sin is followed by his
expression of confidence that true repentance will result in YHWH's restoration
of the place.

Neh 1:8,9

η · τ χ ϋ n t r ä - n s r n s "it&ç " Q u i r n s x r - o t
:C-QiÇ C ? ^ f ' E X ' φ '^ΰφΓΙ DflK -ßX 1 ?
• n k D ö ' h n T 4 ' Ç nriiQ0 ? i - V s n r q e ñ
q p p g ctsc cracsn rrcp? C5n~: n^rr-cx
:πφ w n s j?®'1? T i - . r a ~ ì m m p c n - ^ N • , r n k , ? n ' i

Remember the word that you commanded Moses your servant,

saying "If you are unfaithful, I will scatter you among the peoples,
but if you will return to me and keep my commandments and do them,

119 Myers, Ezra'Nehemiah, 52.

120 Bernhard Anderson describes this particular liturgical form as follows: "What charac-
terizes these psalms, with very few exceptions, is the confidence that the situation can
be changed if Yahweh wills to intervene" (Out of the Depths: The Psalms Speak for Us
Today [Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1983], 75).
 The Biblical Occurrences of the Deuteronomic Formula 95

(even) if your scattered ones are at the edge of heaven, from there I will gather them;
and I will bring them into the place in which I chose l'Sakkèn 'et-$emï Mm."

As we will explore further in the conclusions of this study, Nehemiah's suppli-

cation reads like a Cliffs Notes version of the deuteronomic covenant (cf.
Deut 30:5), highlighted by quotations from the third speech of Solomon's
temple dedication (cf. 1 Kgs 8:28-30; 46-53). Moreover, as with the text from
Jeremiah, Nehemiah's chief concern is the promise of land tenure as given in
121
Deuteronomy.

5. Conclusions

This survey of the "particular occurrences" of the deuteronomic idiom has

demonstrated a pattern of distribution indicating that the original form of the
idiom in the biblical text is Deuteronomy's l'Sakkën fmô Säm. The continued
use of this reflex in Jeremiah, Ezra, and Nehemiah shows that, in some circles,
this version of the idiom was retained into the seventh century and beyond.
The exclusive use of läsümfmöSäm in the first redaction of the DH,
particularly in Dtr''s historical commentary, indicates that this reflex was also
current in the seventh century, and, in deuteronomistic circles, was the
preferred option. We may infer from the presence of both reflexes in
Deuteronomy that the Îiakkên fmô Säm idiom was unintelligible to certain
audiences, and therefore was glossed with a dynamic equivalent: lâsûm. The
second, periphrastic reflex of the deuteronomic idiom, lihyôt fmô Säm, is
peculiar to 1 Kings 8 and post-exilic contexts. This reflex of the idiom may
very well have been pioneered by the author of the second speech of
Solomon's dedicatory prayer, and its appearances in 2 Kgs 23:27 and in the
Chronicler may simply be quotations of that prayer. It is also possible that this
periphrastic reflex indicates that the original meaning of the idiom had been
lost or reinterpreted.
All of these occurrences signify that there is an inescapable link between the
place and the deuteronomic idiom. The central sanctuary, the city of
Jerusalem, the promised land, and Solomon's temple are all identified as that
place where YHWH has rSakkën fmô Mm. I have argued that the relationship
between these various locales is not so much an evolutionary development in

121 The LXX translates fiakkën in Neh 1:9 as exelexamên kataskênôsai the place in which
"I have chosen to cause my name to dwell." This rendering of fSakkën with
kataskënôsa (an aorist active infinitive < kataskènaô "to pitch one's camp; to settle") is
in sharp contrast to the Septuagint's translation of the other deuteronomic uses of our
formula in which epiklêthënai ("to be invoked") is regularly used. Note the repeated
use of kataskènaô in Ezra 6:12. This contrast is one of many indications that the
meaning of ikn in biblical Hebrew underwent an evolution that has obscured the
original, deuteronomic meaning of our formula (cf. Liddell & Scott, 511, 635, 912).
96 The l'ìakkèrt fmô Sâm Formula in Its Biblical Context

the mind of the biblical authors, as it is the result of the microcosmic nature of
sacred space in ANE thought. The deity's "palace" on earth serves as a symbol
for the entire relationship between the divine king and his human populace.
Thus, YHWH "plants" Israel in the "place of his enthronement" and the
resulting human kingdom is spoken of as YHWH'S "sanctuary" (cf. Exod
15:17). In Deuteronomy, YHWH'S people are commanded to come before him
at the central cult site as one would come before a king, to perform the func-
tions of a vassal at the place in order to maintain their land tenure. In Jeremiah,
therefore, YHWH'S occupancy of the central cult site becomes both the symbol
and guarantee of his people's occupancy of the land. In the passages in the DH
identified as Dtr1, the place is the political seat of the Davidic dynasty; yet, as 1
Kgs 9:3-5 confirms, this is so because it is first the place of YHWH'S
enthronement. Moreover, the efficacy and continuance of these various sites as
the place in which YHWH might be sought for audience (habbayit), in which
David's sons will remain enthroned (hair), and as the secure patrimony of
Israel ("the place I gave to your fathers," Jer 7:14), is somehow articulated and
guaranteed by our idiom. Having clarified the biblical context of the idiom, we
must now isolate its meaning.

C. The Translation of the Deuteronomic Formula

As mentioned above, the predominant view of past scholarship has been to

read rSakkën in the deuteronomic formula as a Piel factitivization of the
common, intransitive Qal Zkn: "to settle for a certain period of time; to abide,
dwell."122 In this grammatical relationship, the Piel brings about the state
corresponding to the Qal meaning of Skn and governs an object (see n. 2 of this
chapter).

Figure 7
The Qal & Piel in Biblical Hebrew

QAL > PIEL

X dwells > Y causes X to be

dwelling

"to dwell" > "to settle"

122 HALOT, s.v., "]Dffl," (p. 1496); BDB, s.v. (p. 1015). See n. 2 of this chapter.
 The Translation of the Deuteronomic Formula 97

This grammatical construct is the source of the traditional translation: "the

place in which YHWH your God causes/makes his name to dwell." However, as
also mentioned above, a significant body of evidence argues against this
traditional factitivized translation of FMkkèn in Deuteronomy. To cite the
methodology of James Barr once again, my goal in this section is to clarify
which translation is correct by means of (1) the internal biblical witness
regarding the meaning of ìkn in the deuteronomic formula, (2) the "particular
occurrences" of Skn in the Hebrew Bible, and (3) the "particular occurrences"
of Skn in the Semitic languages as a whole.
The most obvious problem with the traditional factitivized translation of
the deuteronomic idiom fiakken fmô Mm is the internal biblical witness
regarding its meaning. As we have already seen, in the MT Deut 12:5, 12:21,
and 14:24 use the transitive lâsûm fmô Mm "to place his name there" as a
synonym for the Piel letokkên fmô Mm (see fig. 2). Moreover, in Deut 12:21
and 14:24, passages in which the MT records lâsûm fmô Mm, the LXX and the
Samaritan Pentateuch reflect l'tokkën fmô Mm. This demonstrates that at an
early point in the Hebrew Bible's transmission, these formulae were consid-
ered interchangeable.123 We have also discussed the fact that when the DH
makes reference to the deuteronomic legislation regarding YHWH'S election of
his holy place and holy city, rather than quoting the predominant election for-
mulae of Deuteronomy, l'tokkën fmô Mm, the "idiom of choice" of the biblical
narrators in the DH is lâsûm fmô Mm (1 Kgs 9:3, 11:36,14:21; cf. 2 Kgs 21:4;
see fig. 3). For example, in the divine epilogue of Solomon's dedication of the
temple in 1 Kgs 9:3, YHWH quotes the deuteronomic formula as follows:

I have set this house apart which you have built in order to place my name there
forever (lâsûm-f mî Säm 'ad-'ôlâm), and my eyes and my heart will be there
perpetually. (1 Kgs 9:3)

The author's objective in this pre-exilic pericope is obvious: to link Solomon's

temple to the "chosen" (bhr) holy site of Deuteronomy and thereby validate
Solomon's project as ordained of YHWH. With the intention of creating an
association between the deuteronomic legislation and the Jerusalem temple in
the mind of his audience, the narrator must use language that his listeners
would recognize as representative of and synonymous with the deuteronomic
passages. He chooses the verb lâsûm. Considering the critical nature of this
pericope in the legitimization of the Jerusalem temple (and therefore the
Jerusalem cult), we can safely conclude that in the mind of this narrator and his
audience, the transitive verb läiüm conveys the same meaning as Îlakkën. As
previously discussed, it is most probable that the narrator has chosen this
dynamic equivalent because the peculiar use of Ftokkën in the deuteronomic
passages had become unintelligible to his audience because of its foreignness,

123 See p. 45-48; 60-64.

98 The rSakkën fmô Sâm Formula in Its Biblical Context

its age, or its dialectal specificity. Hence, the narrator selects a verb to convey
the same intent, one familiar to his audience: läsüm. The logic behind this
decision will become clearer as our study progresses. In sum, we find that in
both its primary and secondary contexts, the FSakkèn of Deuteronomy is
understood by the biblical writers as a synonym for transitive läsüm, "to
put"—a translation difficult to reconcile with the traditional factitivized
translation of l'Sakkën, "to settle."

1. The Verb Skn in its Biblical Occurrences

The bH verb Skn is one of forty-seven intransitive bH verbs that appear in

the Qal, Piel and Hiphil. 124 As already noted, the Qal verb Skn is best trans-
lated: "to settle for a certain period of time." 125 This usage is quite common
(111 occurrences), being applied to birds, lions, locusts, clouds, the dead, the
käböd of YHWH, YHWH himself, and, mostly, people. As an intransitive verb, in
the Piel, Skn is factitivized, that is, the subject is placed into the passive state of
being made to be dwelling ("settled") by some other party. In the Hiphil, causa-
tion is again the result. But the nuances of distinction between Piel and Hiphil
causation of Qal intransitives are difficult and debated. As summarized by
Thomas Lambdin, Ernst Jenni "proposes a basic distinction between the piel as
the imposition of a state (adjectival) and the hiphil as the imposition of process
(verbal), e.g., 'to cause to be alive' vs. 'to cause to live.'" 126 Hence, Jenni and
Lambdin define the distinction between the causative effect of the Piel and
Hiphil in terms of whether the subject is being caused to be something or to do
something. Bruce Waltke and M. O'Connor attempt to describe this same dis-
tinction in terms of the agency of the "secondary subject," that is, the one upon
whom the action is being carried out.127 Explaining that causation can involve

124 Jenni, Das hebräische Pi'el, 21; see n. 2.

125 HALOT, s.v " p o " (p. 1497).
126 Thomas O. Lambdin's review of Jenni in CBQ 31 (1969): 436; cf. Jenni, Das
hebräische Piel, 25-33. Both Lambdin and Jenni speak of the Piel and Hiphil expres-
sing "accidental" and "substantial" factitivizations, respectively. In regard to the
subject, "accidental" expresses "that which is present but nonessential; a quality not
crucial to an understanding of a thing or being" and "substantial" indicates "a thing or
being that is distinct in itself; that which is essential and in which accidents inhere"
(Waltke & O'Connor, 689, 693).
127 Waltke & O'Connor, §21.2.2k (p. 357). "Thus the Hebrew stem system functions to
connote Aktionsarten (voice, causation, transitivity). The various interrelated inflections
serve to represent varying categories of relationships between the subject and the
predicate(s). The system is far more complex than the one familiar to us in English. In
Hebrew, unlike English, the inflected forms of the verb indicate whether a non-agential
subject of an intransitive verb would be the object in an equivalent clause with a
transitive verb; and whether causation, with either a passive or active role for the
secondary subject, is meant" (ibid., §21.2.2o [p. 358]).
 The Translation of the Deuteronomic Formula 99

various degrees of agency ("activeness") or patiency ("passiveness"), Waltke

and O'Connor conclude that "[t]he notion of causing a (grammatical) object to
participate as a subject in the action is represented by the Hiphil"m Hence, in
Waltke and O'Connor's assessment, the subject (now direct object) of the
Hiphil of an intransitive Qal has a "more agential role" than it would in the
Piel.129 This gradation of causation between the Piel and Hiphil stems on in-
transitive verbs is not always readily apparent in English translation. Moreover,
as regards bH Skn, it is not clear exactly what sort of distinction was in the
mind of the biblical writers in their Piel-versus-Hiphil use of the verb.
However, coordinating grammatical theory with lexical evidence, we should
expect meanings for bH Skn similar to those presented in figure 8.

Figure 8
Biblical Hebrew skn
Qal (G) Piel (D) Hiphil (C)

Skn to dwell to cause to be to cause to dwell,

dwelling, to settle to settle

The Piel Occurrences of the bH Verb Skn

Excluding our idiom, there are four occurrences of the Piel of Skn in the
Hebrew Bible: Num 14:30; Jer 7:3, 7; Ps 78:60. All except Num 14:30 have
been contested on the grounds that they were originally intended as Qal, not
Piel, forms.130 The first occurrence, which is uncontested, is Num 14:30:

Τ / η χ 'ηχφ; - φ χ f i x n - ^ w i n πηχ-αχ
- 1
φ] ]? wöiiTi iW'·;? n^-DN '3 r n ehm ρ® ?

128 Ibid., 21.2.2b (p. 355); see Jenni, Das hebräische Pi'el, 20-25 and Lambdin's review of
Jenni, 436. An example of this is the bH verb b'r. In the Qal the verb means "to burn,"
in the Piel "to kindle" (i.e., to cause to be burning)," and in the Hiphil "to set fire to"
(i.e., to cause to burn) (HALOT, s.v. "-uia I," p. 145-47). The distinction here is how
active the secondary subject is in regard to the action (see n. 2).
129 Waltke & O'Connor, §21.2.2k (p. 357).
130 Jenni and Koehler and Baumgartner, in agreement with the Vulgate, suggest that the
forms in Jeremiah were intended as Qal forms. Mettinger and Gesenius and Buhl
suggest that Ps 78:60 was originally a Qal form (HALOT [1999], s.v. "p¡tí," Qal
meaning 7c, f [p. 1499]; Jenni, Das hebräische Pi'el, 93; Mettinger, Dethronement of
Sabaoth, 58, 93). Regarding Ps 78:60, Mettinger states, "A number of witnesses read
the Qal here, clearly because it is difficult to imagine the 'tent' as the logical subject of
Sakän" (Dethronement of Sabaoth, 58). Mettinger's conclusion is belied by the use of
¡Skn in East Semitic as figure 10 will demonstrate.
100 The FSakkèn fmô Sâm Formula in Its Biblical Context

Surely you shall not come into the land in which I swore to settle you,
except Caleb the son of Jephunneh and Joshua the son of Nun.

Here the Piel of bH Skn is behaving as expected with YHWH as the agent and
the faithless children of Israel as the passive subject who are being "made to be
dwelling," that is, "settled." As we will see in the next section, this usage of the
Piel of Skn is mirrored in Mari Akkadian in which the D-stem of sakänum is
used by government officials to speak of "settling" nomads in particular
territories.
The second and third occurrences, Jer 7:3, 7, come from a pericope previ-
ously considered, Jeremiah's Temple Sermon. As mentioned, the issue at hand
is YHWH'S pending revocation of land tenure in response to Judah's inexorable
rebellion. In these verses, although the MT, LXX, Targum, and Syriac have
wa'âSakk?nâ 'etkem (or its equivalent) "so that I may settle you," the Vulgate and
Aquila preserve another reading: w''e$k'nâ 'itfkem "so that I may dwell with
you."131

Jeremiah 7:3

ίΤΕΓΠ *?ΝΊΙζΓ '¡Y?» rÎlîŒ ΓΗ/Π ΊΏίΓΓό

:Π?Π m p Q 3 CQPX π ] ? ^ ! C Q ' ^ Ì Q Ì CT1^'

Thus says YHWH Sabaoth, God of Israel: Amend

your ways and your deeds so that I may settle you in this place
(Qal: that I may dwell with you in this place).

Jeremiah 7:7

πΐΓτ m p Q 2 cor·?? 'fliStö]

Ϊ Π ^ ϊ ι τ ί ρ Ί • ^ η ο ' ? • o T i ' C i p T , nro i m H ¡ < ?

I will settle you in this place (Qal: I will dwell with you in this place),
in the land which I gave to your fathers forever.

A number of scholars have proposed that the Vulgate and Aquila present the
original reading and that this original reading was altered in the MT and the
LXX in order to rid the text of the "repulsive" concept that YHWH would dwell
among men, or perhaps to correct the "dangerous" idea that YHWH'S behavior
might be restricted by humanity.132 Although this theory of a "theological toning
down"133 on the part of the MT and LXX is intriguing, the stated motivation for

131 Wm. Holladay points out that there are also nine Hebrew manuscripts that support the
Qal form in v. 7 (Jeremiah, 1:236).
132 Holladay, Jeremiah, 1:241.
133 Cf. Ε. Τον, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 274-75.
 The Translation of the Deuteronomic Formula 101

the textual change is speculative. In contrast, the Piel reading is completely

consistent with the tenor of the text, and the credibility of the textual witnesses
for the Piel reading is more substantial than that of the Qal. Moreover, as we will
see in the discussion of the Mari texts, the D-stem of bH's Amorite cognate, skn,
is often used to speak of an overlord settling nomadic people groups in a parti-
cular territory. This usage is especially appropriate to the theological message of
Deuteronomy and to Jeremiah's Temple Sermon: "Because he loved your
fathers, therefore he chose their descendants after them. And with his presence
he brought you from Egypt by his great power, driving out from before you
nations greater and mightier than you, to bring you in, to give you their land as
an inheritance as it is today" (Deut 4:37-38). Hence, I will retain the Piel.134
For modern commentators, a primary point of contention regarding the Piel
versus the Qal reading of these passages is the intended meaning of the place
in the larger pericope. Holladay states that the place of v. 3 must be the temple
precinct, and therefore, "the passage cannot mean that Yahweh lets Judah
dwell there; rather it is Yahweh who is to dwell there." Thus, he reads Skn in
this verse with the Vulgate as "to dwell."135 In v. 7, however, where the place
is juxtaposed with "the land given to the fathers," Holladay argues for the Piel
vocalization of the MT, stating that as the place has shifted meaning, so has
Skn.m Lundbom is equally troubled by the restricted sense of place in v. 3, but
decides that "[o]ne should stay then with the MT, and let the ambiguity sur-
rounding 'this place' remain."137 As previously discussed, what Holladay and
others are missing here is the microcosmic role of sacred space in ANE
thought. In the dramatic conclusion of Moses's "Song of the Sea," the
"sanctuary" embodies the deity's land-holdings on earth:

You will bring them and you will plant them, YHWH, in a sanctuary, YHWH,
which your hands have established. (Exod 15:17)

And as we have also seen, Solomon adapts this passage to the first speech of
his dedication: "I have surely built you an exalted house, the place of your
enthronement (imâkônfïibfkâ) forever" (1 Kgs 8:13). Here the king reapplies
what had referred to the land, to the temple. Hence, for Jeremiah to refer to the
place as the temple, the capital city, and even the region of Canaan is perfectly
consistent with the worldview of the biblical text. Thus, we will read Jer 7:3, 7
with William McKane as follows:

These are the words of YHWH Sabaoth, God of Israel: "Amend your ways and
your deeds so that I may give you secure tenure of this place." (Jer 7:3)

134 For an excellent discussion of the text critical situation in these passages, and, in my
opinion, the best translation of the larger pericope, see McKane, Jeremiah 1:158-69.
135 Holladay, Jeremiah 1:237.
136 Ibid., 243.
137 Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1-20 (AB 21A; New York: Doubleday, 1999), 461.
102 The rSakkên fmô Säm Formula in Its Biblical Context

I will give you secure tenure of this place, the land which I gave to your fore-
fathers for all time coming.138 (Jer7:7)

With this translation, the Piel of bH Skn is, again, behaving as expected: YHWH
is the agent of causation and Israel is the passive subject upon whom the action
is being carried out.
The final passage in which a Piel oí Skn may be found in the biblical text is
Ps 78:60. This is a didactic Psalm, which reviews YHWH'S acts of redemption
on Israel's behalf from the election of Jacob through the establishment of the
Davidic dynasty. Mitchell Dahood dates this composition between 922-721
BCE.139 The portion of the Psalm from which our quotation comes (w. 54-64)
begins with a recitation of Exod 15:17: "So he brought them to his holy mount,
to (the) mountain which his right hand had acquired (qnh)." The Psalm then
rehearses how YHWH drove out the nations and "settled" (Hiphil of Skn) the
tribes of Israel in their tents, appointing them as the new residents of YHWH'S
patrimony. Yet, Israel continued to rebel, stirring up the jealousy of YHWH by
her flirtation with other gods (cf. Deut 12:5). In his wrath, YHWH "completely
rejected" Israel as evidenced by his destruction of the miSkän at Shiloh.
Psalm 78:60

:cnx3 ]5Φ ^nk ρ φ ο (rä9!

So that he abandoned [the] residence at Shiloh,
[the] tent that he had pitched (Qal: [in which] he had dwelt) among men.

This is the only biblical text outside of Jeremiah's Temple Sermon where the
destruction of Shiloh is addressed. The LXX (with support from Theodotian,
the Syriac, and Targum) translates Skn in this passage as a Qal with an
asyndetic relative clause: "(the) tent (in which) he had dwelt among men." Yet
the major commentators and English translations maintain the MT's Piel
vocalization: "(the) tent he pitched among men." Although either translation
could be defended, the stated reason for maintaining the MT's Piel reading is
consistently that Skn should be read in this context as a denominative of
miSkän.140 Although defensible, this conclusion sets the Piel of Skn in Ps 78:60
apart from the factitive use we have been discussing up to this point, and
would add another meaning, as well as another etiology, to the verb. Friedrich
Delitzsch suggests another option for the MT reading. In his typical care with
the biblical text, this commentator points out that in Lev 16:16 "the tent" is
said "to dwell" (Qal participle of Skn) in the midst of Israel. If the 'öhel can

138 McKane, Jeremiah, 1:158; cf. η. 134.

139 Mitchell Dahood, Psalms II: 51-100 (AB 17; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1968), 238.
140 See Dahood, Psalms II: 51-100, 246 n. 63.
 The Translation of the Deuteronomio Formula 103

"dwell" then it can be "caused to be dwelling"; and, therefore, this text might
indeed reflect the same factitive translation as that of previous passages: "(the)
tent he 'settled' among men."141 Hence, if indeed the MT's Piel reading of this
passage is original, we can interpret this occurrence as either a denominative or
factitive use of bH Skn.
With these four occurrences, the Piel of bH Skn is seen to have potentially
two meanings: the predominant and anticipated meaning, "to settle," and the
singular occurrence of what appears to be a denominative of bH miSkän, "to set
up (a tent)." Thus, we will expand figure 8 as follows:

Figure 8a
Biblical Hebrew Skn
Qal(G) Piel (D) Hiphil (C)

Skn to dwell to cause to be to cause to dwell,

dwelling, to settle to settle
to set up (a tent)

The Hiphil Occurrences of the bH Verb Skn

The six Hiphil occurrences of Skn in the Hebrew Bible are less contested but
more diverse than the Piel occurrences. In the MT, these occurrences are best
translated "to station" and "to settle" (Gen 3:24; Ps 7:6; 78:55; Job 11:14; Ezek
32:4; see fig. 9). There is also a singular occurrence of "to set up (a tent)" (Josh
18:1; see fig. 9). As anticipated, "to settle" is the predominant meaning for the
Hiphil of ite. "To station" (Gen 3:24; Ezek 32:4) is simply a new application
of this same verbal idea with the subject, as expected, taking a "more agential
role."142 The fact that the Hiphil and the Piel of Skn carry the anomalous mean-
ing "to set up (a tent)" (Josh 18:1; Ps 78:60) is intriguing. As with the Piel, the
Hiphil meaning "to set up (a tent)" is typically explained as either a denomina-
tive of miSkän or as a anthropomorphized reference to "tent." The fact that this
transitive meaning "to set up (a tent)" requires special explanation in bH, but is
a meaning common to the Akk G-stem of Sakänu "to set up (a tent),"143 implies
another explanation, however. That explanation? This meaning may have been
borrowed into the bH lexicon from Akk with its transitive sense marked in bH
by its formulation in the Piel and Hiphil stems.

141 C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Psalms (K&D 5; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1989), 374.
142 Waltke & O'Connor, §21.2.2k (p. 357).
143 CAD si, s.v. "Sakänu," meaning lq (p.116, 127); cf. s.v. "karaSu," (p. 210-212);
"kuStâru," meaning a (p. 601); AHw, s.v. "qinnu(m)," meaning la (p. 922), s.v.
"madaktu" (p. 571).
104 The rSakkèn fmô Sâm Formula in Its Biblical Context

Figure 9
The Hiphil Occurrences of skn in the Hebrew Bible

Genesis 3:24
So he drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden
he stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword, which turned every direction,
in order to guard the way to the tree of life.
Π Π ; 1 ? nn¡?0 ptp'ü c n N n T i s fiínr]
r ç ç n j i a r r a b a n απ 1 ? n x Y n r a n s n - n x
: ό , 9 π η f y T j i T r n s ibtö 1 ?
Psalms 7:6 (English 7:5)
Let an enemy pursue my soul/life and overtake (it)
And let him trample my life down to the ground,
And may he cause my glory to dwell in the dust. Selah.144
afi?!i ^ Q ] η η χ η τ ν
tn'pç "isi?1? η ώ ^ ' π f-ix 1 ? o b T i
Joshua 18:1
Then the whole congregation of the sons of Israel assembled themselves at Shiloh,
and set up the tent of meeting there;
and the land was subdued before them.
rfrttí rnir1^
1
tair]? ? n t ö i r q ρ κ π ] i ¿ i n ^ π ί τ η χ d ¿ ì r i è h
Job 11:14
If iniquity is in your hand, exile it from you, and do not allow wickedness to settle
145
in your tents.
π*?ΐΰ η""·?!!«? ρ ώ η - ^ κ ] i n p r n n η τ ? p a m «
Psalm 78:55
He drove out the nations before them,
He made them [the nations] fall with a measuring line of inheritance146
And he settled the tribes of Israel in their tents.
n'prj] η 1 ?'?·:! t r i a a r r c j q itínri
VSsnip' 'Ι?5φ ptÇTJ
Ezekiel 32:4
I will cast you on the land, upon the open field I will throw you
I will cause all the birds of the heavens to settle on you,
and I will satisfy the beasts of the whole earth with you.
1
^ o g r n t s n Ίψ ?!} f i x n f n c ö c ^
•'¿tön rpir1?? Tastoni
ΓΡΠ ήφΟ ' Π ^ Π Ι

144 This use of Skn is parallel to the idea of the dead or the humiliated sitting (ySb) or lying
(Skb) in the dust: Job 7:21; 16:15; 20:11; 21:26; Isa 26:19; 47:1 (cf. Isa 29:4; Dan 12:2).
145 harhlqëhû is often used of people who are dispersed in exile (Isa 13:5; 46:11; Jer 4:16;
6:20; Jer 27:10; Joel 4:6; Ezek 11:16). Thus, the metaphor of this passage seems to
consist of the juxtaposition of an exiled people (so treat iniquity) with those who settle
close by as neighbors (do not allow wickedness do so).
 The Translation of the Deuteronomic Formula 105

In sum, we are left with two meanings for bH Skn in the Piel and the Hiphil.
The predominant meaning expresses the expected effect of the factitive and
causative functions, "to cause to be dwelling" and "to settle," and the second,
"to set up (a tent)," expresses what may be an anthropomorphized reference to
"tent," a denominative meaning from miSkän, or a transitive meaning borrowed
from Akk. Hence, we will expand figure 8 yet again.

Figure 8b
Biblical Hebrew Skn
Qal (G) Piel (D) Hiphil (C)

Skn to dwell to cause to be to cause to dwell, to

dwelling, to settle settle, to station
to set up (a tent) to set up (a tent)

It is apparent in light of this survey of the particular occurrences of Skn in the

Hebrew Bible that the verb is, for the most part, behaving as expected: Qal "to
dwell" > Piel "to cause to be dwelling (i.e. to settle)." But the reader will recall
that the Piel of Skn in the deuteronomic idiom (l'SakkêntfmôSäm) is consistently
translated by Dtr1 as lâsûm fmô Säm, "to place his name there"—a translation
distinct from the factitive and denominative meanings represented in the other
biblical occurrences. How can this variable semantic field for the Piel stem of
bH Skn be explained? A survey of the broader semantic field of Skn in Semitic
holds the answer. For although Dtr's translation of the deuteronomic reflex of
Skn is atypical within bH usage, it is not unusual in Akk. Rather, like "to set up
(a tent)," "to put" is completely standard for Skn s G-stem Akk cognate, Sakänu.

2. The Verb ikn in Semitic

As illustrated in detail in figure 10, both East and West Semitic have a ikn
root. Yet, whereas in West Semitic (Amorite, bH, Phoenician, Aramaic, and
Arabic) the G-stem of ikn is an intransitive verb meaning "to dwell" (with
factitive and causative representation in the D- and C-stem reflexes), in East
Semitic (Akk) the G-stem of Skn is a transitive verb meaning "to put." Early
East Semitic has no value for Skn "to dwell" and West Semitic has no G-stem
value for Skn "to put." The geographic and dialectal grouping of these two
meanings for Skn is distinct and conspicuous.

146 By distributing the land to Israel as the promised inheritance of the tribes, YHWH
thereby drove out the indigenous population of Canaan.
106 The FSakkên fmô Säm Formula in Its Biblical Context

Figure 10
skn in East and West Semitic

EAST WEST
Akkadian Mari Akkadian Ugaritic

G-STEM SKN sakänu: to put; to provide sakänum: to put; to skn: to put; to provid
with; to deposit as a set up (a tent)0 with e
pledge; to set up
"to put"
(a tent); to appoint
(a person to a position)"

fin the Neo-Assyrian era sakänum: to dwell; skn: to dwell f

sakänu is used of people D. to settle people (in
"to dwell" »
ì who "are settled," camps a town or region), to
which "are set up" b station soldiers'1

maskanu: small
ASSOCIATED settlement; threshing floor;
empty lot; building site;
NOUNS
pledge"

maskattu (<maskantu)
pi. maskanätu: storehouse;
1
account 0

In the Neo-Assyrian era maskänum: residence' msknt: residence of

J maskanu is used for; *
gods, used in parallel
"tent residence" p with "tent" r

saknu: appointed official; saknum/saknat:

overseer3" appointed official"
(also in Amarna
sukinidd)

maskanu: seat of office; maskanum: territory

position1* where someone is
appointed > territory"

maskanüm·. habitant"
 The Translation of the Deuteronomic Formula 107

Figure 10
skn in East and West Semitic

WEST
Biblical Hebrew Phoenician Aramaic Arabic

Γ In the deuteronomic mskn: to give/take as a

idiom D. skn is to pledge (Nabatean, JArm)'
put," in Ps 78:60 & > skn: to make a gift of
Josh 18:1 D.& C. skn (JArm) i
{is "to set up (a tent)" „

säkan: to dwell; D. to skn: to dwellh skn: to dwell; to sit; to sakana: to dwell; to

settle; C. to settle8 nest (JArm)k be still1 (> Tigre:
säkna to settle,
dwell"1)

miskfnôt: storehouses5

miskän: residence of skn(y): miskan/maskfnä'/ maskan/maskin/sakin:

man and gods, typically residence" miskän: residence house, residence;
a tent' (> Tabernacle") (JArm)w; skn': tent; holy sakanl: housing (in
place of temple;" compounds) 2
maskna: cultic structurey

sägän/segen: skn/skn: official,

governor governor,
steward88

mskt: region >

governor of a
. hh
region

säken/fkenä s'kenä': neighbor

inhabitant; neighbor" (Targumic)1111

fkînâ: divine presence saklna: divine

(Targumic)" presence"1"1
108 Figure 10: skn in East and West Semitic

a CAD s i , s.v. "Sakânu," meanings la, In, lo, lq, 4a [p. 116-127, 134]; AHw, s.v.
"Sakânu(m)," meaning 1 (p. 1134); cf. CAD k, s.v. "kuStâru." It has often been argued
that this Akkadian verb is actually the result of an original i-stem (causative) of kânu,
the stative verb meaning "to be firm, established, correct" (see Carl Brockelmann,
Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen, vol. 1 [Hildesheim:
George Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1961], 522; Paul Haupt, AJSL 23 [1906]: 226-48; L.
Wächter, "Rest von Safel-Bildungen im Hebräischen," ZAW 83 [1971]: 382; G. J.
Thierry, "Notes on Hebrew Grammar and Etymology," OTS 9 [1951]: 3-5; Hulst,
TLOT 3:1327). This theory is supported not only by the fact that transitive Akk Sakânu
expresses exactly the meaning anticipated for the i-stem of intransitive kânu, but by the
fact that there are no occurrences of Akk kânu in the i-stem and only a few St (and these
only in OB legal parlance). For the St of kânu see CAD k, s.v. "kânu," meaning 8
(p. 171), and Black et al., "kânu," (p. 146). For the Stn see M. Stol, review of ARM 26,
parts 1 & 2, JAOS 111 (1991): 628 where he comments on text no. 490:19 of ARM 26/2.
b According to CAD and AHw the meaning "to settle persons" is found only twice, once
each in a Ugaritic and Hittite reference. The idiomatic use of Sakânu "to set up camp,
battle line" is found only in Neo-Assyrian texts. There is one citation of "stationing a
soldier" from an OB letter (CAD 51, s.v. "Sakânu," meanings lq and Is [p. 127], and
meaning 10c, i-stem: "to have a camp set up; to have someone settle; to station"
[p. 153]; AHw, s.v. "Sakânum," meaning 14b [p. 1136]).
c See n. a; D. Fleming, "Mari's Large Public Tent," 6, FM III ii:8, 9; J.-M. Durand,
Miscellanea Babylonica [=Mélanges M. Birot], 82 η. 10. This meaning for Sakânu can
also be found at Amama: EA 98:13; 138:60; 174:15; 175:12 176:12; 286:26; 287:60;
288:5; 289:32; 292:34; 326:16.
d In ARM 26/2, no. 519, line 17 n. d (pp. 492-93), Bertrand Lafont summarizes the
growing evidence for a distinct root, skn, meaning "to dwell" at Mari. Following J.-M.
Durand, Lafont states that at Mari skn and Skn are separate roots with separate meanings:
skn = "habiter" and Skn = "placed (cf. J.-M Durand, Miscellanea Babylonica [= Mé-
langes M. Birot], p. 82 n. 10). The occurrences of skn indicate that it is typically used in
a G-stative construction having to do with the ephemeral residence of nawûm (nomadic
peoples) or armies: a-na na-we-e-em Sa i-na d saggar 2 sa-ak-na-at, "to the nomads
who are settled at Sindjar" {ARM 26/1, no. 180, lines 12, 14); na-we-ku-nu Sa i-na
ha-al-si-ia sa-ak-na-at, "your nomads who are settled in my district" (ARM 26/2, no.
392, line 39); "wherever the nawûm of my lord are settled (s\a-ä\k-n[ä\at)" (ibid., line
19); "Suteens who are occupying (sa-ak-nu-ma)"(ARM 3, no. 12, line 11); "your
nomadic group(s) which are encamped (sa-ak-na-at) in their district" ("Les árchives
épistolaires du palais de Mari," Syria 19/2 [1938]: 109, line 25); n[a-wu]-um
[í]a DUM\fe¡-ia-mi-na sa-ak-na-at "the nomads of Benjamin [who are] dwelling"
(Georges Dossin, "Benjaminites dans les textes de Mari," 986-87; cf. Streck, Das amur-
ritische Onomastikon, 114-15); and ki-ma na-wu-u[m i-n]a sa-ka-ni-Sa,"immediately
upon the settling of the nomads" {ARM 26/1, no. 180, line 5).
Twice skn is used in the D-stem to communicate the stationing of soldiers or the
settling of people groups: "I stationed {ú-sa-ak-ki-in) 2,000 lancing soldiers" (ARM 26/1,
no. 35, line 12); "he settled (ú-sa-ak-ki-in) [the inhabitants in] the city" (ARM 26/2, no.
316, rev. line 16, n. b). Once the G verb is used of a king's residence: a-lumSa
be-el-ni wa-Si-ib sa-ak-nu-ma, "the city in which our lord is temporarily enthroned [?]"
(ARM 26/1, no. 168, lines 29-30).
 Figure 10: skn in East and West Semitic 109

Lafont lists a number of nouns having to do with inhabitants and residences which he
believes derive from skn, including nouns addressed in this study: maskânum "dwelling
place" and maskanum "resident" (ARM 26/2, no. 519 n. d [p. 493]).
e UT, no. 2414; Joseph Aistleitner, Wörterbuch der Ugaritischen Sprache (Berlin: Akade-
mie· Verlag, 1963), no. 2606; Dietrich-Loretz-Sanmartin, "Kun-S und SKN im
Ugaritischen"UF 6 (1974): 47-53; Dennis Pardee,UF 1 (1975): 370, nos. 1010.6,
1012.24, 1143.14; cf. R. E. Whitaker, A Concordance of the Ugaritic Literature (Cam-
bridge: Harvard Univ Press, 1972), 594; CAD SI, s.v. "Sakänu," meaning 2b, c (pp. 128,
153). Dietrich-Loretz-Sanmartin, building upon the long history of this theory in
Akkadian and Arabic studies, hold that this Skn in Ugaritic is the result of an i-stem of
kün (see n. a for further bibliography). Although it is possible that Ug Skn "to put, to
place" has this etymology, the distribution of the verb throughout the Semitic languages
suggests that the adoption of this i-stem of *kwn as an independent form occurred in the
Proto-Semitic era. Otherwise, the presence of this root meaning in East (Akkadian) and
West (Ugaritic) Semitic would require independent developments of an i-stem of
kün/känu in each language. It is more plausible that the form evolved in the Proto-
Semitic era and was inherited in the subject languages,
f UT, no. 2414; Aistleitner, no. 2606; Dietrich-Loretz-Sanmartin, "Kun-S und $KN im
Ugaritischen," 47-53. Of the sixteen known occurrences of Skn in Ugaritic, Dietrich-
Loretz-Sanmartin argue that four mean "to dwell" (p. 53 nos. 1.9, 1.12, 1.15, 1.16).
Dennis Pardee records a use in which Skn is used as an imperative: Ik. Skn . Ί . srrt.
adnk "Go, be settled on the heights of your lord" (UF 7 [1975]: 371, no. 16.1[125].43).
Cf. R. E. Whitaker, A Concordance of the Ugaritic Literature, 436, 594; CTA 17.v:33
and 15.iii:19). This form may parallel the Amorite D-stem occurrences at Mari,
g HALOT, s.v. "IDE" (p. 1496); BDB, s.v. "]atf" (p. 1015). In 1961 F. M. Cross suggested
that the bH verb Skn meaning "to dwell temporarily" was a very early, denominative
derivation from the bH noun, miSkân, "tent," which had been borrowed into NWS from
Akk maSkanu, "tent" which was in turn a nominative derivation of Akk Sakänu, "to
put"—specifically its idiomatic Assyrian use, "to pitch or set up camp" (Cross, "The
Priestly Tabernacle," 224-27 and Canaanite Myth, 298-99; cf. CAD gl, s.v. "Sakänu,"
meaning 1 [p. 116]; AHw, s.v. "Sakänu[m]," meaning 1 [p. 1135]); CAD SI, s.v.
"Sakänu," meaning l q [p. 127]; AHw, s.v. "Sakänu[m\," meaning 14 [p. 1136]). Cross
traced the use of Skn to the very earliest biblical source material known: the poetry of the
Balaam Oracles, the Song of Deborah, the Noahic Oracle, Jacob's Blessing, the Blessing
of Moses and to the Epic of Kirta from Ugarit. He demonstrated that this use of Skn "is
closely parallel to the usage of miSkän 'tent,'" that "there is scarcely an ancient poem
dating from the tenth century, or earlier, sources which does not contain this term," and
that in the ancient poetry, the verb was used to portray nomadic life (Cross, "The Priestly
Tabernacle," 225 n. 28, 226; cf. HALOT, s.v. "irœn" [p. 646-47]; BDB, s.v. "jatf," sub.
"]DfflQ" [p. 1015-16]). In Canaanite Myth, Cross further specified that there had also been
an "older" root meaning for bH Skn·, a transitive meaning equivalent to the Akkadian G-
stem, "to put" which had been preserved in Canaanite and employed in the biblical text
only in the deuteronomic formula (Canaanite Myth, 246, n. 114). Although his
discussion in print is somewhat obscure as to how the older root meaning, "to put"
relates developmentally to bH Skn, "to dwell temporarily," in conversation he clarified
that he believes that the two meanings for Skn in bH are probably transitive and intransi-
tive uses of the same verb, Akk Sakänu, which fostered both bH Skn, "to put to place,"
and bH Skn, "to be put" i.e., "to dwell" (Frank Moore Cross, interview with author, 21
May 1998). Hence, according to Cross, both meanings derive from Akk Sakänum, but in
bH the intransitive meaning eventually usurped the transitive in common usage. Cross's
 110 Figure 10: skn in East and West Semitic

central thesis is the idea that bH Skn "to dwell" was a denominative development from
bH miSkän < Akk maSkanu which had in turn a specialized development from the idio-
matic use of Akk Sakänu "to pitch a tent" (CAD SI, "Sakänu," meaning lq [p. 116]).
However, Amorite, Ug, Phoenician, Aramaic, Arabic, and Tigre all exhibit a Skn/skn, "to
dwell," and most have a noun mSkn/mskn "dwelling place." If Cross is right, then we
would necessarily have to postulate the same developmental trajectory for these other
languages as he has for bH—a highly unlikely set of events. Furthermore, we would be
forced to explain the presence of Amorite maskanu "residence" and sakänu "to dwell" (<
PS *s'kn) already in existence in the OB period well before the Akk noun maSkanu is
attested with the meaning "tent" (< PS *s'kn). Hence, the new evidence from Mari
shows that the chronology of Cross's linguistic progression simply does not work.
Although unconvincing due to the intransitive character of bH Skn, just as in Akkadian
studies, it has been argued that bH Skn is the result of an f-stem of kûn (HALOT, s.v.
" p o " [p. 1496]; Ernest Klein, A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew
Language for Readers of English [Jerusalem: The University of Haifa, 1987]; Hulst,
"130," TLOT3:1327; G. J. Thierry, "Notes on Hebrew Grammar and Etymology," 4; see
n. a for further bibliography),
h DNWSI(1995), s.v. "Skn" (2:1134); cf. HALOT, s.v. "ptí," p. 1496.
i DNWSI (1995), s.v. "mSkn" (2:702); Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the
Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (New York: The Judaica
Press, 1992), s.v. (p. 854); Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian
Aramaic (Bar-Ilan University Press, 1990), s.v. " p m , " (p. 334).
j Jastrow, s.v. "]30, p s T (p. 1575); HALOT, s.v. "iDttf" (p. 1496); Sokoloff, s.v. "]Dtí,"
(p. 550).
k Ibid.
1 Hans Wehr, A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic (ed. J. Milton Cowan; Wiesbaden:
Otto Harrassowitz, 1979), s.v. "sakana": "to live, dwell, inhabit; to be still" (p. 487); cf.
HALOT, s.v. "pitf" (p. 1496). As with Akk, Brockelmann and Thierry have both argued
that sakana in Arabic was originally an i-causative of *kwn (see n. a for bibliography),
m It is most probable that Tigre skn is a loan from Modern Arabic (cf. Wolf Leslau ("Addi-
tional Arabic Loanwords in Tigre" in Festschrift Maria Hofner zum 80. Geburtstag [ed.
Roswitha G. Stiegner; Karl-Franzens Universität Graz, 1981], 171-98, esp. 183). As
most Tigre speakers are Muslims, and many speak Arabic, loan words from spoken
Arabic dialects (as opposed to classical Arabic) are particularly common in Tigre,
η CAD m l , s.v. "maSkanu" [pp. 369-74]; AHw, s.v. "maSkanu{m)," [pp. 626-27]. With the
evidence currently available, it is impossible to assert a certain etymology for maSkanu.
Perhaps Durand's forthcoming work on words for "camp" and "tent" at Mari will hold
the key. At present, it is apparent that "small settlement" is the customary usage of
miL$.gan/maSkanum in the OAkk and Ur ΠΙ periods (I. J. Gelb, Glossary of Old Akkadian
[MAD 3, 1957], 269). In addition, it seems that whereas the Sumerians used maSkanum
as a synonym for kislah, "threshing floor," in MA grain loan documents, the Assyrians
chose ad-ri (cf. Aram χ-πχ) for "threshing floor" (Goetze, AJSLL 52/3 [April 1936]:
159 n. 94). This evidence might indicate that "threshing floor" was originally a Sumerian
meaning, whereas "small settlement" was an OAkk meaning. According to von Soden,
the earliest occurrences of maSkanu are two debated (and as of yet undefined) items
listed among textiles from Kiiltepe: maS-ku-num and ligmaS-ke-né (AHw, s.v. "maSkanu,"
meaning 5a [p. 627]). These occurrences should probably be understood in light of
Bruno Meissner's article on maSkanu in which he discusses the word as some sort of
"garment" that might be laid out: i.e. either a carpet or a tent (Bei-
träge zum Assyrischen Wörterbuch [AS 1/1; Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
 Figure 10: skn in East and West Semitic 111

1931], 56-57). It is possible that these two words in the Kültepe texts are related to
maSkum (typically maSkû-Sapâtim), a term used for the "form in which wool was traded
and could be used for several purposes" (K. Veenhof, Aspects of Old Assyrian Trade and
its Terminology [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1972], 132, 175). As wool was the primary compo-
nent in tent production, perhaps there is some connection between "wool" and "tent" in
the evolution of maSkanu (cf. Fleming, "Mari's Large Public Tent and the Priestly Tent
Sanctuary," 484-98). Edzard writes of maSkanu as an undefined element in Babylonian
place names from the Sargonic era onward (D. O. Edzard, "MaSkan-, Ma$kan[um],"
Reallexikon der Assyriologie, 7:447). Durand theorizes that Sumerian maä.gan could be
used of the site in which a tent is set up. If this is correct, it would account for the word's
regular use in such place names. This may turn out to be the best explanation for the
biblical references in which the 'öhel and the miSkân seem to be distinct items (Exod
26:7 ff.; 40:19; and Num 3:25; cf. η. u). In other words, whereas the 'öhel indicates the
actual tent, the miSkân is the compound upon/within which the tabernacle is erected. Pet-
schow and Delitzsch, on the other hand, have discussed the word's early use as some
sort of pledge, relating it to the Neo-Babylonian technical phrase ana maSkani Sakänu
"als Pfand setzen, verpfänden" (Friedrich Delitzsch, Assyrisches Handwörterbuch [J.C.
Hinrichs Buchhandlung, 1896], 431; H. P. H. Petschow, "Die Sklavenkaufverträge des
sandabakku Enlil-kidinnï von Nippur," Or 52/1 [1983]: 154-55; cf. CAD ml, s.v.
"maSkanu," meaning 6 [p. 372]).
Whatever its origin, by the Middle and Neo-Assyrian eras maSkanu was being used for
all of the above meanings as well as for "building site," "residence," "tent," and "fetter"
(CAD m l , s.v. "maSkanu" [p. 369]; cf. Pinna Ling-Israel, "The Sennacherib Prism in the
Israel Museum" in Bar-Ilan Studies in Assyriology [ed. Jacob Klein & Aaron Skaist
{Bar-Ilan University Press, 1990}, 216 c]; Arthur Carl Piepkorn, Historical Prism
Inscriptions of Ashurbanipal [AS 5; Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1933],
vi:2 [pp. 16-17]). It is possible that the diverse meanings of maSkanu < Sakänu are the
result of the broad range of things which can "be put" as well as "places of putting" (i.e.
a tent is put up, a fetter is put on, but a storehouse, building site, and uncultivated field
are places in/on which things are put; cf. Black et al., s.v. "maSkanu," p. 202). In my
opinion, however, it is likely that this noun reflects several borrowings and mergers of
words previously unrelated—due in part to their derivation from the two different PS
meanings for *s'kn. These meanings include Sumerian ("threshing floor"), OAkk
("small settlement"), and West Semitic ("tent"),
o CAD m l , s.v. "maSkattu," meaning 2 (p. 375); cf. Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in
Biblical Hebrew, 99-101.
ρ CAD ml, s.v. "maSkanu," 3c, 4 (pp. 371-72); AHw s.v. "maSkanu(m)," meaning 5
(p. 627). The use of maSkanu as "tent" appears to be limited to the Middle and Neo-
Assyrian periods, and to predominate in the latter (CAD ml,s.v. "maSkanu," meaning 4
[p. 372]). Von Soden characterizes the term as Assyrian and Aramaic (AHw, s.v.
"maSkanu," meaning 5 [p. 627]).
q As Lafont notes in ARM 26/2, no. 519 n. d (p. 593), two occurrences of maskânum "resi-
dence" have been identified: the unpublished A.3375 and A.753:17 (no. 519). Inno. 519,
line 17 n. d, Lafont argues that ma-ds-ka-an-Su-nu, "ne peut représenter ici que
la'demeuré des deux malheureux interlocuteurs d'Isme-Dagan." Although this word can
also be read as ma-dS-ka-an-Su-nu, both Durand and Lafont are convinced that this noun
is derived from a skn root in Mari, meaning "to dwell" or "be situated" and is associated
with sikkannum "house of the god," and sakkannum "residential portion of the royal
palace" (see n. d; cf. Durand, Miscellanea Babylonica [= Mélanges M. Birot], p. 82 n.
10; Durand, "Le nom des Bétyles à Ebla et en Anatolie," NABU 88/1:5, no. 8; Durand,
"L'organisation de l'espace dans le palais de Mari" in Le système palatial en Orient, en
 112 Figure 10: skn in East and West Semitic

Grèce et à Rome: actes du Colloque de Strasbourg, 19-22 juin 1985 [ed. E. Lévy
{Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1987}], 70-71; and Streck, Das amurritische Onomastiken, 105; cf.
Β. Lafont, "Le roi de Mari et les prophètes du dieu Adad," RA 78 [1984]: 13).
r mSknt appears twice in reference to the gods' private tent-dwellings (CTA 15.iii:19;
17.v:32; cf. Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends, 92, 107; Kellerman, TDOT 9:59).
s There are seven occurrences of this word in the Hebrew Bible: 'ârê miskfnôt (Ex 1:11;
1 Kgs 9:19 [2 Chr 8:4,6]; 2 Chr 17:12) and misk'nôt (2 Chr 16:4; 32:28). Kellerman
suggests that bH misk'nôt has been borrowed into bH from Akk "storehouse" (maSkattu)
(cf. D. Kellerman, "p0D," TDOT 9:58-59). Although he finds the relationship somewhat
tenuous, Mankowski agrees that the "least unsatisfactory explanation" for the Hebrew
word is the "loan-hypothesis" from Akk (Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew, 99-
100). The simple "s" in the bH form indicates a borrowing through the Assyrian dialect,
t BDB, s.v. "ι:®" sub "initio" (p. 1015); HALOT, s.v. "13BD" (p. 646); Kellerman, TDOT
9:59.
u According to Fleming, the biblical references in which the 'öhel and the miSkän are
apparently separate items (cf. Exod 26:7 ff.; 40:19; Num 3:25) might indicate that the
miikän was the curtained sanctuary, but the 'öhel was the roofing curtains that hung over
it. "Thus, in strict terms, the structure is divided into two parts, the sacred center as mii-
kän, and the tent covering as 'öhel, with both terms capable of application to the whole.
The same happens with the words liurpatum (tent) and qersum (sanctuary-frame) in the
Mari tent tradition" (Daniel Fleming, written communication, September 2000; cf. Flem-
ing, "Mali's Large Public Tent and the Priestly Tent Sanctuary," 490-91; Fleming, "Tab-
ernacle and Tribal Tent: Mari and Yahweh's Portable Sanctuary," ΒRev, forthcoming),
ν DNWSI, s.v. "Skn" (2:1134). The Kition inscription (5th cent) has a controversial reading
of either Sknm ("inhabitants") or Skny ("her dwelling"). Brian Peckham's discussion of
the paleography is quite convincing; hence, I have listed the form as an additional
occurrence of "dwelling place" as opposed to a singular occurrence of "inhabitants"
(Peckham, "Notes on a Fifth-Century Phoenician Inscription from Kition, Cyprus (CIS
86)," Or 37 [1968]: 305, 311 nn. 3, 1; cf. Brian Peckham, review of Olivier Masson and
Maurice Snycer, Recherches sur les Phéniciens à Chypre, JNES 35 [1976]: 286-87, and
HALOT, s.v. "iDtí" [p. 1496]).
w Ezra 7:15; Jastrow, s.v. (p. 855); Sokoloff, s.v. "peto" (p. 334). The initial "i""
vowel in these Aramaic forms is almost certainly due to bH influence, mejaik'nâ may
also be found in Syriac (an Akk loanword?) and there are two occurrences of miikän in
fragmentary liturgical texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Carl Brockelmann, Lexicon
Syriacum [2nd ed.; Halis Saxonum: Sumptibus M. Niemeyer, 1928] 776b; Kellerman,
TDOT 9:59-64; 4QDibHam" and 4QShirShabb f ).
χ Delbert Hillers argues that this reference in the Hatra inscriptions refers to the holy place
of the temple; Kellerman disagrees, identifying it simply as "tent" (Hillers, "MSkn
'Temple' in Inscriptions from Hatra," BASOR 206 [April, 1972]: 54-56; and Kellerman,
TDOT9-.5S).
y This term for "cultic structure" occurs in the earliest texts of Mandean, a living dialect of
Aramaic. The cult site of the Mandeans is characterized by gabled rectangular huts made
of reeds and clay. "The term maSkna merely borrows the OT technical term for the
desert sanctuary without continuing a tent or dwelling-place tradition" (Kellerman,
TDOT 9:58).
ζ Wehr, s.v. "maskan" (p. 489), s.v. "sakana" (p. 487); cf. Kellerman, TDOT9:58.
aa The title Saknu, originally G Í R . N I T A = Sakkanakku, was used to refer to provincial gover-
nors and their officials. Although the relationship between the originally Sumerian term
(=Akk. Sakkanakku) and Saknu has not been fully explained, it is clear that Sakkanakku
 Figure 10: skn in East and West Semitic 113

and Saknu were understood as equivalent terms (CAD 51, s.v. "Saknu" [p. 191]). After
the OB period, Saknu "takes over all the basic usages of Sakkanakku" and is found
throughout the Assyrian and Babylonian empires, in the heartland as well as in the
peripheral areas (ibid.). This term is most commonly found in its bound form as in the
titles, Sakin mäti "overseer of a region," Sakin tèmi "governor," etc. It was also used in
the feminine Sakintu "overseer of a household" (ibid., pp. 180-191).
bb CAD m l , s.v. "maSkanu," meaning 3c (p. 371-72).
cc See note aa. From the earliest periods, QÌR.NlTA=Sakkanakkum was a common title for
the governor-generals at Mari; the terms are particularly common in the Ur III period.
These regional officers were appointed by the Babylonian kings to administrate the
outlying (and unruly) provinces of which Mari was one. The variant form, saknum/
saknat, shows up at Mari as early as the 18th century (see I. J. Gelb, "Mari and Kish Civ-
ilization" in Mari in Retrospect: Fifty Years of Mari and Mari Studies [ed. Gordon D.
Young; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992], 150-163; Lipinski "SKN et SGN dans le
sémitique occidental du nord," UF 5 [1973]: 195; cf. ARM 2, no. 35, line 8; Georges
Dossin, "Les archives épistolaires du palais de Mari," Syria 19/2 (1938): 109 line 25).
dd In the Amarna letters, the title for "appointed official" shows up as su-ki-ni
(zu-ki-ni) meaning a "commissioner, ambassador" (EA 256: 9; cf. Wm. Moran, The
Amarna Letters, 309; AHw 1055b; HALOT, s.v. "]DO" [p. 755]; BDB, s.v. "]DO" [p. 698];
cf. Gibson, TSSI, 3:15 n. 2).
ee In A. 1121:32, the ma-aS-ka-nam of Alahtum is the subject of the oracle of an äpilu of
Iskur. Abraham Malamat has suggested that since the maSkanum of this letter is de-
fended by an äpilu, the word means "sanctuary" or "holy place" (Malamat, "History and
Prophetic Vision in a Mari Letter," Erlsr 5 [1958]: 67-73; cf. HALOT, s.v. "l?tpq"
[p. 646]). Durand and Lafont, however, reject Malamat's reading and propose "territory"
for the word (Lafont, "Les prophètes du dieu Adad," RA 78 [1984]: 9, line 32; Durand,
"In vino Veritas," RA 76 [1982]: 47, η. 15). Durand states that the sense of "territory" in-
tended is "plus précisément là où se tient quelqu'un qu'on a placé (Skn) à un office"
(ibid.). The notion of "territory" or "settlement" seems to best fit the context,
ff BDB, s.v. "]jç" (p. 688). The term sâgânlségen is used twice in the biblical text: once of
an official of the Babylonian empire (Is 41:25), and once in the post-exilic era as a term
for a community leader (Ezra 9:2). Both its provenience and its form (S > s and the inter-
vocalic k > g) point to a bH borrowing of a Neo-Assyrian term through Aramaic. The
mutations affected in this sort of borrowing are evident in the biblical version of the
name of the Assyrian king, Sargon II: Akk Sarrukên > bH sargön in Isa 20:1. See Man-
kowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew, 106-7. As for the unusual vowel
pattern of sägän, Lipinski points out an inscription of Nabonidus as a potential parallel.
First published in 1889 by C. Bezold, this inscription refers to Nabonidus as sa8-gan
la-ni-i-hu, a title meaning 'tireless regent," « q u i correspond à l'épithète akkadienne
Sakkanakku lä äne^a de Nabuchodonosor Π" (Lipinski, UF 5 [1973]: 205). Hence, the
author is using the spelling of the deity's name, "Sakan," as a innovative means by
which to render GÍR.NITA, sakan. Thus, we have a precedent for the bH spelling in an
Akk text (cf. C. Bezold, "Two Inscriptions of Nabonidus," Proceedings of the Society of
Biblical Archaeology, 11 [1889]: 84 [see plate 1, line 7]; Langdon, Nabonid no. 2 [p.
230]; J.-M. Seux, Epithètes royales, no. 69 [p. 277]; Paul-Alain Beaulieu of Harvard
University kindly provided me with his updated reading of this Nabonidus inscription).
There is a great deal of discussion regarding the various s-k-n nouns in Semitic. The
etymology of Ug skn/sknt "appointed official," bH sôkën/sôkênet "steward," and Phoen
skn/sknt "governor, steward" as derivations of Akk Saknu are particularly interesting as
regards this study in that they may be evidence that Akk Sakänu "to appoint (a person to
 114 Figure JO: skn in East and West Semitic

a position)" was borrowed into W. Semitic. Unfortunately, the development of this root
is so complex and debated that no firm conclusions can yet be reached. For some of the
present discussion see: J. Huehnergard, Ugaritic Vocabulary in Syllabic Transcription
(HSS 32; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 157; Huehnergard, "Further South Semitic
Cognates to the Akkadian Lexicon" in Semitic Studies in Honor of Wolf Leslau, vol. 1
(ed. Alan S. Kaye; Wiesboden: Harrassowitz, 1991), 703; D. Fleming, The Installation
of Baal's High Priestess at Emar: A Window on Ancient Syrian Religion (Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1992), 76-78 n. 27; on sikkatu, pp. 100-105; 228-39; N. Na'aman,
"Amama sakänu 'govern' and WS sökin," NABU 1995, no. 42; Durand, Miscellanea
Babylonica [= Mélanges M. Birot], 82 η. 10; ARM 26/1, no. 519 n. d; Durand, "Le nom
des bétyles à Ebla et en Anatolie," NABU 88/1:5, no. 8; Durand, "L'organisation de
l'espace dans le palais de Mari," 70-71; Lafont, RA 78 (1984): 13; Durand "Le culte des
bétyles en Syrie," 79-84; Durand, "Réalités Amorrites et Traditions bibliques," RA 92
(1998): 3-31; Lipinski, UF 5 (1973): 191-207; Anson Rainey, "Observations on Ugaritic
Grammar," UF 3 (1971): 17-21.
gg Examples of this noun in Phoenician include a reference to Eshmunadon, the Tyrian am-
bassador in Kition as skn sr, and skn sknm in the inscription of 'Itba'l (Masson and
Sznycer, Recherches sur les Phéniciens à Chypre [Publications du centre de recherches
d'histoire et de philologie, ser. 2, no. 3; Geneva: Hautes Études Orientales, 1972], 69-70,
pl. 6; TSSI 3:14-15,128 'Itba'l, line 2). Gibson holds that these nouns are reflexes of Akk
Sakenu/ Saknu with the S > s shift due to the instability of sibilants in the Cyprus dialect
(TSSI3:xvii, 128 n. 6; cf. HALOT, s.v. "130" sub. " p ò " [p. 755]).
hh In her recent reassesment of the Phoenician portion of the Karatepe inscription (KAI 26),
Maria Giulia Amadasi Guzzo argues that the traditional translation of this noun as
"molten statue" < nsk is incorrect. Rather, as its hieroglyphic translation demonstrates,
hmskt in this passage must "désigner un territoire" ("MSKT à Karatepe," Or 69/1
[2000]: 72). Building upon Durand's work with the nouns he believes are derived from
Amorite skn, the author attempts to link Karatepe's mskt to bH misk'nôt, arguing that
'ârê misk'nôt is best translated "capital" as opposed to "storage" cities. This aspect of her
argument is less than convincing. However, the clarification of hmskt in this passage as
"district" is well substantiated and is further supported by Akk and Amorite parallels,
ii ARM 26/2, no. 519, line 17; cf. M.A.R.1, 5:227; cf. Streck, Das amurritische
Onomastiken, 105.
jj BDB, s.v. "pttf" sub. "ptp" (p. 1015); HALOT, s.v. "ptó/mpt?" (pp. 1499,1500).
kk Jastrow, s.v. "pç/Nrap" (pp. 1575,1573).
11 Jastrow, s.v. "rrj'rxp" (p. 1573); cf. EncJud, s.v. "shekinah" 14:1350-54; JE, s.v.
"shekinah" 11:258-60.
mm Ibid., this is obviously borrowed from Aramaic S'kînâ.
 The Translation of the Deuteronomio Formula 115

Particularly conspicuous is the behavior of Skn in the texts found at Mari and
Ugarit, locales which experienced the confluence of the eastern and western
cultures and dialects of the Fertile Crescent. Recent publications of the Mari
archives by Bertrand Lafont and J.-M. Durand have demonstrated that, in
addition to the very common Old Babylonian Akkadian (OBAkk) Sakänum
meaning "to place something for a particular purpose with a particular
intention,"147 a second Amorite verb, sakänum, meaning "to dwell,"148 has been
identified. Understanding that the Amorite [s] corresponds to [i] in NWS, and
therefore, Amorite sakänum and bH Skn are phonologically cognate, the
distinctive semantic fields of Amorite skn "to dwell" and OBAkk Skn "to put"
are very significant to our study.
As detailed in figure 10, note d, Lafont and Durand have located numerous
occurrences of skn in the Mari archive. In most of these occurrences the verb is
used in the G-stative construction to indicate the temporary residence of nawûm
(nomadic peoples) and armies. A few examples will suffice:

na-we-e-em ία i-na asaggar2 sa-ak-na-at

the nomads who are settled at Sindjar149

na-we-ku-nu ία i-na ha-al-si-ia sa-ak-na-at

your nomads who are settled in my district"150

n[a-wu]-um [i]a OUMlf*s-ia-mi-na sa-ak-na-at

the nomads of Benjamin (who are) dwelling151

ki-ma na-wu-u[m i-n]a sa-ka-ni-ia

immediately upon the settling of the nomads152

Twice this same verb is used in the D-stem speaking of "stationing" soldiers
and "settling" citizens: "I stationed (ú-sa-ak-ki-in) 2,000 lancing soldiers";153
"he settled (tí-sa-ak-ki-in) (the inhabitants in) the city."154 As is evident, the
relationship between the G-stative and D-stem of skn is exactly that of the Qal

147 CAD si, s.v. "iakänu," meaning la (p. 116, 119).

148 Lafont, ARM 26/2, no. 519:17, n. d (p. 492-93); cf. J.-M. Durand, "Le culte des bétyles
en Syrie,"in Miscellanea Babylonica: Mélanges offerts à Maurice Birot (ed. J.-M Du-
rand and J.-R. Küpper; Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1985), 82 n. 10.
149 ARM 26/2, no. 519, lines 12, 14.
150 ARM 26/2, no. 392, line 39.
151 Georges Dossin, "Benjaminites dans les textes de Mari," in Mélanges Syriens offerts à
monsieur René Dussaud (Paris: Paul Geuthner, 1939), 986-87. Cf. Michael Streck, Das
amurritische Onomastiken der altbabylonischen Zeit (AOAT 271/1; Münster: Ugarit-
Verlag, 2000), 114-15.
152 ARM\ol. 26/1, no. 180, line 5.
153 ARM vol. 26/1, no. 35, line 12.
154 ARM, vol. 26/2, no. 316, rev. line 16, n. b.
116 The l'Sakkên fmô Mm Formula in Its Biblical Context

and Piel of bH Skn: "to dwell" > "to settle."155 Durand and Lafont conclude that
sakänum means "habiter" and that this Amorite verb is cognate to bH Skn.'56
What then is the relationship between Amorite sakänum and OBAkk
Sakänum, and how does the juxtaposition of these verbs in the Mari archive
help us to clarify the understood semantic fields of Eastern and Western Skn?
As mentioned, Durand and Lafont define these verbs as skn "habiter" and
Skn "placer,"157 Moreover, they note that, according to the present evidence,
the Mari scribes were completely consistent in their demarcation of the two
verbs. When the scribes write of "putting up" a tent, or "placing" something
somewhere, they use Sakänu; when they write of "settling" or "stationing"
people groups or soldiers, they use sakänu.l5> Note, for example, the following
passage in which sakänu and Sakänu appear within a few lines of each other:

A complete report he placed before us (te4-ma-am ga-am-ra-am ma-ah-ri-ni

iS-ku-un): "For many days 2,000 strong lancing soldiers and the land as far as
Wurqana I have cause to be settled for my lord (a-na be-lí-ia ú-sa-ak-ki-in)."159

The discrete application of the two verbs is so consistent that Lafont and
Durand conclude that at Mari Skn and skn are distinct roots with unrelated val-
ues: "montre bien que sakänum n'en est pas une simple 'variante dialectale.'"160
Thus, it is apparent that sakänum and Sakänum are distinct in form and mean-
ing in the Mari texts. The historical development of these two forms, however,

155 Cf. η. 2. According to Goetze and Jenni, in both languages, "the chief function of the
D-stem is factitive, that is, it expresses above all the bringing about of a situation which
would be designated by the permansive of the G stem . . ." (Waltke & O'Connor
§24.1d; cf. GAG, 115; John Huehnergard, A Grammar of Akkadian, § 22.1; Jenni, Das
hebräische Pi'el, 9-15). Contesting this long-standing consensus is the recent work of
N. J. C. Kouwenberg, Gemination in the Akkadian Verb (SSS; N.p.: Van Gorcum,
1997), and J. Joosten, "The Functions of the Semitic D-stem: Biblical Hebrew Materi-
als for a Comparative-Historical Approach," Or 67 (1998): 202-30.
156 Lafont, ARM 26/2, no. 519, line 17 n. d; J.-M. Durand, Miscellanea Babylonica
[=Mélanges M. Birot], 82 η. 10.
157 Ibid.
158 Note this text recently published by Daniel Fleming, FM III 4 ii:7-14:
u4-um gi-im-ki-im
qé-er-su-ú
iS-Sa-ak-ka-nu
anSe id-da-ak
DiNGiRmeï ù e-nu-t[um]
i-na li-ib-rbi qé-er~*-si us-sú-ú
On the gimkum day, tent frames are set up. A donkey is put to death. The
gods and the paraphernalia depart from the midst of the tent frames.
Here we see that as early as the OB period at Mari the verb used for "to put up (a tent)"
was Skn (Daniel Fleming, "Mari's Large Public Tent and the Priestly Tent Sanctuary,"
VT50/4 [2000]: 490-91).
159 ARM26/1, no. 35, lines 8-12.
160 Durand, ARM 26/1, no. 35, line 12 n. a.
 The Translation of the Deuteronomic Formula 117

indicates that sakänum and Sakänum are morphologically related in that both
derive from the same Proto-Semitic (PS) triconsonantal root, *s'-k-n. The
distinct spellings of the two verbs in the Mari documents results from the fact
that the Amorite language inherited PS s1 as a simple [s] sound, whereas
Babylonian Akk inherited PS s' as an [$] sound.161 Hence, whereas PS
*s'-k-n would be pronounced and written [S-k-n] in OBAkk, it would be
pronounced and written [s-k-n] in Amorite. (Moreover, as PS *s'-k-n should
become S-k-n in NWS and s-k-n in Arabic, and these forms are extant in NWS
and Arabic with the meaning "to dwell," it is apparent that the Amorite verb
sakänu meaning "to dwell" does, like OBAkk Sakänu, derive from PS *s'-k-n
(see fig. 10.) Yet, as we have seen, the evidence indicates that the OB Mari
scribes were completely consistent in their distinctive applications of
Sakänu "to put" and sakänu "to dwell." This must indicate that although these
verbs are morphologically related, the scribes understood the verbs to be
distinct. We may conclude, then, that the PS *s'kn "to dwell" (which eventually
became Ugaritic, Phoenician, and bH Skn "to dwell") was known to them only
through Amorite (West Semitic), and Sakänum "to put" was known to them
only through OBAkk (East Semitic). Therefore, we are left with two distinct
meanings of PS *s'kn at Mari: one native to OBAkk meaning "to put," and one
borrowed into Akk from Amorite meaning "to dwell." 162
In Ugarit we find a similar dyad. In 1974, Manfried Deitrich, Oswald
Loretz, and Joaquín Sanmartín reviewed all of the known occurrences of Skn in
Ugaritic (Ug). Of these occurrences, the authors identified four that are best
translated "to dwell," and six that are best translated "to put, prepare, fix."163
Remembering that the Ug reflex of PS s' is s, we see that in Ugarit there are,
again, two meanings for PS *s'kn: the former of these two meanings is well
known from West Semitic, "to dwell," the latter from East, "to put." 1 0

161 This sibilant development is particularly apparent in personal names. For example, the
Amorite name "SamaS is my father" is spelt as A-bi-sa-ma-ás, and the numerous
Amorite names which have "name" (Akk iumu) as an element may be spelt
sa/Sa/su/$um-DN (Herbert Bardwell Huffmon, Amorite Personal Names in the Mari
Texts: A Structural and Lexical Study [Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1965], 247-49,
251; cf. M. Streck, Das amurritische Onomastiken, 221-27; cf. Alice Faber, "Akkadian
Evidence for Proto-Semitic Affricates,'VCS 31 [1985]: 101-107).
162 It is not at all unusual for Mari documents to include "non-Akkadian meanings of
words and uses of forms, which reflect the underlying Northwest Semitic speech of the
natives of Mari" (Huehnergard, A Grammar of Akkadian, §29.4 [p. 327]).
163 "Kun-S und ÉKN im Ugaritischen," UF 6 (1974): 47-53, esp. 53. See fig. 10, nn. e, f for
further citations.
164 See especially CAD §1, s.v. "Sakänu," meanings la, b, c: "to place something for a
particular purpose, with a particular intention; to set in place a food or incense offering;
to set out, arrange for a ritual" (p. 116). Dietrich-Loretz-Sanmartin theorized that the
two Skn verbs at Ugarit derive from (1) a triradical root Skn meaning "to dwell," and (2)
the f-stem of kûn meaning "to cause to be firm," i.e., "to put, fix." As detailed in figure
10, nn. a, e, and g, this idea that the triradical Skn "to establish" originated as the
118 The l'Sakkèn fmô Mm Formula in Its Biblical Context

A similar picture emerges when the array of nouns associated with Skn is
considered (see fig. 10). The best example of this is the noun mSkn. Each
language investigated has such a noun. As figure 10 illustrates, in Old Assyrian
maSkanulmaSkattu means "small settlement; threshing floor; storehouse;
uncultivated field; building site" (meanings best associated with the verbal
meaning "to put"). Yet in Amorite, Ug, bH, Phoenician, Aramaic, and Arabic
the predominant meaning of mSkn is "dwelling place, tent" (meanings best
associated with the verbal meaning "to dwell"). With cultural contact, the
East/West distribution of the meanings of mikn became mixed. From East to
West, for example, Akk maSkanu "storehouse" appears in bH as misk'nôt,
"storehouses" (primarily in post-exilic texts: Ex 1:11, 1 Kgs 9:19, 2 Chr 8:4, 6;
16:4; 17:12; 32:28; see fig. 10, n. s). This migration is marked by a sibilant
shift and occurred in spite of the pre-existence in bH of miSkän "dwelling place,
tent." From West to East, the same Akk noun malkanu, "storehouse," assim-
ilates a new meaning in the Neo-Assyrian period: the western idea of "tent,"
with no change in spelling. Moreover, in this same period the Akk verb
Sakänu begins to be used of people who "are settled" and camps that "are set
up"—probably due to Aramaic influence (See fig. 10, nn. b, p). 165 Hence, we
see that in some cases the distinctive East/West meanings associated with PS
*s'kn became mixed through borrowing and cross-pollination.

3. Conclusions

In sum, the evidence indicates that two meanings were associated with the
G-stem of PS *s'kn which were geographically segregated in the earliest
known stages of written Semitic. The predominant eastern use was the
transitive meaning "to put," closely associated with the noun maikanu "small
settlement, threshing floor, empty lot, and building site"; the predominant
western use was the intransitive meaning "to dwell," closely related to the
noun mSkn "dwelling place, tent." The evidence further indicates that these
transitive and intransitive meanings of PS *s'kn were both present at Ugarit and
Mari, probably due to the confluence of culture and language in these
peripheral areas. Lastly, there is some evidence that these meanings were
exchanged between East and West as best demonstrated by the bH nouns
miikân/miskenôt_ and the Neo-Assyrian use of Sakänu for people being "settled"
(see also the discussion of bH sägän/segen in fig. 10).

causative of the biradical kn "to be firm, established, correct," has a long and
respectable history in Akkadian and Arabic studies, and is a credible explanation of the
source of the two meanings of Skn in Semitic.
165 In CAD, the use of the Akk verb Sakânu meaning "to settle (persons)" is limited to a Ug
and Hittite example (CAD si, s.v. "Sakänu," meaning Is [p. 127]).
 The Translation of the Deuteronomic Formula 119

With the evidence presently available, it is not possible to determine

whether the two meanings of Semitic Skn derive from two originally distinct PS
*s'kn roots (one intransitive meaning "to dwell" and one transitive meaning "to
put"166), which were selectively adopted in the East and West, or whether a
single Proto-Semitic root *s'kn (with transitive and intransitive meanings "to
put" and "to be put, i.e., to dwell") became isolated in East and West Semitic
as a result of selective semantic restriction.167 Regardless of which historical
reconstruction is adopted, however, the end result in bH is the same. By the
biblical period, the language knew only one of the two meanings associated
with Semitic Skn, the intransitive meaning, "to dwell." This G-stem meaning
was complimented by a factitive and causative meaning, "to settle," articulated
by means of the Piel and Hiphil stems.
What does all of this mean for Deuteronomy's I'Sakken? At first blush, it
indicates that theoretically this verb could represent either the factitive
meaning "to cause to be dwelling" (a true bH D-stem), or the bH version of a
borrowed, transitive, G-stem SknfromEast Semitic, "to put." If Deuteronomy's
formula intended to communicate the native bH meaning, then fSakken should
clearly be translated factitively "to cause to be dwelling, to settle." Moreover,
from what we have seen of the use of Skn ("to dwell") in the Amorite D-stem at
Mari, if the deuteronomic idiom is to be interpreted as a factitivization of Skn,
"to dwell," it is best to adhere to the presuppositions of the Name Theologians
that "name," in this instance, is some sort of animated subject who is being
"settled" at the holy site, the holy city, and the holy land. If, however, FSakken
in Deuteronomy was intended to communicate the borrowed East Semitic
meaning, "to put," then the Piel formulation of this verb is best understood as
the biblical author's attempt to mark the transitive sense of the borrowed
meaning.

166 See n. 164 and fig. 10 n. a. The idea behind this theory is that one Skn is a true triradical
meaning "to dwell," and the second Skn is the result of an early ¿-stem of *kwn "to be
firm, established, correct" > "to make firm, established, correct," i.e., "to put."
167 Cf. figure 10 n. g. This single-root theory has been proposed by F. M. Cross. He has
suggested that both of the meanings of Skn in bH derive from Akk Sakänum, but in bH
the intransitive meaning eventually usurped the transitive in common usage (Frank
Moore Cross, interview with author, 21 May 1998). This theory is in part supported by
the rare vocalizations of Skn as Sâkên in the old poetry ofDeut 33:12, 33:20, and Judges
5:17 (G. J. Thierry was the first to point out these spellings in relationship to the
etymology of bH Skn; see figure 10, n. g; "Notes on Hebrew Grammar and Etymology,"
OTS 9, [1951]: 3-5). Because of their location in archaic passages, these pausai vocali-
zations might reflect an original, stative spelling of bH Skn which had, at one point in
the history of the language, served to separate the transitive and intransitive meanings
of Skn. This thesis is further supported by the consistent use of skn as a G -stative in
Mari: "regarding the nawûm of my lord which are situated (sa-ak-na-at) on the border
of Zalmaqim" {ARM 26/2, no. 35, line 8; see figure 10, n. d for further examples).
120 The l'Hakkên fmô Säm Formula in Its Biblical Context

Remembering the distinct semantic fields of Skn in East and West Semitic,
as well as the fact that Dtr 1 consistently translates the formulaic FSakken as
lasûm, "to put," the evidence seems to indicate that the best explanation of the
deuteronomic use of Skn is a loan-hypothesis. Here the well known Akk
meaning "to place something for a particular purpose, with a particular
intention" 168 has been borrowed into the Hebrew Bible. Although the Piel
vocalization of this form has been a significant deterrent to loan-hypotheses
raised in the past, 169 the difficulty dissipates when the broader use of Skn in
Semitic is considered. Because the verb's intransitive, western meaning "to
dwell" was established early on in bH as the standard meaning of the G-stem
of Skn, any attempt to communicate the eastern, transitive sense of this same
root in bH would necessitate a Piel or Hiphil formulation to mark it as
transitive. (As noted, this may be the best explanation for the Piel and Hiphil
uses of Skn meaning to "pitch [a tent]" in Josh 18:1 and Ps 78:60 as well [see
fig. 9].) The secondary adoption of such a transitive force by means of the Piel
and Hiphil stems would necessarily overlap the factitive and causative
formulations already associated with Skn "to dwell," creating a variable
semantic field for bH Skn in these two stems as illustrated in figure 8c.

Figure 8c
Biblical Hebrew Skn
Qal(G) Piel (D) Hiphil (C)

Skn to settle down, to cause to be to cause to dwell, to

"to dwell" abide, dwell dwelling, to settle settle
Skn to put to put
"to put"
to set up (a tent) to set up (a tent)

168 CAD si, s.v. "Sakänu," meaning la (p. 116,119).

169 In their loan-hypotheses, Cross and McBride argue that the Piel pointing of the deutero-
nomic idiom is probably a post-exilic attempt to set the borrowed transitive verb apart
from the native intransitive (Cross, Canaanite Myth, 246 n. 114; cf. McBride, "The
Deuteronomic Name Theology," 207).
The difficulty here is that the theorized post-exilic vocalization would necessarily
have to be applied to all of the Hiphil and Piel occurrences of the verb which are
outside the native lexicon. Thus, we would end up with a number of uses of Skn in the
Hebrew Bible which remained unmarked (transitive, G-stem forms) until the post-exilic
period. This timetable would certainly have produced a level of confusion resulting in
most, if not all, of the transitive forms being reinterpreted according to the dominant,
intransitive meaning (cf. the LXX translation of Neh 1:9 as κατασκήνωσα!.)· It is more
likely that these borrowed transitive meanings were marked early on.
 Could Deuteronomy's FSakkên Be Borrowed? 121

Thus, if the Deuteronomist's intent in his use of Fíakkén was indeed the
eastern meaning of Skn, "to place something for a particular purpose"170 his
only option for marking the borrowed meaning as transitive would be the Piel
and/or Hiphil stems of his native Skn. Although it would be impossible for the
modern reader to distinguish that intended transitive meaning from the factitive
formulation of the western Skn ("to cause to be dwelling") based on form alone,
we can anticipate from Dtr's translation of FSakkèn as lâsûm ("to put") that this
intent was not lost upon the native reader.

D. Could Deuteronomy s Tiakkên be borrowed into bH?

In his recent publication on Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew, Paul

Mankowski states, "The prima facie indication for invoking the loan hypoth-
esis is the discovery of vocables in distinct coeval languages whose phonetic
and lexical similarity appears too great to be coincidental."171 According to
Mankowski, in order to establish such a relationship, a series of ordered
hypotheses is necessary: (1) the history of the language contact situation, (2)
the diachronic phonological development of the donor and receptor languages,
(3) the ad hoc progress of semantic continuity of the word in question.172
Basing his discussion on William Hallo's seminal work, Tigay emphasizes the
need to (1) establish channels of transmission, and (2) establish sufficient
channels to make borrowing in principle likely.173 Hence, to establish a loan-
hypothesis in this particular situation, we must address these issues, asking the
question, "Is the best solution for fSakkèn fmô Mm in Deuteronomy a borrow-
ing of an eastern usage?"
In this chapter, we have discussed the diachronic phonological development
of ito in East and West Semitic. Figure 10 illustrates the distinctive geographic
and lexical distribution of the meanings "to dwell" and "to put" as well as the
cross-pollination that resulted from cultural contact between East and West in
the verbal and nominal meanings of Skn. As is obvious in figure 10, "to put" is
a meaning native to East, not West, Semitic. As is particularly clear at Mari,
the West Semitic meaning is limited to "to dwell" and "to settle." This is also
the standard meaning for bH Skn (see fig. 9). The internal biblical witness,
however, names bH lâsûm as FSakkêns closest synonym in the context of our
idiom. Moreover, bH sûm/sîm has the same semantic field as Akk Sakänum.

170 CAD SI, s.v., "iakänumeaning 1 (p. 116).

171 Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew, 4.
172 Ibid., p. 7.
173 Jeffrey H. Tigay, "On Evaluating Claims of Literary Borrowing" in The Tablet & the
Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo (eds. Mark Cohen et al.;
Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press, 1993), 250-55; cf. Wm. W. Hallo, "New Viewpoints on
Cuneiform Literature" IEJ12 (1962): 13-26.
122 The rSakkên fmô Säm Formula in Its Biblical Context

This first level of evidence would certainly point us toward a loan-hypothesis.

Furthermore, as B. Jacob first observed, and many since have noted, there is an
idiom in East Semitic whose "phonetic and lexical similarity" to that of
Deuteronomy is "too great to be coincidental"—the G-stem Akk idiom
SumaSakänu, "to place the name."174 This parallel was first discovered by
means of the Amarna letters, specifically EA 287:60-63 and EA 288:5-7.175 As
I will demonstrate in detail in Chapter Two, this idiom is much older and much
more broadly distributed than Amama. In fact, whereas the uses of
l'iakkên fmô in the Hebrew Bible and Sakan SumSu in the Amarna letters are
rare, in the Mesopotamian monumental inscriptions, iuma üakänu is quite
common. Thus, a second layer of evidence points us toward a loan-hypothesis
as well. To close the case, however, we would need to demonstrate that a
precedent for this sort of en masse borrowing of an idiom from East to West
Semitic exists, that sufficient channels of transmission to make the borrowing
likely exist, and that the biblical occurrences of leiakkën fmô Säm are clarified
as opposed to obscured by the assumption of the borrowed meaning.
As regards the first of these issues, substantial evidence supports the en
masse borrowing of idioms from Akkadian into biblical Hebrew. As Stephen
Kaufman demonstrates in his important work, The Akkadian Influences on
Aramaic, a number of Akkadian idioms have been borrowed thusly into West
Semitic. An excellent example is Akk karsl akâlu. Literally this idiom means
"to eat pieces"; idiomatically it means "to slander." In Imperial Aramaic, the
idiom appears as krsy 'mr ("to say pieces"), in Biblical Aramaic as 'kl qrsyn ("to
eat pieces"), in Jewish Aramaic as 'kl q(w)rs(yn) ("to eat pieces"), and in
Mandean as 'kylkyrs' ("to eat pieces"). Note that although each receptor
language demonstrates some level of loan adaptation (i.e., Biblical and Jewish
Aramaic have transformed Akk karsl to the correct Aramaic cognate qrs, and
Imperial Aramaic utilizes 'mr instead of the Akk akâlu), each has maintained
the idiomatic sense of the phrase and the plural form of the noun.176 This idiom
makes its appearance in the biblical text in Dan 3:8 and 6:25 (24 in the

174 Jacob, In Namen Gottes: eine sprachliche und religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung

zum Alten und Neuen Testament (Berlin: Verlag von S. Calvary & Co., 1903); cf. the
Introduction, η. 93.
175 In EA 287: 60-63, 'Abdi Heba, the vassal king of Jerusalem wrote to his suzerain, the
Egyptian pharaoh: "As the king has placed his name (Sá-ka-an M U - Í W ) (in the region of)
Jerusalem forever, he cannot abandon the lands of (the city of) Jerusalem" (Wm. L.
Moran, ed. The Amarna Letters [Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992],
328; J. A. Knudtzon, ed., Die el-Amarna-Tafeln [2 vols.; VAB 2; Leipzig: J.C.
Hinrichs, 1915], 866-67). In EA 288: 5-7, the vassal king greets his suzerain as follows:
"Behold, the king, my lord, has placed his name (Sa-ka-an MU-íh) at the rising of the
sun and at the setting of the sun" (Moran, ed., The Amarna Letters, 331; Knudtzon, ed.,
Die el-Amarna-Tafeln, 868-69).
176 Stephen Kaufman, The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic (AS 19; Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1974), 63.
 Could Deuteronomy's l'iakkèn Be Borrowed? 123

English), and in both instances the idiom regards individuals who had
attempted to slander either Daniel or the Jews:

Daniel 3:8

l'ini»? p r i a n i p w o r n ? n n ^rip-1??
îirnirr ^ prrinp

For this reason at that time certain Chaldeans came forward

and brought charges (wafikalû qarsêhôri) against the Jews . . .

Daniel 6:25

x n r i a v n i n i s s 1 ? ? "iQXì

The king then gave orders, and they brought those men
who had maliciously accused Daniel (pkalû qarsôhî)....

Kaufman and Mankowski have also noted the Akk idiom libbäti malû as an
idiom borrowed into the Hebrew Bible. Literally the phrase means "to be full
of anger" and idiomatically "to be angry with."177 A loan translation of this
idiom may be found in Dan 3:19, Esth 3:5, and Esth 5:9 in the form of ml'hmh
"to be full of fury."178 It has been suggested that this borrowed idiom may also
hold the key to the clarification of Ezek 16:30. As vocalized in the MT, this
passage reads:

Ezekiel 16:30

mn·; ' ή χ d í u ^ r m 1 ? n b o x HD
:nç*pd - r . f n t ë x r i & f ç n ' p x ' - ' p i r n x

How lovesick is your heart, says my Lord YHWH, seeing you did
all these things, the deeds of a domineering harlot.

The LXX transforms this passage into: "How should I dispose of your
daughter?" Symmachus reads, "How shall I purify your heart?" When the

177 Kaufman, The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic, 66; Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords
in Biblical Hebrew, 77-80.
178 Mankowski writes that "loanwords are in no sense 'borrowed' from the donor language
as intact entities but are new creations within the receptor language." Agreeing with
Lieberman, Mankowski states that the "new creations" which result from borrowing are
the result of native speakers reproducing a linguistic form from a foreign language by
"imitating it phonetically." As demonstrated by Ezek 16:30, this sort of imitation
quickly renders the borrowed form unintelligible to the uninitiated (Mankowski,
Akkadian Loanwords in biblical Hebrew, 4; cf. Stephen Lieberman, The Sumerian
Loanwords in Old-Babylonian Akkadian·. Prolegomena and Evidence, vol. 1 [HSS 22;
Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1977], 21).
124 The l'Sakkèn fmô Säm Formula in Its Biblical Context

phrase ^ro1? is read as Akkadian, however, a clear and sensible message

emerges:

How angry I am with you says my Lord YHWH, when you do all these acts of a
domineering harlot!179

In addition to these two borrowings that demonstrate a minimum of loan

adaptation, R. Frankena suggests several other Akkadian expressions that have
been borrowed into the Hebrew Bible by means of loan-translations. For
example, Akk pani nuwwurum "to make the countenance radiant" is reflected in
bH heir pänlm 'el "make the face shine toward" and nâsà'pânîm 'el "to lift up
the face to" in Num 6:25-26. The Akk expression würti bëliya ana qaqqarim
al imqut "the order of my lord did not fall to the ground" (= "was not ne-
glected") is reflected in 2 Kgs 10:10: lô'yippôl midcfbar YHWH'arsah "not (one)
among the word(s) of YHWH will fall to the earth."180
In addition to Frankena's examples is the Akk idiom, pänam Sakänum, "to
turn toward, to face a certain direction."181 This Akk idiom is reflected
throughout Ezekiel (6:2; 21:2,7; 25:2; 28:21; 38:2). One example will suffice:

Ezekiel 6:2

¡ • Π 1 ^ Χ33Π1 ' " i n ^ N η ' Β D'tp D I K - ] ?

Son of man, turn toward (sim pànêkâ) the mountains of Israel and prophesy to them.

It is possible that two other idiomatic nuances of this same Akk phrase may
also be found in the Hebrew Bible: "to intend" and "to turn with trust, favor, to
be devoted to."182 A potential parallel to "to intend" is Jer 21:10.

Jeremiah 21:10

mrrrmo rnib1? nin 1 ? nwn TO ή 'nqto o

rtíxa'pisnspi ]ran b z z "^¿"τβ

'For I intend evil for this city (samti pänay bâtr) and not good,' declares YHWH.
'It will be given into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he will burn it with fire.'

179 Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew, 4.

180 R. Frankena, "Some Remarks on a New Approach to Hebrew" in Travels in the World
of the Old Testament: Studies Presented to Professor M. A. Beek on the Occasion of his
65'h Birthday (ed. M. S. H. G. Heerma van Voss et al; Assen: Van Gorcum, 1974), 47;
cf. AHw, s.v. "nuwwurum" sub. pani (p. 770); ARM 10, no. 5, line 1.
181 CAD si, s.v. "Sakänu," sub panu meaning a, (p. 138); cf. AHw, s.v. "pänu(m),"
meaning 15 (p. 818).
182 CAD si, s.v. "Sakänu," sub panu meaning d and e (p. 139-40); cf. AHw, s.v. "pânu(m)"
meaning 15 (p. 818).
 Could Deuteronomy's l'Sakkên Be Borrowed? 125

A potential parallel to "to turn with trust, to be devoted to" is found in Isa 50:7:

'no1??] ià ^ " Ί ΐ ΰ ! mir; ' ή χ ]

,
tfÙX XV'S iHlO tÖoVn3
-••τ
' Β 'ΠΟίΟ
- - -
. τ · : τ

My lord, Yhwh helps me, therefore, I am not disgraced;

therefore, I have turned resolutely (to him) with trust (famtî pänay kahallämlS),
and I know that I shall not be ashamed.

It is significant that the bH loan adaptation of this particular Akk idiom

translates Akk iakänu with bH sîm/sûm.
Hence, it is apparent that there is a precedent for the borrowing of whole
idioms from East to West. Moreover, there is evidence that previous transla-
tions of the Hebrew Bible have been obscured because of an inability to
recognize Akk idioms borrowed into the text. Moreover, there is evidence that
Akk Sakänu has been represented in loan-translation by bH sîm/sûm.
As for channels of transmission, Kaufman makes the point that

words can be transferred from one language to another without any direct
contact at all between the groups speaking those languages. In the ancient Near
East such borrowings are to be expected in several spheres. Cultural objects or
practices that have their ultimate or immediate origin in one or another of the
language groups will often maintain their foreign name as they spread
throughout an area. In the ancient Near East during the first millennium B.C. for
example, one might expect to find the political terminology of the Assyrian and
Babylonian empires widespread throughout the area.183

As will be demonstrated in the next chapter, the Akk idiom in which we are
interested, Suma Sakänu, emerges from the ancient, literary typology of the
royal monumental inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Most specifically, this idiom
has to do with the installation of victory stelae—public monuments that served
to announce to both conqueror and conquered alike that the territory in ques-
tion had been claimed by a new suzerain. As we will see, there are numerous
examples of such stelae being raised in Palestine, particularly along the Medi-
terranean coast of the northern Levant. Hence, not only is the idiom in question
associated with the political terminology of the Assyrian and Babylonian
empires, but we have concrete evidence that this language was used and
displayed in the Levant. Moreover, there is copious evidence of the political,
legal, and lexicographical language of Mesopotamia finding its way into the
archives of the great Middle and Late Bronze Canaanite city-states. An
excellent example is Hayim Tadmor's study of "A Lexicographical Text from
Hazor" which demonstrates that the scribal schools of Hazor were employing

183 Kaufman, The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic, 16.

126 The l'Sakkên fmô Säm Formula in Its Biblical Context

the major lexicographical series of Mesopotamia to train their students.184

Another example is William Hallo and Tadmor's "Lawsuit from Hazor,"
which demonstrates that the legal idiom dlnam itti PN gerûm, "to bring a lawsuit
against PN," so common to the juridical terminology of OBAkk, was also
being used in the legal courts of Hazor. 185 A final, and particularly pertinent
example is the presence of Suma Sakänu in the Jerusalem-Amarna correspond-
ence. These Amarna occurrences demonstrate that by the LB period our idiom
had achieved international currency and was, indeed, widespread throughout
the area. Hence, we see that there are several possible channels of transmission
by which Suma Sakänu may have traveled to the Levant.
In sum, it is quite possible to establish a precedent for the borrowing of
whole idioms from East to West Semitic as well as sufficient channels of trans-
mission to make the borrowing of fSakkèn fmô Säm, in principle, likely. What
remains is to determine whether the biblical occurrences of l'Sakkên Semô Säm
are clarified, as opposed to obscured, by a loan-hypothesis. If, as I have
proposed, the deuteronomic idiom is borrowed and the traditional factitivized
translation of the phrase is a mistranslation, then the actual intent of this phrase
as employed by the Deuteronomist has not only been obscured, but the Name
Theology which is built upon this traditional translation has been built on a
non-existent foundation. In an attempt to substantiate the potential of a loan-
hypothesis, and to thereby clarify the intent of the biblical writers in their use
of l'Sakkën fmô Säm, the next chapter is dedicated to examining the Akk idiom
Suma Sakänu in its native milieu.

184 Hayim Tadmor, "A Lexicographical Text from Hazor," IE J 27 (1977): 98-102. The
cuneiform tablet published in this article comes from the HAR-ra = fiubullu
lexicographical series and dates to the late OB or early MB era.
185 William W. Hallo and H. Tadmor, "A Lawsuit from Hazor," IEJ 27/1 (1977): 1-11.
 III. The Tsakkën semô Mm Formula
in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context

In Chapter One, we investigated the variable semantic field of the Piel of bH

Skn in the Hebrew Bible. I demonstrated that this variable semantic field in bH
is reflective of a broader dichotomy in the Semitic languages as a whole in
which the verbal root Skn is represented by two distinctive meanings: "to put"
(East Semitic) and "to dwell" (West Semitic; see fig. 10). I concluded that
Deuteronomy's l'Sakkën could, theoretically, represent either a factitivization of
the western meaning, "to cause to be dwelling" (a true bH D-stem), or the bH
version of a borrowed, transitive, G-stem Skn from East Semitic "to put." In
light of Dtr''s consistent translation of Deuteronomy's FSakkèn as "to put," I
argued that the best explanation for l'Sakkèn may indeed be a loan-hypothesis.
As discussed at length in the Chapter One, "[t]he prima facie indication for
invoking the loan hypothesis is the discovery of vocables in distinct coeval lan-
guages whose phonetic and lexical similarity appears too great to be coinci-
dental."1 I am suggesting that Deuteronomy's tSakkën fmô Säm shares just such
a relationship with the Akk idiom Suma Sakänu—an idiom common to the
shared literary typology of the royal monumental inscriptions of Sumer,
Assyria, and Babylon.
In order to substantiate this hypothesis, I must prove that a loan-hypothesis
is the best solution to the translation and interpretation of the deuteronomic
idiom. Part of this process will require that I demonstrate that the borrowed
meaning clarifies, rather than obscures, the intent of the biblical passages
involved. Toward this end, my objective in this chapter is to investigate the
form, meaning, and function of the Akk idiom in question, Suma Sakänu, and its
near-synonym, Suma Satra Sakänu in their native milieu. As we will investigate
in detail, both of these idioms are extremely common within the monumental
corpus of Mesopotamia, and both have to do with installing an inscribed
monument for posterity. My hope is that in clarifying the origin and purport of
the Mesopotamian forms, I will be able to identify the relationship between the
biblical idiom and its antecedent, and thereby to clarify the intended message
of the biblical writer.

1 Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew, 4; Chapter One, "Could Deuter-

onomy's l'Sakkên fmô Mm Be Borrowed?"
128 The l'Sakkën fmô Mm Formula in Its ANE Context

A. The Vocabulary: iumu + Sakänu

The Akkadian verb Sakânu (Sumerian GAR) means, in its most uncompli-
cated sense, "to put." 2 Akkadian Sumu (Sumerian MU) means "name." 3 In com-
bination, these words may have multiple idiomatic meanings. 4 Our interest lies
in the frequent pairing of these words within the royal monumental
inscriptions. From these various couplings, two idiomatic expressions may be
isolated. The first, Suma Sakänu, involves "placing" (Sakänu) a "name"
(iumu) on a monument by inscribing it. This idiom is formulaic within the
corpus, particularly in reference to the votive and triumphal texts. The second
idiom, Suma Satra Sakänu, involves the ceremonial "placing" (Sakänu) of an
inscribed monument (metonymically referred to as a "written name,"
Sitir lumi or iumu Satru < Suma Satäru"5). McBride has already demonstrated that
this second idiom is specifically characteristic of the subcategory of building
inscriptions known as foundation deposits. This idiom is equally characteristic
of another subcategory of building inscriptions: clay nails (v/aM-sikkätu).
Curiously, although Suma Sakänu and Suma Satra Sakänu share the same con-
textual field, the inscription and installation of monuments, the dictionaries do
not make any explicit effort to relate Sumu + Sakänu to the tradition of com-
memorative inscriptions. Rather, in CAD's entry on the idiomatic pairing of
Sakänu and Sumu, there is no meaning listed that involves making an inscription
or installing an inscribed monument. Likewise, AHw interprets the idiom as "to
make a name [for oneself]." 6 Hence, when Suma Sakänu appears within the

2 AHw, s.v. "Sakänu(m)" (p. 1134); cf. CAD s i , s.v. "Sakänu," meaning 1, "to place
something for a particular purpose" (p. 116).
3 AHw, s.v. "Sumu(m)," meaning a (p 1274) ; CAD 53, s.v. "Sumu," meaning 1 (p. 284).
4 CAD identifies three such idiomatic uses under its "Sakänu" entry: (1) "to give a name
to something/someone," (2) "to establish fame, to acquire a reputation," (3) "to provide
with descendants" (s.v. "Sakänu" sub "Sumu" [p. 143]). Under its "Sumu" entry, two
other listed meanings include supporting examples that, among other verbs, use Sakänu:
"to appoint a person (to a position or to favored status)," and "with reference to
recording a name in writing for posterity" (s.v. "Sumu," meaning lc2'b' and Id [p. 288,
290]). Under its "Sumu" sub "Sakänu" entry, AHw also defines the idiomatic use of
Sumam Sakânum as the making of a good or noble "name," i.e., reputation (AHw, s.v.
"Sumu(m)," meaning l i b ) . Under meaning 2 of its "Sumu" entry, however, where the
writing of a name is discussed, specifically meaning 2c, "Namen in Inschrift," Sumam
Sakänum is listed as one example of "anbringen" (AHw, s.v. "Sumu(m)," meaning 2c).
5 CAD SI, s.v. "Satru," meaning 2 (p. 241-42); and CAD s3 s.v. "Sumu," meaning
ldl'(p. 290); cf. AHw, s.v. "Satru(m)," meaning 1 (p. 1205) and "Sumu(m)," meaning
A 2 (p. 1274). CAD also lists multiple examples in which musarû and Sumu Satru are
used in synonymously parallel constructions to refer to the inscribed object and/or the
inscription of the king (CAD m2, s.v. "musarû," meanings 1 and 2 [p. 232]; cf. CAD
s2, s.v. "Sitirtu": "inscription, text" [p. 144]).
6 See CAD SI, s.v. "Sakänu" sub "Sumu" meanings 5a2': a,b & c (p. 143-44): "to give a
 The Vocabulary: Suma + Sakânu 129

monumental corpus, it is consistently translated "to establish fame," as

opposed to its more obvious meaning, "to place a name (on a monument)";
Suma Satra Sakânu, on the other hand, is always recognized as a claim to have
installed an inscribed monument. This inconsistency has partly to do with an
inadequate review of the pertinent texts, and partly to do with the existence of
the metaphorical usage of Suma Sakânu mentioned above, "to establish fame, to
acquire a reputation." This metaphorical meaning has apparently superseded
the primary, literal meaning of the phrase in the mind of most translators. This
current translation convention, in which Suma Sakânu is translated "to establish
fame," is gainsaid not only by the texts themselves but by the most important
(it could be argued, only) Assyriological study done on these expressions in the
Mesopotamian inscriptions, F. R. Kraus's 1960 article, "Altmesopotamisches
Lebensgefuhl." In this study, Kraus considers these two idioms as part of an
overall discussion of Sumerian historical consciousness and perception of the
afterlife.7 Here Kraus assumes a genetic relationship between Suma Sakânu and
Suma Satra Sakânu. This is most evident in the fact that he uses occurrences of
both idioms in relationship to SumaSatäru, "to write a word," in order to
illustrate his point that the concept of lasting fame (and hence, the idea of
"establishing fame") grew from the practice of commemorative inscriptions.
Kraus's assumption can be refined further, however, by delineating the two
idioms, by clarifying their individual provenience and meaning, and by
demonstrating their socio-linguistic relationship. This clarification will be
addressed in the upcoming sections: "Suma Sakânu and the Monumental
Corpus" and "Suma Satra Sakânu and the Monumental Corpus."

name," "to establish fame," or "to provide with descendants"; and AHw, s.v.
"Sumu(m)," meaning l i b "Name schaffen, machen" (p. 1275). Conversely, CAD's
"Sumu"entry "with reference to recording a name in writing for posterity" lists several
supporting entries which, when read in their entirety, make clear that Suma Sakânu may
be used as a parallel complement to Suma Saträru, "to inscribe a name." This is
significant because, as the texts will demonstrate, Suma Satâru is the link between our
two idioms. Yet, again, the dictionary makes no explicit effort to connect these
expressions. AHw also makes no mention of Suma Sakânu under its "Sakänu(m)" entry.
However, in its "Sumu(m)" entry, as a sub-category of "Namen schreiben, eintragen,"
AHw does list "Namen in Inschrift" as its third option with "anbringen/Sakânu" as a
potential combination with Sumu(m) (AHw s.v. "Sumu[m\," meaning 2c [p. 1274]).
Nonetheless, like CAD, AHw's primary entry for the idiom, Suma Sakânu, is meaning
1 lb "Name schaffen, machen" {AHw, s.v. "Sumu(m)," meaning 1 lb [p. 1275]).
7 F. R. Kraus, "Altmesopotamisches Lebensgefuhl," JNES 19 (1960): 117-32.
130 The fSakkên fmô Sâm Formula in Its ANE Context

Β. The Corpus: The Royal Monumental Inscriptions of

Mesopotamia

The development of monumental architecture and inscriptions is generally

recognized as one of the "first steps of historical consciousness" in
Mesopotamia, an integral component of the "urban revolution" of the later
phase of the Uruk Period (c. 3200-2900 BCE).8 From these earliest Sumerian
expressions of historical consciousness grew the enduring Assyrian and
Babylonian practice of placing inscriptions on dedicated objects, stelae, and
statuary or in, on, or under public edifices in order to commemorate the deeds
of the ruler and to honor his patron deity. A host of these commemorative texts
has been recovered from Mesopotamia, dating from the Uruk period into the
Persian period and beyond. Modern scholarship has identified this collection as
the royal monumental corpus.9 These texts are classified as "royal" because
they were "dedicated either by, or to, or on behalf of the king"; they are
classified as "monumental" because primary among their intended functions
was that of commemoration.10

The monumental texts of Mesopotamia comprise that part of cuneiform

literature which was intended for permanent preservation and which, for this
purpose, was either inscribed on durable materials, or duplicated in great
numbers, or provided with blessings on those who would preserve the
monuments and curses on those who would destroy them or erase or alter the
name inscribed on them.11

As first articulated by Sigmund Mowinckel,12 it is now universally accepted

8 Julia M. Asher-Gréve, "Observations on the Historical Relevance of Visual Imagery in

Mesopotamia," in Histoire et conscience historique dans les civilisations du Proche-
Orient ancien (ed. Albert de Puiy; Les Cahiers du Centre d'Étude du Proche-Orient
ancien 5; Leuven: Éditions Peeters Bondgenotenlaan, 1989), 176-178.
9 "Sous le nom d'inscriptions royales, on désigne un groupe d'inscriptions de caractère
monumental, destinées à perpétuer le souvenir de certains actes posés par les
souverains" (Edmond Sollberger and Jean-Robert Küpper, Inscriptions royales
sumériennes et akkadiennes [Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1971], 24).
10 A "monument" is defined as "something set up to keep alive the memory of a person or
event, such as a tablet, statue, etc." (Webster's New World Dictionary, s.v. "monu-
ment"). Consequently, in the present Assyriological typologies, "monumental" and
"commemorative" are essentially equivalent categories. Note as well that any item
bearing a "monumental inscription" may therefore be referred to as a "monument."
"Monument" therefore includes less obvious items such as pivot-stones, clay cones, and
foundation deposits (cf. William W. Hallo, "The Royal Inscriptions of Ur: A
Typology," HUCA 33 [1962]: 8).
11 Hallo, "The Royal Inscriptions of Ur," 1.
12 Sigmund Mowinckel, "Die vorderasiatischen Königs- und Fürsteninschriften: Eine
stilistische Studie," in Eucharisterion: Gunkel zum 60 (FRLANT 19; Göttingen:
 The Corpus: The Royal Monumental Inscriptions 131

that the royal inscriptions of Babylonia and Assyria are interrelated, both
thematically and genetically. This interrelatedness derives from the fact that in
both cultures the literary typology of these texts can be traced back to Sumer.
As A. K. Grayson summarizes in the introduction to his classic work on the
Assyrian royal inscriptions, "[t]he literary typology of these inscriptions was
established by the Sumerians and the later Assyrians and Babylonians followed
faithfully the basic styles."13 As literary analyses have demonstrated, in each of
these cultures this royal monumental inscriptional genre was "subject to the
strict rules of composition which are typical for each of the various categories
of Mesopotamian literature."14 Moreover, Julia Asher-Gréve states in her
observations on the continuity of visual imagery within these cultures (i.e., the
monuments themselves):

The ancient Mesopotamian civilisation is remarkably constant and relatively

static in architectural, artistic and literary forms of expression . . . A nucleus of
traditions can be traced from the beginning of historical times in the late 4 th
millennium to the end of the Neo-Assyrian period and even beyond to the
middle of the first millennium. The modes of expression may change but the
underlying visual and written ideology attests to a cultural continuity over
nearly 3000 years.15

Hence, from the very onset of our discussion, we may assume that the form,
the provenience, and the formulaic phrasing of the royal monumental
inscriptions have passed from one civilization to the next, from one generation
to the next, with very little change.
In their most primitive form, the monumental inscriptions seem to have
consisted of only a personal name. The evident function of these early
inscriptions was simply "to proclaim one's ownership of, or presence in, the
inscribed object or place."16 This premise is easily demonstrated by a review of
the "standard" inscriptions.

Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1923), 281. Mowinckel's classic study on the stylistic
features of the royal inscriptions grew out of an investigation of the memorandum of the
Jewish governor Nehemiah in which Mowinckel theorized that the language of
Nehemiah must reflect the official literary typologies of his day (278).
13 Albert Kirk Grayson, Assyrian Royal Inscriptions (2 vols.; Wiesbaden: Otto Harras-
sowitz, 1972), l:xx; cf. 2:xvii. Grayson also states: "Ideas about the past in Assyria and
Babylonia were inherited from the Sumerians and, despite some alteration, their
essential Sumerian character continued to be recognizable. In the discussion of historio-
graphical genres we shall find only a few innovations in Assyrian and Babylonian
times" ("Assyria and Babylonia," Or 49 [1980]: 142).
14 William W. Hallo, "The Royal Inscriptions of Ur," 1.
15 Asher-Gréve, "Observations on the Historical Relevance of Visual Imagery in
Mesopotamia," 182.
16 Hallo, "The Royal Inscriptions of Ur," 6, cf. 20. Hallo cites the Narmer palette in proto-
dynastic Egypt and the earliest inscriptions of Ur and of Lagas as evidence for his
theory. He names this category of inscriptions "standard."
132 The l'iakkên fmô Säm Formula in Its ANE Context

Elles contiennent le nom du roi, que suit dans la plupart des cas une titulature
plus ou moins étendue, sans qu'aucune action n ' y soit exprimée. Ce type
d'inscription, qui apparaît sur des briques, des statues, des vases, des sceaux-
cylindres, ou sur d'autres objets moins courants, tel un beau coquillage du genre
murex, marqué du nom de RimuS, représente apparemment une simple
affirmation de propriété. 17

G. van Driel terms these same inscriptions "tags," inscriptions which consist of
only a name and serve to identify either the person dedicating an object or the
person portrayed in effigy by it.18 This most basic format was soon augmented
by verbal and dependent clauses. F. R. Kraus shows that the earliest known
protocol for the clay nail building inscriptions (wall-sikkätu) of Ur and Lagaä
consisted of the "standard" inscription with the addition of expressed action:
"dem Gotte X hat Y, der Fürst, seinen Tempel erbaut."19 Like the standard
inscriptions, this formula emphasizes the name of the builder. Saggs maintains:

It was, indeed, from these [early] simple dedications, bearing merely the
statement that such-and-such a ruler built the temple for such-and-such a god,
that the Assyrian historical inscriptions evolved. 20

This epigraphic evidence that shows the name to be the fundamental build-
ing block of the Mesopotamian inscription is further illustrated by the
Sumerian word for "inscription," MU SAR.RA, literally, "written name."21 The

17 Jean-Robert Küpper, "Les inscriptions triomphales akkadiennes," Oriens Antiquus 10

(1971): 93-94; cf. Edmond Sollberger and J.-R Küpper, Inscriptions royales
sumériennes et akkadiennes (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1971), 30-31, and Sollberger,
"Notes on the Early Inscriptions from Ur," Iraq 22 (I960): 69-89.
18 G. van Driel, "On 'Standard' and 'Triumphal' Inscriptions," Symbolae Biblicae et
Mesopotamicae Francisco Mario Theodoro de Liagre Böhl dedicatae (ed. M.A. Beek et
al.; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973), 101.
19 F. R. Kraus, "Altmesopotamische Tonnaegel mit Keilinschriften" in Türk Tarih
Kurumu Yayinlarindan VII (Seri no. 5; Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, 1947),
1:71-113, esp. 80. Jerrold S. Cooper presents the same assessment of the earliest
formulae in PreSargotiic Inscriptions (vol. 1 of Sumerian and Akkadian Royal
Inscriptions; New Haven: The American Oriental Society, 1986), 7-8. G. van Driel
identifies the same protocol for his "A" format of the "dedicatory" inscriptions: "For
DN epithet(s), RN epithet(s), TN epithet(s) has built" (van Driel, "On 'Standard' and
'Triumphal' Inscriptions," 99).
20 H. W. F. Saggs, The Greatness that was Babylon (New York: Hawthorn Books, Inc.,
1962), 369.
21 The first evidence of this Sumerian idiom among the royal inscriptions is found in a
votive inscription of Eanatum—a stone mortar dedicated to Nanse. Here the king
records his curse: "Whoever . . . effaces its inscription (mu-sar-ra-bi TAG-TAG-ba)... if
anyone damages its inscription (mu-sar-ra-bi ab-ta-uL(_a) . . . " (Cooper, PreSargonic
Inscriptions, La 3.11, ii 9-10 [p. 45]; cf. Jerrold S. Cooper, "Studies in Mesopotamian
Lapidary Inscriptions III" Iraq 46:90). Although the use of MU.SAR as a stock phrase for
"inscription" becomes quite common in later periods, this is the only usage of which I
am aware in the pre-Sargonic royal inscriptions. It is probable that the scarcity of
 The Corpus: The Royal Monumental Inscriptions 133

term MU SAR.RA endured in Sumerian parlance and was eventually borrowed

into Akkadian as musarû and Sumu iatru/Sitir Sumi. CAD defines musarû as an
"inscription" or an "object bearing a royal inscription," and defines Sumu Satru
as an "inscribed name."22 Furthermore, the inherited expression, Sumu
iatru (often written MU iatru), became a stock phrase in the literary typology of
the later royal inscriptions such that it was regularly used metonymically to
indicate either the ruler's entire inscription or the monument on which that
inscription was written. Examples of the various derivatives of MU SAR.RA are
found in numerous historical eras, extending from the earliest to the latest of
the Assyrian and Babylonian periods for which we have written records.
Consequently, these occurrences demonstrate Hallo's hypothesis, that from the
most ancient of times, in the Mesopotamian worldview, the fundamental nature
of an inscription was the preservation of a written name.
All of the extant royal monumental inscriptions of Mesopotamia exhibit the
common function of memorializing the name of the ruler by recording his
"heroic acts." The vast majority of these texts do so by commemorating "the
dedication of a structure or object by the ruler to a god."23 But for the ancients,
"heroic acts" also included the military activity of the kings, and therefore,
particularly in the north among the Assyrians, war annals and victory stelae
inscriptions also served to memorialize the name of the ruler.24

MU.SAR has much to do with the fact that curse sections are rare in these early texts;
hence, it is atypical for a ruler to have cause to refer to his inscription. As Cooper
reports, the only curses recorded in the pre-Sargonic royal inscriptions are to be found
in three of the Lagas-Umma border conflict texts and in the one cited above
(PreSargonic Inscriptions, 12).
22 CAD m2, s.v. "musarû," meanings 1 and 2 (p. 232); CAD $2, s.v. "Satru," meaning 2 (p.
241-42); and CAD S3, s.v. "Sumu," meaning l d l ' ( p . 290); cf. AHw, s.v. "Satru(m)"
meaning 1 (p. 1205) and "Sumuim)," meaning a2 (p. 1274). CAD also lists several
examples in which musarû and Sumu iatru are used in synonymously parallel construc-
tions to refer to the inscribed object and/or the inscription of the king (CAD m2, s.v.
"musarû," meanings 1 and 2 [p. 232]: Sa Sumí Satra ipaSSitu u muSariya unakkaru "he
who erases the inscription with my name or displaces my inscribed o b j e c t . . . " [referring
to a limestone prism; cf. AOB 1, 50 no. 2:7, Arik-dën-ili]).
23 Cooper, PreSargonic Inscriptions, 4. It was standard procedure to dedicate a new
edifice of any sort to the patron deity. Eanatum of Lagaä writes: "For Inanna, queen of
all the lands, Eanatum, ruler of LagaS, . . . built the Ibgal for Inanna, made the Eana
surpass (the temples) in all other lands for her, decorated it for her with gold and silver
and furnished it" (Cooper, PreSargonic Inscriptions, 49, La 4.5). A millennium later,
AsSur-banipal recorded his dedication of Ehursaggalama with the same language: "For
the god Enlil, king of the gods, sovereign of heaven (and) netherworld, prince (who
decides) the fates, his lord: ASsur-banipal,. . . skillfully (re)built with baked bricks . . .
within Ehursaggalama, his ancient royal cella" (RIMB, vol. 2, Ashurbanipal B.6.32.18
(p. 224).
24 Mowinckel was the first to point out a now broadly recognized distinction between the
Babylonian and Assyrian inscriptions. Whereas the former deal primarily with the
building of temples, canals, and storehouses, the latter deal primarily with war annals
("Die vorderasiatischen Königs- und Fürsteninschriften," 280-82). Grayson has
134 The FSakkèn fmô Mm Formula in Its ANE Context

While the Neo-Sumerian and Old Babylonian kings in the south (the land of
Sumer) based their royal image and their prestige among the populace on cultic
activities, culminating in self-divinization, and on administrative skill and
public works, ensuring the welfare of the country, the contemporary kings in the
north (the land of Akkad and upper Mesopotamia) preserved and revived the
Akkadian tradition, underscoring military achievements and heroic behavior. 25

The practice of recording the king's "written name" on these various

monuments is customarily referred to as either "placing" the name of the king
(Suma Sakänu=M\J + GAR) or "writing" the n a m e o f the k i n g {Suma iatäru=MU +
SAR). Moreover, the particular practice of interring inscribed foundation
deposits and placing inscribed clay nails (v/aH-sikkätu) is routinely referred to
as "placing" the "written name" of the king (Suma Satra Sakänu), a literary
typology that I believe emerged from a mixing of the two formulas above. All
of these monumental texts served the purpose of preserving some action and
some person within the historical consciousness of the populace.26
One further general feature of the royal monumental inscriptions that should
be introduced is the characteristic prohibition and curse section. Although the
earliest inscriptions do not seem to contain these elaborate and formulaic
maledictions, after the close of the pre-Sargonic era, it became customary to
conclude the text narrative with a declaration of ruin for any who would dare
violate the royal inscription or the monument bearing it.27 In this closing

demonstrated that the literary typology of the Assyrian royal war annal is in reality a
late innovation which evolved from the basic format of the royal inscription—he states
that the first "successful format" made its appearance during the reign of Adad-narari I
(1305-1274 BCE; see A. K. Grayson, ARI l:xx and Adad-narari no. 76; cf. ARI 2:xvii,
and "Assyria and Babylonia," 150-52).
25 Mario Liverani, "The Deeds of Ancient Mesopotamian Kings," CANE 4:2357.
26 Mowinckel was the first to articulate that the purpose of the royal monumental
inscriptions in Assyria and Babylonia was to preserve the ruler in historical
consciousness by means of recording his "righteous deeds." Recognizing the genetic
continuity between the Assyrian and Babylonian building inscription typology,
Mowinckel associated the common occurrence of "name" (Sumu) in these texts with the
objective of establishing an enduring reputation. In fact, in contrast to others scholars of
his era, Mowinckel preferred to define these texts as "Ruhmesinschriften," as opposed
to "historical inscriptions," and characterized these inscriptions as "immortal obituaries"
("Die vorderasiatischen Königs- und Fürsteninschriften," 304-308). This same concept
served as the underpinning of F. R. Kraus's treatment of our idioms in his "Altmesopo-
tamisches Lebensgefiihl."
27 J.-R. Küpper has written on this subject in "Les formules de malédiction dans les
inscriptions royale de l'époque paléo-babylonienne," RA 84 (1990): 157-63. Here he
attributes the introduction of the curse formula to the OAkk era. A partial correction
must be made to this theory in that four curse passages can be identified in the pre-
Sargonic inscriptions, at least one of which speaks of desecrating an inscription
(Cooper, PreSargonic Inscriptions, La 3.11, ii 9-10 [p. 12, 45]). However, Küpper is
certainly correct that the curse formula found its place in the genre during the OAkk
period (cf. Kupper, 157 η. 1).
 The Corpus: The Royal Monumental Inscriptions 135

section, the ruler announced that this was indeed his inscription, described how
it came to be, and threatened any future interloper who might attempt to efface
or replace it. A quintessential example of the monumental curse comes from
the stela of Salmaneser IV (782-773 BCE28), discovered at Tell Abta, commem-
orating the founding of a new city in the desert.

As for my stela (NA4.NA.RÚ.A) you must not remove it from its place, put it
somewhere else. You must not put it in a Taboo House, you must not smash it,
you must not cover it with earth, you must not throw it into water, you must not
splash bitumen on it, you must not burn it, you must not erase (my) inscription
(MU.SAR la ta-pa-Sit)... As for the one who alters my inscription or my name
(Sit-ri-ia u MV-ia), may the gods ASäur, SamaS, Marduk, (and) Adad, the great
gods, not have mercy upon him, to his utter destruction.29

Apart from slight variations according to epoch and application, the curse
formula of the royal monumental corpus remains surprisingly consistent.30
This consistency is important in that it is in these closing curse sections that the
royal authors had occasion to refer to their inscriptions. Hence, in these
prohibitions and curses, the formulaic language of inscribing, installing, and
violating monuments can be found. As a result, our idioms are also typically
found in these closing curse sections.31

28 The majority of the king dates given in this study come from J. A. Brinkman, appendix
to Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization, by A. Leo Oppenheim (2nd
ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977), 335-46.
29 RIMA, vol. 3/2, Salmaneser IV A.0.105.2:23b-30.
30 Küpper, "Les formules de malédiction dans les inscriptions royales de l'époque paléo-
Babylonienne," 157.
31 The closing curses are always replete with envisaged disasters that the gods would bring
upon anyone who would violate the sacred trust by desecrating the name (MU=Íumu,
"name" or MU.SAR=IWNU Satru, "written name") either by "removing" it (nasäku) or by
"rubbing it out" (paSatir, AHw, s.v. "$umu(m)" meaning 2; cf. CAD S3, s.v. "iitlrttf':
"inscription, text" [p. 144].)
It is important to note that, in contrast to the practices in Egypt, there is actually very
little archaeological evidence of a name being chiseled out of installed Mesopotamian
monuments in order to inscribe a new name. The monuments from Susa show us,
however, that it was customary to add a secondary inscription to a captured monument
in order to magnify the brilliance and courage of the king who had managed to seize his
enemy's sculpture (cf. Prudence O. Harper, Joan Aruz, and Françoise Talion eds., The
Royal City of Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre [New York: Metro-
politan Museum of Art, 1992], 159-82, nos. 107, 109, 111, 112, 117).
Still there are a few monuments that show some sort of erasure and re-inscription.
Ferris J. Stephens has identified two inscribed pieces from the Yale Babylonian collec-
tion which show evidence of having been effaced and re-inscribed: the inscription from
a fragment of a votive bowl of Kudda (apparently the entire inscription was ground
down and replaced), and the basalt column of the wife of Rîm-Sin. In this latter text,
just below the box outlined on the column to contain the official inscription, there is an
"almost erased" line which was apparently a copy of the last line of the original text,
rewritten and ground away at some later point. As is typical of such monumental
136 The FSakkên fmô Sâm Formula in Its ANE Context

C. Classifying the Inscriptions

Presently there are competing systems of classification for the various

Mesopotamian royal monumental inscriptions. And although a standard
typology has been attempted several times, there is still dissent regarding both
categorization and nomenclature. 32 The resulting diversity is, without a doubt,
daunting for the non-specialist. In order to avoid furthering that confusion, I
have based this study on one system of classification, William Hallo's
important monograph, "The Royal Inscriptions of Ur: A Typology," and I have
added to it Edmond Sollberger and Jean-Robert Kupper's category of
"triumphal inscriptions." In addition, I have attempted to simplify m y
classification o f texts by arranging them according to functional categories,
which I hope will be easily recognizable to the reader. Toward this end, the
texts investigated in this study will be identified as either votive, triumphal, or
building inscriptions. This final category includes two sub-categories: clay
nails/cones (wall-sikkätu) and foundation deposits.

1. Votive Texts

Hallo defines votive texts as "inscribed monuments which were to be placed

in temples." 33 From the earliest historical eras of Mesopotamian history, there

inscriptions, the content of the final line of the text was a curse detailing what would
happen to anyone who would put their own name upon the monument (Votive and
Historical Texts from Babylonia and Assyria [YOS 9; New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1937], 4,12).
Erasure of a previous inscription is rare for kudurrus as well. In her study of the topic,
Kathryn Slanski points out that to erase the identifying inscription of the captured
monument and thereby remove the "signature" of the original owner actually
undermined the claims of the conqueror. Regarding the re-inscribed kudurru of Meli-
Sipak, Slanski states that "[t]he whole point of the Elamite inscription is to demonstrate
that mighty Sutruk-Nanhunte took this monument from Meli-Sipak in Babylonia. Why
would he efface written evidence for the monument's original provenience?" (Kathryn
Slanski, written communication, 7 February 2000; cf. Slanski, "A Study in the Form
and Function of Babylonian Kudurrus" [Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1997], 31 n.
75,46-51, 170-74]).
32 One of the earliest attempts at a comprehensive treatment of the royal inscriptions was
Sigmund Mowinckel's "Die vorderasiatischen Königs- und Fürsteninschriften: Eine
stilistische Studie." W. Baumgartner followed with his "Untersuchungen zu den
akkadischen Bauausdrücken," ZA 36 (1925): 29-40, 123-38, 219-53. More modern
typologies include Hallo, "Royal Inscriptions of the Early Old Babylonian Period: A
Bibliography" BiOr 18 (1961) and "The Royal Inscriptions of Ur," 1-43; Sollberger and
Küpper, Inscriptions royales sumériennes et akkadiennes; Grayson, "Assyria and
Babylonia," 137-94; S. Lackenbacher, Le roi bâtisseur: les récits de construction
assyriens des origines à Téglatphalasar III (Études assyriologiques 11; Paris: Éditions
recherche sur les civilisations, 1982).
33 See Hallo, "The Royal Inscriptions of Ur," 12.
 Classifying the Inscriptions 137

is evidence of rulers and prominent citizens donating and inscribing ritually

appropriate items—statues and stelae,34 cultic vessels, ornamental weapons,
tablets, amulets, and seals35—for the pleasure of the deity and the
commemoration of the individual. Apparently, these monuments also helped to
secure the political wellbeing of the donor in that, "[t]he real purpose of the
royal votive monuments was to convey the request of the donor (whether this
was the king himself or not) for the long life of the king."36 Hence, the
inscription on such monuments would always come complete with a curse
upon any who would remove the name of the donor, or would move or damage
the donated object itself.
The Sumerian royal votive statues, statues donated by and portraying the
ruler, are of particular interest, in that there is evidence that these statues were
in fact "animated" as part of their cultic function. Irene Winter has demon-
strated that rituals similar to those performed on divine images were likewise
performed on royal images in order to render the statues "alive" so that they
might "engage in direct discourse with the deity."37 Moreover, as a result of
their animated state, these images received food offerings as a regular aspect of
the cult.38 As it was apparently the intent of the donor that his petition continue
far beyond his actual life, a votive statue would portray the ruler in an attitude
of supplication, would be inscribed with his name, and would be installed in
the temple precinct. Animation rituals and their associated cultic practices
survived well into the second millennium, and aspects of this tradition complex
may be found in later Assyrian and Babylonian practice as well.
As votive monuments were customarily set up for display in the courtyards
of the temple, these inscribed items were among the most accessible of the
royal monuments. Their visibility and fine quality combined to make them
unusually susceptible to pillage and/or effacement and reuse.39 The exploita-
tion of these display monuments by later, conquering rulers is dramatically
illustrated by means of the Mesopotamian monuments excavated from the

34 See the following for a general introduction to the subject of monumental stone
sculpture in Mesopotamia: Marguerite Yon, "Stelae," OEANE, 5:79-82; Agnès Spycket,
"Reliefs, Statuary, and Monumental Paintings in Ancient Mesopotamia," CANE 4:2583-
97; Betty L. Schlossman, "Portraiture in Mesopotamia in the Late Third and Early
Second Millennium BC," AfO 26 (1978/79): 56-77 and AJO 28 (1981/82): 143-70.
35 Hallo, "Royal Inscriptions of the Early Old Babylonian Period: A Bibliography," 5.
36 Hallo, "The Royal Inscriptions of Ur," 13-14.
37 Irene Winter, '"Idols of the King': Royal Images as Recipients of Ritual Action in
Ancient Mesopotamia " Journal ojRitual Studies 6/1 (Winter 1992): 14-42, esp. 21.
38 Ibid., 29-30.
39 "Unlike building inscriptions, such monuments were not concealed in walls or
foundations, nor were they, like many dedicated objects, small enough to be concealed
in temple ruins. Large, finely sculpted monuments were susceptible to pillage . . . Or, if
not carried off as booty, such monuments might be effaced and reused in stone-poor
Babylonia" (Jerrold S. Cooper, PreSargonic Inscriptions, 6).
138 The l'Sakkén fmô Mm Formula in Its ANE Context

Elamite capital of Susa. There "an extraordinary collection of Mesopotamian

royal sculptures, victory monuments and official records"40 was found, many
of which still bear their original Akkadian inscription, testifying to their
provenience prior to theft. A number also bear secondary Elamite inscriptions.
These latter Elamite inscriptions are juxtaposed with the commemorative
claims of the Mesopotamian kings; apparently, the intent behind this practice
was to exhibit the superiority of the Elamite conqueror. One such statue of a
seated ruler captured from Esnunnaby Sutruk-Nahhunte (ca.1158 BCE)
features the following Elamite inscription:

I am Sutruk-Nanhunte, son of Halludus-Insusinak, king of Ansan and Susa, who

has enlarged the realm, master of Elam, sovereign of the land of Elam.
Insusinak my god, having granted it to me, I have destroyed Esnunna; I have
taken away from there the statue and I have brought it to the country of Elam. I
have offered it to Insusinak my god.41

Most pieces of Mesopotamian monumental art found in secondary contexts

have been vandalized. The removal of the head, hands, and feet of the persons
portrayed in the sculptures is particularly common.42 These mutilations are
most probably political and propagandist^ demonstrations on the part of the
conquerors against their defeated foes.43
Thus, votive texts may be found on monuments made of precious metals
and stone that were intended for display in the temple precinct. Different from
building inscriptions, which were duplicated on numerous monuments, votive
inscriptions typically appear only once on a single monument.44 On these
votive monuments we frequently encounter our first idiom, Suma Sakänu, "to
place (the) name."

40 Prudence O. Harper et al., eds., The Royal City of Susa (New York: The Metropolitan
Museum of Art, 1992), 159.
41 Ibid., 172.
42 Ibid., 159-82, esp. nos. 107, 111, 112, 114. Harper makes the point that "a few of the
Mesopotamian pieces show signs of ancient repair and recarving . . . " and that the
repairs were typically concentrated upon the hands, feet, and head (ibid., 162).
43 Carl Nylander, "Earless in Nineveh: Who Mutilated 'Sargon's' Head?" AJA 84 (1980):
329-35. Here Nylander discusses the broader practice of mutilating images using this
famous, but as of yet unidentified, copper head as a case study. In his discussion he
reviews the distinctive damage done to the head—the mutilated left eye, upper bridge of
the nose, the point of the nose, the beard and the missing ears—and relates this damage
to identical Median torture methods. He concludes that the selective defacement of this
ruler's head (once undoubtedly attached to an "equally magnificent body") and the
damage done to the other Nineveh reliefs resulted from the Median conquest of Nineveh
in 614 BCE.
44 Regarding the Gudea votive statues Hallo states: "Even such apparently duplicate
votives as the statues of Gudea to Gestinanna differed in what to the Sumerians may
have been the crucial element: their names" ("The Royal Inscriptions of Ur," 13).
 Classifying the Inscriptions 139

2. Triumphal Texts

The victory stelae and statuary of Mesopotamia have received far less
textual study than their votive counterparts. To date, the most important
inquiry into the literary typology of these texts is Sollberger and Kupper's
Inscriptions royales sumériennes et akkadiennes, and Kupper's "Les inscrip-
tions triomphales akkadiennes."45 Sollberger and Kupper make the point that
there are certain texts among the monumental inscriptions, particularly certain
inscriptions from the royal, dedicatoiy statuary of the OAkk period, that stand
apart from the rest of the monumental corpus and are best described as
"triumphal inscriptions." Their argument is based upon both the presentation
and the literary typology of these texts.

On le voit, la revue des textes ne fait que confirmer l'hypothèse suivant laquelle
les souverains d'Agadé avaient coutume d'élever des monuments triomphaux,
chargés de proclamer et de perpétuer le souvenir de leurs victoires et de leur
grandeur, tout en disant en même temps la puissance des dieux qui les
protégeaient. Il est évident que les inscriptions composées à cet effet forment
une catégorie à part, qui ne se confond avec aucune de celles qui ont été
relevées plus haut. 46

The victory monuments that bear these triumphal texts come to us in the
form of "statues in the round and monuments with imagery carved in relief
[stelae]."47 The native designations for these two forms of victory monuments
are salmu and narû, statue and stela, respectively.48 According to Jutta Börker-

45 Sollberger and Küpper, Inscriptions royales sumériennes et akkadiennes, 32-34; J. -R

Kupper, "Les inscriptions triomphales akkadiennes," 12, 92-106.
46 Küpper, "Les inscriptions triomphales akkadiennes," 99.
47 Kathryn Slanski, "A Study in the Form and Function of the Babylonian Kudurrus"
(Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University, 1997), 51.
48 The Akk word for "stela," narû, is a loan word from Sumerian na-ru(dù)-a which
literally means "erected stone." Thus, for the Sumerian a na-rú-a was understood as a
freestanding stone monument or marker. This type of monument was distinguished
from a "statue" which is alan in Sumerian and salmu in Akk (cf. Jerrold S. Cooper,
"Mesopotamien Historical Consciousness and the Production of Monumental Art in the
Third Millennium BC," in Investigating Artistic Environments in the Ancient Near East
[ed. Ann C. Gunter; Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press, 1990], 44).
Confusion exists, however, in that the Akkadian term narû came to be applied to a
range of monuments, including fa/íA/mí-monuments, foundation tablets, and stelae
(Slanski, "Babylonian Kudurrus" 61-62, 235; cf. Richard S. Ellis, Foundation Deposits
in Ancient Mesopotamia [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968], 145-47; Irene
Winter, "After the Battle is Over: The Stele of the Vultures and the beginning of
Historical Narrative in the Art of the Ancient Near East," in Pictorial Narrative in
Antiquity and the Middle Ages [eds. Herbert L. Kessler and Marianna S. Simpson;
Studies in the History of Art 16; Washington: National Gallery of Art, 1985], 23). In
this study stela designates: "an upright stone slab or pillar engraved with an inscription
or design and used as a monument, grave marker, etc."; statue designates: "the form of
 140 The l'Sakkèn fmô Säm Formula in Its ANE Context

Klähn's nomenclature, these monuments (including reliefs carved on cliff

faces and boulders) should be classified within the broader category of
"historical stelae," along with various legal documents and boundary stones.49
In distinction from the preferred art forms of the Sumerian and neo-Sumerian
eras, victory stelae are, again, especially characteristic of the Akkadian
Period,50 and, although I am not aware of anyone who has made this point, the
genre persists with much more vigor in the north than in the south. Typically,
these monumental sculptures were inscribed and erected within conquered
territory in celebration of the conclusion of a military campaign. As
Salmaneser ΙΠ reports on the Kurkh Monolith regarding his war against the
city of Lutibu and its allies,

They attacked me to do battle . . . I fought (and) defeated them . . . At that time I

praised the greatness of the great gods (and) made manifest the heroism of
Assur and the god Samas for posterity, by creating a colossal royal statue of
myself (sa-lam MAN-ii'-j'a) (and) writing thereon about my heroic deeds and
victorious actions. I erected (it) before the source of the River Saluara, at the
foot of the Amanus range. 51

Clearly, one of the functions of these monuments was to memorialize the

king's prowess in battle.52 A second was "to celebrate the successful end of the
campaign."53 A third was to "convey and emphasize the official view point and
ideology of the state."54 A fourth was to testify to the historicity of the events

a person or animal carved in wood, stone, etc." (cf. Webster's New Twentieth Century
Dictionary, 2 nd edition, s.v. "stele," s.v. "statue").
49 Jutta Börker-Klähn, Altvorderasiatische Bildstelen und vergleichbare Felsreliefs (2
vols.; Philipp von Zabern, 1982), 1:14.
50 Börker-Klähn, 1:14,17-18.
51 This large stone victory stela probably dates to 853-852 BCE. The monument has a
"depiction of the king and divine symbols carved in relief and the cuneiform inscription
is engraved in two columns" (RIMA, vol. 3/2, Salmaneser III A.0.102.2, p. 11 and
inscription 2: col. i:41b-51a). See figure 11, "Stelae & Rock Reliefs."
52 Even the briefest visual review of the extant stelae from the ANE confirms this asser-
tion. Repeatedly we find the Mesopotamian rulers depicting themselves in both relief
and statuary as, literally, "larger than life." The stela of Naram-Sîn (2254-2218 BCE) is a
parade example (cf. Henri Frankfort, The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient
[The Pelican History of Art. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1955], pi. 122, 123). This relief
depicts Naram-Sîn central to all action, elevated and enlarged in comparison to his
fellows, adorned with a divine headdress and, gifted with the perfect physique of a
divine figure, communicating to all his political as well as military superiority (cf. Irene
Winter, "Sex, Rhetoric and the Public Monument," in Sexuality in Ancient Art: Near
East, Egypt, Greece and Italy [ed. Natalie Kampen; Cambridge University Press, 1996).
53 Louis Levine, Two Neo-Assyrian Stelae from Iran (Art and Archaeology of the Royal
Ontario Museum, Occasional Paper 23; Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum, 1972), 15.
54 In her assessment of Eannatum I in the Stela of the Vultures (c. 2500 BCE), Winter
states: "Just as the god holds his emblem, the anzu, he is himself an emblem of the state
and of its victory" ("After the Battle is Over," 20).
 Classifying the Inscriptions 141

recorded.55 A fifth, as Hallo points out in regard to the purpose of the royal
inscriptions in general, was to claim ownership of the vanquished region.
History has proven that the Mesopotamian rulers were well-versed in making
use of the psychological power of such images in achieving all of these various
goals in their predominantly illiterate societies.56
In contrast to Sollberger and Kupper, G. van Driel argues that "triumphal
inscriptions," regardless of their presentation, are still "dedicatory" in nature
and should be catalogued accordingly: "When inscriptions occurring on such
objects are said to be 'triumphal' I have some doubt." 57 In support of van
Driel, it is certainly true that "triumphal" and "votive" texts share many
common features. Both votive and victory monuments were intended for
display and were uniquely susceptible to capture and effacement.58 Both
typically took the form of either a stela or a statue, and both are distinct from
the building inscription monuments in that far fewer were installed. In
addition, both votive and triumphal monuments were typically crafted in stone
and precious metals, as opposed to the customary clay used for the building
inscription monuments. Hence, as regards their form, votive and victory
monuments have much in common. There are also similarities in content in
that the early inscriptions of these two assemblages consist, fundamentally, of
what Hallo would term "standard inscriptions" and what van Driel would call
"tags"—simple identifications of either the person who made the object or the
person represented by the object. Because of these shared features, and because
of the fact that the triumphal texts predominate only among the OAkk kings,
very few existing typologies include an independent category for the triumphal
inscriptions. Yet, although it is true that the triumphal and votive genres are
parallel in many ways, particularly as regards the monuments on which they
appear, there remains, however, an important functional distinction. Whereas a
votive monument was typically set up within domestic territory, a triumphal
monument was placed in subjugated territory and expressly intended for the

55 "In the more remote cultures of Ancient Mesopotamia, where only a few were literate,
visual imagery was used next to oral transmission as a conveyor of historical events and
political intent" (Asher-Gréve, "Observations on the Historical Relevance of Visual
Imagery in Mesopotamia," 175).
56 Ibid., 182.
57 Van Driel, "On 'Standard' and 'Triumphal' Inscriptions," 99-102. "The description
'triumphal' fits better the type of representation, in some cases, than the type of
inscription" (ibid., 102). Van Driel makes the same argument regarding building and
standard inscriptions, claiming that it is inappropriate to separate building, votive, or
victory inscriptions into separate categories as all three are in essence, "dedicatory."
58 Of the monuments recovered from Susa, four are without question victory monuments.
These include the famous stela of Naram-Sîn (109), the statue of Manistusu (107) and
two unidentified fragments (105, 106) (Prudence O. Harper et al., ed., The Royal City of
Susa, 159-82).
142 The l'Sakkën fmô Säm Formula in Its ANE Context

viewing pleasure of the conquered foe.59 In other words, these inscription-

bearing monuments were installed in disparate contexts because they were
intended to speak to different audiences.60 Because of this important distinc-
tion, in this study "votive texts" will be defined as texts found on monuments
dedicated to a deity and erected at a cult site in domestic territory, and
"triumphal texts" will be defined as texts found on monuments erected on
newly subjugated, foreign soil whose function was to claim territory and speak
to a subject people. Although the actual monuments periodically overflow into
more than one category, and therefore even these functional classes will
sometimes be difficult to delineate, this categorization will assist us in our
pursuit of the idiomatic intent of Suma Sakänu. Indeed, Suma Sakänu is most
common in reference to the triumphal texts.

3. Building Inscriptions

The "building inscriptions" comprise the largest single category within the
royal monumental corpus.61 These are texts composed by a ruler upon the
occasion of the construction or renovation of a building, typically a temple or
palace, which functioned to commemorate the great acts of the builder as well
as to honor his patron deity(ies).62 According to Hallo's typology, the four
basic types of monuments bearing building inscriptions are bricks, foundation
deposits, pivot-stones, and clay nails (wall-sikkätu). Two of these are
architecturally functional, the bricks and pivot-stones, and two are not, the
foundation deposits and the wall-sikkätu. We will deal with v/al\-sikkätu and the
sizeable sub-category of foundation deposits under separate headings; and we
will add to Hallo's categories texts found on commemorative statuary that
memorialize building projects.
Unlike votive and victory texts that were typically inscribed only once on a
single monument, numerous copies of similar versions of a single building
inscription were customarily inscribed on as many monuments and placed
throughout the building. These monuments typically included dozens of

59 Grayson, "Assyria and Babylonia," 152-55.

60 Although van Driel argues that votive, triumphal and building inscriptions should be
subsumed under a single "dedicatory" classification, even he states that "[t]he meaning
of the inscription results from what is done with the object" ("On 'Standard' and
'Triumphal' Inscriptions," 101).
61 ARI, l:xx. For additional discussion of building inscriptions and their particular
terminology and formulae see the works listed in n. 32 as well as W. Schramm, Ein-
leitung in die assyrischen Königsinschriften: Zweiter Teil: 934-722 v. Chr (Handbuch
der Orientalistik 1; ed. B. Spuler; Leiden: Brill, 1973).
62 Hallo defines these inscriptions as "monuments that became integral parts, whether
functional or decorative, of the buildings which they commemorated" ("The Royal
Inscriptions of Ur," 8).
 Classifying the Inscriptions 143

wall-sikkätu and stamped bricks, as well as several foundation deposits.

Because the inscriptions on these items were usually concealed from view once
installed, it is often asked what "commemorative" purpose building
inscriptions served. The answer comes from the texts themselves:

I rebuilt (the temple) from top to bottom. I deposited my monumental

inscriptions (and) made a joyful festival for it . . . In the future may a later
prince, when that temple becomes old and dilapidated, hear of my heroic deeds
(and) recount my praiseworthy power. As I returned the monumental
inscriptions of former kings to their places, may he anoint with oil my monu-
mental inscriptions . . . He who removes my monuments (and) discards my
inscribed name (Su-ml Sat-raú-íám-sa-ku): May Assur . . . glare at him angrily
and inflict upon him in their wrath an evil curse.63

One of the explicit expectations placed upon the "future prince" who wished to
build or rebuild (particularly if the structure in question were a temple) was
that he locate, read, honor, and redeposit the inscribed monuments of his
predecessors. It was the intent of the kings that these texts be read by future
rulers and other potential rebuilders, and thereby, that the "heroic deeds" of the
king be recited to future generations.64 As a result, from the OB period onward,
royal builders customarily closed their inscriptions with an exhortation that
their descendants "anoint with oil my monumental inscriptions (na-re-ia), make
sacrifices, and return them to their places."65 And if a future prince chose
instead to desecrate the sanctity of the original builder's "written name"
(Sumu Satru) by either effacing the inscription or destroying the monument, the
consequences were clearly articulated:

May the gods Samas, Enlil, Adad, and Sarru-mätim pluck the offspring of that
king; may he and his army not prevail in the face of a king who opposes him;
may the god Nergal take away by force his treasure and the treasure of his
land.66

The texts tell us that this practice of finding and preserving the inscription of
the former king was considered a sacred trust, and the curses protecting that
trust were substantial. As was noted previously, these curse sections are signif-
icant to this study because here we typically find references to the king's

63 RIMA, vol. 1, Salmaneser I, A.0.77.1:147-168 (p. 185-86).

64 Hallo, "The Royal Inscriptions of Ur," 10. Mario Liverani, however, questions this
conclusion. He makes the point that although the ideological audience of the
inscriptions was indeed the gods and future princes, the semiological audience was the
present-day subjects and enemies of the king: "They were written to become known—in
some way—to subjects and enemies; they were written for self-justification, or to obtain
or increase sociopolitical control, or to mobilize, or to impress, or even to frighten"
(Mario Liverani, "The Deeds of Ancient Mesopotamian Kings," CANE 4: 2354).
65 Op. cit. Salmaneser I, line 162 (p. 186).
66 RIMA, vol. 1, Samsi-Adad I A.0.39.1:106-111 (p. 50).
144 The FSakkën ¡fmó íäm Formula in Its ANE Context

inscription and his monument; and therefore to the Sumu Satru "written name"
which had been "placed" (Sakänu) by the royal builder.
Sollberger and Küpper have provided a synopsis of the literary structure of
the building inscription as follows:

Le schéma type . . . comprend le nom de la divinité à laquelle le bâtiment est

dédié, le nom du souverain, le verbe exprimant l'action, et l'objet de la
construction. Ces éléments essentiels peuvent être soit amplifiés, notamment par
une série d'epithètes qualifiant le dieu ou le roi, soit complétés par une
proposition tendant par exemple à préciser les circonstances qui ont précédé
l'événement (clause temporelle), à rapporter le nom donné au bâtiment ou à
maudire les violateurs éventuels.67

In the south this basic format was typically "amplified" by accounts of other
great acts of building or piety accomplished by the ruler. In the north,
particularly after the emergence of the Assyrian war annal, this amplification
came by means of narratives recounting battles won.68 Most significant to us is
that all of these various building inscriptions are filled with references to the
Sumu Satru, "written name," of the royal author—meaning both the inscription
itself and, metonymically, the monument on which it was inscribed.

4. Foundation Deposits

Formally, inscribed foundation deposits are considered a sub-category of

the building inscription corpus.69 The event that occasioned the ceremonial
interment of the foundation deposit was the building or rebuilding of a public
structure, typically a temple. Here a ruler would inscribe some sort of ritually
meaningful item in order to commemorate the building of the edifice at hand,
and then he would install the item either into the soil beneath the temple or into
the foundations themselves. The epigraphic remains that come to us as a result
of this building rite are among the most common of the royal monumental
corpus. Whereas most of the extant royal inscriptions are building inscriptions,
most of these building inscriptions are in fact foundation deposits. Moreover,
most of the extant foundation deposit texts come from temples.

67 Sollberger and Küpper, Inscriptions royales sumériennes et akkadiennes, 29-30.

Mowinckel provides a similar scheme for the royal inscription:
Dem Gotte N.N., dem Gewaltigen, dem Starken usw.—ich, N.N., der grosse
König, der mächtige König usw. Ich habe dies getan, ich habe das getan, ich
habe dies gebaut, ich habe das erneuert usw. Möge der Gott mir den Lohn
meiner frommen Taten geben! ("Die vorderasiatischen Königs- und Fürsten-
inschriften," 313).
68 The Assyrian royal war annal made its first appearance during the reign of Adad-narari
I (1305-1274BCE). Seen. 24.
69 Hallo, "The Royal Inscriptions of Ur," 23.
 Classifying the Inscriptions 145

Richard S. Ellis has written the standard work on foundation deposits.70

Here Ellis demonstrates that a foundation deposit could consist of just about
anything:71 an animal sacrifice,72 the peg- or nail- shaped deposits so common
to the Early Dynastic (ED) and Ur ΠΙ periods (foundation-siMaiK),73
apotropaic figurines, foodstuffs, inscribed cylinders and prisms, offerings of
the materials necessary for the construction of the edifice, facsimiles of
furniture that would grace the temple,74 or even an image of the ruler engaged
in the building task.75 For millennia the placing of these various deposits in the
foundations of newly built or refurbished edifices was considered an essential
aspect of building protocol in the Mesopotamian cultures.
The epigraphic and archaeological evidence indicates that within the
context of temple building, the foundation deposit ritual evolved from symbol
to text, that is, from uninscribed, symbolic objects (typically foundation-
sikkätu) to various inscribed forms (typically tablets, prisms and cylinders).
These later foundation documents characteristically focused on the ruler's
careful adherence to all of the traditional elements involved in raising a cult
edifice. Moreover, it was not uncommon for the author to record other building

70 Ellis, Foundation Deposits in Ancient Mesopotamia (New Haven: Yale University

Press, 1968). Although primarily archaeological in its perspective, this study provides an
outstanding summary of the extant traditions, texts, and artifacts associated with
foundation deposits in ancient Mesopotamia. Ellis's interpretations regarding the
associations between these materials, his research, and his conclusions direct much of
my discussion of the topic. Ellis also provides appendices which present translations
and bibliography for a range of associated texts as well as pictorial representations of
the various artifacts. His most obvious exclusions in this study include votive deposits,
clay nails, texts found in building deposits and apotropaic figurines (cf. Paul W. Lapp's
review in JBL 88 [March 1969]: 494-96; J. S. Cooper's review inJNES 31 [1972]: 208).
71 For a summary of the provenience and distribution of the various sorts of foundation
deposits, see Ellis, Foundation Deposits, figure 36, and Subhi Anwar Rashid,
"Gründungsbeigaben," RIA 3:655-61, table 1.
72 The oldest Mesopotamian find that can be clearly identified as a foundation deposit
comes from the White Temple at Uruk. In the lowest course of the brickwork, the
forelimbs of a young leopard and a young lion were discovered. Ellis identifies literary
parallels in two passages from Cylinder A of Gudea of Lagas: "In pronouncing a
blessing on his new temple, Gudea calls it a 'panther clasping an angry lion.' Farther
on, speaking of the adornment of the temple, the text reports: *on(?) the lintel that was
laid over (?) the doors; he stationed a young lion and a young panther'" (Ellis,
Foundation Deposits, 42-3; cf. the apotropaic lion peg figurines from Urkiä (André
Parrot, "Acquisitions et inédits du Musée du Louvre," Syria 31 [1954]: 1-13).
73 See drawings of the basic forms of foundation-jifctá/ií in Rashid, "Gründungsbeigaben,"
RLA 655-61, table 1, and Ellis, Foundation Deposits, 46-94, illustrations 1-25.
74 This practice is probably reflected in the Hittite "Ritual for the Erection of a House
[Temple]," in which a number of the foundation deposits are actually copies of the
furniture appurtenances of the temple—cult stands, hearths, doors, and gates (translated
by Albrecht Goetze [ANET, 356-57]).
75 Nabopolassar records having "made an image of my royal person carrying a basket, and
deposited it in the foundation-platform" (Ellis, Foundation Deposits, 179).
146 The l'Sakkên fmô îâm Formula in Its ANE Context

or military achievements on the monument as well. As the tradition of the

inscribed deposit grew to overshadow the older uninscribed forms, a standard
peroration evolved as well—a stock exhortation to the "future prince" that if he
fears the gods, let him be careful to locate both the foundation and the
inscribed foundation deposit76 of his predecessor before daring to attempt
either building a new temple or renovating the old one. In these closing
perorations, over and over again, the royal authors tell of having "placed"
(Sakänu) their "written name" (Sumu Satru), and they command the "future
prince" who desires to rebuild to: "anoint my written name (MU.SAR), the
writing of my name (Si-tir MU-I'A), with oil, offer a sacrifice, (and) set (it) back
in its place {áS-ri-M liS-kun)\"77
The function of the foundation deposit, and more specifically the foundation
document in which the Suma Satra Sakänu idiom is so common, has been the
subject of much discussion. Ellis offers little on this front. He is very clear that
the archaeology of this building rite, not the psychological motivations of the
depositors, is his concern. ("I will leave it to others to try to find out what
subconscious urges the depositors of the objects were obeying."78) Yet, Ellis
does drift into analysis regarding the archetypal deposit: the uninscribed
Sumerjan foundation-s¡'/tfozíw. Here, Ellis builds on Kraus's 1947 study that
theorized a relationship existing between the clay wall-sikkätu of
Mesopotamian building tradition and the use of wooden pegs in business
transactions.79 Ellis extends Kraus's theory by applying it to foundation-si'ttáíH
as well. The reader will recall that the bulk of foundation deposits have been
recovered from temples, and it is probable that the tradition began in specific
association with cultic building projects. Hence, Ellis proposes that whereas a
wooden peg would be driven into a wall to publicize the legal transfer of
property, perhaps the driven foundation-si'fotoK served to publicize the setting
aside of the cult site as "sacred ground reserved for the service of the god."80
Others have proposed that the original meaning of these peg-shaped deposits
had to do with secular surveyors' pegs and blueprints, and the divinely

76 Many have assumed that to find the former was to find the latter and that this is why the
Sumerian word temenu seems to mean "foundation" in some contexts and "foundation
deposit" in others (cf. William Baumgartner, "Untersuchungen zu den akkadischen
Bauausdrücken," ZA 36 [1925]: 29-40, 123-38, 219-53, esp. 252-55; Sally Dunham,
"Sumerian Words for Foundation" RA 80 [1986]: 31-64; Ellis, Foundation Deposits,
147-50).
77 RIMB, vol. 2, Esarhaddon, B.6.31.11:19 (p. 177).
78 Ellis, Foundation Deposits, 2.
79 See the following section, "Clay Nails," p. 160-65.
80 Ellis, Foundation Deposits, 89-91. Building on Benno Landsberger and Κ. Balkan, Ellis
emphasizes that it is the publicizing of the "the claim of the purchaser to his newly
acquired property" that is central to the secular tradition (Ellis, Foundation Deposits,
87; cf. Β. Landsberger and Κ. Balkan, "Die Inschrift des assyrischen Königs Irisum:
Gefunden in Kültepe 1948," Belleten 14 [1950] {Turk Tarih Kurumu}, 266-7).
 Classifying the Inscriptions 147

ordained design of the temple precinct.81 As it is well attested in Mesopo-

tamian literature that a temple must, at least in theory, be both initiated and
designed by the deity—in order to ensure that the earthly temple was indeed a
copy of the heavenly original—this interpretation of the foundation-si'toi« is
also plausible. 82 Either theory supports the conclusion that the foundation-
sikkatu had something to do with authenticating the divinely ordained nature of
the temple under construction.83

81 See Dunham, "Sumerian Words for Foundation," 31-64, for an updated review of this
theory and its supporting evidence.
82 In Mesopotamia, the belief that a temple must be both initiated and designed by the
deity is quite ancient. This is dramatically illustrated in the building accounts of Gudea,
ensi of Lagas (2028-2004 BCE). In his temple hymn inscription on Cylinder A, Gudea
recounts the vision whereby he received divine confirmation to rebuild Ningirsu's
temple complex, Eninnu. .This divine confirmation came by means of a supernaturally
revealed blueprint of the proposed edifice.
In the dream a man, whose stature reached up to heaven (and) reached down to
earth, who according to the tiara around his head was a god, at whose side was
the divine bird Imgi[g], at whose feet was a storm, to whose right and left a
lion was at rest, commanded me to build his house (i.e., t e m p l e ) . . . A second
(man), like a w a r r i o r . . . held in his hand a tablet of lapus-lazuli, (and) outlined
the pattern of a temple (RIME, vol. 3/1, Gudea, 1.1.7CylA col. iv:12-col. v:4).
This text reflects the belief that the earthly temple was a reflection of a heavenly
reality—the "house" of the deity, lowered from heaven. Because of this belief, Gudea's
inscription is full of references to the ensi's anxiety that he not misunderstand the deity,
that he not begin building presumptuously, that he construct the edifice with only the
finest of materials, and that he follow the plan of the heavenly prototype in every detail.
The solemnity afforded this divine decree, the eternal value of the original cosmic blue-
print, and the sanctity of the accompanying foundation deposit is evident in numerous
texts from various eras and regions. For example, in "The Curse of Agade" Naram-Sîn
(2254-2218 BCE) despairs because he cannot obtain the decree of Enlil to build Inanna's
temple.
The (omen for) building the temple was not present in the extispicy. Perform-
ing extispicy for a second time with regard to the temple. The (omen for)
building the temple was not present in the extispicy. In order to effect a
change, he tried to alter Enlil's pronouncement. . .' (J. S. Cooper, The Curse
of Agade [Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ Press, 1983], lines 95-99).
Over fifteen hundred years after Naram-Sîn, Esarhaddon (680-669 BCE), shows the
same concern for divine initiation when he determines to placate war-torn Babylon by
rebuilding Esagila.
At the beginning of my rule, in the first year of my reign, when I took my seat
upon the royal throne in might, there appeared (favorable) signs in the heavens
(and on) earth. His portent was interpreted (?). [I was fearful] (and) hesitant
about carrying out that commission. Before Samas, [Adad], (and) Marduk, the
great judges, the gods, my lords, I prostrated myself. Through the soothsayers'
rites, encouraging oracles were disclosed, for the rebuilding of Babylon (and)
the restoration of Esagila, they caused [the command] to be written thereon. In
(this) their positive command I put my trust (R. Borger, Die Inschriften
Asarhaddons, Königs von Assyrien [AfO 9; Graz, 1956], 10-29, no. 11.
83 In contrast to his theories regarding the foundation-siibtafK, Ellis sees no theological
148 The l'Sakkèn fmô Sâm Formula in Its ANE Context

5. Clay Nails

The clay "nail," "peg," "knob," "cone," or "mushroom" (Akk. sikkatu=

Sumerian kak) are among the earliest known vehicles for building inscriptions.
So common are these varied and enigmatic forms that Hallo categorizes them
as one of the four standard types within the building inscription genre.84 The
morphology of these monuments is quite diverse.85 Moreover, since the
existing studies have focused primarily on individual collections, categorical
delineations do not yet exist for the broader assemblage.86 Hence, these
divergent forms are intermittently referred to in the literature by overlapping
and sometimes indistinct terminology. Thus, the student will find that Hallo
prefers to speak of the Ur collection as "cones," Benno Landsberger and Κ.

significance to the foundation document:

As far as can be ascertained from the circumstances in which they have been
found and from the few texts that refer to them, their purpose was purely
commemorative; they had no magical function such as peg deposits evidently
had. The more complicated deposits show concern for two things: permanence
and sumptuousness (Ellis, Foundation Deposits, 106-7).
On the contrary, McBride states that the foundation document was critical to the
validity of a temple as an approved cult site in that its presence verified that the temple
had not been built as a response to human motivation, but had been initiated by specific
divine decree ("The Deuteronomic Name Theology," 94-95).
84 Hallo, "The Royal Inscriptions of Ur," 23.
85 F. R. Kraus, "Altmesopotamische Tonnaegel mit Keilinschriften," Türk Tarih Kurumu
Yayinlarindan VII. (Seri no. 5. Vol. 1. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, 1947),
71-113. Kraus was the first to attempt a systematic typology of the clay cone/nail/knob
inscriptions. In his survey of the corpus (particularly the finds at Lagas), Kraus reported
that the monuments under study might be "nail-shaped," having a conical shaft and flat
or "mostly vaulted" head; they might be "cone-shaped" with very thick shafts and flat
heads protruding only slightly above the shaft; or they might be "mushroom-shaped"
having thick shafts with "enormous head[s]" which were flattened under before firing.
Kraus distinguished the vnW-sikkätu inscriptions from the building inscriptions because
he felt their format was more reflective of economic texts than monumental ones. His
specific theory was that the nail inscriptions represented a contract between the royal
builder and his divine client. Consequently he termed these inscriptions Bauurkunden
(ibid., 71-113, esp. 87-89). Most scholars have differed with Kraus on this point. Hallo
in fact argues that the wall-sikkatu is in many ways the quintessential building inscrip-
tion in that it demonstrates the three features he feels are characteristic of any building
inscription: easily reproducible material (clay), able to be quickly located, and, like the
foundation deposit, having a "non-structural function and symbolic form" ("The Royal
Inscriptions of Ur," 1-43, esp. 3-5).
86 Ellis refers to the v/all-sikkätu in the south primarily as "nails," separating these from
the atypical "cones" so common to the Isin-Larsa/Old Babylonian period (Foundation
Deposits, figs. 31, 32, 33). Ellis describes the southern "cone" as a headless, clay nail
and suggests that these objects actually had divergent functions: clay cones were used in
the "foundations of walls, clay nails only in the upper parts" (116). Ellis further divides
the assemblage of viai\-sikkätu by separating out the Middle and Neo-Assyrian version
of the clay building deposit as "bulbous 'nails.'" This description emerges from the
hollow form and broad heads characteristic of wall-sikkätu from this era (ibid., 83-85).
 Classifying the Inscriptions 149

Balkan speak of their corpus from Kültepe as "nails," Walter Andrae

designates the Assur collection "knobs," while Veysel Donbaz and A. Kirk
Grayson characterize the same collection as "cones," and CAD defines the
entire heterogeneous assemblage as "wall cones."87 An additional difficulty for
the uninitiated is that very few publications include descriptions or illustrations
of these pieces. Therefore, although the texts have been translated and pub-
lished, the monuments from which they come are nearly inaccessible.
As a result of the confusion related above, let me clarify that I will identify
all of these items by their native designation, sikkatu, and further, I will identify
them according to their function. Hence, I will address two categories: the
"foundation-si&teu" and the "waM-sikkatu" The foundation-iMafu is the peg-
shaped figurines used as foundation deposits in the Neo-Sumerian and Isin-
Larsa periods. These usually-uninscribed figurines were always placed
vertically into either the soil beneath or the foundations of a house or temple;
they were usually made of metal, rarely of stone, and never of clay. I will
reserve my discussion of the foundation-iittafu for the "Foundation Deposits"
portion of our study. The "v/all-sikkatu" although demonstrating an array of
forms, was always made of clay, always placed horizontally, and almost
always inscribed.88 In the secondary literature, this group is referred to as
"nails," "knobs," and "cones."89 Waii-sikkätu have typically been excavated

87 CAD s, s.v. "sikkatu," meaning 3, (p. 250; cf. Hallo, "The Royal Inscriptions of Ur: A
Typology"; Landsberger and Balkan, "Die Inschrift des assyrischen Königs Irisum:
Gefunden in Kültepe 1948"; Veysel Donbaz and A. Kirk Grayson, Royal Inscriptions
on Clay Cones from Ashur: Now in Istanbul [RIMS 1; Toronto: University of Toronto
Press, 1984]). Although CAD and many others use the term "cone" to describe these
pieces, Kraus, Walter Andrae, and Suzanne Heim express objections to the term (Kraus,
"Altmesopotamische Tonnaegel mit Keilinschriften," 71-113; Walter Andrae, Coloured
Ceramics from Ashur [London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1925], 63-64;
Suzanne Heim, written communication, 30 December 1999). Kraus prefers more
specific designations according to the local and temporal varieties, and Heim states that
many of the monuments simply are not shaped like cones (they are often not at all
pointed nor are they all headless). Moreover, since the heads of these items were
intended to be visible after they were inserted into the wall, and this visibility was an an
essential aspect of their understood function, Heim prefers that they be identified as
either "nails" or "knobs" (Heim, written communication, 30 December 1999).
88 Ellis, Foundation Deposits, 83-85.
89 There are two general categories of form within this group: solid and hollow. What is
characterized as a "nail" is usually solid, nail-shaped with a shaft and fairly flat head;
they are long and narrow. The "knob" (many would call these "cones") are typically
hollow, with heads ranging from large and bulbous to no head at all. This hollow form
is often reinforced by means of "a wooden peg inserted into the hollow shaft of the
knob and then secured with a real nail (metal or wood probably) laterally to strengthen
it" (Heim, written communication, 30 December 1999). A third form, which Ellis would
classify as a "cone," is usually solid, cone-shaped, often quite small with no head at all
(Foundation Deposits, figures 31-33). The Harvard Semitic Museum collection has a
number of these forms, all from the OB period, ranging in size from 4.5-10 cm in length
(cf. 1918.1.67-71 [Sîn-kasid's votive cones regarding the rebuilding of Eanna];
150 The l'Sakkën fmô îâm Formula in Its ANE Context

from the debris o f fallen walls. But it is apparent from those found in situ that
they w e r e placed into the w a l l s at regular intervals as part o f the dedication o f
the structure. T h e m e t h o d o f placing the p i e c e s appears to h a v e b e e n to inset
them into the walls, either b y driving an internal w o o d e n p e g into the hardened
m u d brick or building the sikkätu into the soft mortar o f a n e w w a l l . 9 0 Either
m e t h o d o f placement could also have a decorative function in that the heads o f
the sikkätu w e r e frequently enameled or inscribed, and o f t e n the sikkätu served
to fasten an equally decorative plaque to the wall. 9 1 H o w e v e r , m a n y o f these
inscribed sikkätu w e r e placed such that the head w a s c o m p l e t e l y c o v e r e d b y the
final plastering o f the wall. H e n c e , the inscriptions and e v e n the location o f the
sikkätu w e r e o f t e n c o m p l e t e l y inaccessible to the casual observer.
T h e earliest u s e o f wall-sikkätu as v e h i c l e s for building inscriptions c o m e s
from Enannatum I o f the latter E D ΙΠ era. T h e use o f v/all-sikkätu w a s ex-
tremely c o m m o n during E D III, Ur ΙΠ, and Isin-Larsa/Old B a b y l o n i a n periods
in the south; and, as is typical o f the interaction b e t w e e n the civilizations, this
standard feature o f Sumerian and Babylonian building ritual w a s eventually
assimilated into Assyrian building practices as well. H e n c e , from E D ΙΠ in the
south through the Old, Middle, and N e o - A s s y r i a n periods in the north, wall-
sikkätu w e r e mass-produced in clay (typically o n the potter's wheel92),
93
inscribed, fired, and built or driven into w a l l s as part o f the dedication ritual

1934.6.2 [Lipit-Istar's cone regarding the building of E2-nig2-si-sa2]; 1967.1.5 [Sîn-

kasid's cone regarding the building of his palace in Uruk]). The smaller size of these
"cone" forms can be compared with the Ur ΙΠ "nails" which range from 10-13.5 cm,
Kraus's examples from the same era measuring 10-22.5 cm in length. These various
clay monuments are known to have been used in concert and a mixture of the forms
might be found at the same site in the same period. See for example Heim's finds at
Elam, Luristan and the Lake Urmia, regions in which nails and knobs were discovered
at the same second to first millennium sites (Heim, written communication, 30
December 1999).
90 The clay fabric alone would have been too fragile to have been driven into a wall (Ellis,
Foundation Deposits, 83).
91 An excellent example of this practice comes from the Assur collection. As detailed by
W. Andrae in his investigation of the Coloured Ceramics from Ashur and by Donbaz
and Grayson in their recent study of the clay "cones" from this same site, the Assyrian
sikkätu at Assur was a "hollow, oblong conical object, which tapered almost to a point
at one end and bore a large semi-spherical head at the other end" (Donbaz and Grayson,
Royal Inscriptions on Clay cones from Ashur, 1984], 1). Typically these sikkätu had a
hole bored through the center (in order to facilitate the internal wooden peg) and their
large rounded heads often widened to an almost disk shape in order to better display
either the inscription or the decoration that they bore. Andrae's publication provides a
number of beautifully presented color plates of the Assur sikkätu and the enameled
plaques they supported (Andrae, Coloured Ceramics from Ashur, 63-64).
92 Kraus, "Tonnaegel mit Keilinschriften," 74.
93 As Kraus informs us, in the earliest period these forms were inscribed only on the shaft,
perpendicular to the nail-shaft. As the form developed the inscriptions lengthened and
changed direction, running now parallel to the nail-axis. The collection of unpublished,
Ur III wall-sikkätu at the Harvard Semitic Museum illustrates this shift in tradition in
 Classifying the Inscriptions 151

of monumental structures. Only the Akkadian period has not yet produced
evidence of this building tradition.94 By the Middle Assyrian and OB periods it
was commonplace for the ruler's inscription to be repeated on the head of the
sikkatu as well as on its shaft. 95
The original tradition which underlies the utilization of wall- and
foundation-ííMáíw as inscription-bearers is debated. Kraus was the first to
theorize that the foundation-í¿'ttá?w (first evidenced in the ED Π era, c. 2600
BCE96) and the somewhat later clay wall-sikkatu were probably associated with
the use of pegs in business transactions.97 In secular business transactions, a
peg was driven into a wall (either a public wall designated for such puiposes,98
the wall of the newly purchased house, or the low mud wall surrounding a
transferred field99) in order to "signalize and formalize the sale of real estate in
pre-Sargonic times."100 We know of this practice partly by means of extant
inscribed clay "truncated cones" which had sheathed the wooden peg and on
which the sale document was recorded.101 The parallels between the secular

that the inscription upon cone fragment 1899.11.51 (a Gudea sikkatu with an attributed
provenience of Lagas) runs perpendicular to the sikkatu-axis, whereas, the remainder of
the Gudea sikkatu also from Lagas, show inscriptions parallel to the sikkatu-axis.
94 In his summary of the chronological distribution of wall- and foundation-iilfcziw, Ellis
states: "The most striking feature of their distribution is not this general contempora-
neity, but the fact that the Akkadian period represents a complete blank in the attesta-
tions of both types. Although this could conceivably be an accident in the case of
foundation deposits, it is hardly credible that no Akkadian clay nails would have been
found if any had existed" (Foundation Deposits, 85).
95 Kraus, "Tonnaegel mit Keilinschriften," 75; cf. Ellis, Foundation Deposits, 116.
96 Cf. Rashid, "Gründungsbeigaben," RLA 655-61; Ellis, Foundation Deposits, fig. 36.
97 Kraus suggested that since the foundation-íí'^faií« and v/a\l-sikkatu shared the same
native designation, Akk. sikkatu = Sumerian kak, they were conceptually related as well
("Tonnaegel mit Keilinschriften," 81-92). Although Ellis affirms Rraus's conclusion,
Ellis rejects his suggestion that the same name equals the same function. Rather, he
concludes that there is some connection between the two based on their shared role as
commemorative monuments and their shared chronological and functional provenience
(Foundation Deposits, 84-86).
98 Landsberger and Balkan have demonstrated the probability that the wooden pegs were
driven into some public wall intended especially for this purpose—as opposed to the
wall of the newly acquired home. (Landsberger and Balkan, "Die Inschrift des
assyrischen Königs Irisum: Gefunden in Kültepe 1948," 266-7; cf. Ellis, Foundation
Deposits, 87).
99 im-dù-a = pitiqtu (Piotr Steinkeller, Sale Documents of the Ur-III Period [Freiburger
Altorientalische Studien 17; Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1989], 240).
100 Hallo, "The Royal Inscriptions of Ur," 4.
101 In his investigation of 137 texts dealing with the sale of real property and chattels from
the period of the Third Dynasty of Ur ( 2 1 1 2 - 2 0 0 4 BCE), Piotr Steinkeller notes a
number of pre-Sargonic examples of this convention. Steinkeller states that "the
conveyances of real property" in the Ur III period "exactly as in earlier periods,
involved the act of affixing to the wall of a public (?) building a clay cone which bore a
record of the transaction in question" (Sale Documents of the Ur-III Period, 143). The
persistence of this custom into the Ur III period is demonstrated by text no. 62, a sale
152 The l'Sakkën fmô Säm Formula in Its ANE Context

practice and the building inscription tradition are obvious. As a result, Hallo
and Ellis concur that, although the connections "are obscure," "some"
relationship between the secular peg and the inscribed clay nail can be safely
assumed.102 Piotr Steinkeller goes further stating that "[w]ithout a doubt" the
two traditions are related and in many ways both served the same purpose as
"ownership markers."103 Hence, the theory is that whereas a wooden peg
sheathed in an inscribed clay cone would be driven into a wall to publicize the
legal transfer of property, multiple inscribed clay wall-sikkätu would be built
or driven into the walls of a newly constructed civic structure in order to
commemorate the builder (owner?) and his patron deity.
By nature of the interrelatedness of the Mesopotamian cultures, Kraus,
Ellis, and Steinkeller apply this same etiology to the eventual development of
the Assyrian wall-sikkatu. Andrae, on the other hand, believes that the original
practice behind the Assyrian tradition involved decorative architectural
customs. It is well-documented that in the Proto-Literate period, "mosaic
cones" with painted or enameled heads were customarily placed into walls or
columns in order to embellish the appearance of the structure.

This consisted of tens of thousands of small clay cones, about four inches long,
separately made, baked and dipped in colour, so that some had black, some red,
and others buff tops. These cones were inserted side by side in a thick mud
plaster in such a way that zigzags, lozenges, triangles, and other designs
appeared in black and red on a buff ground.104

The theory is that the clay wall-sikkatu of Assur is a later development of this
same tradition. Here multiple sikkätu—inscribed on the head and/or shaft and
often decorated and enameled as well—would be placed in the soft mortar of
the newly constructed palace, temple, fortification, or other civic building
project as part of the dedication ceremony.105 Ellis rejects this theory, arguing
that the use of pre-literate mosaic cones died out significantly before the
appearance of the inscribed wali-sikkatu in ED ΙΠ,106 and, therefore, there was
no overlap in usage and no potential derivation. Conversely, Donbaz and
Grayson agree with Andrae stating that the Assyrian wall-sikkatu "at least in
inspiration, had its origin" in the mosaic cone of Sumerian wall décor.107

text from Nippur inscribed on a clay cone "pierced along its axis" (ibid., 162).
Steinkeller states that this "cone" is "identical in shape with six pre-Sargonic sale
documents from Lagas dealing with the acquisition of houses and fields" (ibid., 238-89;
cf. Ellis, Foundation Deposits, 89; Hallo, " The Royal Inscriptions of Ur," 33).
102 Ellis, Foundation Deposits, 90.
103 Steinkeller, Sale Documents of the Ur III Period, 239-240 and interview with author, 31
December 1999.
104 Frankfort, The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient, 9.
105 Andrae, Coloured Ceramics from Ashur, 64-65, see fig. 1.
106 Ellis, Foundation Deposits, 86.
107 Donbaz and Grayson, RIMS, 1:2.
 Suma Sakänu and the Monumental Corpus 153

Hallo's statement is probably most helpful here:

Whatever their origin, clay cone inscriptions when we actually meet them are
thoroughly assimilated to the external characteristics of the other building
inscriptions. In our total typology of cuneiform inscriptions, clay cones clearly
share the basic motives of other monumental genres, i.e., preservation by one
means or another to the distant ages. 108

D. suma sakänu and the Monumental Corpus

Having surveyed the Mesopotamian monumental inscriptions and defined

categories of genre and function within the corpus, we now turn to an investi-
gation of the Akk idiom Suma Sakänu in its "particular occurrences." In this
corpus, the Suma Sakänu idiom is found almost exclusively in reference to
votive and triumphal inscriptions. As was noted in the introduction to this
chapter, this idiom is typically found in the final prohibition and curse sections
of these texts because it is in these closing sections that the royal author has
occasion to refer to his inscription and his monument. 109 The typical prohi-
bition of the votive and triumphal text begins with the statement that the author
has "placed" (Sakänu) his "name" (Sumu) and may the future prince who
"removes" (nasäku) or "erases" (paSätu) that "name" (Sumu) and places (Sakänu)
his own be accursed.

1. The Old Akkadian Inscriptions and Suma Sakanu

The Old Akkadian era of Mesopotamian history was an era of conquest. The
fame of its founder, Sargon I, "which survives in omens and epics as far afield
as Hattusas and El-Amarna, is that of a conqueror." 110 Sargon's reputation was
ably maintained by his successors, the first ancient monarchs to entitle them-
selves "king of the four regions of the world." An important collection of texts
which emerges from this era is the inscribed statuary of these OAkk monarchs
erected in the temple precinct of Enlil at Nippur. These inscriptions provide
literary evidence of the influx of the Semitic culture into Mesopotamia, which
culminated in the emergence of the region's first empire, the empire of Akkad.
The OAkk inscriptions from Nippur come to us only in the form of several OB
Sammeltafeln (clay tablets upon which copies of older inscriptions and literary
works were preserved). The statues themselves are long gone (probably
because of foreign capture), but prior to their disappearance, the inscriptions on

108 Hallo, "The Royal Inscriptions of Ur," 5.

109 See Levine, Two Neo-Assyrian Stelae from Iran, 14, 27-28.
110 J. N. Postgate, Early Mesopotamia: Society and Economy at the Dawn of History (New
York: Routledge, 1992), 40.
154 The l'Sakkën fmô Säm Formula in Its ANE Context

these monuments were copied and collated, complete with descriptions, albeit
brief, of the statues that bore them.111 According to the Sammeltafeln, these
now-missing monuments were dedicated to Enlil and set up within his temple
precinct. Since these statues were dedicated to a patron deity and displayed at a
temple, it would seem appropriate to classify them as votive monuments. The
content of their inscriptions, however, is clearly triumphal, declaring the
victories of the northern kings over their southern, Sumerian neighbors.
Moreover, although these monuments were installed at a temple, the temple at
which they were installed was Nippur, the geographic and psychological center
of the Sumerian city-states. Hence, the function of these monuments was
plainly to announce the victories of the conquering northern kings to their sub-
jugated southern foes. In light of these realities, as did Sollberger and Küpper,
we will classify these as victory monuments. The reader will recall that these
texts comprise the greater part of Sollberger and Kupper's "triumphal texts"
and that these same texts were set apart by Küpper as those containing the first
true curse sections.
The first of these statues is that of the OAkk ruler, Rimus (2278-2270
BCE).112 The monument commemorates Rimus's brilliant victories against the
city-states of Sumer and his "clean-up" of Akkadian Kazallu at the end of the
larger campaign; its intended audience was the newly subdued, southern rival.
Rimus set up this "image of himself' in the sacrosanct courtyard of Nippur.
Each section of the inscription concludes with a brief prohibition, and a larger
curse section concludes the whole. In the larger curse we find :

ma-na-ma MU rí-mu-ús LUGAL KJS u-sa-sà-ku-ma al DÙL rl-mu-ús MU-ÍH

i-ia-kà-nu-ma DÙL-MI-ME i-qà-bì-ù

Whoever should remove the name of Rimus, king of the world, and put his

111 The fact that these texts and descriptions were considered important enough for preser-
vation in the OB period speaks to the role of such images in the national psyche of the
ANE. Regarding the nature of such sculpture, Betty Schlossman states:
ANE portraits were created, not in the modern sense, as replicas of human
anatomy, but often as a series of abstracted forms which, when joined together
according to certain principles, approximated natural appearances, and more
importantly, endowed these figures with a concrete three-dimensional reality .
. . Typically they rendered the king in his various roles as victor in battle,
lawgiver, instigator of public works and religious building projects and
performer of religious rites" (Betty L. Schlossman, "Portraiture in
Mesopotamia in the Late Third and Early Second Millennium B.C.: Part 1:
The Late Third Millennium," AfO 26 [1978/79]: 56).
112 See Giorgio Buccellati's excellent article on this statue, "Through A Tablet Darkly: A
Reconstruction of OAkk Monuments Described in Old Babylonian Copies," in The
Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Wm. W. Hallo (ed. Mark
Cohen, Daniel Snell & David Weisberg; Bethesda: CDL Press, 1993), 58-71.
 Suma Sakänu and the Monumental Corpus 155

113
name on the statue of Rimus, and say, "My statue,"

Here, Rimu§ uses Suma Sakänu to speak of a usurper inscribing his new name in
the place of that of the king. Hence, in this context, to "place" (Sakänu) is "to
inscribe." The significance of "placing" one's name is also made clear in this
inscription: anyone who "puts his name on the statue, saying, 'my statue.'"
Clearly, to "place one's name" on a monument means to claim that monument
(and the great deeds recorded on it) as one's own.
The OB Sammeltafeln from Nippur also record Naram-Sîn's celebration of
his successful campaign against Magan. In this particular inscription, the king
claims to have donated a kurkurru vessel and to have dedicated it to Enlil. In the
concluding prohibition, the king states:

As for the one who removes the name (MU) of Narâm-Sîn . . . puts his
(own) name (MU-î'u i-Sa-kà-nu-ma ) on the kurkurru vessel for oil of
Narâm-Sîn, or shows it to an outsider or stranger and says: 'Erase his
name and put my name' (MU-su-me pi-Si-it-ma MU-mi-me su-kù-un
i-qá-bl-ü), may the great gods in their totality curse him with a
terrible curse . . . !114

Like the inscription of Rimus, Naram-Sîn threatens any future interloper who
would erase his inscription and "place" his own "name" on the dedicated
vessel.
Two partially preserved OB Sammeltafeln from Ur record that Naram-
Sîn also dedicated a statue of himself to his patron deity Sin. Although we do
not know the original location of the statue, Frayne believes that "[t]he
occasion for the dedication may have been the defeat of an enemy leader."115 If
so, the statue should also be classified as a victory monument.

May no [o]ne remove my [name]; [may] my [sta]tue [stand before the god Sin]
. . . As for the one who removes the name of Narâm-Sîn (ma-na-ma MU-mi
na-ra-am-dEN.zu) and puts his own name (mu-sm i-sa-kà-nu-ma) on the statue
of Narâm-Sîn, the mighty,and says: 'My statue,' or shows (it) to a foreigner and
says: 'Erase his name (mu-su-me pis-Six[SU4]-it-ma) and put my name (MU-mi
su-kug-un) (on it),' may the god Sin . . . curse him with a terrible curse . . . ,116

Here again, to "place" one's name is to inscribe it on a monument, and the one
who "removes" the written "name" and replaces it with his own claims the
monument as his own. Hallo had theorized that the earliest inscriptions, and
consequently the essential literary typology of the royal monumental corpus,

113 RIME, vol. 2, Rimus, E.2.1.2.6:104-115 (p. 54); cf. Buccellati's compilation and
translation of this inscription in "Through A Tablet Darkly," 68-70.
114 RIME, vol. 2, Naram-Sîn, E2.1.4.3, rev. v:16-rev. vi:21 (p. 98).
115 Ibid., 100.
116 RIME, vol. 2, Naram-Sîn, E2.1.4.5, col. i': 4 ' - iii':8 (p. 101-102).
156 The l'Sakkèn fmô Sâm Formula in Its ANE Context

consisted of a simple claim of property expressed by the act of inscribing the

owner's name. The idiomatic use of Suma Sakänu on these OAkk statues cor-
roborates that theory.
A third inscription of Naram-Sîn known from the OB tablets at Ur com-
memorates the king's Subarian campaigns. Here the king speaks of having set
up another image of himself and having dedicated it to the god Sîn.

At that time I fashioned an image of myself and I (*text: he) dedicated (it) to the
god Sin. May no one remove my name (Mu-mi a[*] u-ía-sí-ik), may my statue
stand (DÙL-mi li-zi-iz[*]) before the god Sîn.117

The prohibition on this monument articulates the same concerns as the victory
monuments previously considered: that neither the name inscribed on the mon-
ument nor the monument itself be violated.
The Nippur Sammeltafeln record another Rimus inscription. This text is also
taken from a royal statue set up before Enlil. Several elements of this inscrip-
tion are important to our study, so the inscription is presented in its entirety.

[Rimuä, king of the world:] [From ancient times n]o one had fashioned a statue
of meteoric iron for the god Enlil. (But) Rimus, king of the world, fashioned a
statue of himself (dùl-îm) of meteoric iron (for) Enlil and it stands (i-za-az)
before the god Enlil. He set up his name at the side of the gods (DA is-lli MU-m
u-sa-mi-id). As for the one who removes this inscription (ία DUB118 su4-a u-sa-
sà-ku-ni), may the gods Enlil and Samas tear out his foundations and destroy his
progeny.119

Note that the king speaks of having "set up his name" (SumSu uiâmid [< s-
stem of emëdu]) at the side of the gods. As it is clear that this inscription
recounts Rimus's installation of his inscribed statue in the temple precinct, we
must conclude that what Rimus is "setting up" is his statue. Since in these in-
scriptions to "place a name" (Suma Sakänu) is to inscribe it on a monument, we
must also conclude that in this context Rimus's "name" indicates the inscrip-
tion on his statue. Hence, the best interpretation of this text is that "name" is
being used as a metonym for the king's inscribed monument, which he has
installed in the house of the deity.
An Ur ΙΠ tablet copy from Nippur records the closing warning from the
monumental inscription of §ar-kali-sarri (2217-2193 BCE). It is probable that
this text also commemorates the installation of a statue in the sacred precinct.
Although much of this text is restored, it is still evident that the literary

117 Ibid., E2.1.4.26:iii 32-iv 3 (p. 134).

118 Throughout these OAkk texts, the rulers refer to their inscriptions as dub, i.e., "tablet,"
even though the inscriptions are recorded on statues, stelae, and other votive objects.
This suggests that many of the words pertaining to inscriptions—iumu, Sumu Satru,
musarû, Sitru, tuppu, salmu, nam, etc.—had become interchangeable very early on.
119 RIME, vol. 2, Rimus, E2.1.2.18 (p. 68-69).
 Suma Sakänu and the Monumental Corpus 157

structure of the previous inscriptions has been maintained.

ma-na-ma si-ti-i[r-ti] Éd[en-lll] u-sa-[sà-ku-ma]) r MU 1 -[í«] [i-sd-kà-nu-ma]

[a-na LÚ na-ak-rl-im MU Sar-kà-l(]-LUG[AL-ri] Su-si-i[k] Su-mi su-tur
i-qd-ab-[bi]-rul...

As for the one who remo[ves my] inscription] (from) the temple of [Enlil]
and [p]u[ts] [his] name instead, who says [to a foreigner]: 'Remove [the name of
áar-kali]-Sarrl and write my n a m e ' . . . , 120

Although the literary structure of the previous inscriptions is still quite evident,
note that "the one who removes my name (MU)" from the preceding texts has
been replaced by "the one who removes my inscription" (Sitirtu < Satäru, 'to
write' 121 ). Yet, the following phrase, "and puts his own name there (SumSu
iSakkanu)" remains. In addition, note that the following contingency, "says to a
foreigner: 'Remove the name and place (Sakänu) my name,"' has been replaced
by "[r]emove the name and write (Satäru) my name." Sar-kali-sarri's
inscription suggests that to "place" a name and to "write" a name within this
genre are synonymous. Moreover, the evidence indicates that this synonymous
parallelism in Sar-kali-sarri's inscription is actually part of an evolution, or
possibly a blending, of literary typologies, in which the "placing" of a name
(familiar from votive and victory monuments in the OAkk period) is being
superseded by the "writing" of a name. Further evidence of this evolution can
be found in the inscriptions of La-'arab and Utu-ljegal, rulers who were
influenced by the Akkadian traditions but who reigned following the collapse
of the Sargonic Empire. Note the votive inscription of La-'arab, king of the
Gutium, inscribed on an alabaster mace head:

Lâ-'arâb, the mig[hty, ki]ng of [G]utium . . . fash[ioned] and dedicated (this

mace). As for the one who removes this inscription (Sa DUB122 Su4-a u-Sa-sà-ku
-ni ù) and writes his own name (sum 6 -su i-sa-ta-ru), may the god of Gutium,
Astar, and Sin tear out his foundations and destroy his progeny. 123

Again, the conceptual framework and much of the vocabulary are the same,
but Satäru (to write) has replaced Sakänu (to place). Note as well the inscription
of Utu-hegal of Uruk, which comes from a bronze bowl and is apparently
votive in character.

As for the one who erases the written name, (lu mu-sar-ra-na Su-ni bi-in- r ùr 1 -a)
writes his name there (mu-ni bí- r íb 1 -sar-a) (or) who on account of the curse
has someone else take hold of it (and) remove it, may his reign be cut, may his

120 RIME, vol. 2, Sar-kali-äarri, E.2.1.5.6, ii:6-iii:5 (p. 194-95).

121 CAD S3, s.v. Sitirtu, "inscription, text" (p. 144).
122 See n. 123.
123 RIME, vol. 2, La-'arab, E2.2.14.1 (p. 229).
158 The FSakkën fmô Säm Formula in Its ANE Context

ι 124
progeny come to an end.

In this southern votive inscription, the standard phrase, "he who erases the
name (mu)" has become "he who erases the written name [mu-sar-ra-na]" and
"who puts (gar) his name" has become "who writes (sar) his name" (emphasis
mine). As the next section demonstrates, this particular formula speaking of
writing the name supersedes the Suma Sakänu (placing the name) formula in the
building inscription genre, and will endure into the following eras of Mesopo-
tamian history.

2. G u d e a a n d Suma Sakänu

Gudea, ensi of Lagas, is one of the most outstanding personalities of Meso-

potamian history. "Gudea was eager to do justice to as many members as
possible in the local pantheon"; as a result, he was responsible for an unprece-
dented number of votive texts, twenty-seven of which are sculptures of the
ruler.125 Gudea's inscriptions are significant to us in that they illustrate the
formulaic use of the Sumerian equivalent of Suma Sakänu in the south on monu-
ments which are clearly votive in character. Gudea's Statue Β preserves the
most complete of his votive inscriptions. Throughout this text, the ensi of
Lagas announces intermittent maledictions on any who would violate his
various offerings. The ensi concludes by summarizing all of his gifts and all of
the potential disasters that would befall the future blasphemer who would dare
replace Gudea's name with his own. One of the periodic curses reads:

èn-du KA-keS-rá-gUio mu-gu10ù-ta-gar mu-ni ba-gá-gá

he who removes my name from the collection of songs (belonging to) me and
then puts there his (own) name . . . ,126

In a format reminiscent of that of Rimus and Naram-Sîn, Gudea speaks of one

who would efface his "name" (mu) by "putting" (gar) his "name" (mu) in
place of Gudea's. In his concluding curse, the ensi states:

If in fact (his) mind is fixed on erasing this name (mu-bi Su urui2-dè) let his
name (mu-ni), from the house of his god, be removed from the tablet (dub-ta).127

In this votive inscription we again see that to "place a name," mu gar(=

Suma Sakänu), has to do with inscribing one's name on some sort of dedicated

124 RIME, vol. 2, Utu-hegal, E2.13.6.6 (p. 295).

125 Dietz Otto Edzard, RIME, vol. 3/1, Gudea, p. 28.
126 RIME, vol. 3/1, Gudea, 1.1.7StB, viii:21-23; cf. Kraus, "Altmesopotamisches Lebens-
gefühl," 128.
127 Op. cit., ix:12-16.
 ¡Suma iakänu and the Monumental Corpus 159

object, and we note that the substitution of a name in this context is tantamount
to a transfer of ownership. Moreover, the curse which Gudea pronounces is a
curse appropriate to the crime committed, one in which the usurper's name will
be "removed from the tablet."
Particularly significant is the manner in which Gudea's legacy of installing
votive monuments is commemorated in the Ninurta Myth, Lugal-E.128 Here the
poet addresses a diorite stone that will be harvested for a royal, votive
sculpture. Edzard and Jacobsen agree that the poet's allusion to an unnamed
king in lines 475-480 "clearly refers to the famous statues of Gudea, set up in
Eninnu."129 As Van Dijk has edited the extant versions of this myth into a
single text, it is possible to consider the critical lines in both their Sumerian and
Akkadian versions.

lugal u4-sù-rà mu-ni i-gá-gá-a

lugal ti-la-u4-sù-da mu-ni íb-gá-[gá- ]
Sar-ru ία ana ba-lat u4-me ru-qu-ti MU-ÍK i-$ak-k[a-nu]

The king who places his name,

for life130 of distant days,
after he has fashioned out of you (i.e., the stone)
his statue (alan-biJsa-lam-Su) for future days,
and has stood you in Eninnu,
temple laden with delight,
at its libation place,
may you be suited for it!131

In this text, Gudea is spoken of as the king who "places his name," that is, who
has set up inscribed monuments bearing his name "for distant days." This use
of mu-gar (= Suma Sakänu) echoes the same metonymical application of the
idiom as Rimus's claim to have "placed his name beside the gods" by
installing his statue of meteoric iron before the god Enlil.

128 The title of this myth comes from its opening words. It tells the story of the warrior-god
Ninurta in his younger years and his battles with Azag, his rival in the mountains. The
epic provides an etiology for various natural occurrences including the flooding of the
Tigris, the formation of the foothills, and the role of various types of stone in the daily
lives of the Mesopotamians. See the introduction to Thorkild Jacobsen's translation in
The Harps that Once . .. Sumerian Poetry in Translation (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1987), 233-35, and J. van Dijk, Lugal ud me-LAM-bi NIR-GAL (2 vols.; Leiden:
Brill, 1983), 1:1-47.
129 Jacobsen, The Harps that Once . . . Sumerian Poetry in Translation, 259 n. 44; cf.
RIME, vol. 3/1, Gudea, p. 26.
130 Jacobsen translates this line: "The king who is establishing for his name, life of distant
days," I think that the use of ana balät ümí ruqqüti is a compounded version of two
standard votive dedication formulae, "for distant days" and "for his life" and might be
better translated, "for his life, for distant days."
131 Jacobsen, The Harps that Once . . . Sumerian Poetry in Translation, 259, and van Dijk,
Lugal ud me-LAM-bi NIR-GAL, 1:112, lines 475-80.
160 The fSakkên fmô iäm Formula in Its ANE Context

3. The Victory Stelae of the Amanus Mountains

(or "Journey to the Cedar Forest") and Suma Sakänu

The OAkk and Gudea inscriptions have demonstrated that in the context of
votive and victory monuments, to "place" one's name is synonymous with
"inscribing" one's name, and that inscribing one's name is tantamount to a
claim of ownership. They have also introduced a use of Suma Sakänu in which
the idiom is employed in an metonymical sense to communicate that an
inscribed monument has been installed (i.e., Rimus's statue set up in the Ekur
precinct, "[h]e set his name at the side of the gods," and Lugal-E's reference to
Gudea's statue, "the king who places his name.") There is another assemblage
that uses Suma Sakänu in the same manner: the triumphal texts of the early
northern kings. 132
In "Campaigns to the Mediterranean by Iahdunlim and Other Early
Mesopotamian Rulers," Abraham Malamat identified a circumscribable,
recurring theme in the military narratives of several of the early Mesopotamian
rulers. This theme is the rulers' driving ambition to plunder the renowned
"Cedar Mountains" of the Amanus range and to reach the western sea. 133 From
Sargon I to Salmaneser ΠΙ, the northern kings of Mesopotamia repeatedly
campaigned to the west, memorializing those campaigns by means of the
erection of commemorative monuments. Furthermore, these rulers reported
their military ventures via a highly consistent narrative format. Upon reaching
the Lebanese coast and subduing their opponents (with their awe-inspiring
majesty), these kings report that they: (1) "washed their weapons" in the sea,134
(2) cut down the valuable indigenous trees as plunder, and (3) erected inscribed
stelae near the sea. Archaeological and epigraphic evidence demonstrates that
this drive to "reach the sea" (and to commemorate the event with inscribed
stelae and statuary) was accomplished by Sargon I, Iahdun-Lim, Samsi-Adad I,
Assur-nasirpal II, possibly Tiglath-pileser I, and Salmaneser ΙΠ. Moreover, the
epigraphic testimonies of these military tours demonstrate that our idiom,
Suma Sakänu, is repeatedly associated with the kingly act of setting up inscribed
victory monuments. Much in the same manner as the Lugal-E reference to
Gudea, "the king who places his name," and Rimus's claim to have "set up his

132 A. Malamat, "Campaigns to the Mediterranean by Iahdunlim and Other Rulers," Studies
in Honor of Benno Landsberger on his Seventy-fifth Birthday (AS 16; Chicago: Chicago
University Press, 1965), 365-73.
133 Malamat holds that the OAkk references to "the sea" are in reality references to the
deity Sea which explains the narrative form's focus upon ritual cleansing and sacrifice
(see Mari and the Early Israelite Experience: The Schweich Lectures 1984 [Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1989], 107-112).
134 This tradition is discussed in J. van Dijk, "Un rituel de purification des armes et de
l'armée: Essai de traduction de YBC 4184," in Symbolae Biblicae et Mesopotamicae
Francisco Mario Theodoro de Liagre Böhl dedicate (ed. M. A. Beek et al.; Leiden: E. J.
Brill, 1973), 107-117.
 Suma Sakänu and the Monumental Corpus 161

name at the side of the gods," these kings (excluding Sargon) referred to
erecting their monuments by the idiom Suma Sakänu.
Sargon I (mid 24th century BCE) was the first to record an expedition to
the Syro-Phoenician coast:

He crossed the sea of the East [West] and in the 11th [3rd] year his hand
conquered the Land of the West to its full extent, he made its mouth to be one
(i.e., he made it obedient to him); he erected his stelae (DÚL.MES-ÍW . . . uS-zi-iz)
in the West, their booty he brought over . . . ,135

As is frequently the case, Sargon's inscription uses the s-stem of the verb izuzzu
for the erection of a stela.13 There is no use of Suma Sakänu in this passage.
However, Ialjdun-Lim of Mari (c. 1830 BCE), subscribing to the same narrative
format to report his trip "to the sea" (a feat he apparently considers one of the
crowning achievements of his career), does use our idiom. In his
Samas Temple brick inscriptions he commemorates having "made that land
[northern Canaan] on the shore of the sea submit."137

But Iahdun-Lim, the son of Iaggid-Lim, the mighty king, a wild ox among
kings, marched to the shore of the sea in irresistible strength. To the 'Great
Sea' 138 he offered a multitude of royal sacrifices and his army washed in the
waters of the 'Great Sea.' To the Cedar and Boxwood Mountain, the great
mountains, he penetrated . . . He set up a monument, 139 placed his name
(iu-mi-Su H-ta-ka-an), and made known his might (κ li-ü-sú ù-we-di)M0

At the point in his inscription at which the narrative format demands that

135 Malamat, "Campaigns to the Mediterranean by Iahdunlim and Other Rulers," 366.
Malamat's translation comes from a compilation of Sargon's chronicles and, in
brackets, his omen texts (cf. L. W. King, Chronicles Concerning Early Babylonian
Kings (2 vols.; London: Luzac & Co., 1907), 2:4, 31-32.
136 AHw, s.v., "izuzzu(m), uzuzzu{m)" § II: Dinge: 1) Stele, Buld aufstellen (p. 410).
137 Malamat, "Campaigns to the Mediterranean," 367.
138 Seenn. 133-134.
139 Although Malamat agrees with P. Artzi that the difficult phrase fia-mu-sa-am
itl-mu-us-ma in line 57 means either that the king cleared the area of trees in order to
erect a victory stela which could be seen from afar, or that he smoothed a rock face in
order to carve a relief and inscription ("Campaigns to the Mediterranean," 369, n. 22),
Jean-Marie Durand argues that humûsum is a "monument commémoratif ' and the line
is best translated "Il (en) édifia un humûsum (ha-mu-sà-am ih-mu-us-ma)" ("Réalitiés
Amorrites et traditions bibliques," RA 92 [1998]: 27-29).
140 RIME, vol. 4, Iahdun-Lim E4.6.8.2:51-59 (p. 606) and Syria 32(1956): 14, ii:20. Later
campaigns have presented us with both stelae and reliefs (Malamat, "Campaigns to the
Mediterranean," 369-371; cf. fig. 11). Note especially the Neo-Assyrian reliefs and
inscriptions carved in the shape of stelae on the cliff near the mouth of the Nahr al-Kalb
south of Byblos, as well as Nebuchadnezzar II's carvings at the Wadi Brissa (cf.
Stephen Langdon, Les inscriptions du Wadi Brissa et du Nahr El-Kelb [in Recueil de
travaux relatifs à la philologie et à l'Archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes 28; Paris:
Librairie Emile Bouillon, 1905]).
162 The tSakkën fmô Mm Formula in Its ANE Context

Ialjdun-Lim convey that he had set up an inscribed statue or stela, he reports

that he erected a monument and "placed his name."
Ialjdun-Lim's contemporary, Samsi-Adad I (1813-1781 BCE), also claims to
have led an expedition to coastal Canaan.

At that time I received the tribute of the kings of Turkis and of the king of the
Upper Land, within my city, Assur. I placed my great name and my stela in the
land of Lebanon on the shore of the Great Sea (Su-mi ra-be-e-em ùna-re-ia i-na
ma-a-at la-ab-a-an.κι i-na a-af¡ a.ab.ba ra-bi-i-tim lu-u aS-ku-n).141

These inscriptions juxtapose our idiom with the raising of a victory stela. The
inscription of Ialjdun-Lim equates the placing of a name and the raising of a
stela by using a single verb, üakänu, to act on both objects. Taking into account
Malamat's narrative structure, which places Sargon's claim to have "erected" a
stela, Iahdun-Lim's claim to have raised a commemorative monument and
"placed his name," and Samsi-Adad's claim to have "placed" both a stela and
his name all at the same juncture in a stylized narrative, we must conclude that
in this context, to place one's name and to erect one's stela are so closely asso-
ciated that they are nearly synonymous. When we consider Iahdun-Lim's
further claim in the same inscription that he is "the erector of stelae proclaim-
ing (his) name" (mu-re-ti na-re-e na-bi Su-mi), this conclusion is affirmed. 142
Like his ancestors, Assur-nasirpal Π also claims to have reached the sea,
washed his weapons, performed sacrifice, cut down cypress and juniper, and
"fashioned a memorial stela of my valor and there set it up." 143 In testimony of
this claim, a stela of Assur-nasirpal Π has been recovered from the Amanus
range (see fig. 11). Salmaneser III (858-824 BCE) claims to have set up
numerous "royal images of [himself]" (salam MAN-ri-ζα) throughout the
northern Levant. Not only does Salmaneser adhere to the same narrative
structure as his forebears, he also resurrects a somewhat altered form of the
Suma Sakânu idiom (the king uses mukin, the D participle of Akk kânu, that is,
"to cause to be placed" as opposed to the formulaic Sakânu "to place"; see fig.
10 nn. a, e 144 ). In both his Kurkh Monolith inscription and that of his throne-
base, Salmaneser ΠΙ repeatedly reports having campaigned to the Amanus
mountain range, reached the sea, washed his weapons, offered sacrifice, taken
trees, and erected stelae. The throne base is the later of the two inscriptions and
is more succinct in its presentation.

141 This short text is appended to the Enlil Temple building inscription found on stone
tablets from the Assur Temple. The translation comes from Malamat, "Campaigns to
the Mediterranean," 371; c.f. RIMA, vol. 1, Sam$i-Adad I, A.0.39.1:73-87 (p. 50).
142 RIME, vol. 4, Iahdun-Lim E4.6.8.2:22-23 (p. 605).
143 RIMA, vol. 2/1, ASSur-nasirpal A.O.lOl.hiii 84b-92a (p. 218-19).
144 Cf. CAD k, s.v. "kânu A," meaning 1 (p. 159); Chapter 1, n. 2.
 Suma SakSnu and the Monumental Corpus 163

I marched to the sea of the land of Na'iri; I purified my weapons in the sea, I
made sheep-offerings to my gods, I set up my royal image (which) causes my
name to be placed by the sea (sa-¡am MAN-ti-ia mu-ktn MU-ia ina UGU tam-ti
ú-Se-ziz) I conquered cities . . . I received tribute, (lines 10b-18a)145

I marched to the sea of the land of Amurra; I purified my weapons in the sea;
I set up by the sea a statue of myself as king (sa-Iam MAN-ti-ia ina UGU tam-ti
ú-Se-ziz)·, I received the tribute of all the kings of the seacoast. (lines 18b-24)146

Here the scribe is interchanging "I set up . . . a statue of myself as king" {salam
Sarrutlya... uSezziz[<izuzzu])" with "I set up . . . a statue of myself as king
(which) causes my name to be placed (,salam Sarrutlya mukln Sumlya uSezziz)."
In this parallel structure we may assume that the adjectival clause, mukln
Sumlya, modifying salam sarrutlya, is expressing the function of the monument.
In other words, the function of the sculpture is to be an inscription-bearer. The
purpose of setting up the inscribed monument is particularly apparent in the
more elaborate, parallel accountfromthe Kurkh Monolith inscription. Here the
king is claiming ownership, that is, hegemony over the region.
I overwhelmed [the cities on the shore of the] upper [sea] of the land
Amurra, also called the western sea, like rain hills (created) by the
deluge. I received tribute from the kings of the seashore, I marched
about by right of victory in the extensive area of the seashore. I made
a royal image of myself (sa-Iam EN -ti-ia) which causes my name to be
placed for eternity (mu-kínMU-ia a-na da-ra-a-ti). I erected (it) by the
sea (ina UGU tam-di riß-[Seziz\)}A1

For these northern kings, it is apparent that the language of setting up victory
stelae is also the language of "placing the name." The triumphal text of Salma-
neser III, inscribed on a rock face at the source of the Tigris to celebrate this
same victory over the "the land of Nairi to the sea of the west,"148 further
clarifies the practice reflected in "placing the name."
For a third time I marched to the land of Nairi, wrote (my) name
(MU al-tu-ui) at the source of the Tigris.149

145 RIMA, vol. 3/2, Salmaneser III, A.0.102.28:10b-18a (p. 103); cf. P. Hulin, "The
Inscriptions on the Carved Throne-Base of Salmaneser III," Iraq 25 (1963): 51-52; cf.
ANET, 278. Salmaneser's throne base consists of two blocks of yellowish-brown
limestone, 382 χ 228 cm in total size, it was discovered at Nimrad.
146 Op. cit., lines 18b-28.
147 RIMA, vol., 3/2, Salmaneser III, A.0.1.102.2:iii 6-24 (p. 17).
148 This inscription dates to 852 BCE and was found next to a relief and inscription of
Tiglath-pileser I at the point in the cliff at which the river (Sebeneh-Su) emerges from a
tunnel (see fig. 11; ARI 2:38 no. 16; RIMA, vol. 3/2, Salmaneser III, p. 92). For photos
and a discussion see Börker-Klähn, Altvorderasiatische Bildstelen und vergleichbare
Felsreliefs, 1:177, 204-205; 2:130, 180-185.
149 RIMA, vol. 3/2, Salmaneser III, A.0.1.102.21:16-17 and 22:8-9, 12-13.
 Figure 11
Stelae and Rock Reliefs

(This map is adapted from a map found in Michael Roaf s, Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia
and the Ancient Near East [Oxford: Equinox, 1990], 164)
 Suma Sakânu and the Monumental Corpus 165

Here, writing of the very same campaign about which the king has repeatedly
claimed to have set up salam Sarruttya mukln Sumiya, Salmaneser claims, to have
Sumaaltur. "I wrote (my) name." In sum, as was apparent in the OAkk and
Gudea texts, "placing" a name and "writing" a name are being used synony-
mously. Moreover, the intent of such "placing" can be paralleled as well. As
Rimus and Naram-Sîn "placed their names" in order to claim a monument as
their own, so the great northern kings "placed their names" in order to claim
both the monument and the land they had conquered as their own. In the case
of Salmaneser III, this conquered territory clearly includes northern Palestine
(the Lebanon) and the Phoenician Coast.
Returning to Malamat's study, we find additional insight regarding the use
and intent of Suma Sakânu. In his conclusions, Malamat, like others before
him,150 suggested an intriguing parallel between the military narratives of the
northern kings in the "Cedar Mountains" and the paradigmatic Mesopotamian
tale of heroic valor—the legend of Gilgame§ and Enkidu. In this epic tale, the
comrades brave all odds to infiltrate the far-off "Cedar Mountain" in order to
cut down the sacred cedar guarded by the giant IJuwawa. Malamat points out
that in the Bauer fragment of the OB recension, the narrative states that after
Huwawa was slain, "Sirion and Lebanon trembled . . . and the mountains
became calm."151 Malamat concludes that the location of the forest of tjuwawa
must be none other than the cedar forests of Lebanon. He further concludes
that the narrative structure of the heroic epic was probably influenced by the
format already established by the northern kings. In other words, the goal of
the heroes' venture, the taking of trees from the Cedar Forest, was already well
known as the quest of true heroes.152 Thus, the format of the legend reflects the
monumental texts of the northern kings who: (1) "washed their weapons" in
the sea, (2) cut down the valuable indigenous trees as plunder, and (3) erected

150 See L. MatouS, "Les rapports entre la version sumérienne et la version akkadienne de
l'épopée de Gilgameä," in GilgameS et sa légende (ed. P. Garelli; Paris: C. Klincksieck,
1958), 92; cf. MantouS, BiOr 21 (1964), 5-9.
151 Malamat, "Campaigns to the Mediterranean," 373; cf. T. Bauer, "Ein viertes altba-
bylonisches Fragment des GilgameS-Epos," JNES 16 (1957): 254-62, lines rev. 13-15.
152 Malamat, "Campaigns to the Mediterranean," 373; cf. Morris Jastrow and Albert T.
Clay, An Old Babylonian Version of the Gilgamesh Epic (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1920), 92, line 187. Note that as early as the pre-Sargonic king Meskigala, there
are references to heroic kings securing wood for sacred building projects from the
"Cedar Mountains" (Cooper, PreSargonic Inscriptions, 17 no. 6). Even Gudea speaks
of how Ningirsu "opened for him the roads leading from the Upper to the Lower Sea.
From the Amanus, the mountain range of the cedar . . . cleared the way for Gudea to the
impenetrable mountain," so that he might "cut trees" to build Nirgirsu's house {RIME,
vol. 3/1, Gudea, 1.7StB:21-27 [p. 33]; CylA, xv:19-26 [p. 78]).
166 The l'îakkèn fmô Sàm Formula in Its ANE Context

inscribed stelae near the sea. Most interesting here is that Gilgames, the arche-
typal Early Dynastic king, states that as a result of his adventures he will "set
up (Suzuzzum) his name." In the Yale tablet of the OB recension of the legend,
this phrase is used once and paralleled in two other passages by Suma Sakänu.
Although the use of this phrase in the epic has traditionally been interpreted as
a metaphor—that the hero's quest for fame is articulated in the idiom—let us
reconsider the passage within the context of the entire tale and the narrative
I
tradition that influenced it.
The first reference comes from Gilgames's monologue at the commence-
ment of the adventure:
If I fall, let me set up my name (Sum-ma am-ta-qú-ut Su-mi lu-uS-zi-iz). 'Gilga-
mes joined in battle with ferocious Huwawa! ' 154

As Kraus observed, although the poet might be executing a word play by juxta-
posing maqätum ("to fall") and Suzuzzum (< izuzzu = "to stand"), it is more likely
that the verb has been selected because it is the verb typically employed for the
raising of victory stelae.155 Hence, Gilgames may be announcing: "Even if the
giant kills me, the battle will be memorialized." As the hero's monologue
continues, he contends with the admonitions of his comrade Enkidu:

[Why] do you speak like a weakling? [With your] spineless [words] you make
me despondent. Let me start out, I will chop down the cedar! [A name that] is
eternal I will place for ever ([Su-ma ία] da-ru-ú a-na-ku lu-uS-ta-ak-nay.156

The story then shifts to Gilgames's parallel declarations to the elders of Uruk:

I will conquer him in the Forest of Cedar: let the land learn Uruk's offshoot is
mighty! Let me start out, I will cut down the cedar, I will place a name eternal
(Su-ma Sa da-ru-ú a-na-ku lu-uS-tak-nam)\'$1

153 It has long been understood that Gilgames's ultimate goal was to establish fame for him-
self. Since most of the studies on Suma Sakänu have been inspired by this epic, the use
of the idiom here has had a profound impact on the understanding of this idiom.
154 Andrew George, The Epic of Gilgamesh: The Babylonian Poem and Other Texts in
Akkadian and Sumerian (Allen Lane, London: Penguin Press, 1999), 110, Y148-149;
R. Campbell Thompson, The Epic of Gilgamish: Text, Transliteration, and Notes
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1930), 27, tablet ΙΠ, iv:13-14; cf. Jastrow and Clay, An Old
Babylonian Version of the Gilgamesh Epic, 90, iv:148-149. Another parallel between
this epic and the royal monumental inscriptions comes from an inscription of Naram-
Sîn: "Let me go . . . whether I die or keep (myself) alive!" (RIME, vol. 2, Naram-Sîn,
E2.1.4.2, lines i:28- ii:2 (p. 91). Unfortunately, the text is too damaged to read more.
155 Kraus, "Altmesopotamisches Lebensgefuhl," 129.
156 George, The Epic of Gilgamesh, 111, Y156-160; Thompson, The Epic of Gilgamish, 27,
Tablet III, iv:22-25; cf. Jastrow and Clay, An Old Babylonian Version of the Gilgamesh
Epic, 90, iv: 157-160.
157 George, The Epic of Gilgamesh, 20, 112, Y183-87; Thompson, The Epic of Gilgamish,
 ¡Suma Sakânu and the Monumental Corpus 167

Here, the thoughtful reader can almost see the shadow of the OAkk kings
gesturing behind the braggardism of the remonstrating hero, and one can
certainly see the parallel structure of the narratives:

From distant days when the god El built Mari, no king resident in Mari reached
the sea, reached the mountains of cedar and boxwood, the great mountains, and
cut down their trees, (but) Iahdun-Lim, son of Iaggid-Lim, powerful king, wild
bull of kings . . . To the Cedar and Boxwood Mountain, the great mountains, he
penetrated . . . He set up a commemorative monument, placed his name
{¡Su-mi-iu iS-ta-ka-an), and made known his might.158

Moreover, as with the inscriptions of Sargon, Iahdun-Lim, and Samsi-Adad,

these passages from Gilgames are using Suma Suzuzzu and Suma Sakänu inter-
changeably, a juxtaposition that I believe demonstrates that the act of "placing
a name" on a monument came to be so closely associated with the act of
setting up a monument (izuzzum) that the two became synonymous.
A Sumerian antecedent to this same epic is "BilgameS and Efuwawa: The
Lord to the Living One's Mountain" (often called Version A). Evidently this
was a favorite copy-text in the OB schools; the number of extant manuscripts
has made it possible to restore the text almost entirely.159

O Enkidu, since no man can escape life's end,I will enter the mountain and
place my name (mu-mu ga-àm-gar). Where names are placed (ki-mu-gub-bu-
ba-àm) I will place my name (mu-mu ga-bi-ib-gub). Where names are not yet
placed, I will place gods' names.160

This fragment indicates that there is a place where Gilgames can go where
"names" have already been "placed" in order to "place" his own name. Com-
pare this with Samsi-Adad's declaration: "I placed my great name (Su-mi
ra-be-e-em... lu-ú aS-ku-un) and my (victory) stela (na-re-ia) in the land of
Lebanon on the shore of the Great Sea." If there is a place to which Gilgames
can go and "place his name," he certainly is not using the idiom in some
abstract sense of establishing fame. Rather, he must be speaking of inscribing
his name in some locale (or on some rock face?) where names have already
been inscribed. As discussed above, there are a number of references to
Assyrian rulers "placing their names" by leaving stelae and statues in the

28, tablet III, v:4-7; cf. Jastrow and Clay, An Old Babylonian Version of the Gilgamesh
Epic, v: 183-187.
158 RIME, vol. 4, Iahdun-Lim E4.6.8.2: 34-59 (p. 605-606); cf Durand "Réalitiés Amorrites
et traditions bibliques," RA 92 (1998): 27-29.
159 This fragment was first published by Samuel Kramer in JCS 1 [1947]: 3-23, and has
most recently been published in Andrew George's The Epic of Gilgamesh, 151, version
A: lines 4-7,31-33.
160 George, The Epic of Gilgamesh, 151, version A: lines 4-7, 31-33; cf. S. Kramer JCS
1(1947): 3-22.
168 The Fìakkèn fmô Säm Formula in Its ANE Context

"Cedar Mountains" (see fig. 11). There are also several triumphal texts report-
ing that a certain ruler set up his monument next to the monument of his ances-
tor, or that he used the same outcropping of rock for his relief.161 The remains
of such "repeat" stone engravings and reliefs may be found at the mouth of
Nahr al-Kalb south of Byblos; at the Tigris Tunnel, at Tushhan along the upper
Tigris; at Nineveh; and at Kalhu (see fig. II). 162 These archaeological and
epigraphic remains demonstrate that in ancient times, there were indeed
"places" to which great heroes journeyed in order to "place" their "names."
Thus, it is not at all unreasonable to interpret Gilgames's references to the
"place where names are placed" as either the Amanus Range or a locale like it.
Tell Haddad has recently produced additional fragments of a Sumerian
version of the Gilgames Epic, including "The Death of Bilgames: The great
wild bull is lying down." As the title reveals, this poem recounts the death of
the legendary hero. In the final moments of Gilgames's life, the god
Nudimmud opens the hero's eyes so that he might see the assembly of the
gods. Having been welcomed into the divine assembly, Gilgames hears their
assessment of his heroic acts.

They said to him, the lord: 'Your matter—having traveled each and every road,
having fetched that unique cedar down from its mountain, having smitten
Huwawa in his forest, having set up monuments (na-rú-a) for future days,
having founded temples of the gods, you reached Ziusudra 163 in his abode! 164

161 For example, the Kurkh Monolith inscription of Salmaneser III states: "I marched to
Mount Atalu where the image of Anum-ljirbe stands, erected my image with his image"
(RIME, vol. 3/2, A.0.1.102.1:ii:9-10 [p. 17]; cf. RIME, vol. 2/1, ASSur-nasirpal II,
A.0.101.19 [p. 258]). Another example is the previously noted inscription of Salma-
neser III which is inscribed at the mouth of the Tigris and reports the king's victory over
the land of Narri. The remains of this inscription were found carved next to a similar
relief and inscription of Tiglath-pileser I (see n. 154; ARI 2:38, no. 16; RIMA, vol. 3/2,
Salmaneser III, A.0.1.102.22:8-9, 12-13). See figure 11.
162 See Michael Roaf, Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia: and the Ancient Near East (Oxford:
Equinox, 1990), 164. For discussion and drawings of the Nahr al-Kalb reliefs see
Börker-Klähn, Altvorderasiatische Bildstelen und vergleichbare Felsreliefs, 1:211-12,
2: plates 211-216. In addition to Egyptian, Greek and post-Christian inscriptions, here
six Neo-Assyrian reliefs have been found, demonstrating the popularity of this
particular spot. There is some debate as to which Assyrian kings are represented in
which reliefs. Again, see Börker-Klähn who provides a chart summarizing the major
theories (ibid., 1:212; cf. Malamat, "Campaigns to the Mediterranean," 371; Stephen
Langdon, Les inscriptions dù Wadi Brissa et du Nahr El-Kelb [Recucii de Tracaux
relatifs à la Philogie at à l'Archéologie égyptiennes et assyriennes 28. Paris: Librairie
Emile Bouillon, 1905]).
163 The Sumerian name for Uta-napishti (cf. George, The Epic of Gilgamesh, 225).
164 Ibid., 198, M lines 48-57; cf. 202, M lines 140-48; cf. Antoine Cavigneaux and Farouk
N. H. Al-Rawi, Gilgames et la mort: textes de Tell Haddad VI (Gronigen: Styx
Publications, 2000). The cuneiform for narû was kindly provided to me by Andrew
George from his translation texts.
 Suma Sakänu and the Monumental Corpus 169

Here the divine assembly speaks of Gilgames having "set up monuments for
future days." This action on the hero's part is rehearsed as the act subsequent
to his reaching the Cedar Forest and defeating IJuwawa. When the chronology
of events in the Tell Haddad fragment is compared to the chronology of events
predicted in the hero's earlier claims in the Yale tablet and Version A, it is
apparent that the setting up of monuments parallels Gilgames's intent to "place
his name" (mu-gar = Suma Sakänu). In addition, when the chronology of events
in the Tell Haddad fragment is compared to the narrative structure of the
Assyrian military accounts, Gilgames's setting up of monuments parallels the
royal act of installing stelae, an action which the kings describe as "placing the
name." Hence, it is probable that this literary text is communicating what is so
evident in the inscriptions of the Assyrian kings: to "place a name" has to do
with setting up a stela in order to celebrate a victory won and/or claim
ownership of the vanquished region. Moreover, as the central theme of the epic
is the hero's quest for immortality (and certainly the central motivation behind
the tradition of the monumental inscription in ancient Mesopotamia was to
immortalize the ruler, in the case of triumphal texts as a conquering hero),
"placing the name" in this context should be understood as one more attempt at
immortality. Gilgames has defeated a notorious foe, he has claimed his
territory, and he has commemorated that heroic act by means of an inscribed
monument. Gilgames has "placed his name." Figure 12 helps to illustrate the
interdependence of the Gilgame§ Epic and Malamat's three-stage narrative
form, the "Journey to the Cedar Forest."
Of particular interest to the biblical scholar is the fact that the prophet
Isaiah, in Hezekiah's Jerusalem, also knows of this literary motif. Consider
Isa 37:24, the oracle in which the prophet declares that YHWH will drive Sen-
nacherib from his holy city.

Through your servants you have mocked my Lord. You have said, 'With my
many chariots I went up to the height of the mountains, to the remotest parts of
Lebanon, in order to cut down 165 its tall cedars and its choicest cypresses
(Phoenician junipers), in order to reach its farthest peak, its thickest f o r e s t . . . . "

Here Isaiah employs the Mesopotamian "Journey to the Cedar Mountain"

motif to shame the most recent monarch of that distant land. Not only is this
extremely effective propaganda, but it demonstrates that the military narratives
of the Assyrian rulers—their driving ambition to reach "the Sea" and to
memorialize that act by erecting commemorative monuments ("placing the
name")—was well-known in eighth-century Jerusalem.

165 See Waltke & O'Connor §31.6.2 regarding contingent uses of the imperfect (p. 511-13).
 170 The l'iakkên fmô Mm Formula in Its ANE Context

Figure 12
The Journey to the Cedar Forest

Iahdun-Lim Salmaneser ΠΙ The Standard Tell Haddad

Version of the Fragment of the
Babylonian Gilgames Epic
Gilgames Epic

1) "To the Cedar and 1) "I ascended the 1) "I will conquer 1) "Your matter-
Boxwood Mountain, Amanus r a n g e . . . " him in the Forest of having traveled each
the great mountains, Cedar, let the land and every road,
he penetrated, learn Uruk's
offshoot is mighty!

(2) "and boxwood, 2) "I cut down 2) "Let me start out, 2) "having fetched
cedar, Cyprus and beams of c e d a r . . . " I will cut down the that unique cedar
elammakum trees he cedar, down from its
cut d o w n . . . " mountain,
having smitten
Huwawa in his
forest,

(3) "he set up a 3) "I marched to 3) "I will place a 3) "having set up
commemorative Mount Atalu where name eternal!" monuments (na-rú-a)
monument, he the image of Anum- for future d a y s . . . "
placed his name" hirbe stands, erected (George, The Epic of
my image with his Gilgamesh, 20-21, (George, The Epic of
{RIME, vol. 4, image . . . " Y184-87). Gilgamesh, 202,
E4.6.8.2:51-59 [p. M55, M146).
606]). (RIME, vol. 3/2,
A.0.1.102.1:ii: 9-10
[p. 17]).

4. B u i l d i n g Inscriptions and Suma íakánu

In the Isin-Larsa/Old Babylonian period the Suma Sakänu i d i o m b e g i n s to

s h o w up in conjunction w i t h building inscriptions. T h e s e inscriptions include
Nur-Adad ( 1 8 6 5 - 1 8 5 0 BCE) and his son Sîn-Iddinam ( 1 8 4 9 - 1 8 4 1 BCE); Kudur-
Mabuk, and his son Warad-Sîn ( 1 8 3 4 - 1 8 2 3 BCE); Takil-ilissu; and Ninurta-
kudurri-usur (mid-eighth century BCE). O f these inscriptions, it is interesting
that several o f those written in Sumerian and c o m i n g from Larsa exhibit a
unique purpose clause construction: "In order to place m y n a m e forever, I did
thus and such." This is indicated b y the Sumerian verbal m o r p h e m e /ed/,
 ¡Suma Sakänu and the Monumental Corpus 171

represented in the script as a final particle de.166 A -wall-sikkatu of Nur-Adad of

Larsa (1865-1850 BCE) commemorates the building of a wall at Larsa. As read
and translated by Steinkeller, the text reports:

U4 da-ri-Sè mu-mu gá-gá-dé . . . bàd-gal-bi temen-kù mi-ni-si

In order to place my name forever... I embedded holy foundation inscriptions

in that great wall.167

This passage finds a parallel in a contemporary Warad-Sîn inscription. This

parallel helps us to understand the author's intended purpose in "placing the
name."

egir u4-da-aS ár-mu ak-ak-dè tenen-ár-nam-nun-na-gá uru4-bé ki hé-bí-tóm

In order that, in future days, I be praised, I buried foundation inscriptions, the

praise of my princeship, in its foundation.168

As was discussed in the introductory section on building inscriptions,

ultimately the function of concealed wall-sikkätu and foundation deposits was
that they be rediscovered by a "future prince" at the time of rebuilding. The
hope repeatedly expressed is that this future prince will "look upon my
inscription, hear of my heroic deeds (and) recount my praiseworthy power!"1 9
In the inscriptions from this assemblage, the primary application of Suma
sakänu is just this: the king's hope for commemoration by means of an installed
monument.
Nur-Adad's son, Sîn-Iddinam (1849-1843 BCE), memorialized his repairs to
the banks of the Tigris on three barrel cylinders and a cone fragment. Twice he
claims to have "placed his name," once using the verb gar and once the verb
gub (=Akk Suzuzzu).

166 Marie-Louise Thomsen, The Sumerian Language: An Introduction to its History and
Grammatical Structure (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1984), §252-255 (p. 218-30):
"/ed/-forms almost always refer to the future. A no less important function, however,
seems to be to denote something that has to be done, an obligation, prospective or the
like. So the non-finite forms: gá-gá-dé 'in order to place', nu-kur-ru-dam 'which cannot
ever be changed', and zi-re-dam 'it has to be destroyed.'"
167 Piotr Steinkeller, "A Building Inscription of Sin-iddinam and Other Inscribed Materials
from Abu Duwari," The Anatomy of a Mesopotamian City: The Survey and Soundings
at Mashkan-shapir (ed. E.C. Stone and P. Zimansky; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, in
press); cf. RIME vol. 4, Nur-Adad, E4.2.8.7:71-75 (p. 149). Steinkeller's reading of this
text differs from Frayne's in that he reads bàd-gal-bi-e where Frayne reads
bàd-gal-bi, and Steinkeller is more conservative in his translation of temen, rendering it
"foundation deposit" as opposed to Frayne's "holy perimeter." Hence, Frayne translates
this same passage, "I determined the holy perimeter of this great wall."
168 RIME, vol. 4, Warad-Sîn, E4.2.13.22:27-31 (p. 245); cf. P. Steinkeller, "A Building
Inscription of Sin-iddinam and Other Inscribed Materials from Abu Duwari," 3.
169 Seep. 143.
172 The l'Sakkën Fmô Säm Formula in Its ANE Context

I prayed ardently to the gods An and Enlil. They having agreed to my firm
entreaty commissioned (me), by their unalterable (decrees), to dig the Tigris, to
restore (its banks, in order) to establish my name (mu-mu gá-gá-dé)
for a distant, final day (u 4 -ti-la-sù-ud-rà-âè)...

By the decree (and) decision of the great gods, I restored (the banks) of the
Tigris, the broad river, (and) set up my name for distant days
(u4-ul-du-ri-Sè mu-mu hé-em-mi-gub). 170

Here, as in the victory stelae texts, the king interchanges the idea of "placing"
(iakänu) his name with that of "setting up" (izuzzu) his name, possibly
communicating that he has commemorated the event by means of a stela.
Kudur-Mabuk, an Elamite official who took control of Larsa in the early
second millennium,171 commemorates the building of a baked brick chapel
intended to house either a stela or an image of Samas on a clay wall-sikkatu,
stating:

Stim-iu kab-tam iS-ku-un a-na si-a-at ni-Si na-Pl-tam uS-zi-iz

He placed his important name, for future generations he set up a . . . ??172

This text has traditionally been translated figuratively: "he established his
name as important."173 This is a poor translation, however, because the
grammar of such a translation is suspect,174 the inscription itself comes from a
wall-sikkatu, and the text commemorates either the building of a chapel or the
erection of a votive statue.175 Hence, it is much more plausible that Kudur-
Mabuk's claim to have "placed his name" has to do with inscribing it on a
monument—either the wall-sikkatu itself or the socle of a votive statue.
Takil-ilissu of Malgium is known for the construction of a supporting wall

170 RIME, vol. 4, Svn-Iddinam, E4.2.9.2:23-32, 65-70 (p. 159-160).

171 Kudur-mabuk was known as the "father of the Amurru" because he had controlled the
Amorite tribes between the Tigris and the Zagros for Elam prior to his ascension at
Larsa. He was the father of Warad-Sîn and Rim-Sîn.
172 RIME, vol. 4, Kudur-mabuk E4.2.13a2:21-23 (p. 268).
173 RIME, vol. 4, Kudur-mabuk E4.2.13a.2:21-23 (p. 268); cf. CAD si, s.v. "Sakänu" sub
"Sumu" (p. 144).
174 The translation in RIME, vol. 4, Kudur-mabuk E4.2.13a.2:21-23 (p. 268): "He estab-
lished his name as important," places unwarranted emphasis upon kabtam, which
simply modifies SumSu.
175 F. Thureau-Dangin and AHw suggest that the inscription speaks of the erection of a
pedestal (nawltum) on which an image of Samas was set up for the purpose of sacrifice
("Notes Assyriologiques" RA 11 [1914-1917]: 88-104, and AHw, s.v. "nawltum":
"Kultsockel"). CAD, however, leaves nawitum undefined (CAD n2, s.v. "nawïtu" [p.
134]). Since we cannot be sure what was intended by nawltum, it is impossible to deter-
mine whether this use of the idiom concerns the setting up of an inscribed statue (hence,
a votive text) or simply the placing of the ruler's inscribed cone (a building inscription).
Because the inscription comes from a wall-sikkatu, I have presumed the latter.
 Suma iakänu and the Monumental Corpus 173

around Enamtila, the temple of Ea. His building inscription has been recovered
from an inscribed brick. The ruler states:

At that time I [en]circled Enamtila in its circumference with a great supporting

[w]all [o]f baked bricks, [wh]ose [foundation was as firm as heaven. I placed
the eternal name of my kingship ([S]u-ma-am da-ri-a-am Sa Sar-ru-ti-ia lu
aS-ku-un).176

As with all of the texts presented in this section, Takil-ilissu's building inscrip-
tion has been traditionally translated metaphorically: "I established the eternal
[n]ame of my kingship," meaning, "I made myself famous."177 However, this
passage is immediately followed by,

(As for) the one who erases my written name (Su-mi Sa-at-ra-am) and
writes his own name (rSum1-Su i-Sa-at-ta-ru), may he quickly dis-
appear and may his inscribed name ([Sum-S]u Sa-at-ra-am) not be
returned to its place ([a-na aS-r]i-Su la ú-ta-ar-ru).m

Takil-ilissu is clearly demanding that his inscription be respected, and, as is

formulaic within the foundation deposit and v/ai\-sikkatu texts, that his
monument be returned to its place. Hence, in this passage, having "placed the
eternal name of my kingship" is best understood as having "installed a
monument," probably a foundation deposit.
The inscription of Ninurta-kudurri-usur, "governor of the land of Sulju"
(downstream from Mari), in the mid-eighth century BCE, comes from a stela
found on the island of 'Ana. This inscription describes an earlier revolt of the
city of Anat against Sulju as a result of that city's alliance with "the Assyrian."
Ninurta-kudurri-usur records that he won back his city and, in celebration,
constructed a new temple and palace at the site.

[I made] this foundation [10 cubits] deep. [I qua]rried large mountain-stones,

laid the foundation, made (it) fast. [I pl]aced my name [with] his [na]me
(MU at-tu-U-a Í[Í(?)-ÍI][M]U at-tu-Sú [áí\-vkurO). Anyone in the future [who]
comes forward should revere the gods. 179

Like Takil-ilissu, this king uses the Suma iakänu idiom within a standard
foundation deposit formula, in this case: "I placed my name with his name."
Therefore, this text, damaged as it is, probably reflects the installation of an

176 RIME, vol. 4, Takil-ilissu E4.11.2:12-21 (p. 671-72).

177 CAD s i , s.v. "Sakänu" sub "Sumu," meaning 5b (p. 144), and Kraus, "Altmesopota-
misches Lebensgefiihl," 129 n. 82.
178 RIME, vol. 4, Takil-ilissu, E4.11.2:22-27 (p. 672). The RIM translators render
([a-na aS-r]i-Su la ú-ta-ar-ru) as "not be restored" in accord with the usual meaning of
ana aSrïSu turru. Here, however, the meaning is probably the more literal "restore to its
place," as this phrase is formulaic for v/àtì-sikkatu and foundation deposit passages.
179 RIMB, vol. 2, Ninurta-kudurri-usur, S.0.1002.9:8-18 (p. 316-17).
 174 The l'Sakkên fmô Mm Formula in Its ANE Context

inscribed foundation deposit, and it definitely emerges from a monumental

context.
One final example of the use of Suma Sakänu in association with building
inscriptions is that of Nebuchadnezzar II (604-562 BCE). This inscription is
nearly identical to that of Takil-ilissu, both in function and form. Here the Neo-
Babylonian king memorializes his restoration and expansion of the fortifica-
tions of Babylon and Esagila on a clay cylinder, and speaks of the installation
of that cylinder as having "placed his name."

To the breast of the underworld I built it, and laid its foundation [deposits?]; the
fortification of Esagila and Babylon I made strong. I placed the everlasting
name of my kingship (Sú-ma-am DA.Ri-α-am M Sar-rù-ti-ia dS-ta-ak-ka-an).'m

In sum, although the occurrences of Suma Sakänu in this particular assem-

blage have traditionally been translated metaphorically, "to become famous"—
and certainly "placing the name" results in becoming famous—a more
informed rendering of these texts would emphasize the literal intent of the
idiom. The context of each of these inscriptions indicates that "placing the
name" involves installing some sort of monumental inscription.

5. Correspondence and Suma Sakänu

Another assemblage of ancient texts employing the Suma Sakänu idiom are
letters. Although these are not monumental texts, I believe that in several cases
it can be shown that the language of the Mesopotamian monumental
inscriptions has found its way into epistolary parlance. The letters containing
our idiom range from the era of Samsi-Adad (1813-1781 BCE) to Esarhaddon
in the neo-Assryian period. Geographically, they range from Babylon to
Canaan and even to Egypt. The "particular occurrences" of the idiom, like
those of the monumental texts, seem to predominate in the northern regions
and are primarily written by Semitic kings. Within this assemblage, the
Suma Sakänu idiom, again, has typically been translated in a figurative sense:
"to establish fame, to acquire a reputation."181 But, again, I believe that a more
accurate rendering of these texts requires some recognition of the literal intent
of the phrase.

180 S. Langdon, Die neubabylonischen Königsinschriften (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1912),

Nebukadnezar II, no. 4: col. ii:7-12 (p. 82-83). Note the similar inscription of
Takililissu:
At that time I [enjcircled Enamtila in its circumference with a great supporting
[w]all [o]f baked bricks, [wh]ose [fo]undation was as firm as heaven. I placed
the eternal name of my kingship ([s]u-ma-am da-ri-a-am Sa Sar-ru-ti-ia lu aS-
ku-uri)" (ibid., p. 97; cf. RIME, vol. 4, Takil-ilissu E4.11.2:12-21 [p. 671]).
181 CAD §1, s.v. "Sakänu" sub "Sumu" (p. 144); cf. AHw, s.v. "Sumu(m)," meaning l i b
(p. 1275).
 Surna Sakänu and the Monumental Corpus 175

Samsi-Adad I's correspondence with his "problem son" Iasmalj-Addu

provides us with the most famous epistolary reference to Suma Sakänu. As is
well known, Samsi-Adad conquered Mari from Iahdun-Lim's heirs and set up
his own sons, Iasmah-Addu and Kme-Dagan, as his governors in charge of
Mari and Ekallatum, respectively (c. 1796). As is well documented in the royal
correspondence recovered from the Mari archives, this triad spent most of their
careers trying to establish hegemony over the fragmented Amorite sheiks of
Upper Mesopotamia. In one of his letters, the king commands his younger son
to lead his army into battle against Qatna. In standard form, Samsi-
Adad attempts to shame Iasmah-Addu into action by comparing him to his
man-at-arms brother, Isme-Dagan.

Here your brother won a victory, but there you lie among women! Now, when
you march with the army to Qatna, behave like a man! As your brother has
placed a great name, (ki-ma a-fyu-ka Su-ma-am ra-bé-e-em iS-ta-ak-nu), you also
in your region place a great name (à at-ta i-[na ma-ti-ka] Su-ma-am
ra-bé-e-e[m] Si-[it-ka-an])lm

CAD translates this passage: "Just as your brother has established great fame,
so you yourself establish great fame!"183 This is an attractive and seemingly
appropriate interpretation. But the reader must recall that the words above were
written by Samsi-Adad, the king whose inscription we have already
considered:

I placed my great name and my (victory) stela in the land of Lebanon on the
shore of the Great Sea (Su-mi ra-bé-e-em ù na-re-ia ... lu-U a$-ku-un).m

This inscription is, of course, Samsi-Adad's commemoration of his successful

campaign to the Cedar Forest. The use of Suma Sakänu is identical in both the
letter and the inscription. Moreover, the context of battle and conquest is
comparable as well. Hence, I propose that Samsi-Adad's charge might be best
interpreted: "As your brother has taken control of his region by means of
conquest, get out there and do the same!"
A second letter from the time of Samsi-Adad comes from archive of
Semsara (Susarra), a city high in the Zagros mountains, east of the Tigris on
the Lesser Zab. This letter was written by Sepratu of Itabalhim to Kuwari of
Semsara, Samsi-Adad's vassal. It is apparent from the letter that Kuwari and
Sepratu are allies ("brothers"), and the content of their discussion involves the
local military endeavors of Samsi-Adad and his sons. Sepratu seems to be quite
concerned that the various intrigues going on around him and his ally may be

182 ARM 1:69, rev. 8-16; cf. Pierre Villard, "Shamshi-Adad and his Sons," CANE 2:879.
183 CAD si, s.v. "Sakänu" sub "Sumu" (p. 144).
184 Malamat, "Campaigns to the Mediterranean," 371; c.f. RIMA, vol. 1, Samsi-Adad I,
A.0.39.1:81-87 (p. 50).
176 The l'Sakkèn fmô Säm Formula in Its ANE Context

deleterious to his interests. In the midst of giving military advice to Kuwari,

Sepratu counsels him to establish "friendly relations with Lullum," to dispatch
a delivery of grain to Sepratu, and he exhorts Kuwari that "the armies are near;
place your name (Su-um-ka ίΐί-£[κ-κ]η)!" 185 A s with Samsi-Adad, the use of our
idiom within this correspondence emerges from a military context. Hence,
Sepratu's use of Suma Sakänu is probably best interpreted, "take victory!" It is
interesting that, further on in the letter, Kuwari is further exhorted in the same
vein as was Iasmal}-Addu: "The armies are assembled . . . be a man! (at-ta lu
a-wi-lum)."li6
Two very significant letters from the Amarna archive, EA 287:60-63 and
EA 288:5-7, also make use of the Suma Sakänu idiom.187 In these letters 'Abdi-
tfeba, the vassal ruler of Jerusalem, is corresponding with his suzerain
(probably Amenhotep IV of Egypt, 1379-62 BCE), desperately imploring his
lord to send aid. These letters not only further clarify the intent of Suma Sakänu,
they also serve as a bridge between the Mesopotamian and Syro-Palestinian
use of this Akkadian idiom, proving its international currency. As students of
Amarna Akkadian will recognize, in these letters the NW Semitic qatal perfect
is replacing the Proto-Semitic yaqtul form in Palestine; thus, in this text the
Amarna Akkadian Sakan is morphologically equivalent to the Standard
Babylonian Akk G-stem preterite iSkun < Sakänu.m

EA 287: , h
a-mur LUGAL-ri ïa-ka-an MU-íh i-na KUR U-[r]u-ksa-lim a-na da-ri-ií
ù la-a i-le-é'-e e-za-bi-Sa KUR.hi.A ""'Ü-ru-sa-lim

As the king has placed his name in (the region of) Jerusalem forever,
he cannot abandon the lands of (the city of) Jerusalem!

Throughout his correspondence, the vassal king of Jerusalem uses what little
leverage he has to stir his reluctant overlord to action. Apparently, 'Abdi-
IJeba feels that his most compelling claim is that the lands of Jerusalem are
really the Pharaoh's land. Thus, in his six extant letters, 'Abdi-t[eba reminds

185 Jorgen Laessoe, "A Letter from Tell-Shemshara," Studies in Honor of Benno Lands-
berger on his 75'h Birthday (AS 16; Chicago: Univ of Chicago, 1965), 194, lines 44-49.
186 Ibid., line 62.
187 See the Introduction, p. 31 and nn. 93, 112; Chapter One, p. 126; cf. de Vaux, "Le lieu
que Yahvé a choisi pour y établir son nom," 219-228.
188 Anson Rainey comments on the use of Sakan in the Amarna Letters in Canaanite in the
Amarna Tablets: A Linguistic Analysis of the Mixed Dialect Used by the Scribes from
Canaan (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996), 2:299: "This verb appears frequently in the Canaan-
ite letters in the qatal. . . thus signaling one of the foremost departures from standard
Akkadian usage."
189 EA 287:60-63; cf. Wm. L. Moran, ed. The Amarna Letters (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1992), 328, 331; J. A. Rnudtzon, ed., Die el-Amarna-Tafeln (2 vols.;
VAB 2; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1915), 866-69. EA 288:5-7.
 Suma Sakânu and the Monumental Corpus 177

the Pharaoh no less than twenty-seven times that since this is his land, he must
defend it: "Let the king care for his land!"190 This larger context demands that
our we interpret "the king has M-ka-an MU-ÍK (in the region of) Jerusalem
forever," as "the king has claimed (the region of) Jerusalem as his own through
conquest and treaty."
Our second letter, EA 288, begins with a salutation that rehearses the
mighty acts of the Egyptian pharaoh, specifically his suzerainty over all of
Palestine.

a-mur LUGAL-ri EN-ia Sa-ka-an MU-Su a-na mu-sí ''UTU-A' ù er-bi DUTU-Í(

Behold, the king, my lord, has placed his name at the rising of the sun and at the
setting of the sun.191

This salutation is celebrating the fact that the Levant, during the Amarna
period, was subject to Egyptian hegemony "from the east to the west." The
vassal 'Abdi-Heba is again reminding the pharaoh that Palestine is his land,
that he has claimed ownership by means of conquest and treaty. Therefore, the
context again calls for us to interpret the use of Suma Sakânu as a testimonial to
hegemony.
An additional letter comes to us from the Nimrud archive. Many of the
documents from this archive are royal letters referring to events on the northern
and northeastern frontiers of Assyria, principally during the reign of Sargon II
(721-705 BCE).192 One such letter to the king comes from an unknown corre-
spondent who, speaking of the king's numerous past victories, expresses his
hope that the king may continue in such victories, "may he place (li$[\l~\-k[un\)
. . . his (ÍM-[X]-ÍM) forever."193 The editors of CAD suggest that this damaged
text might read $u-[u]n-Sú ana dârâti liSskun1, and include it, without translation,
under Sakânu, sub Sumu.194 If the damaged signs of this passage have been read

190 EA 286:35. The concept that a suzerain takes ownership of a region by means of
conquest and treaty and is responsible therefore to defend that region is ubiquitous in
the ANE. See Dennis J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the
Ancient Oriental Documents and the Old Testament (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute,
1963). Cf. EA 285:20; EA 286:22, 34, 35, 38, 55, 56, 58, 60, 64; 287:13, 25-28, 31; EA
288:23, 24, 38,48, 55; EA 289:15-16,44, 46; 290:7, 12.
191 EA 288:5-7; cf. Moran, ed. The Amarna Letters, 331, and Rnudtzon, ed. Die el-
Amarna-Tafeln, 868, 69.
192 For a recent review of Assyrian correspondence in the Sargonic period, see the intro-
duction to Simo Parpola's, The Correspondence of Sargon II (vol. 1 of Letters from
Assyria and the West in the State Archives of Assyria; Helsinki University Press, 1987).
193 H. W. F. Saggs tentatively reconstructed this damaged section as: SU.NIR-ÍÍÍ =
Surinna-SU, "Let the king, my lord establish his emblem forever" ("The Nimrud Letters,
1952-Part IV," Iraq 20/2 [1958]: 196-197, no. 45, lines 9-10). However, Saggs himself
felt that this reconstruction was doubtful as the phrase SU.NIR-Ί« "seems to be used
exclusively of the emblem of a god" (197, n. 9).
194 CAD SI, s.v. "Sakânu" sub "Sumu" (p. 144).
178 The l'Sakkèn fmô Sám Formula in Its ANE Context

correctly, recognizing that in later Babylonian and Assyrian m > η before ί, it

is possible that this letter reads: 195

Let the king my lord set his way to Urartu, let him conquer TuruSpa, let him
place his name forever (SunSu [< ium$u] ana darâti liSkun)\m

If this proposed reading is adopted, it is probable that the best interpretation of

Suma Sakänu in this letter is much the same as that of the previous letters con-
sidered: "let him conquer TuruSpa, let him take possession (of the region)
forever!"
There is also a letter from Esarhaddon (680-669 BCE) to Urtaku, king of
Elam that makes use of Suma Sakänu. Toward the end of this letter, in a regret-
tably damaged section, the Assyrian king speaks of how the gods have placed
him and the Elamite king in an alliance, stating, "[t]hey have joined our hands
to a cord (?), (just) now regarding the placing of the name (riP-[ma-a ari]-nu-rig
M Sa-ka-an Sú-me) . . . ,"197 Esarhaddon's reign was plagued by insurrection,
both from within and without. To the east and north, regions within the reach
of Elam, the king had repeated problems with invading Scythians and
Cimmerians. Consequently, it is probable that Esarhaddon is calling on his ally
to either help him resist another power seeking to "place the name" or he is
requesting that Assyria and Elam pool resources in order that they might
"place the name." This is an instance in which "now regarding establishing
fame" would be a difficult interpretation, but "now regarding establishing
hegemony" fits well.
Hence, what we find in these letters is a use of Suma Sakänu that derives
from the triumphal inscriptions. In both corpora, the wish is expressed that a
"name" be "placed forever" or "until distant days" (see fig. 13). In the
triumphal inscriptions, the idiom has shown itself to have an metonymical
sense: it is used to indicate not merely the placing of an inscription but the
installation of a victory monument. In the letters, this placing of the monument
has been further extended to communicate the resulting hegemony of the
conquering king. It is evident from these examples that the literary typology of
Mesopotamian monumental inscriptions has found its way into epistolary
parlance, even as far afield as the evolving Akkadian of the Levant.

195 See von Soden, GAG, §31: f (p. 40). I wish to thank John Huehnergard for assisting me
with this passage and with this point of Neo-Assyrian grammar.
196 Cf. Saggs, "The Nimrud Letters," 196-197, no. 45, lines 9-10.
197 Leroy Waterman, trans., Royal Correspondence of the Assyrian Empire (Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press, 1930), 138-39, no. 918, lines 13, 14.
 ¡Suma Sakänu and the Monumental Corpus 179

Figure 13
"toplace the name until distant days"

LUGAL-E:
Sar-ru M ana ba-lat U4.me ru-qu-ti MU-ÍM i-Sak-k[a-nu]
the king who places his name, for (his) life unto distant days 198

SÎN-IDDINAM ( 1 8 4 9 - 1 8 4 3 BCE):
u4-ti-la-sú-ud-rá-Se mu.mu gá-gá-dé
in order to place my name for a distant, final day 199

IAHDUN-LIM ( c . 1 8 3 0 BCE):
a-na ti4-um si-a-tim Su-mi aS-ku-un
I placed my name until distant days 200

•ABDI-HEBA ( 1 4 ™ c e n t , BCE):
> ki
a-mur LUGAL-Π Éa-ka-an MU-ÍM a-na KUR 0-[r]u-sa-lim a-na da-ri-i¡S
201
as the king has placed his name in (the region of) Jerusalem forever
NIMRUD ARCHIVE ( c . 7 1 5 BCE):
iarru beli Su-[un]-SU a-na da-ra-a-ti lii-kun
let him [the king, my lord] place his name forever 202

V V —
6. suma sakanu as a metaphor for "acquiring fame"

As was discussed in the introduction to this chapter, CAD offers three

possible idiomatic translations for SumaSakänu: (1) "to give a name to some-
thing/someone," (2) "to establish fame, to acquire a reputation," and (3) "to
provide with descendants."203 Under its Sumu entry, CAD gives examples in
which Suma iakänu might mean: (1) "to appoint a person (to a position or to fa-
vored status)," and (2) "with reference to recording a name in writing for pos-
terity."204 Only the last of these options relates to the making of inscriptions.
As a result, many of the texts considered in this study have traditionally been

198 Jacobsen, The Harps that Once . . . Sumerian Poetry in Translation, 259, and van Dijk,
Lugal ud me-LÁM-bi NIR-GÁL, 1:112.
199 RIME, vol. 4, Sîn-Iddinam, E4.2.9.2:29-30 (p. 159).
200 RIME, vol. 4, Iahdun-Lim, E4.6.8.1:53-54 (p. 603).
201 EA 287:60-63; cf. Moran, ed. The Amarna Letters, 328, and cf. Knudtzon, ed. Die el-
Amarna-Tafeln, 866.
202 Saggs, "The Nimrud Letters," 196-197, lines 9-10; cf. CAD si, s.v. "Sakanu" sub
"Sumu" (p. 144).
203 CAD si, s.v. "Sakdnu" sub "ÌSumu" (p. 144); cf. AHw, s.v. "Sumu(m)," meaning l i b
(p. 1275).
204 CAD s3, s.v. "Sumu," meaning lc2'b' and Id (p. 288, 290).
 180 The l'Sakkèn fmô Mm Formula in Its ANE Context

assigned metaphorical translations. When Iahdun-Lim commemorates the

building of Dur-Ialjdun-Lim as well as his various military achievements on a
vjall-sikkatu, his inscription is translated: "I enlarged my land, established the
foundations of Mari and my land, (and) established my fame until distant days
(a-na u4-um sí-a-tim Su-mi aS-ku-un)."205 Nur-Adad's wall-sikkatu is translated,
"in order to establish my fame forever, I embedded holy foundation inscrip-
tions." 206 Kudur-Mabuk's wall-sikkatu is translated, "I established my name as
important." 207 And the claims of Gilgames are not associated with the tradition
of erecting victory stelae. Yet, as text after text has illustrated, within the
context of the installation of inscribed monuments, the fundamental meaning
of Suma Sakänu is to inscribe one's name on a monument in order to claim it (or
what it marks) as one's own. This textual evidence prompts me to conclude
that the prevailing convention regarding the translation of Suma Sakänu needs to
be reassessed.
Based upon the evidence presented in this chapter, I suggest that the
prevailing translation convention be altered such that Suma Sakänu be translated
according to its literal (as opposed to metaphorical) sense in contexts in which
it is used in conjunction with the installation of monumental inscriptions.
Toward this end, Kudur-Mabuk's wall-sikkatu inscription is better understood
as a claim to have inscribed his name on the dedicated object: "I placed my
important name." I also suggest that the use of Suma Sakänu in its extended
symbolic sense be formally recognized. As de Vaux suggested thirty years ago,
"[l]e sens de l'expression ne fait pas de doute: elle signifie au figuré: 'prendre
possession.'" 208 Toward this end, Iahdun-Lim's use of our idiom—which is
preceded by claims to military expansion and immediately followed by the
classic prohibition and curse section—is much more plausibly interpreted: "I
enlarged my land, established the foundations of Mari and my land, and I
established hegemony over the region for distant days." My third suggestion
has to do with a more careful analysis of the relationship between the literal
and metaphorical application of this Suma Sakänu. The word "metaphor" is
defined as, "an implied comparison in which a word or phrase ordinarily and
primarily used of one thing is applied to another." 209 Hence, if Suma Sakänu can
indeed mean to "acquire fame," that fame must be, as Kraus suggested, like the

205 RIME, vol. 4, Iahdun-Lim, E4.6.8.1:53-54 (p. 603); cf. CAD si, s.v. "Sakänu" sub
"Sumu" (p. 144).
206 Steinkeller, "A Building Inscription of Sin-iddinam and Other Inscribed Materials from
Abu Duwari", 2.
207 RIME, vol. 4, Kudur-mabuk E4.2.13a.2:21-23 (p. 268); cf. CAD si, s.v. "Sakänu" sub
"Sumu" (p. 144).
208 De Vaux, "Le lieu que Yahvé a choisi pour y établir son nom," 221; cf. Cari Bezold,
Babylonisch-assyrisches Glossar (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1926), 272: "Sakänu
Suma den Namen (wohin) setzen, übertr. die Herrschaft antreten (in e. Land ina mäti)."
209 Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged, s.v. "metaphor."
 Suma Sakânu and the Monumental Corpus 181

posthumous reputation gained by means of an inscription.210 Thus, whereas the

prevailing translation convention has been to think in terms of "name" equals
"reputation,"211 and, therefore, to understand the metaphorical meaning of
"placing a name" as establishing a reputation, I believe that a more accurate
representation of the literal sense of this idiom would be to think in terms of
"name" equals commemorative inscription, and, therefore, to understand the
metaphorical meaning of "placing a name" as acquiring enduring fame by
means of the commemoration of heroic deeds. Moreover, I would add to
Kraus's thesis that this fame is like the posthumous reputation gained by means
of a display monument, that is, a votive or triumphal text.
Kraus lists a number of texts he believes are interpreted best as metaphori-
cal claims to fame.212 Two of these are quite convincing. The first is a passage
from one of the Shulgi Hymns; the second is from the Gilgames Epic. In his
hymn, Shulgi (2094-2047 BCE) speaks of having gone to great lengths to build
secure way-stations along the road from Nippur to Ur. He states that he did
these things,

mu-mu u 4 ul-lí-a-aS gá-gá-dé ka-ta nu-Sub-bu-dè ár-mu kalam-ma ak-aka-dè

[i]n order that my name will be placed for distant days, that from the mouth (it)
will not be remote, that my glory be proclaimed in the foreign lands.213

210 Kraus, "Altmesopotamisches Lebensgefiihl," 17-32.

211 CAD s3, s.v. "Sumu," meaning 2, (p. 292).
212 There are also several letters which make use of SumaSakänu in a non-literal sense.
However, they seem to be communicating nothing more nuanced than the establishing
of either a good or bad reputation. As these occurrences reflect the use of Sumu in its
frequent role as a synonym for "reputation," they do not reflect the same idiom we are
investigating (cf. CAD s3, s.v. "Sumu," meaning 2, [p. 292]). Examples include an OB
letter that apparently involves an exchange of goods and the verdict of the judges of the
SamaS Temple. Here an unknown correspondent warns his colleague to be careful of his
actions lest he "make a reputation for [himself] to do wrong (Su-um fia-ba-li-im
pa-ga-ar-ki ta-Sa-ak-ka-ni)" (AbB 1:86-87, no. 115, line 4').
A second letter is from king Esarhaddon to an unknown recipient (apparently a
vassal). The letter is full of praise for the recipient's faithful service. The king's closing
remarks are: "I shall assuredly establish for you a great name in the assembly of the
l a n d o f A k k a d (u Su-mé GAL-u ina UKKIN Sá KUR URLICI lu-uS-kun-lla; ABL, 582, no.
539, lines 23-24; cf. L. Waterman, trans., The Royal Correspondence of the Assyrian
Empire, 1:380-81, no. 539). The intent of this idiomatic use is probably, "to appoint, to
favor." See CAD 53, s.v. "Sumu" meaning lc2'b' (p. 288).
A third letter is quite damaged, and neither correspondent can be identified. But
toward the end of the letter, the writer states, d AMAR.UTU ra-i-im-ka Su-ma-[ . .
.] i-Sa-ka-na-AN, "Your patron Marduk . . . will establish (your) name" (AbB 7:150-51,
no. 176, lines 17-18). This letter is similar to the two previous letters in that it seems to
express either that the deity will establish a good reputation for the recipient, or that he
will appoint him to a favored position.
213 Jacob Klein, Three Shulgi Hymns: Sumerian Royal Hymns Glorifying King Shulgi of Ur
182 The fiakkên fmô Säm Formula in Its ANE Context

The fact that no known monument is associated with this passage frees the
idiom from its literal context. The fact that there is no military acquisition or
issue of ownership frees the idiom from its application as an extended symbol.
But this pasage's introductory purpose clause—reminiscent of the inscriptions
of Nur-Adad and Sîn-Iddinam, who hoped that their names would be "placed"
forever by means of their installed building monuments—clarifies the
metaphor: "in order that I be commemorated for distant days . . . I did these
things."
We have already considered the second passage. It comes from the opening
monologue of the story of Gilgames, Enkidu, and Efuwawa, and it is not
actually an occurrence oïSuma Sakänu but of Suma Suzuzzu. Here Gilgames states:
"If I fall, let m e establish my name (Sum-ma am-ta-qú-ut Su-mi lu-uS-zi-iz),
'Gilgames joined in battle with ferocious Ffuwawa!'214 As was previously
noted, the verb Suzuzzu is regularly employed to speak of the erection of victory
stelae and statuary, and is frequently paired with Suma Sakänu. We have seen
that Gilgames does speak of "placing his name" by means of raising victory
monuments in association with his adventure. Yet in this passage, the hero
says, "if I fall, then I will erect my name," which has been understood by many
as a word play between maqätu and Suzuzzu. Obviously, if Gilgames falls, if he
loses the battle, he will have no opportunity to erect a monument. What he will
have, as the passage goes on to state, is a reputation for rare courage:
'"Gilgames joined in battle with ferocious Huwawa!" Hence, the best
translation of this passage is probably figurative. If the hero dares to fight, he
will be commemorated like those who win and, as a result, erect stelae.

7. Conclusions

In conclusion, an examination of the texts indicates that Suma Sakänu is an

idiom which emerges from the royal monumental tradition of Mesopotamia.
Hallo had theorized that the literary typology of this commemorative corpus
began with the simple engraving of a person's name on a dedicated item as a
means of marking ownership. This theory is corroborated by the straight-
forward format of the "standard inscriptions" and by the vocabulary associated
with the term "inscription" (Akk Sitir Sumi/Sumu Satru and Sumerian MU SAR.RA,
literally "written name"). It is further corroborated by the texts of the OAkk
and Gudea periods which make use of Suma Sakänu to state the obvious: "I have
placed my name on this object, woe to the one who removes that name and

(Bar-Ilan University Press, 1934), 192-93, lines 36, 37; cf. Kraus, "Altmesopotamisches
Lebensgefiihl," 128.
214 George, The Epic of Gilgamesh, 110, Y148-149, and Thompson, The Epic of
Gilgamish, 27, Tablet III, iv:13-14; cf. Jastrow and Clay, An Old Babylonian Version of
the Gilgamesh Epic, 90, iv: 148-149.
 Suma Sakânu and the Monumental Corpus 183

claims this object as his own by placing his own name there!" Hence, the most
basic meaning of Suma Sakânu is apparently to claim something as one's own
by placing one's name upon it.
However, we have also seen that Suma Sakânu seems to have several derived
meanings that have grown from the original application. One of these
applications is the idiom's close association with the installation of inscribed
monuments. The inscription on the iron statue of Rimu§, the passage from
Lugal-E regarding the Gudea statues, the victory stelae of the northern kings,
and the wall-sikkätu of the rulers of Larsa indicate that this association might be
characterized as metonymical: "placing the name" on a monument is extended
to mean installing the actual monument. A further expansion of the application
of this idiom is the claiming territory: as one installs a monument by "placing a
name" (in particular a victory stela monument), and as one claims a conquered
region by means of that victory monument, so a ruler "places a name" on a
conquered region in order to claim that region for his own. The progression of
this extended symbolism is best illustrated by means of the triumphal inscrip-
tions of the northern kings (Sargon I, Iahdun-Lim, àamsi-Adadl, and
Salmaneser ΙΠ) and the letters considered. In the triumphal inscriptions, we
saw that the nuances of installing a victory stela and claiming territory were
blended such that "placing the name" meant to claim a region by means of
installing a victory monument; in the letters considered, particularly the two
Amarna Letters, to "place the name" had to do with conquering territory. A
third derived use of the Suma Sakânu idiom is the metaphorical meaning as
illustrated by our final two passages from Sulgi and GilgameS. Here to "place
the name" is a metaphor for gaining fame by means of public commemoration;
as public commemoration results from a display monument, so "placing the
name" is a metaphor for acquiring fame.
It is also significant that within the broader corpus, Suma Sakânu is particu-
larly associated with display monuments, specifically the votive and triumphal
texts of the northern, Semitic kings. Not only does the idiom make its first
appearance on the OAkk monuments from the Ekur temple precinct at Nippur,
but its occurrences are also especially concentrated within the display
monument corpus.
As I have already suggested and will demonstrate further in the next
section, there are two formulae by which the Mesopotamians spoke of making
inscriptions: "placing" {Sakânu) the name and "writing" (Satäru) the name. If it
is possible to tease out the individual threads that are the fabric of the literary
typology of the monumental corpus of Sumer, Babylonia, and Assyria, the
evidence indicates that the act of "placing" a name is most closely associated
with the votive and victory monuments of the northern kings, which are more
closely associated with Mesopotamia's Semitic heritage. The act of "writing" a
name, on the other hand, is more closely associated with the building texts,
which are more closely associated with Mesopotamia's Sumerian heritage.
 184 The l'Sakkén tfmô Sâm Formula in Its A N E Context

Ultimately, like its language and its ethnic identity, this distinctive literary
heritage became completely interwoven in Mesopotamia. The result is a
mixture of these formulae in certain texts, examples of which would include
the building inscriptions of Nur-Adad and Sîn-Iddinam. Further evidence of
the blending of the Suma Sakänu and Suma Satäru typologies will be presented in
the next section. In summary, whatever the source of its formulaic distinctions,
Suma Sakänu apparently emerges from the literary typology of the royal
monumental corpus, and, in its most basic application, this idiom means to
inscribe one's name on a monument in order to claim that monument, or what
it marks, as one's own.

E. Suma Satra Sakänu and the Monumental Corpus

Akk Suma Sakänu has a near-synonym which also emerges from the monu-
mental tradition of Mesopotamia: Suma Satra Sakänu. It was this idiom, in its use
regarding foundation deposits, that McBride linked to the deuteronomic
leSakkënSemô Säm.2{5 Although this particular idiom clearly is not the one
borrowed into Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy's idiom has no Satra or Sitir equiva-
lent), its genetic relationship to Suma Sakänu requires comment. In this section, I
will demonstrate that this idiom results from the combination of: (1) the very
familiar use of Sumu Satru < MU.SAR, "written name" as a stock phrase in the
literary typology of the later royal inscriptions and (2) the "placing" (Sakänu) of
inscribed monuments, particularly foundation deposits and wali-sikkätu.

1. Vocabulary: Suma + Satäru

The expressions Sitir Sumi and Sumu Satru derive from Sumu (name) and
•y ι £

Satäru (to write ) and literally mean "the writing of a name" and "written
name," respectively.217 As was previously noted, these terms are the Akkadian
equivalent of Sumerian MU SAR.RA, "inscription." 218 CAD lists them under its
Sumu entry, "with reference to recording a name in writing for posterity." 219
215 See McBride's discussion of Namen setzen, "The Deuteronomic Name Theology," 93.
216 CAD s2, s.v. "Satäru, verb," meaning 1: "to write, to copy, to put down in writing, to
inscribe a tablet or other object, to formulate a (legal) document" (p. 225); AHw, s.v.
"Satäru{m) II," meaning 1: "schreiben; auf-, hin-, niederschreiben" (p. 1203).
217 CAD s2, s.v. "Satru," meaning 2 (p. 241-42); and CAD s3, s.v. "Sumu," meaning
I d i (p. 290); cf. AHw, s.v. "satru(m)," meaning 1 (p. 1205) and "¡umu(m)," meaning
A 2 (p. 1274).
218 CAD lists multiple examples in which masará and Sumu. Satru aie used in synony-
mously parallel constructions to refer to the inscribed object and/or the inscription of
the king ( C A D m2, s.v. "musarû," meanings 1 and 2 [p. 232]).
219 CAD S3, s.v. "Sumu," meaning Id (p. 290); cf. AHw s.v. "Sumu{m)," meaning 2
(p. 1274). See also CAD s2, s.v. "Satru," meaning 1, "inscribed (stela, seal, etc.),"
 ¡Suma ¡Satra Sakänu and the Monumental Corpus 185

MU.SAR (=Sumu Xatru) makes its first appearance in the royal monumental
inscriptions in one of the four earliest, extant curse sections: the pre-Sargonic
stone mortar inscription of Eannatum (c. 2455-2425 BCE).220

Whoever destroys its . . . effaces its written name (mu-sar-ra-bi TAG-TAG-ba)...

If anyone destroys its . . . and it is brought to his attention, if anyone damages its
written name (mu-sar-ra-bi ab-ta-uVa) • · · · 22 '

Although the standard term for "inscription" among the OAkk texts was either
MU=$uinu or DUB=tuppu, "tablet," 2 2 2 there i s o n e o c c u r r e n c e o f MU.SAR i n a
Sargonic inscription223 and several occurrences of the phrase toward the end of
the period. As noted previously, these later occurrences demonstrate a shift in
the literary typology of the OAkk inscriptions such that the "placing" of a
name (familiar to votive and triumphal texts of this period) is being superseded
by the "writing" of a name. Moreover, as was evident in the inscriptions of
Sar-kali-sarri, Utu-hegel, and La-'arab, Sumu (=MU) is being superseded by
Sumu Satru/Sitir iumi.
In the following period, Gudea, ensi of Lagas, employs mu and mu-sar in
contemporaneous inscriptions. On three occasions, this ruler (who we have
seen made use of mu on Statue B 224 ) uses mu-sar to refer to the inscriptions on
his votive sculptures:

Statue B:
He who removes from Eninnu the statue of Gudea, the ruler of Lagas, who had
built Ningirsu's Eninnu; who rubs off the written name thereon (mu sar-ra-bi)
225

Statue C:
He who removes (the statue) from Eanna; who takes it off its socle; rubs off the
written name (mu-sar-a-ba) thereon . . . 2 2 6

(p. 241); and CAD s3, s.v. "iitru," meaning 1(b), "text, document, inscription," (p. 144).
220 Eannatum was the ensi of Lagas and an accomplished warrior. He is famous for his part
in the border conflict with Umma (see George Roux, Ancient Iraq [London: Penguin
Books, 1992], 141-44).
221 Cooper, PreSargonic Inscriptions, La 3.11, ii:9-10 (p. 45); cf. Cooper, "Studies in
Mesopotamien Lapidary Inscriptions III," Iraq 46:90, ii:8-10 and iv:l-5.
222 For examples of DUB being used for "inscription" in the Akkadian period, see RIME,
vol. 2, Sargon E2.1.1:102 (p. 12), E2.1.1.2:109 (p. 15), E2.1.1.8:8 (p. 23); Rimus
E2.1.2.1:36 (p. 42), E2.1.2.2:36 (p. 44), E2.1.2.3:37 (p. 46); Man-istu-su E2.1.3.1:53
(p. 76), E2.1.3.2:13 (p. 78); Sar-kali-sairi E2.1.5.5:58 (p. 193).
223 One damaged inscription of Sargon states: "As for the one who destroys this written
name (hi mu^sar-ra-e 1 )." This inscription comes from the OB Sammeltafeln of Nippur
{RIME, vol. 2, Sargon, E2.1.1.11:38 [p. 29]).
224 "He who removes my name (mu-guio) . . . and then puts there his (own) name
(mu-ni ba-ga-ga)"; see "Gudea and ¡Suma Sakänu" p. 158-60.
225 RIME, vol. 3/1, Gudea E3/1.1.7.StB, viii:l-9 (p. 36).
226 Ibid., E3/1.1.7StC, iv:5-9 (p. 40).
186 The l'Sakkèn fmô Säm Formula in Its ANE Context

Statue Κ:
227
He who [rubs] off the written name (mu-sar-bi)....

From the OB period onward, there are so many occurrences of Sumu Satru/
SatirSumi that it may be said that this idiomatic phrase had become the
paradigmatic means by which the Mesopotamian rulers referred to their
inscriptions. This evolution in terminology is demonstrated not only by the
frequent use of Sumu Satru/Satir Sumi in the texts, but by a conspicuous shift
away from MU=Sumu as is evident in the colophons on the OAkk monuments.
On the OB Sammeltafeln, which preserve the OAkk inscriptions from the Ekur
temple precinct at Nippur (see 'The Old Akkadian Inscriptions, p. 166-71) the
OB scribes frequently added brief colophons describing some aspect of the
monument. The OB colophons on the Sargon statue read:

mu-sar-ra ki-gal-ba
Written name on its base

r
mu-sar-ra alann-na
ki-gal-bi nu-sar
Written name on a statue.
Its base is not inscribed228

Thus, although the OAkk authors referred to their inscriptions as DUB (=Akk
tuppu), "tablet," and MU (=Akk sumu), "name," the OB scribes consistently
refer to these same inscriptions as mu-sar (=Akk Sumu Satru), "written name."
Moreover, one of the colophons on the statue of Rimus states:

mu-sar gùb-ni-Sè a-ab-sar

Written name written to its left-hand side229

The redundant use of the Sumerian verb sar (Akk. Satäru) in this colophon
demonstrates that in the mind of this OB scribe, mu-sar (=Sumu Satru) was
indeed a compound noun, a stock phrase that had been reinterpreted as a noun
and could be acted upon by a verb, even the verb Satäru (=sar), "to write."230
As for the array of texts that exhibit Akk Sumu Satru, a few examples will have
to suffice. Note that in these examples Sumu Satru is used to refer to the
inscribed name of the king (Iahdun-Lim and Iasma^-Addu), the entire
inscription (Assur-nasirpal II), and the monument itself (Salmaneser I).
Ialjdun-Lim (c. 1830 BCE) commemorates his building of the Samas Temple
in Mari on nine large baked bricks recovered from the foundations of the
temple. His inscription concludes with the anticipated curse, threatening the

227 Ibid., E3/1.1.7StK, iii:l (p. 54).

228 RIME, vol. 2, Sargon, E2.1.1.11, colophon 1 and 2 (p. 29).
229 Buccellati, "Through a Tablet Darkly," Appendix 1 and 2, Section 4 (p. 68, 71).
230 Cf. CAD s2, s.v. "Satäru" (p. 225).
 Suma Satra Sakänu and the Monumental Corpus 187

future prince who might remove his Sumu Satrufromthe structure.

[As for] the one who destroys that temple, who . . . who effaces my written
name (Su-mi Sa-at-ra-am) or has it effaced and writes his (previously) unin-
scribed name (Sum-Su la Sa-at-ra-am i-Sa-fa-ru), or has it written there, or be-
cause of [these] curses incites another to do so, that man . . . may the god Enlil,
judge of the gods, make his kingship smaller than that of any other king.231

On his votive statue, Iasmah-Addu, son of Samsi-Adad, uses the language of

the OAkk kings' Suma Sakänu formula ("he who removes my name and places
his o w n name"), but substitutes Sumí Satram for Sumu and Satäru for Sakänu.

Sa Su-mi Sa-at-ra-am û-Sa-sà-ku-ma Sum-Su ú-Sa-á[S-ta]-ru

He who removes my written name and has his (own) name ins[cri]bed.232

Salmaneser I (1273-1244 BCE) records a number of his heroic accomplish-

ments on foundation tablets from Assur. He states:

In the future may a later prince, when that temple becomes old and dilapidated,
hear of my heroic deeds, recount my praiseworthy power. As I returned the
(foundation) monuments (na-re-e) of former kings to their places, may he anoint
with oil my (foundation) monuments, make sacrifices, return (them) to their
places . . . He who removes my (foundation) monuments (na-re-ia), discards my
inscribed name [i.e., monument] (Su-mi Sat-ra u-Sàm-sa-ku): May Assur the
exalted god . . . ,233

Assur-nasirpal II (853-859 BCE), on his inscription on the Kurkh Monolith,

states:

As for the one who does not act according to my written name [i.e., inscription]
(MU.SAR-iö an-ne-e la e-pa-Sii), alters the ordinances of my text (ta-me-et
Sit-ri-ia uS-te-nu-ú), destroys this monument, discards (it), covers it with oil,
buries i t . . . May ASSur, the great lord . . . .234

From the OB period onward, the formulaic use of Sumu Satru/Satir Sumi is
found throughout the monumental corpus.235 Two types of monuments are of

231 RIME, vol. 4, Iahdun-Lim E4.6.8.2:118-131 (p. 607).

232 Ibid., Iasmah-Addu E4.6.11.1:17-20 (p. 616). This inscription comes from a statue
dedicated to Samas found at Mari.
233 RIMA, vol. 1, Salmaneser I, A.0.77.1, lines 158-64 (p. 186).
234 RIMA, vol. 2/1, ASäur-nasirpal II, A.0.101.17:54b-56 (p. 253). The Kurkh Monolith is
also called the "Nimrud" and "Great" Monolith. It records the king's first five
campaigns as well as his building projects in Calah.
235 It is interesting that a non-royal corpus, the kudurru inscriptions, also exhibit the sumu
Satru phrase. These small, rounded stelae were once thought to be inscribed boundary
markers whose function was to physically mark the borders of a newly acquired parcel
of land. More recent studies argue that the enigmatic stones were in reality intended
188 The l'Sakkên fmô Säm Formula in Its ANE Context

particular interest: the foundation deposit and the v/aïï-sikkatu. T h e reason for
our interest in the foundation deposit and the wall-sikkatu is that these
inscription-bearers w e r e regularly designated Sumu Satru/Sitir Sumi and w e r e also
formulaically spoken o f as having been "placed" (Sakänu). H e n c e , the literary
t y p o l o g y associated with these t w o types o f m o n u m e n t s is the primary source
o f our s e c o n d idiom: Suma Satra Sakänu.

2. Foundation D e p o s i t s and Suma Satra Sakänu

In his classic study, Richard S. Ellis 2 3 6 demonstrates that the earliest k n o w n

foundation deposits in M e s o p o t a m i a date to the Early Dynastic period. T h e s e
earliest deposits typically consisted o f uninscribed foundation-s¡'Máíw that w e r e
often accompanied b y small uninscribed (precious) stone or metal tablets. 2 3 7
A s defined earlier, foundation-íiMzíu are peg-shaped figurines fashioned from

only for public display (i.e., to be deposited in the temple); and, hence, they were
commemorative in function. (See Ignace J. Gelb, P. Steinkeller and R. M. Whiting Jr.,
Earliest Land Tenure Systems in the Near East: Ancient Kudurrus [OIP 104; 2 vols.;
Chicago: Oriental Institue of the University of Chicago, 1989-1991]; G. Buccellati,
"The Kudurrus as Monuments," in Cinquante-deux réflexions sur le Proche-Orient
ancien: offertes en hommage a Leon de Meyer [ed. Hermann Gashe et al.; Mesopo-
tamian History and Environment: Occasional Publications 2; Leuven: Peeters, 1994];
and Kathryn Slanski, "Babylonian Kudurrus," 283-291). Kathryn Slanski's recent
dissertation agrees with this new thesis and states that the Babylonian kudurru (which
she renames "entitlement naru" according to its native designation) was a public
monument, set up to commemorate an entitlement to a source of income in perpetuity.
Slanski argues that the literary typology of these commemorative monuments may be
traced to that of the royal monumental inscriptions. The link between the literary
typology of these two assemblages is historical and intentional: "it is clear that the
entitlement narûs did not emerge onto a blank cultural landscape in the fourteenth
century, but rather onto one with a rich tradition in monumental literary and artistic
expression dating back to the earliest periods of recorded history . . . By appropriating
the form of the royal stela, I have suggested, the creators of the entitlement nari2s
appropriated the authority traditionally conveyed by that form" (op. cit., 151).
For inscriptions that illustrate the corresponding use of íumu íatru among the royal
monuments and the kudurru-moiaiments, see Slanski's dissertation "Babylonian
Kudurrus," p. 103 (Nabû-Suma-i5kun, v:19-vi:3) and p. 107 (Merodach-Baladan II,
v:33). Cf. the kudurrus of Marduk-Säpik-zeri and Marduk-apla-iddina (Sumer 36
Marduk-Säpik-zeri, iii:27-iv:7 and MDP VI 31 Marduk-apla-iddina, vi: 11, 24).
Barbara Porter's article, "Conquest or Kudurru's? A Note on Peaceful Strategies of
Assyrian Government" echoes Slanski's point regarding the interrelatedness of the royal
monuments and the kudurrus by demonstrating that the kings were not above borrowing
the literary typology of the kudurru for the royal monuments when it served their
political agendas (in The Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Wm.
W. Hallo [ed. Mark Cohen, Daniel Snell & David Weisberg; Bethesda: CDL Press,
1993], 194-97).
236 Seen. 70.
237 Ellis's appendix of illustrations is very helpful here (Foundation Deposits, nos. 1-25).
 Suma Satra Sakänu and the Monumental Corpus 189

either metal or stone. Those which have been found in situ were either driven
into the ground beneath the temple, into the mud brickwork forming the
foundation, or enclosed in brick boxes built into the lower portion of the
buildings. Although the earliest such deposits were uninscribed sikkätu and
tablets,238 by the time of Lugalkisalsi of Uruk (ED ΙΠ), brief building
inscriptions (on foundation-sittäfw) identifying the monarch who initiated the
project and the deity to whom it was dedicated are extant. From the time of Ur-
Nanse of Lagas (ED ΙΠ, c. 2550 BCE), the inscribed sikkätu are periodically
supplemented by an inscribed (precious) stone tablet,239 and by the OB period
inscribed tablets begin to supersede the inscribed sikkätu as the dominant
feature of the Mesopotamian foundation deposit. This supersession of inscrip-
tion over symbol (i.e., inscribed elements as opposed to the uninscribed
foundation-s/tta/w) probably reflects a change in the Mesopotamian dedication
ritual as well as a cultural shift in the society toward the rising value of the
written record. In the last known foundation-sftoiw deposit (a small temple on
the southeastern side of Ur, dedicated by king Rim-Sîn [1822-1763 BCE] to
Enki), an identical text is inscribed on both the peg-shaped figurine and its
accompanying black steatite tablet. This duplication might demonstrate that
these two monuments had developed analogous roles within the ritual.240 From
this point on in Mesopotamia, until the close of the sixth century BCE, written
documents (in the form of clay tablets, to be supplemented later by cylinders
and prisms) constitute the primary feature of the Mesopotamian foundation

238 The earliest uninscribed tablets have been identified at the Istar Temple at Mari (dated
to the end of ED II or early ED III) and at the Eanna precinct in Uruk. Ellis believes that
foundation tablets were not initially intended to bear inscriptions. Rather, he compares
them with the rectangular pieces of stone deposited in the Temple oval at Khafajah,
stating that "[b]oth sets of objects were probably included because of their materials, or
for some other reason of which we have as yet no idea" (ibid., 76-7).
239 Ur-Nan5e's building at Telloh has produced five such deposits in which an inscribed
stone tablet, shaped like a plano-convex brick, was added to the inscribed copper peg
figurine. Each tells of several of Ur-Nan5e's building projects. Entemena, his
descendant (c. 2450), adheres to this same pattern with his building at Telloh. Five of
his foundation deposits were found in situ, and each consisted of inscribed peg figurines
(Ellis argues that possibly not all were inscribed) and a rectangular, alabaster, inscribed
tablet. Although from the Akkadian period neither peg deposits nor building deposits of
any kind have been located in central sites, there is textual evidence that this complex of
traditions continued in central areas. Moreover, archaeological evidence demonstrates
that the foundation deposit ritual was maintained in peripheral regions. The evidence
includes two deposits from Tis-atal, king of Urkis, late in the Akkadian period. Both
incorporate a peg figurine shaped as a lion whose forelegs rest upon a bronze plate.
Apparently the plate was intended to rest upon a tablet in an apotropaic fashion. One
tablet has been recovered—it is stone with a Hurrian inscription and records one of the
king's building projects (Parrot, "Acquisitions et Inédits du Musée du Louvre," 1-13;
RIME, vol. 3/2, Tis-atal, E3/2.7.3.1; cf. Ellis, Foundation Deposits, 53, 57).
240 Ellis, Foundation Deposits, 70. Although Ellis cites this information, it is my suggestion
that the two items may have analogous roles in the ritual.
190 The leíakkèn fmô Mm Formula in Its ANE Context

deposit. And over and over again, these inscribed deposits refer to (and are
referred to) as Sitir Sumí ("writing of a name") or Sumu Satru ("written name"),
which have been "placed" (Sakänu) as part of the rite of dedication.
As the texts will illustrate, a variety of inscribed deposits might be "placed"
as a part of Mesopotamian ritual. These items might include an inscribed
foundation-sikkatu, nam (a stone stela or tablet), a temermi (a cylinder or
prism),241 a musarû (in this context, a cylinder or prism), a salmu (a pictorial
stela or figurine), or a tuppu (a tablet).242 Significant to our study is that by the
Middle and Neo-Assryian and Neo-Babylonian times, all of these items came
to be identified metonymically by their inscriptions.

These terms, literally 'writing of a name' and 'written name,' mean simply
'inscription.' They can refer either to the text inscribed on an object or to an
inscribed object. 243

Consequently, both CAD and AHw have lengthy entries detailing the use of
Sakänu to communicate the placing of such deposits,244 and voluminous evi-
dence demonstrates that within this context, to Sakänu a Sitir Sumi or Sumu Satru
was to deposit some sort of inscribed item within the foundations of a building
as part of the building ritual.
As noted above, the majority of inscribed foundation deposits have emerged
from temples. Although many of the relationships between material remains
and actual temple-building ritual are still unclear, certain aspects of the
Mesopotamian temple building ritual are very clear. The first, is that the
decision to build or rebuild a temple was, at least in theory, the decision of the
god, not the king. 245 The second is that the restoration of a temple or the
building of a new temple was an undertaking that required the most

241 See W. Baumgartner, "Untersuchungen zu den akkadischen Bauausdrücken," 245-47. A

recent study of this same term has been published by Dunham, "Sumerian Words for
Foundation," 31-64. This article is an excerpt from Dunham's dissertation, "A Study of
Ancient Mesopotamian Foundations" (Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1980).
Here Dunham demonstrates the role of temennu in the Ur III field plans, showing that
within this context Sumerian temen denoted areas marked off by surveyors' pegs. She
attempts to relate this early usage of the term to the later use of the same term as
"foundation deposit" through the shared role of the peg in both contexts.
242 Ellis, Foundation Deposits, chapter 7.
243 Ibid., 150-151.
244 CAD SI, s.v. "Sakänu," meaning lai' ; AHw, s.v. "Sakänu(m)," meaning lg.
245 This theology may be found throughout every era of Mesopotamian history. One
example is the clay cylinder inscription of Nabonidus, recording the restoration of the
Ebabbar temple of Samas at Sippar: "When Anu and Enlil commanded the restoration
of Sippar, the proper time fixed by them for the rebuilding of the Ebabbar arrived,
Samas, the great lord, remembered his original dwelling. They joyfully decided to have
the top of that temple tower, its sacred place, (built) higher than before (Paul-Alain
Beaulieu, The Reign of Nabonidus: King of Babylon 556-539 BC [New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1989], 30-31, 1.3.11).
 Suma latra Sakänu and the Monumental Corpus 191

complicated of rituals.246 Third, in the Mesopotamian mind it was the king, as

the type man of his community and the steward of the gods, who stood
responsible before the gods to ensure that proper building protocol had been
followed.247 And fourth, one of the complex rituals that accompanied the
construction of this most sacrosanct of all public buildings was the location of
any previous foundations and/or deposits in order that the old and new
foundation deposit might be interred together (Sakänu) at the commencement of
the new construction. Our particular interest lies in the regular references to the
"placing" {Sakänu) of the inscribed deposit (Sumu Satru) within this assemblage.
A few examples will suffice.
In his commemoration of the rebuilding of the Istar temple, Emasmas,
Samsi-Adad I (1813-1781) speaks of finding and caring for the foundation
deposits of his predecessor (in this case narû, musarû, and temennu) and of
"placing" (Sakänu) his own deposits. As is paradigmatic for the monumental
genre, Samsi-Adad I concludes with the standard peroration demanding that
his monuments (temennu and naru) be treated with similar respect—that his
inscriptions also be returned to their places.

The monuments and foundation inscriptions of Manistusu (na-re-e

ma-an-iS-ti-Su rù te-em-me^-ni-Su) I swear I did not remove but [re-
stored] to [their places]. I deposited (lu-ú aS-rku^-un) [my foundation

246 One of the most accessible texts demonstrating this long-lived tradition complex is the
Akkadian "Ritual for the Repair of a Temple" from Uruk which describes the ceremony
required at the founding of a temple that has fallen into ruin (translated by A. Sachs,
ANET, 339-342). Here three different versions of what is surely a single temple repair
ritual text are translated. (Two of the editions are from the Seleucid period of Uruk; the
third is from Babylon and is probably one or two centuries older.) In these texts the
various civic and cultic leaders of the community are instructed to carry out a
complicated array of ritual actions and recitation before the repair or rebuilding of a
decayed temple might even begin. The leaders are required to wait for a "favorable day"
to begin the ritualistic acts. Then repeated sacrifice and libation are followed by the
singing of laments—"the poems of appeasement"—over the deteriorated edifice. The
priests are then instructed to sprinkle clean water on the roof of the temple, and to have
the bârû priest "investigate the plans" of the original edifice. Lastly there are special
instructions for identifying, mourning over, and putting away the "first brick" of the
earlier temple. After all of these acts have been soberly attended to, then rebuilding
might begin. One of the versions makes it quite clear that the sacrifice and libation were
to continue on a daily basis until the temple was completely restored.
For additional information, see Ellis's first chapter in which he summarizes what is
known of Mesopotamian building rites (Foundation Deposits) and Hurowitz's excellent
treatment of the building of Solomon's temple in relation to Mesopotamian building
accounts (I Have Built You an Exalted House).
247 See Chapter One, "2 Samuel 7," p. 69-76. This concept has been articulated by many
scholars. See, for example, Saggs, The Greatness that was Babylon, 359-89: "Prominent
amongst the consequent duties of the king was, therefore, his responsibility for the
house of the god . . . Thus it was not only a mark of piety but an absolute duty for the
king to give attention to the building or restoration of the temples of the gods" (363).
192 The l'Sakkên Fmô Mm Formula in Its ANE Context

monuments and foundation inscriptions] beside his . . . In the future

when the temple becomes old, . . . and the king whom the god Enlil
appoints restores (it): May he not remove my (foundation) monuments
and inscriptions but restore them to their places (a-na ma-ai-k[a-ni]-
iu-nu-rrfa1 li-rte~*-er-Su-nu-ti) as I did not remove the monuments and
inscriptions of ManiStusu.248

This tradition complex is further illustrated by Salmaneser I (1273-1244 BCE).

His restoration of the Assur temple Ehursagkukurra is recorded on several
stone foundation tablets. After detailing his purification of the site, his digging
of the foundation pit "to bedrock," and his laying of precious stones and metals
below the foundations, the king recounts his participation in the foundation
deposit tradition. Here Salmaneser testifies that he has cared for the monu-
ments of his predecessors, exhorts his successors to show similar care for his
monuments, and curses anyone who would deface either.

I anointed with oil the (foundation) monuments (na-re-e) of former kings, made
sacrifices, returned (them) to their places (ana aS-ri-Su-nu u-ter) . . . As I
returned the (foundation) monuments of former kings to their places, may he
[the future prince] anoint with oil (my) monuments (na-re-e), make sacrifices,
return (them) to their places . . . He who removes my monuments, discards my
inscribed name (Su-mi ¡Sat-ra): May Assur . . . destroy his progeny. 249

In a like manner, Tiglath-pilesar I (1114-1076 BCE) speaks of inscribing his

monuments and threatens those who would erase his MU Satru {=$umu Satru).

I wrote on my monumental and clay inscriptions (i-na NA 4 .NA.RÚ.A.MES-¡<3

ù tem-me-ni-ia al-tu-ur) my heroic victories, my successful battles, (and) the
suppression of the enemies, foes of the god AsSur which the gods Anu and Adad
granted me. I deposited (them) (áS-kun) in the temple of the gods Anu and Adad
. . . He who breaks (or) erases my monumental and clay inscriptions . . . erases
my inscribed name (MU Sat-ra i-pa-Si-tu-ma)... ,250

Esarhaddon's (680-669 BCE) barrel cylinder inscriptions, which record the

renovation of the Ebaradurgara temple at Nippur, refer to his monuments
e x c l u s i v e l y as MU.SAR ( = i u m u Satru) and Sitir MU-ia (=Sitir Sumlya).

If at any time in the future . . . this temple falls into disrepair and becomes dilap-
idated, may (that future prince) seek out its (original) emplacement (and) repair
its dilapidated parts! May he anoint (my) written name, the writing of my name,

248 RIMA, vol. 1, Samsi-Adad I, A.0.39.2:ii:21- iv:l (p. 53-54).

249 These tablets were excavated from the temple of temple of Anu and Adad. See RIMA,
vol. 1, Salmaneser I, A.0.77.1:156-167 (p. 186).
250 RIMA, vol. 2/1, Tiglath-pilesar I, .A.0.87.1:39-69 (p. 30).
 ¡Suma latra Sakânu and the Monumental Corpus 193

with oil (MUSAR-« Si-tir MV-ia I.GiS lip-Su-uS), offer sacrifice (and) set (it) back
in its place! 251

The clay cylinder of A§sur-banipal (668-627 BCE) uses this same literary
typology.

If at any time in the future . . . this work falls into disrepair, may (that prince)
repair its dilapidated state! May he write my name with his (own) name
(Su-ml it-ti MU-SU liS-tur)\ May he look at my written name (MU.SAR), anoint (it)
with oil, offer a sacrifice, (and) set (it back) in its place! . . . [(But) as for the one
who] erases my written name (iu-ml Sat-ru i-pa-dS-Si-tu), destroys my written
name ( M U . S A R - W ' - A ) or changes its position . . . ,252

The inscription of Nabopolassar (625-605 BCE) echoes the same ritual tradition
and uses the same language regarding his rebuilding of Epagintila, the temple
of Ninurta in Babylon.

Whenever this temple falls into decay, you will remove its ruins. Look upon my
written name (Si-ti-ir Su-mi-ia a-mu-úr-ma) and place it with your own
inscriptions (it-ti mu-sar-re-e-ka Su-ku-un).25}

The foundation document of Nebuchadnezzar II (604-562 BCE) encapsulates

several of the temple building traditions in its expressed concern for the
sanctity of the original blueprint of Eigikalama as well as the foundation
document of his predecessors.

I praised Lugal-Marada, my lord, and I searched carefully for the ancient

foundation of Eigikalama, his temple in Marad, whose old foundation no earlier
king had seen since the old d a y s ; . . . I found the foundation of Naram-Sîn, king
of Babylon, my distant ancestor. I did not alter the writing of his name
(¡Si-té-ir Su-mi-Su), but deposited the writing of my name together with the
writing of his name (Si-tè-ir Su-mi-ia it-ti Si-tè-ir Su-mi-Su aS-tdk-ka-an-ma), I
laid its (the temple's) foundations on the foundation of Naram-Sîn, king of
Babylon. 254

As a final example, Nabonidus (555-539 BCE) uses Sitir Sumi/iumu Satru in the
same context to express the same concerns for the religious traditions of his
ancestors.

I placed (dS-ku-un-ma) with the writing of my name (it-ti Si-ti-ir Su-mi-ia) the
writing of the name (Si-ti-ir Su-mi) of Hammurapi, on an alabaster tablet which I

251 RJMB, vol. 2, EsarhaddonB.6.31.11:18-19 (p. 177).

252 RIMB, vol. 2, Ashurbanipal B.6.32.6:26-33 (p. 207-208).
253 Langdon, Die neubabylonischen Königsinschriften, 15, 68-69, Nabopolassar no. 4:38-9.
254 Ellis, Foundation Deposits, 180-81, no. 30; cf. YOS 1, no. 44:i:24-27, ii:2-8 (Pis. XXXI-
XXXII).
 194 The l'Sakkën fmô Mm Formula in Its ANE Context

found inside it (the ruined temple); I established (them) forever (áS-ku-un-ma

ú-ki-in ana du-úr u4-mi).2i5

In summary, these inscriptions give evidence that the "placing" (Sakänu) of

the inscribed monument of the king in the foundations of a newly constructed
building was an extremely important aspect of Mesopotamian temple-building
ideology in every age and in every region. It is also apparent that the installa-
tion of a foundation deposit came to be communicated by the formulaic phrase:
"I placed my written name." This usage is in fact quite similar to metonymical
use of Suma Sakänu previously considered in that both expressions speak of
"placing a (written) name" as an idiomatic means of communicating the
installation of an inscribed monument.

3. Wall-sikkätu and Suma Satra Sakanu

The term wall-sikkatu refers collectively to a broad assemblage of clay

monuments identified in various studies as "nails," "knobs," and "cones." 257
These curious artifacts are among the earliest and most common vehicles for
building inscriptions. Epigraphic and archaeological evidence has demon-
strated that the function of these sikkätu was to be inscribed and implanted, by
the dozens, into the walls of newly constructed buildings in order to commem-
orate the builder and to honor his patron deity.
How do these enigmatic bearers of building inscriptions further our study of
Sumu Satru? In their recent analysis of the wall-sikkätu from Assur, Donbaz and
Grayson catalogue and translate just over three hundred whole and fragmented
clay sikkätu, ranging in date from the middle of the second millennium to the
seventh century BCE. In a chart summarizing the literary typology of these
inscribed pieces, the authors identify the phrase Sumí Satra ana aSrlSa lutër,
"may he return my written name to its place," as a standard component in the

255 Ellis, Foundation Deposits, 181, no. 32; cf. Langdon, Die neubabylonischen Königsin-
schriften, 240-41, Nabonidus no. 3, iii 27-31.
256 Note that the standard foundation deposit formula, "to place (the) written name," is
periodically replaced by "to place (the) name." The foundation document of Tiglath-
pileser I (1114-1076 BCE), inscribed on a clay cylinder, celebrating the construction of
the temples of Anu and Adad, is a particularly clear example.
He who erases my written name and writes his name (MU Sat-ra i-pa-Si-tu-ma
M U - ί κ i-ia-ta-ru). .. (RIMA, vol. 2, Tiglath-pileser I, A.0.87.1:69-70 [p. 30]).
See as well, Hammu-rapi (RIME, vol. 4, Hammurapi E4.3.6.11:46-70 [p. 346]), the
repetitive inscriptions of Assur-banipal and his brother Samas-suma-ukin (RIMB, vol. 2,
Ashurbanipal, B.6.32.12:24-28 [p. 214], B.6.32.5:21-24 [p. 206], B.6.32.1:27b-30
[p. 198]; Samaä-suma-ukin, B.6.33.3:17-28 [p. 253], B.6.33.3:26b-34 [p. 253],
B.6.33.4:31-33 [p. 255]); and Salmaneser ΠΙ (RIMA, vol. 3/2, Salmaneser III,
A.0.102.10: lower edge 2b-3 [p. 56]).
257 See "Clay Nails," p. 148-52.
 Suma Satra Sakänu and the Monumental Corpus 195

concluding sections of these inscriptions.258 Donbaz and Grayson's presen-

tation of the previously unpublished cone fragment of Adad-narari I (1305-
1274 BCE) serves as an example of this formula.

My monumental inscriptions I set. . . for future days . . . may . . . return (my)

written name to its place (Su-me Sat-ra <a>-na d[S-ri-Su lutèr]).259

Assur-Dan II's inscription (934-912 BCE), which appears on several clay cones
from Assur, repeats the same stock phraseology. (Several of these cones were
found in situ, within the remains of the gate.)

In future days, in days to come . . . may a later prince restore its (the gate)
weakened [portion and] return my inscribed name to its place (MU Sat-ra a-na
dS-ri-Su lu-te-er).260

A collation of the numerous extant cones of Salmaneser ΠΙ (858-824 BCE)

reiterates this same formula, featuring MU Sat-ra a-na áS-ri-Sd [lu-1] er.261 Note
the following example from the Anu-Adad temple at Assur.

May a later prince restore its weakened (portions) and return my written name
(MU Sat-ra) to its place (a-na dS-ri-Su lu-ter). (Then) Assur, the god Anu, and
the god Adad will listen to his prayers.262

It is clear that this standard peroration, like that of the inscribed foundation
deposit, was intended to articulate the king's desire that the "future prince"
treat his inscribed monument with respect, that he return the wall-sikkatu of his
ancestor "to its place" so that the former prince and his mighty acts would not
be forgotten. Hence, it is apparent in these passages that the Sumu Satru,
"written name," refers to more than just the name or the inscription of the royal
author; rather, as with the foundation deposits considered above, in this usage,
Sumu Satru indicates the actual monument. This metonymical use of Sumu Satru
is illustrated and confirmed by a study published in 1950 by Landsberger and
Balkan. The subject of this inquiry was Assyrian building activities as
illustrated by documents excavated from the merchant colony at Kiiltepe.263
The formulaic language by which the Assyrians at Kiiltepe referred to the
ritual placement of the clay wall-sikkatu shows that Sumu Satru did not refer
merely to the inscription, but the phrase referred metonymically to the monu-
ment as well. Moreover, the Kiiltepe wall-sikkatu inscriptions show a striking

258 Donbaz and Grayson, RIMS, 1:28.

259 Ibid., 13, no. 31, lines 4'-6'.
260 RIMA, vol. 2, Aäsur-Dan II, A.0.98.3:14-19 (p. 138).
261 See RIMA, vol. 3/2, Salmaneser III, A.0.102.18, 39, 42-46, 52 for the collection of the
king's cones. See Donbaz and Grayson, RIMS, 1:31, no. 138, line 11 for the line quoted.
262 RIMA, vol. 3/2, Salmaneser ΠΙ, A.0.102.39:ll-12 (p. 116).
263 Landsberger and Balkan, "Die Inschrift des assyrischen Königs Irijum," 219-68.
 196 The l'Sakkën fmô Mm Formula in Its ANE Context

similarity to those of the foundation deposit in both syntactical form and

evolution.
In their collection of Old and Middle Assyrian inscriptions, Landsberger
and Balkan isolated what they named "the sikkatu formula," a standard ex-
pression by which royal builders referred to "driving in" (mahäsu) or "placing"
(Sakänu) their waii-sikkätu during the building process. 264 The standard literary
protocol employed to articulate the placing of the inscribed sikkatu is exempli-
fied in the inscription of Puzur-Assur:

sikkatl aSkun .. . sikkatl ana aSrlSu lutêr

I have placed my sikkatu may he (the future prince) return my sikkatu to its
place. 265

The latter portion of the sikkatu-fomrn\a. should be familiar to the reader as it is,
essentially, the same formula that we reviewed in regard to Donbaz and
Grayson's study of the wa\\-sikkatu from Assur: Sumí Satra ana aSriSa lutër,
"may he return my inscription to its (the sikkatu s) place." 266 The difference
between the two is that in the Assur texts Sumí Satru ("my inscribed name") has
replaced sikkatl ("my clay nail") as found in the Kültepe texts. A comparison of
these two studies demonstrates an evolving literary typology. Landsberger and
Balkan locate the sikkatu formula as early as Erisum I (third millennium?) and
trace this same literary protocol through numerous later inscriptions including
Samsi-Adad I (1813-1781 BCE), Puzur-Assur ΙΠ, Enlil-nasir Π (1430-1425
BCE), and Eriba-Adad I (1390-1364 BCE). In the sikkatu inscription of Enlil-
nirari I (1327-1318 BCE), however, the pattern changes.

sikkatl aSkun .. . íuml Satra u sikkatl lutër

I have placed my sikkatu·, may he (the future prince) return my Sumu Satru and
my sikkatu [to its place].

264 Ibid., "Die Inschrift des assyrischen Königs Irijum," 252-55. Unlike the typical use of
multiple wall-sikkatu in the Neo-Sumerian and OB tradition, as well as in the Middle
and Neo-Assyrian practice known from Assur, it seems that in Kültepe only one sikkatu
was used per ruler, per building (ibid., 253). Because of this divergence, Ellis questions
the identity of the sikkätu in these texts, stating that "these passages can refer neither to
clay nails nor to peg deposits" (Ellis, Foundation Deposits, 90). Even with their
distinctiveness, however, it is obvious from the texts that the sikkätu in Landsberger and
Balkan's collection share the fundamental form and function of the Sumerian,
Babylonian, and Assyrian wall-sikkätu. In addition, the literary typology of these
sikkätu is the same as that of other assemblages that Ellis does recognize as "clay nails."
Hence, I am including the Kültepe texts within the category of wall-sikkätu.
265 Landsberger and Balkan, "Die Inschrift des assyrischen Königs Irijum," 253.
266 Donbaz and Grayson demonstrate that the idiomatic use of Suma and Sakänu in the
closing remarks of these inscriptions is formulaic to "Type A" (RIMS, 1:28).
 Suma ¡atra Sakänu and the Monumental Corpus 197

The authors make the point that with Arik-den-ili (1317-1307 BCE), the
sikkatu formula disappears, and from that point onward sikkatu is replaced by
either narû, temennu, or iumu Satru.267 The authors theorize that this replacement
of sikkatu with narû and temennu reflects Babylonian influence, and they con-
clude that the shift in terminology may be related to a shift in dedication
customs. As regards this study, what is quite clear is that within the context of
the Kültepe inscriptions, to Sakänu a Sumu Satru is to install an inscribed wall-
sikkatu at the dedication of a building.268
Although Donbaz and Grayson do not make this point, a similar pattern can
be identified in the Assur collection. Note this vjaW-sikkatu fragment of
Salmaneser ΙΠ concerning his repairs to the walls and gates of the city of
Assur in 833 BCE:

NAiZi-qa-t[i aí\-kun(?y ru-bu-ú ar-ku-ú an-fi[u-su l]u-ud-diS MU Sat-ra a-na

dS-ri-Sd [lu-t]er

I have placed my sikkatu. May a later prince restore its ruined (portions)
and return (my) Suma Satra to its place.269

Compare the inscription of Salmaneser III with this previously unpublished

cone inscription of Adad-narari I (1305-1274 BCE):

[... na-ri-i]a aS-ku-un ... [arkât ûme (?)...]

[...] Su-me Sat-ra <a>-na á[S-ri-Su lutër.. .]
[...] Su-um-Su rP-[Sattaru ...]

. . . I have placed my [narû]... in/for distant days

. . . may he [return] my Suma Satra to [its pla]ce
. . . his name infscribe]270

The shared terminology between the literary protocol of the Middle and Neo-
Assyrian wall-sikkatu from Assur and the Old and Middle Assyrian sikkatu of
Kültepe is obvious. In both contexts, the inscribed monument, bearing a build-

267 Landsberger and Balkan, "Die Inschrift des assyrischen Königs Irijum," 252-55.
268 The fact that the Kültepe clay wall-sikkatu is later referred to as a narû (stone
monument) or temennu (foundation or foundation deposit) is quite intriguing (cf. RIMS
1:13, no. 31, line 4' and p. 19, no. 103, line 6'). Here is an overlap in terminology that
may reflect an overlapping conceptual framework. Here monuments made of clay
which were intended only as wall deposits have been assimilated into the language of
foundation deposits (temennu) and stone monuments (narû), thus demonstrating that the
designations for these various monuments were intimately related in the mind of the
ancients and possibly that the monuments themselves shared a somewhat fluid function.
269 Note that the pronominal suffix on ariS in this inscription is feminine singular,
indicating that the item which must be returned to "its place" is the sikkatu (cf. Donbaz
and Grayson, RIMS, 1:29-31, "Type A").
270 Donbaz and Grayson, RIMS, 1:13, no. 31, lines 4'-6'.
198 The fSakkên fmô Mm Formula in Its ANE Context

ing inscription, is referred to as both a sikkatu and a Sumu Satru, and in both, the
inscribed monument is "placed" (Sakänu). Moreover, the sikkatu formula
evinces a literary typology very similar to that of the foundation deposit. In
both genres Sumu Satru is used as a metonym for the inscribed object and is
"placed" (Sakänu) as an expression of the ritualistic installation of the monu-
ment. Lastly, the formulaic language of "placing" the wall -sikkatu and the
foundation deposit is similar to what I have identified as the metonymical use
of the Suma Sakänu formula in its association with victory stelae. All of these
expressions speak of "placing a (written) name" as an idiomatic means of
communicating the installation of an inscribed monument.

4. Conclusions

By the OB period, Sumu Satru/Sitir Sumi ("written name/writing of a name")

had become a stock phrase within the Mesopotamian royal monumental
corpus. This expression was used to indicate an inscription as well as the
monument that bore it. Likewise, the standard literary typology of this corpus
customarily spoke of "placing" (Sakänu) monuments, particularly wall-sikkätu
and foundation deposits used for building inscriptions. Landsberger and
Balkan have demonstrated that by the late fourteenth century BCE Sumu Satru/
Sitir Sumi had become a synonym for the inscribed wall-sikkätu of Kültepe.
Moreover, the formula associated with the "placing" of a sikkatu had evolved
into Suma Satra Sakänu. By the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian periods, the
language associated with the "placing" of foundation monuments had followed
a similar developmental trajectory such that Suma Satra Sakänu became a
standard means of communicating that an inscribed deposit had been installed.
Consequently, in these latter periods, to install a building monument was to
"place a written name."
It is evident that the Mesopotamian idioms Suma Sakänu and Suma Satra
Sakänu share the same principle elements as well as the same contextual
field—the installation of inscribed monuments for posterity. We have seen that
Suma Sakänu first appears in the OAkk triumphal inscriptions, that it endured in
the north and south, and that its principal use was in connection with the votive
and victory monuments of the northern, Semitic kings. This expression
originally communicated the inscribing of a name on a monument, but was
eventually expanded to indicate the installation of the monument bearing the
inscription. Its near-synonym, Suma Satra Sakänu, seems to have emerged from
the blending of two literary traditions: (1) the Sumerian tradition in which an
inscription (and eventually one's inscribed monument) was referred to as a
"written name" (MU.SAR=Sumu Satru) and (2) the literary tradition of "placing"
(Sakänu) building monuments (sikkatu, narû, temennu, etc.). Consequently, this
second idiom appears primarily in connection with building monuments,
 Suma Sakänu in the Levant 199

particularly foundation deposits and wall-sikkätu. In both of these idioms, the

noun "name" is used idiomatically to speak of an inscription, and the verb "to
place" has to do with the installation of the inscribed monument. Moreover, as
the texts have amply illustrated, both of these idioms were formulaic to the
monumental tradition, appearing on so many occassions that any literate
person at all familiar with this tradition would recognize these expressions for
what they were—an idiomatic means by which to speak of the installation of
an inscribed monument. Lastly, it is apparent that the Suma Sakänu idiom found
its way into literary and epistolary language, whereas Suma Satra Sakänu never
travelled beyond the monumental tradition. It is quite possible that this distinc-
tion is due to the fact that the first idiom was associated with votive and victory
monuments, which were intentionally exhibited to domestic and foreign
observers alike, whereas Suma Satra Sakänu was common to foundation deposits
and ^wall-sikkätu, which were customarily concealed.

F. suma sakänu in the Levant

As presented in this chapter, the Akkadian and Sumerian evidence clearly

demonstrates that the ritual complex associated with "placing the (written)
name" was deeply embedded in the psyche of the Mesopotamian culture. We
have seen that this monumental language, particularly Suma Sakänu, migrated
into various genres, far beyond the boundaries of Mesopotamia. Consequently,
Suma Sakänu found its way to the northern Levant via the victory stelae of the
Old Akkadian and Assyrian kings, and to the southern Levant by means of the
Amarna letters. The Gilgames Epic, a favorite among the scribal schools, may
also have brought the idiom to Ugarit or other urban centers in Canaan.
Certainly, the narrative tradition from which the Gilgames Epic emerges, the
quest of the northern kings to reach "the Sea" and commemorate that campaign
by "placing their names," is evident in Isaiah's oracle against Sennacherib in
Isa 37:24. Conclusive evidence that our idiom in its monumental use found its
way to the Levant may be found among the West Semitic monumental
inscriptions.
The Phoenician inscriptions of Kilamuwa, Ahiram, Azatiwadda (Karatepe),
and Yehawmilk, as well as the Old Aramaic inscriptions from Tell Fakhariyeh
(king Hadad-Yith'i), Sefire, and Hamath (king Zakkur) all conclude with curse
sections in which the ruler threatens any future interloper who might desecrate
either his inscription or his monument. 271 As with the Mesopotamian texts,
these imprecations reveal to the modern reader the vocabulary by which the
ancients referred to their inscriptions. The available evidence indicates that

271 Stanley Gevirtz collected these inscriptions in his 1961 article, "West-Semitic Curses
and the Problem of the Origins of Hebrew Law" VT11 (Ap 1961): 137-58.
200 The l'Sakkèn fmô Säm Formula in Its ANE Context

"inscription" was typically represented by the NWS noun spr from the NWS
verb spr "to write."272 Although it is possible that NWS spr is a caique of Akk
latâru (and therefore the nouns formed from spr in these passages might be
associated with Akk Sitirtu "inscription, text"273), this parallel is not adequate to
assume any real relationship between the literary typology of the West Semitic
monumental tradition and Sumu Satru or Sumu in the Mesopotamian tradition.
The installation of monuments in NWS offers a better parallel. Here Sym and
Syt, "to put" (=Akk Sakänu), are the verbs routinely chosen both in Old
Aramaic and in Phoenician. Among the Old Aramaic inscriptions, Bar-Hadad
speaks of the "stela which he set up (nsb' zy im)"274 for his god Melqart, and
twice Hadad-Yith'i writes of his statue which "he set up (£/n)" before Hadad of
Sikan, "lord of the Habur."275 Zakkur, king of Hamath, writes of the "stela (he)
set up ([n]s£>J zy im)."276 Bar-Rakib writes of "this stela set up (nsb zn Sm)" for

272 Kilamuwa, ΚΑΙ, no. 24, lines 14, 15: "Now if any of my sons who sit in my place does
harm to this inscription (hspr ζ ) . . . smashes this inscription (hspr z) . . ."; Ahiram,
KAI, no. 1, line 2: "may his inscription (sprh) be effaced"; Sefire KAI 222:C, lines 17,
18: "Whoever does not keep the words of this inscription (mly spr') . . ."; KAI 223:C,
lines 2, 4, 6, 9: "[Whoever] has it in mind to efface these inscriptions (spry['] Ίη) from
the sacred stones . . . Ί will destroy these inscriptions (spr[y]')'. . . if he is afraid to
efface the inscriptions (spr[y]') . . . 'Efface these inscriptions (Id [1 sp]ry"ln). . . !"'
Gibson reconstructs an unknown Pheonician grave inscription as h[spr] z' "this
inscription" (TSSI 3:29, line 3; cf. Gevirtz, "West-Semitic Curses," 141-42, 146-47;
Gibson, TSSI, 3:34, 14; 2:8-9, 32-33).
273 Cf. CAD s2, s.v. "Sitirtu" (p. 144); CAD s, s.v. "sepëru," "to write in alphabetic script
(on skin)" (p. 225); DNWSI (1995), s.v. "spr," (2:799-800).
274 KAI, no. 201, line 1; Gibson, TSSI 2:1-4, no. 1; A. Lemaire, "La stèle araméene de
Barhadad," Or 53(1984): 337-49 (349); COS 2:152-53; Drinkard, "Literary Genre of
the Mesha Inscription," Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab (Andrew Dearman,
ed.; Atlanta; Scholars Press, 1989), 133, line 1; Wayne Pitard, "The Identity of the Bir-
Hadad of the Melqart Stela," BASOR 272(1988): 3-21; Max Miller, "The Moabite Stone
as a Memorial Stele," PEQ 106 (1974): 11. This stela is just more than a meter in
height, carved with a relief of the god Melqart, the chief deity of Tyre. It was discovered
in a secondary context in the modern village of Bureij, approximately seven km north of
Aleppo. The inscription has been dated on paléographie grounds from the mid-ninth to
the early-eighth-century (Lemaire, "La stèle araméene de Barhadad," 339; W. Pitard,
"The Melqart Stela" COS 2:152).
275 Douglas M. Gropp and Theodore J. Lewis, "Notes on Some Problems in the Aramaic
Text of the Hadd-Yith'i Bilingual," BASOR 259 [1985]: 45-46, lines 1, 16; COS 2:153-
54, lines 1, 16; Drinkard, "Literary Genre of the Mesha Inscription," 135-36, lines 1, 16.
276 KAI, no. 202, line 1; Gibson, TSSI 2:6-17; COS 2:155; Drinkard, "Literary Genre of the
Mesha Inscription," 149, line 1. This two meter stela was discovered forty-five km
southwest of Aleppo. It was erected to celebrate king Zakkur of Hamath's successful
repulsion of a collaborative attack on the city of HZRK (assumed to be the capital of
Lu'ath), and his subsequent building program. The stela is dedicated to the deity 'Iluwer,
and by means of its mention of Bar-Hadad, son of Hazael, is dated to the early eighth
century; Gibson dates the inscription to 775-780 BCE (TSSI 2:6-7). Note line 13 of
section B: [w]$mt qdm ['Iwr] nsb'znh wk[tbt b]h "I set up before ['Iluwer] this stela,
and I w[rote] upon it." Cf. Miller, "The Moabite Stone as a Memorial Stela," 11-12;
 Suma Sakänu in the Levant 201

his father, Panamuwa. 2 7 7 The Phoenician texts include t w o stelae from Malta,
erected b y N h m and Ar§ and dedicated to Baal-Hammon. Nearly identical,
both state that they "set up (Sm)" stelae for the deity. 2 7 8 Hence, in these first-
millennium N W S monumental inscriptions, o n e installs a monument with
N W S Sym, a word w h i c h has the same semantic field as Akk Sakänu, which, o f
course, w a s the standard w a y to speak o f installing monuments in the
Mesopotamian corpus. "To put" is such a c o m m o n verb, however, that this
parallel also fails to confirm a relationship between N W S and the Akk use o f
Sakänu as regards the installation o f monuments. There are, however, at least
three West Semitic inscriptions in which a clear relationship between the
Mesopotamian literary typology o f "placing a name" and the N W S monumen-
tal tradition m a y b e seen.
The first c o m e s from the late eighth-century Phoenician building inscription
o f strongman, Azatiwadda, known b y most as the Karatepe Inscription.

Now, if a king among kings, or prince among princes, if a man who is a man of
renown, effaces the name of Azatiwadda (ymh Sm 'ztwd) from this gate, and puts
(his own) name (wSt Sm)—or if he covets this city, and pulls down this gate,
which Azatiwadda made, and makes another gate for himself, and puts (his
name) upon it {wit Sm 'ly) ... 119

A second version o f this same text, but this one inscribed o n a dedicated statue
o f Baal as opposed to the city gate, reads:

Now, if a king among kings, or a prince among princes, or any man who is a
man of renown, gives orders for the name of Azatiwadda to be effaced from the

David Clemens, "Zakkur Inscription," OEANE 5:387-88.

277 KAI, no. 215, lines 1, 20; COS2:158-60, lines 1, 20; Gibson, 7XS72:76-86, esp. 78 line
1, 80 line 20; cf. Miller, "The Moabite Stone as a Memorial Stele," 11. Discovered near
Zenjirli, this display monument dates to the latter half of the 8" century; Gibson dates it
quite specifically to the end of the Syro-Ephraimite wars, 732 or 731 BCE (TSSI 2:77).
278 KAI, nos. 61, 62, lines 2-3; Gibson, TSSI 3:72-77. Gibson dates these inscriptions to the
late e^-early 7th century (73). In the Persian period, in Aramaic, sm in this function of
erecting monuments is replaced by hqm. This is evident in the inscriptions of Tema and
Nansat (KAI, nos. 228, line 9 and 258, line 1; Gibson, TSSI, 2:149 line 9, 153 line 1),
and in the stele of Taymä' discovered in 1979: "[The stele which Sahrü, governor of
Tayma' set up ([ ]t tym' [ ]qymf (F. M. Cross, CBQ 45[1986]: 387-89, line 2; cf. A.
Livingstone, B. Spaie, M. Ibrahim, M. Kamal, and S. Taimani, "Taimä1: Recent
Soundings and New Inscribed Material," Atlal 4 [1980], pi. 69).
279 KAI, no. 26Aiii, lines 12-16; Gibson, TSSI 3:50-51, Aiii:12-16; COS 2:148-50, iii: 12-
16. There are three extant exemplars of the Azatiwadda text which have been recovered
from Karatepe in eastern Turkey (ancient Cilicia). As designated by KAI, A and Β were
inscribed upon the city gate, C was inscribed upon a statue of Baal, which was probably
installed in the city temple. Although the script is difficult to date, the text has been
placed between the mid-eighth (TSSI 3:42; Lipiriski'The Phoenicians," CANE 3:1326)
and the beginning of the seventh century (Lawson Younger, "The Azatiwada
Incription" COS 2:148).
202 The rSakkên fmô Mm Formula in Its ANE Context

statue of this god (Imht Sm 'ztwd bsml '[l]m z), and puts [his own] name [on it]
(wSt ¡Sm), or more than that, if he covets this city and says, Ί will make another
statue and put my own name on it {wit Smy 'ly), . . . ,280

The vocabulary of this text should sound extremely familiar to the reader.
Indeed, this language of "placing" and "effacing" names is directly parallel to
that of the Mesopotamian inscriptions bearing the Suma Sakänu idiom. Here the
author's building and votive inscriptions are understood as "his name" and a
future leader who would replace that inscription would do so by "placing his
name." The distinction is that in this West Semitic inscription, the Suma
Sakänu idiom is rendered Sm Syt: sm, the Pheonician word for "name" and Syt,
the Phoenician for "to put." 281
A second parallel comes from Yehawmilk of Byblos. In this fifth-
century BCE Phoenician inscription, the king warns the future blasphemer
regarding the desecration of his "name":

[Whoever you are], any ruler or any man who continues to do work upon this
altar [or upon this gold engr]aving or upon this portico, my name, Yehawmilk,
king of Byblos, [put wi]th yours upon that work (Sm 'nk yhwmlk mlk gbl
[tit 't]k Ί ml'kt h'), and if you do not put [my] name with yours (w'm 'bl t¡S ¡Sm
'tk), or if you remove this w[or]k [or move] this [work] with its foundation from
this place and uncover its hiding place, may the mistress Ba'alat of Byblos,
destroy that man and his seed in the presence all the gods of By[blos].282

Yehawmilk has apparently dedicated a number of improvements to the god-

dess's shrine, and has commemorated these works by means of a small stela
which was probably inset into the wall of the portico. 283 And just as articulated
in the foundation deposit and wall-sikkätu formulae of the Mesopotamian
tradition, the king is concerned that his original inscription (his "name") will
be discarded and, thereby, his great works forgotten. It is apparent that "to
place a name" in this context means to install an inscription. Hence, the future
prince is commanded to include the inscription of Yehawmilk with any new
inscription that he might add. Again, these actions are communicated by the
Phoenician caique of Akk Suma Sakänu·. Syt im.
The final text is the clearest example of the borrowing of the Suma
Sakänu idiom into the literary typology of the West Semitic royal inscriptions.
The borrowing is particularly obvious because this inscription is bilingual,
having both an Aramaic and Akkadian version on the same monument, the

280 KAI, no. 26C iv:13-18; Gibson, 75573:54-55, C iv:13-18.

281 DNWSI(1995), s.v. "im," (2:1155-58); ibid., s.v. "íyr," (2:1130-31).
282 KAI, no. 10, lines 11-16; Gibson 7557 3:94-95, lines 11-16; COS 2:151-52, lines 11b-
16; Joel Drinkard, "The Literary Genre of the Mesha'Inscription," 131-54 esp. 141,
lines 11-16. Most concur with Gibson that the date of this inscription is the second half
of the fifth century BCE (7557 3:93). Drinkard dates it to the mid-fourth (op. cit. 140).
283 See Gibson, 75573:93, pi. iv.
 Suma Sakánu in the Levant 203

famous Tell Fakhariyeh statue.284 Dating to the mid-to-late ninth century BCE,
this life-size basalt image of Hadad-Yith'i, the ruler of Guzan, Sikan, and
'Azran, was set up as a votive offering to Hadad. In the closing imprecation,
the king states:

Whoever comes afterwards, should it become dilapitated, may he restore it, may
he put my name on it (wSmym ISm bhl Sumlma liSkun).lss Whoever effaces my
name from it (yld Smy mnh/ mannu Sa Sumé unakkaru) and puts his own name
[on it] (wySym Smhl u SumSu iSakkanu), may Hadad the warrior be his adversary
. . . [H]e set up his statue (slm Sm/ salamSu izqub) whoever removes my name
from the vessels of the house of Hadad, my lord, (mn yld Smy mn m'ny' zy bt hdd
mry/mannu Sa Sumé ina libbi unüte Sa bit äAdad bëlïya ipaSSituni).. . ."286

The parallels between this ninth-century Aramaic votive text and the votive/
victory statuary of the OAkk kings are striking (see in particular, Rimus in
"The Old Akkadian Inscriptions and Suma Sakänu" section of this study). Most
striking is that the Akk formula Sumlma liSkun, "let him place my name," is
translated wSmym ISm bh, and the Akk SumSu iSakkanu, "puts his own name on
it," is rendered by Aramaic ySym Smh. This inscription removes any doubt that
the Akk monumental literary typology involving the Suma Sakänu idiom had
found its way into the first-millennium Levantine monumental tradition.
Moreover, this inscription demonstrates that one NWS equivalent of Akk Suma
Sakänu was NWS Sm Sim, "to place (the) name."287

284 Discovered in the spring of 1979, this text was first published by J. A. Fitzmyer, "The
Aramiac Language and the Study of the New Testament," JBL 99 (1980): 5-21, which
was closely followed by the editio princeps: A. A. Assaf, P. Bordreuil and A. R.
Millard, La statue de Tell Fekherye et son inscription bilingue assyro-araméenne
(Editions recherche sur les civilisations; Paris: Anatole de la Forge, 1982). Stephen A.
Kaufman offers a thorough review of the dating of the monument, the character of its
script, phonology, morphology, and orthography in "Reflections on the Assyrian-
Aramaic Bilingual from Tell Fakhariyeh," MAARAV 3/2 (1982): 137-75. See COS
2:153-54 for the most recent translation of this text by Allan Millard.
285 According to Douglas Gropp and Theodore Lewis ISm should be understood as a
precative of Sym. Kaufman makes the point that this preformative lamed is previously
known from Samalian and the Assur Ostracon and from the Biblical and Jewish
Aramaic form Ihwh/h/'. All agree that wSmym should be read as "and my name." They
state that the singular enclitic mem on this latter word is the result of the Akk influence
of Sumlma in the parallel text (Gropp and Lewis, "Notes on Some Problems in the
Aramaic Text of the Hadd-Yith'i Bilingual," 45-61, esp. 51; cf. Kaufman, "Reflections
on the Assyrian Aramaic Bilingual from Tell Fakhariyeh," 149-50).
286 Gropp and Lewis, "The Aramaic Text of Hadd-Yith'i Bilingual," 46, lines 10-12, 16-17;
Drinkard, "The Literary Genre of the Mesha Inscription," 136, lines 15, 16; cf. COS
2:154; cf. Kaufman, "Reflections on the Assyrian-Aramaic Bilingual from Tell
Fakhariyeh," 153.
287 DNWSI( 1995), s.v. "Sym" (3:1126-28).
204 The fîakkën fmô Säm Formula in Its ANE Context

G. The Relationship Between Suma Sakänu and Deuteronomy

What then is the relationship of this material to Deuteronomy's l'Sakkèn fmô

Säm? As detailed in this chapter, the Akk idiom Suma Sakänu meaning "to place
the name" is a standard element of the literary typology of the Mesopotamian
royal monumental inscriptions. It is particularly frequent in association with
the display monuments of the northern, Semitic kings. In its most basic sense,
Suma Sakänu means to place one's inscription upon a monument in order to
claim that monument as one's own and to commemorate one's great deeds.
The idiom can also mean to install an inscribed monument. This metonymical
application of Suma Sakänu is common to the installation of victory and votive
monuments, and is mirrored in the use of Suma Satra Sakänu in relationship to
foundation deposits and v/aW-sikkátu. The idiom may also be used in an
extended symbolic sense to indicate the claiming of territory: as a conquering
king installs a victory monument on a vanquished region by "placing the
name," so he "places the name" on that region in order to claim it for his own.
This use of Suma Sakänu may be found throughout the narrative tradition I have
named "Journey to the Cedar Forest," and was so well known in Palestine that
Isaiah employs the motif in his eighth-century oracle against the Neo-Assyrian
king, Sennacherib. The evidence demonstrates that Suma Sakänu also found its
way into literary and epistolary works, often being used figuratively to mean
"to take possession" or "victory," or even as a metaphor for "to become
famous by means of heroic deeds."
As we have seen, the late ninth-century Aramaic inscription of Hadad-
Yith'i adopts this Mesopotamian literary typology by means of a West Semitic
translation: Sm sym, also meaning "to place the name." This indicates that in the
monumental typology of both Mesopotamia and the Levant, the Suma Sakänu
idiom continued to retain its basic meaning ("this monument is mine") and
function (memorializing the ruler responsible for the monument). Returning to
the biblical text, we recall that the form of the idiom in Deuteronomy is
l'Sakkên fmô Säm, an expression that might be translated factitively or transi-
tively depending on which etymology of Semitic Skn the reader assumes.
However, we also recall that Dtr 1 , a Levantine historian from the seventh-
century BCE, always translates the deuteronomic idiom as lâs'ûm ¡fmô Säm. Of
course, bH Sûm/Sîm is equivalent to the Phoenician/Old Aramaic Sym in which
PS i ' and s^ fell together. Hence, Dtr''s bH translation of Deuteronomy's
fSakken fmô Säm is morphologically equivalent to the Tell Fakhariyeh inscrip-
tion's Old Aramaic translation of Akk Suma Sakänu: "to place (the) name."
Moreover, we see that the semantic cargo of "placing the name" (to inscribe
one's name on a monument for posterity) continued well into the fifth century
as is demonstrated by Yehawmilk's Byblos inscription.
 The Relationship between Suma iakänu and Deuteronomy 205

In sum, the preponderance of evidence is such that we must assume that

neither the Deuteronomist nor Dtr1 is generating a new idiom. Rather, both
rSakkèn fmô torn and lâsûm fmô torn have antecedents in languages and cul-
tures with which the biblical authors had regular contact. Moreover, the pho-
netic and lexical similarity between l'tokkèn tfmô Mm and lâsûm fmô torn and
their Akk and Old Aramaic counterparts is simply too great to be coincidental.
If indeed the biblical authors are borrowing their idiom from the royal
monumental tradition of Mesopotamia, what would be the semantic content of
their message? As both Dtr1 and the Deuteronomist make very clear, the hero
of the Book of Deuteronomy is YHWH, the mighty champion, who "personally
brought you from Egypt by his great power, driving out from before you
nations greater and mightier than you, to bring you in, to give you their land
for an inheritance, as it is today" (Deut 4:37). As discussed, it is YHWH'S sov-
ereignty over the land and over the nation which serves as the catalyst for the
cultic law detailed in Deuteronomy 12-26. Moreover, the anticipated conquest
of the Promised Land is never presented as Israel's victory, but as YHWH'S: the
divine warrior who defeated "all their enemies who stood before them" and
claimed all Israel as his own (Josh 21:43-45; 23:3-5). Thus, when the Deuter-
onomist records YHWH'S command that "You shall do thus and such in the
place I choose to place my name . . ." he is marshalling thousands of years of
royal monumental imagery to inform the statement. It is the conquering king
who is demanding their obedience; it is the new sovereign of the region who is
awarding to Israel her land grant.
When Dtr1 adopts this same idiom, he does so to speak of YHWH'S ongoing
suzerainty over Israel. The historian uses this idiom to express YHWH'S accept-
ance of the temple project (1 Kgs 9:3; cf. 1 Kgs 8:16, 29), his judgment against
his regent, Solomon (1 Kgs 11:36), his ongoing covenant with Solomon's heir,
Rehoboam (1 Kgs 14:21), and his final rejection of Judah due to Manasseh's
sedition (2 Kgs 21:4, 7; cf. 2 Kgs 23:27). Jeremiah and Nehemiah use the
idiom in the same manner; their emphasis is land tenure. The seventh-century
prophet deals specifically with Judah's violation of the conditions of her land
grant: since she has violated the deuteronomic stipulations—has committed
high treason by giving her loyalty to "other gods"—she will be driven from the
land given to her by her suzerain, YHWH. Nehemiah implores this same
suzerain to restore his land grant in light of Israel's repentance.
Thus, I suggest that the Deuteronomist first adopted Akk SumaSakänu in
order to relate the great champion of Israel's history to the mighty heroes of
old. In the same manner as did Iahdun-Lim, Samsi-Adad, Salmaneser III, and
even Gilgames, YHWH states that he has "placed his name." Therefore, let it be
known that the king has captured this new territory, he has claimed it as his
own. Let the people be subject, let them bring tribute, and let them always
remember that it is he who has defeated their foes and it is he to whom
allegiance is due.
 IV. Conclusion:
The Meaning of the l sakkèn semô säm Formula in the DH
e

The goal of this study was to investigate the deuteronomic idiom FSakkên
fmô Mm and its biblical reflexes lâsûm fmô Mm and lihyôt fmô Mm in order to
determine the idiom's original intent, and to thereby assess the claims of the
Name Theology regarding its semantic cargo. In contrast to previous studies, I
sought to analyze the formula as an idiom—a closed syntactical unit that may
be linked to cognate forms only as a unit. Moreover, my intent was to avoid
the methodological error that has plagued so many previous studies of this
idiom, what Barr has named "illegitimate totality transfer."
Having reviewed the particular occurrences of this idiom in the Hebrew
Bible, it is apparent that FMkkën fmô Mm predominates within the old legal
core of Deuteronomy (see fig. 1), lâsûm fmô Mm is clearly the preference of
Dtr1 (see figs. 2 & 3), and lihyôt fmô Mm is something of an anomaly—
appearing first in 1 Kings 8, quoted once by Dtr2 (2 Kgs 23:27), and
periodically reiterated by the Chronicler (see fig. 4). In addition, the singular
occurrences of l'Mkkên fmô Mm in Jeremiah, Ezra, and Nehemiah demonstrate
that the idiom continued in use in seventh-century Jerusalem and on into the
post-exilic period (see fig. 5).
From my assessment of the lâsûm fmô Mm passages in Deuteronomy and
the DH, I concluded that Dtr1 inserted this reflex of the deuteronomic idiom
into Deuteronomy when he redacted the larger history. In Deut 12:5 I
characterized this interpolation as an external, interlinear gloss, inserted to
translate the Deuteronomist's more difficult foreign version of the idiom
(fiakkên fmô Mm) with a dynamic equivalent more easily understood by Dtr 1 's
audience {lâsûm fmô Mm). Regarding Deut 12:21 and 14:24 (the only two
passages in Deuteronomy that address the issue of the central cult site being
too far away from the individual worshipper to facilitate regular visitation), I
concluded that lâsûm fmô Mm found its way into the text as part of two Dtr1
interpolations upon the old deuteronomic law code.
Regarding the unique form of the periphrastic reflex of the deuteronomic
idiom, lihyôt fmô Mm, I concluded that this reflex was pioneered by the author
of 1 Kgs 8:16 in order to make the association between Y H W H ' S election of the
place and his election of David (and thus Solomon and his temple) blatant. As
the place was chosen in order that Y H W H ' S name might lihyôt there, so David
was chosen lihyôt over Y H W H ' S people, Israel. The repetition of lihyôt in regard
to both subjects patently associates Y H W H ' S place, the Davidids, and
 208 Conclusion

Solomon's building project. I further concluded that the exact semantic cargo
of this reconstructed form of the deuteronomic idiom was uncertain.
In the course of this study I also demonstrated that the bH Piel of Skn has a
variable semantic field. In certain contexts the verb means "to settle" (the
factitive meaning of "to dwell") and in other contexts the verb means "to set up
(a tent)" or "to put." This inconsistency becomes meaningful when the seman-
tic field of Skn in East and West Semitic is considered. In its broader use within
the Semitic languages, I demonstrated that there were two geographically
segregated meanings for PS *s'kn: "to dwell" (West Semitic) and "to put" (East
Semitic; see fig. 10). Hence, the Piel form of Skn in the deuteronomic idiom
could be understood as a true D-stem of Skn, "to cause to be dwelling," or as a
marked form of the borrowed, eastern, transitive meaning, "to put." Based
upon this variable semantic field, Dtr''s consistent translation of fSakkên fmô
Säm as lâsûm fmô Säm ("to place his name there"), the broader testimony of the
discrete application of Semitic Skn "to dwell" and "to put" throughout the lan-
guages of the Fertile Crescent, and the fact that there is indeed a precedent for
the borrowing of whole idioms from Akk to bH, we turned toward the
consideration of a loan-hypothesis as first suggested by Benno Jacob.
Basing my investigation of a loan-hypothesis on the premise that "[t]he
prima facie indication for invoking the loan hypothesis is the discovery of
vocables in distinct coeval languages whose phonetic and lexical similarity
appears too great to be coincidental,"1 Chapter Two of this study was dedicated
to an investigation of a potentially cognate Akk idiom, Suma Mkänu, "to place
the name." The particular occurrences of this Akk idiom established that the
phrase emerges from the royal monumental literary typology of Mesopotamia.
Its most basic meaning within this genre is to claim something as one's own by
inscribing one's name upon it, the items most frequently so labeled being
votive and victory monuments. Several derived meanings of this idiom were
also isolated: the metonymical sense in which to "place the name" means to
install the inscribed monument, the extended symbolic sense in which to
"place the name" means to claim newly conquered territory as one's own (as
one would do by installing a victory monument), and the metaphorical sense in
which to "place the name" means to acquire enduring fame through the
commemoration of heroic deeds. I concluded that the Akk Suma Mkänu was
extremely well known in Mesopotamian literature as the idiom of conquering
kings and formidable overlords, and that any person familiar with the genre
would recognize it as such.
Having isolated the meaning and occurrences of the Akk idiom Suma Sakänu,
the next step was to demonstrate that there were sufficient channels to make
borrowing in principle likely. In other words, could this Akk idiom, so
common in the Mesopotamian inscriptions, also be found in the Levant? The

1 Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew, 4; cf. Chapter One, p. 121.

 Conclusion 209

triumphal inscriptions of the northern Assyrian kings installed on the Lebanese

coast (see fig. 11), the Amama Letters of Jerusalem, and several Phoenician
and Old Aramaic monumental texts provided this evidence. The bilingual,
ninth-century Tell Fakhariyeh votive inscription was particularly compelling in
that it provided conclusive evidence that Akk Suma Sakänu had indeed found its
way into the Levantine monumental tradition. Moreover, this inscription
demonstrated that Akk Suma Sakänu could be translated into NWS as sym Sm.
Thus, the Tell Fakhariyeh text serves to explain the relationship between
Deuteronomy's FSakkënfmô Mm and Dtr''s lâsûm fmô Säm. Whereas Deuter-
onomy's FSakkën fmô Mm is best explained as a bH loan adaptation of Akk
Suma Sakänu, Dtr^s lâsûm fmô Säm is best explained as a bH caique of the same
Akk idiom. This cognate relationship between the two biblical reflexes, albeit a
cognate relationship through the lens of differing intermediate languages,
explains the reason why the biblical authors applied these divergent formulae
as synonyms. Both fSakkên fmô Säm and lâsûm fmô Säm are bH equivalents of
Akk Suma Sakänu. This brings us at last to the core question: As a borrowed,
Akk idiom, what does FSakkên fmô Säm and its reflexes mean in the DH?
As summarized in the conclusion to Chapter Two, by utilizing this
particular idiom, the Deuteronomist is relating the divine Warrior of Israel's
heroic past to the great warriors of an even more ancient past. Moreover, the
biblical writer is challenging his audience to recognize the severity of the law
being offered to them. To betray the stipulations of the great suzerain YHWH
would have no less dire consequences than betraying the stipulations of the
great kings of the East. Let us consider the placement of this foreign phrase. It
is apparent from its pattern of use that the incorporation of Suma Sakänu in the
Hebrew Bible was initiated by the Deuteronomist. Seven times in the old law
code the author repeats l'Sakkên fmô Säm in connection with the commands of
YHWH regarding proper cultic behavior at the place (see fig. 1). As is broadly
accepted, the section of Deuteronomy in which the idiom appears is the oldest
portion of the book. I would argue that it significantly antedates Josiah's
reforms. It is also broadly accepted that this old law code emerges from non-
Judahite circles. Hence, in determining the source of FSakkên fmô Säm, we are
left with a non-Judahite, perhaps a northerner, familiar with the Akk language,
whose narrative ambition was to communicate the "statutes and judgments
which you shall carefully observe in the land which YHWH, the god of your
fathers, has given you to possess all the days that you live upon the land" (Deut
12:1). This author begins his discourse with the following command:

You will surely destroy all the places in which the nations, whom you are
dispossessing, served their gods upon the high mountains and upon the hills, and
under each luxuriant tree. And you will demolish their altars, you will smash
their massebôt, their Aserah (poles) you will burn with fire, the idols of their
gods you will break in pieces, and you will destroy their name from that place.
(Deut 12:2-4)
210 Conclusion

In this introduction to the old law code, the Israelites are commanded to
"destroy their name from that place." This is followed in verse five by the
command to seek Y H W H at the place he chooses to place his name. In light of
the semantic cargo of "placing the name," it is apparent that the Deuteronomist
is introducing his legal corpus with the command that the previous "owners"
be exorcised from the pre-existing cult sites of Palestine, and their names
effaced, in order that the new owner might take custody of the place.2 As

2 The reader will recall that I have suggested a reconstruction of Deut 12:5 that involves
an external, interlinear gloss, intended to translate l'Sakken&möSäm for Dtr''s
contemporary audience. Although my reconstruction resolves the doublet in Deut 12:5
(cf. Chapter One, p. 61-63), it also leaves l'Sakk'nô without an antecedent and two verbs
of differing number in the command: "you (mpl) will seek (tidr'Sû)" and "you (ms) will
come (ubä'tä)." Although the vacillation of number in legal texts is fairly common, this
shift in a dependent construction is, at best, awkward (cf. Weinfeld's discussion in
"rv-n," TDOT, 2:266-70). As Driver reports, "[ajnother difficulty created by the
Masoretic pointing and accentuation of this verse is the anacoluthon, ^X at the beginning
being governed by the verb of motion, which is implicitly in the writer's mind, but the
construction [is] broken by the insertion of rahm lirfflV' (Driver, Deuteronomy, 140).
Unfortunately, the early inclusion of Dtr''s gloss probably served to corrupt the syntax
of this passage such that restoration of the original is almost certainly impossible. I have
suggested one possible reconstruction in Chapter One that addresses the antecedent of
leSakkenô; another, more speculative suggestion addresses the remaining problems by
proposing a new interpretation of the lamedh-prefix on Skn and of tidr'Sû in the passage.
The reader will recall that in two of the Gilgames passages, one of the Nimrud letters,
and the Tell Fakhariyeh inscription, the Akk idiom Suma Sakänu is found with a pre-
cative prefix: "let him place his name" (see Chapter Two, p. 166, 178, 182, 203; cf. figs.
12 & 13). Moreover, in the Tell Fakhariyeh inscription, this Akk precative prefix is re-
employed in the NWS translation: Sumïma liSkun "let him place my name on it." The
reader will also recall that many of the occurrences of the Akk idiom in non-monumental
contexts are complemented by an adverbial phrase "to distant days" or "forever" (see
fig. 13). In the letters from the Nimrud and Amarna archives, the Akk vocabulary chosen
to express this phrase is ana + därw.
Sarru beli Su-[un]-SU a-na da-ra-a-ti liS-kun let him [the king, my lord]
place his name forever (Saggs, "The Nimrud Letters," 196-197, no. 45 lines
9-10).
ti
a-mur LUGAL-π Sa-ka-an MU-Su a-na KUR U-[r]u-sa-lim a-na da-ri-iS
as the king has placed his name in (the region of) Jerusalem forever
(EA 287:60-63; Moran, ed. The Amarna Letters, 328, and Knudtzon, ed. Die
el-Amarna-Tafeln, 866; cf. fig. 13 and CAD si, s.v. "Sakänu" sub "Sumu w [p.
144]; CAD d, s.v.,dam" [p. 115] and.darüT [p. 113]).
These letters are reminiscent of 1 Kgs 9:3 in which Dtr 1 writes:
I have set this house apart which you have built in order to place my name
there forever (lâSûm-fmî Säm 'ad-'ôlàm), and my eyes and my heart will be
there forever.
Although this reconstruction is speculative, and requires further research and data to
substantiate, may I suggest the possibility that Deut 12:5 originally incorporated not only
the Akk idiom Suma Sakänu, but Akk syntax as well? Hence, whereas the M T version of
Deut 12:5 appears to read as a garbled form of lasûm 'et-fmô Säm leSakkenô tidr'Sû, it
may actually have once read: (lâsûm 'et-fmô) Smh ISkn ana dariS. Again, this hypothesis
 Conclusion 211

detailed in Chapter Two, the most fundamental meaning of Suma Sakänu is to

claim something as one's own by placing one's name upon it. Moreover, the
most heinous sin of a later usurper was to remove the name of the original
owner and replace it with one's own. In Deut 12:1-5 the message is that YHWH
is claiming the territory that he has won by conquest, and that he is expunging
all previous claims upon that territory—particularly its cultic places. As
promised, YHWH has brought his people to the place and he has planted them
in the mountain of his inheritance (Exod 15:17). It is in response to this great
gift that the people are to bring their offerings to the place (Deut 12:11; 26:2),
to eat in his presence at the place (Deut 14:23; 16:11), and to remember who it
is who has facilitated their continuing presence in the place (Deut 16:2, 6). The
repetition of the Suma Sakänu idiom within the old law code, a code focused on
proper cultic behavior that will result in ongoing land tenure, artfully restates
the crux of the matter: Israel's ongoing tenure in the place is dependent upon
her recognition that the place is, in truth, the property of her conquering king.

He has given them more than they deserve. Time and again he has rescued
them; time and again he has frustrated their enemies . . . Israel profits from
victories that her own sword and her own bow have not won, lives in cities she
did not build, and eats of vineyards and orchards she never planted. The
message is clear; God has benefited Israel beyond her deserts. 3

Dtr1 picks up the FSakkën fmô Mm idiom in the Books of Kings. Committed
to the covenantal theology of Deuteronomy, the historian recognizes the
significance of the idiom as an expression of YHWH'S ultimate sovereignty
over both the land and the people of Israel. Moreover, Dtr1 connects YHWH'S
sovereignty over the land and the people to his sovereignty over the Davidids.
Thus, the historian employs the idiom in his affirmation of Solomon's temple
project (1 Kgs 9:3), his confirmation of Rehoboam's continuing status as the
Davidic heir, in spite of the debacle of the divided monarchy (1 Kgs 11:36;
14:21), and in his rejection of Manasseh because of his treachery against
YHWH'S covenant (2 Kgs 21:4, 7). In contrast to the Deuteronomist, however,
this historian utilizes the NWS caique of Suma Sakänu, lâsûm fmô Sâm. Known
in the Levant at least as early as the Tell Fakhariyeh inscription (ninth century
BCE), this caique apparently suited the purposes of the Josianic historian better
than Deuteronomy's original reflex. Perhaps this Judahite was more familiar

requires further data. But if this theory were to prove true, the implication would be that
the loan adaptation of the Akk idiom presently represented in the MT has undergone
several mutations. Moreover, it may be that the occurrence of this idiom in Deut 12:5,
and therefore possibly throughout the DH, was intended as a precative interjection,
"May he place his name!" Lastly, this reconstruction may indicate that the author of
1 Kgs 9:3 was familiar enough with the original intent of the idiom that he was able to
employ it correctly, with its adverbial clause in a translated form.
3 Levenson, Sinai & Zion, 33.
 212 Conclusion

with the caique than the loan adaptation of the Akk idiom, or perhaps the
historian chose the caique to facilitate a broader readership among his
audience. Or, perhaps, as Cross and McBride suggest, the "specialized use of
Skn in Jerusalemite theology," which communicated the ephemeral presence of
Y H W H in his tabernacle/temple, had already begun to influence Dtr's audience.
Thus, he sought to disassociate the deuteronomic idiom from this specialized
use ofSkn by utilizing the caique, sum4 Most significant here, however, is that
in contrast to the tenets of the Name Theology, the occurrences of
làsûm Fmô Mm within the DH have to do with the political wellbeing of the
Davidids, not the temple.
Also located in seventh-century Jerusalem, Jeremiah, a northerner, employs
the deuteronomic form of the Akk idiom, l'Sakkën fmô Mm, in his Temple
Sermon (Jer 7:12). Executing an arresting play on words, the prophet juxta-
poses Israel's land tenure in the place (using the Piel of Skn in its native sense)
with Y H W H ' S ownership of the place (using the Piel of Skn in its borrowed
sense), in order to forcefully communicate to an apathetic audience that the
first is dependent upon the second. Jeremiah thereby reminds his listeners that
the land grant came with stipulations. Since Israel has abandoned the b'rît,
Y H W H will abandon the nation, and the land grant will be revoked.

(3) These are the words of YHWH Sabaoth, God of Israel: 'Amend your ways
and your deeds so that I may settle you in this place (wa'âSakk'nâ 'etkem) . . .
(5) For if you truly amend your ways and your deeds, if you truly practice
justice . . . (7) then I will settle you in this place (w'Sikkantî 'etkem), the land
which I gave to your fathers forever . . . (9) Will you steal, murder, and commit
adultery and swear falsely, and offer sacrifices to Baal, and walk after other
gods that you have not known, (10) and then come and stand before me in this
house, which is called by my name . . . (12) go to my place which is in Shiloh,
in which I placed my name (Sikkantl s'ml) in the beginning, and see what I have
done to it because of the wickedness of my people Israel.' (Jeremiah 7:3, 5, 7,
9-10, 12)

In contrast to Dtr^s preference for the caique, the prophet utilizes the bH loan
adaptation of Akk Suma Sakänu as found in Deuteronomy. Possibly, this distrib-
ution demonstrates a northem-versus-southern dialectical preference. It is more
probable that it reflects authorial agenda. Whereas Dtr''s purpose was to create
a national history comprehensible to all, he chose the more easily understood
caique. But, whereas Jeremiah's purpose was to trigger the conviction of an
apathetic audience, he opted instead to preach in "King James" Hebrew and
thereby, to illustrate blatantly the dependency of his message upon that of
Deuteronomy. Moreover, as the prophet's message was facilitated by means of

4 McBride, "The Deuteronomic Name Theology," 205; Cross, Canaanite Myth, 246
n. 114.
 Conclusion 213

his wordplay, Jeremiah's choice of Deuteronomy's original reflex of the

iuma Sakänu idiom highlighted the consequences of Judah's violation of the
deuteronomic code. Whatever Jeremiah and Dtr''s exact motivation, these
authorial decisions demonstrate that in seventh-century Jerusalem, both the
loan adaptation of the Akk idiom and its NWS caique were in use.
Ezra and Nehemiah's use of fSakkên fmô Mm demonstrates that the bH loan
adaptation of the Akk idiom continued in use in the post-exilic era. Most
commentators have dismissed these quotations of leSakkën fmô Mm as "[t]he
influence of the Jewish scribe in the composition."5 Indeed, if the deuteron-
omic idiom were the theological creation of the Deuteronomist or the
Deuteronomistic School, as the Name Theologians argue, this conclusion
would be unavoidable. However, now that it is apparent that this idiom
originates from the literary typology of the Mesopotamian monumental
tradition, a tradition which lived on in Persia, the probability that these
quotations are authentic increases.
We begin with Darius's letter to the Judean exiles and his use of the
deuteronomic idiom in Ezra 6:12. Although an earlier generation of
commentators characterized the larger pericope as "corrupt" and "inauthentic,"
reflecting a "late and careless hand, probably the Chronicler,"6 there is
presently a growing consensus that "the Aramaic letters in Ezra were taken
from official correspondence from the Achaemenid period."7 Moreover, Victor
Hurowitz states that Ezra's account of the rebuilding of the Jerusalem temple is
clearly in accord with "the overall pattern typical of ancient Near Eastern
building accounts."8 Hence, in contrast to an older skepticism regarding these
texts, our growing knowledge of the ancient Mesopotamian world reveals that
Darius's reply to the Judean Exiles has many of the trappings of official
Achaemenid correspondence and reflects much of the Mesopotamian mindset
regarding temple-building and sacred space. As was previously noted, Cyrus
had ordered that the Jerusalem temple be rebuilt according to its original
footprint and dimensions (v. 3; cf. Chapter Two, "Foundation Deposits").
Moreover, he commanded that the sacred vessels captured by Nebuchadnezzar
be returned and reinstalled in the temple (v. 5); these vessels "doubtless took

5 Myers, Ezra-Nehemiah, 52.

6 Loring W. Batten, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1972), 129,135, 137.
7 Bill T. Arnold, "The Use of Aramaic in the Hebrew Bible: Another Look at Bilingualism
in Ezra and Daniel," JNSL 22/2 (1996): 1-16. Cf. Hurowitz, I Have Built You An Exalted
House, 113-24; Tamara S. Eskenazi, In an Age of Prose: A Literary Approach to Ezra-
Nehemiah (SBL 36; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 58, 59, 184; L. V. Hensley, "The
Official Persian Documents in the Book of Ezra," (Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Liverpool, 1977); David J. A. Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (NCB; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1984), 8; Hugh G. M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah (WBC 16; Waco, Tex.:
Word, 1985), 60; T. C. Myers, Ezra-Nehemiah, 5-6.
8 I Have Built You an Exalted House, 118.
 214 Conclusion

the place of the images involved in the repatriation of other cults."9 And,
whereas another generation dismissed the quotation of the deuteronomic idiom
in v. 12 as "spurious" and questioned how an official document of the Persian
empire might "call in question the continuance of the Persian sovereignty and
speak of kings and people who in the future might make his orders
inoperative,"10 we see that Ezra 6:11-12 is actually a respectable representation
of the standard Mesopotamian curse section as illustrated in Chapter Two: 11

And I issued a decree that any man who violates this edict, a timber shall be
drawn from his house and he shall be impaled on it' 2 and his house shall be
made a refuse heap on account of this. And may the God who has placed his
name there (dì Sakkin fmëh tammâ) overthrow any king or people who
stretches forth his hand to change (it), so as to destroy this house of God in
Jerusalem. (Ezra 6:11-12)

As is typical of the Mesopotamian texts considered in this study, at the end of

his royal decree, Darius declares a curse upon anyone in the future who would
alter his pronouncement. In this curse section he employs the Suma Sakänu
idiom, in finite form, to speak of YHWH'S privileged status in the Beyond-the-
River province and to call upon this regional deity to carry out the king's
curse.13
Although not found in the mouth of a Persian king, the quotation of the
deuteronomic idiom in Neh 1:9 also emerges from a Persian context: the
prayer of Artaxerxes I's Jewish cupbearer, in which the cupbearer cries out for
14
Y H W H ' S assistance for his brethren in Beyond-the-River. The immediate
15
need was the rebuilding of Jerusalem's walls. As was stated in Chapter One,

9 Myers, EzraNehemiah, 51.

10 Batten, Ezra-Nehemiah, 148.
11 Cf. Elizabeth N. Von Voigtlander, The Bisitun Inscription of Darius the Great:
Babylonian Version (Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum: Part 1 Inscriptions of Ancient
Iran, vol. 2, The Babylonian Versions of the Achaemenian Inscriptions; London: Lund
Humphries, 1978), §§ 55-67 (p. 60-62).
12 Darius was known for such impalings—Herodotus reports that Darius crucified three
thousand leading citizens of Babylon when he captured that city (Myers,
Ezra Nehemiah, 52; cf. Herodotus III. 159).
13 Note that whereas the LXX translators of this passage probably misunderstood the
idiomatic intent of the deuteronomic formula, translating it with skenöö, Esdras
translates this passage with the LXX of Deuteronomy: το όνομα αύτοΰ έπικληθηναι
è κει, showing that this interpreter recognized that the intent of this idiom was not "to
dwell" (cf. Chapter One, nn. 8, 14, 15,44).
14 Myers dates this encounter to December, 445 BCE (Ezra Nehemiah, 94).
15 In his analysis of this pericope, Hurowitz concludes that the building story is, in truth,
the "backbone and torso of Nehemiah's memoirs, to which everything else is secondarily
attached" (124). He goes on to state that Nehemiah's building account can be decisively
compared to those known from Mesopotamia: "To be sure, it has its own undeniable,
unique character, but it represents the penultimate link in a literary tradition of building
accounts which lasted close to 2000 years" (I Have Built You An Exalted House, 124). It
 Conclusion 215

Nehemiah's passionate plea reads like a Cliffs Notes version of the deutero-
nomio covenant (cf. v. 5 with Deut 7:9, 21; cf. v. 8-10 with Deut 30:1-5; cf. v.
10 with Deut 9:29), highlighted by quotations from the third speech of
Solomon's temple dedication (v. 6 with l K g s 8:28-30; 46-53; v. 11 with
1 Kgs 8:27-30). Nehemiah's deuteronomic theology is especially evident in his
focus upon YHWH'S promise of land tenure.

Remember the word that you commanded Moses your servant, saying, "If you
are unfaithful, I will scatter you among the peoples, and if you will return to me
and keep my commandments and do them, (even) if your scattered ones are at
the edge of heaven, from there I will gather them; and I will bring them into the
place in which I chose to place my name (fSakkên 'et-fmî Mm)." (Neh 1:8, 9)

The thesis and content of this prayer indicate that Nehemiah is not using our
idiom spontaneously, but he is quoting it from Deuteronomy in order to
substantiate his case. Essentially, it reads, "Yes, we violated the b'rit, and as
you stipulated we were driven from the place. But we have repented, so as you
promised in the b'rit, restore us!" Most interesting is the fact that although
Nehemiah quotes the deuteronomic idiom and 1 Kings 8 in the same pericope,
he does not relate the two. Rather, his quotation of the deuteronomic idiom has
everything to do with land tenure and nothing to do with divine presence at the
cult site. Hence, we see that the bH loan adaptation of Akk Suma Sakânu is still
comprehensible in the post-exilic era, and is still employed to speak of YHWH'S
ownership of the place, just as it was in Deuteronomy.
We now turn to the final remaining question, what is the intended meaning
of the periphrastic version of the deuteronomic idiom, lihyôt fmô Säml This
reflex occurs three times in the DH (1 Kgs 8:16, 29; 2 Kgs 23:27) and four
times in the Chronicler (2 Chr 6:5, 6; 7:16; 33:4; see fig. 4). I concluded that
this reflex was pioneered by the author of 1 Kgs 8:16 in order to juxtapose
YHWH'S election of the place with his election of David. By means of my
review of the name imagery in 1 Kings 8, I also concluded that the unifying
theme of the address, and the catalyst for the author's reconstruction of our
idiom, involved memorial and reputation. Solomon's fundamental mission in
building the temple was to memorialize and perpetuate Y H W H ' S mighty acts as
had been predicted in 2 Samuel 7 (see fig. 6). By means of this address, the
author of 1 Kings 8 accomplishes exactly the desire of those ancient kings who
"placed their names" in bygone eras: he rehearses the heroic acts of king
Y H W H to the present generation. Lastly, I concluded that the exact semantic
cargo of this reconstructed form of the deuteronomic idiom was uncertain.
The Name Theologians will argue, however, that the authorial agenda of
1 Kings 8 is to bring the "deuteronomistic correction," begun with

may be significant that Nehemiah's use of fiakkên fml Sâm < Suma Sakänu appears in
the midst of a building account, a context in which the original idiom is frequent.
 216 Conclusion

Deuteronomy's leSakkên fmô Mm, and carried forward by means of hû'yibneh-

bayît liMî in 2 Samuel 7, to its grand conclusion. In this manner, "the ancient
conceptions of the divine presence are made obsolete by the idea of the 'Name'
in the Temple." 16 Contrary to the tenets of the Name Theology, however, this
study has demonstrated that the reflexes of the deuteronomic idiom used in
Deuteronomy and the DH, outside of 1 Kings 8 and 2 Kgs 23:27, can be
proven to have nothing to do with a reinterpretation of the mode of divine
presence at the cult site. As demonstrated, the Deuteronomist and Dtr1 clearly
understood the idiom as a formula borrowed from the Mesopotamian
monumental tradition, having to do with the making and installation of
inscriptions, and having a transitive meaning. Moreover, Jeremiah, Ezra, and
Nehemiah share this understanding. Thus, we are forced to conclude that if the
author of 1 Kings 8 did intend to reinterpret Deuteronomy's idiom as a
statement about divine presence, he stands alone in this reinterpretation.
Moreover, in stark contrast to the presuppositions of the Name Theology, this
potential reinterpretation of the deuteronomic idiom in 1 Kings 8 cannot be
associated with the Deuteronomist or Dtr1. Thus, the assumption of the Name
Theologians that

Deuteronomy is obviously attacking the older and more popular idea of

Jahweh's immediate presence at the place of worship and substituting
for it the theological differentiation between Jahweh on the one hand
and his name on the other . . . ,17

and

[t]he Name concept of the D-Work is thus with abundant clarity seen to be an
element in the rejection of the earlier theology . . ,,18

simply cannot be defended. Rather, if the author of 1 Kings 8 is intentionally

reinterpreting the deuteronomic idiom in order to initiate some sort of Name
Theology, he is doing so independent of Dtr1 and the Deuteronomist.
Moreover, his theological revolution had a very narrow impact.
The question remains, however, with his use of lihyôt fmô Mm, did the
author of 1 Kings 8, independent of the Deuteronomist and Dtr1, institute a
new perception of the mode of divine presence at Israel's central sanctuary?
Unfortunately, the periphrastic nature of the idiom employed in Solomon's
address leaves us without a clear picture of the author's intent. Unlike the form
of the idiom utilized by the Deuteronomist, Dtr1, Jeremiah, Ezra, and
Nehemiah, the reflex chosen for Solomon's address carries no clear semantic
cargo. It certainly is possible to conclude that the biblical author chose an

16 Mettinger, The Dethronement of Sabaoth, 49; cf. Introduction, p. 10, n. 104.

17 Von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 1:184; cf. Introduction, p. 27, n. 97.
18 Mettinger, The Dethronement of Sabaoth, 48-50; cf. Introduction, p. 10, n. 104.
 Conclusion 217

altered form of the idiom because he had, intentionally or unintentionally,

reinterpreted the meaning of the phrase. And it is therefore possible to deduce
with the Name Theologians that this particular author's reinterpretation of
Deuteronomy's idiom had to do with divine presence. However, the reader will
recall that both Ezra and Nehemiah, and on three occasions even the
Chronicler (cf. 1 Kgs 8:29 in comparison to 2 Chr 6:20; see fig. 4), recognize
the transitive, borrowed intent of the deuteronomic idiom. Hence, the window
of opportunity available to the author of 1 Kings 8 for instituting his radical
new program (that the Name, as the hypostatic representative of YHWH, now
dwells in the temple) is quite narrow. One would be forced to conclude that
between the fall of Jerusalem (cf. 2 Kgs 23:27) and the era of Ezra-Nehemiah,
the author had pioneered a new theologumenon (as a correction to the rest of
the biblical text) that was subsequently rejected by Ezra, Nehemiah, and, most
likely, the Chronicler as well. Hence, his would have been a short-lived revolu-
tion with very limited influence. In sum, if the speculative theory of the Name
Theologians is maintained within this limited scope (1 Kgs 8:16, 29; 2 Kgs
23:27; 2 Chr 7:16; 33:4; see fig. 4), it is apparent that the new theology repre-
sented by lihyôt fmô Mm had very little effect on the biblical text as a whole.
In sum, this study has demonstrated that Deuteronomy's FSakkên fmô Mm is
best explained as a bH loan adaptation of the borrowed Akk idiom, Suma
Mkânu", the DH's lâsûm fmô Mm is best explained as the bH caique of this same
Akk phrase; and lihyôt fmô Mm is best explained as a periphrastic rendering of
this borrowed idiom that may or may not have carried the original semantic
cargo of the borrowed phrase. The "particular occurrences" of this borrowed
phrase in Deuteronomy and the DH indicate that neither the Deuteronomist nor
the primary historian of the DH had any intention of communicating anything
akin to the Name Theology in their selection of the idiom. Moreover, there is
no hint of a "deuteronomistic correction" in the application of l'&akken fmô
Mm or lâsûm fmô Mm within either Deuteronomy or the DH. Hence, whereas
in the past it has been assumed that Dtr was using his History as a platform to
redirect the theological perception of the mode of divine presence at Israel's
central sanctuary, the evidence indicates that, as a political historian, Dtr
instead has chosen this particular, borrowed idiom in order to emphasize the
sovereignty and fame of YHWH by right of conquest. As had the great kings
and heroes of Mesopotamian history and legend, YHWH states that he has
"placed his name" in the Promised Land. The king has captured this new
territory; he has claimed it as his own. Let the people be subject, let them bring
tribute, and let them always remember that it is he who has defeated their foes
and it is he to whom allegiance is due.
 Bibliography

Abelson, Joshua. Introduction to The Zohar. Translated by Harry Sperling and

Maurice Simon. 2nd ed. 5 vols. New York: The Soncino Press, 1984.
Aistleitner, Joseph. Wörterbuch der Ugaritischen Sprache. Berlin: Akademie-
Verlag, 1963.
Alston, William P. "Religious Language." Page 172 in vol. 7 of The
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edited by Paul Edwards. 8 vols. New York:
Macmillan, 1967.
Alt, Albrecht. Essays on Old Testament History and Religion. Translated by R.
A. Wilson. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1968. Kleine Schriften zur
Geschichte des Volkes Israeli, II, III. München: C. H. Beck, 1953-1964.
Anderson, Bernhard. Out of the Depths: The Psalms Speakfor Us Today.
Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1983.
Andrae, Walter. Coloured Ceramics From Ashur and Earlier Ancient Assyrian
Wail-Paintings. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1925.
Arnold, Bill T. "The Use of Aramaic in the Hebrew Bible: Another Look at
Bilingualism in Ezra and Daniel," Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages
22/2(1996): 1-16.
Asher-Gréve, Julia M. "Observations on the Historical Relevance of Visual
Imagery in Mesopotamia." Pages 175-85 in Histoire et conscience
historique dans les civilisations du Proche-Orient ancien. Edited by Albert
de Pury. Les Cahiers du Centre d'Étude du Proche-Orient ancien 5. Leuven:
Editions Peeters Bondgenotenlaan, 1989.

Bacher, Wilhelm. "Shem Ha-Meforash." Pages 262-64 in vol. 11 oí The

Jewish Encyclopedia. Edited by Isidore Singer et al. 12 vols. New York:
Funk and Wagnalls, 1905.
Baines, John. "Interpretations of Religion: Logic, Discourse, Rationality."
Göttinger Miszellen 76 (1984): 25-54.
Bambrough, R. "Universale and Family Resemblances." Pages 109-27 in
Universals and Particulars. Edited by Michael J. Loux. Garden City, N.Y.:
Anchor Books, 1970.
Barr, James. The Semantics of Biblical Language. London: Oxford University
Press, 1961. Repr., London: SCM Press, 1983.
Batten, Loring W. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of
Ezra and Nehemiah. International Critical Commentary. New York:
Scribner, 1913. Repr. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1972.
220 Bibliography

Bauer, Theo. "Ein viertes altbabylonisches Fragment des Gilgames-Epos."

Journal of Near Eastern Studies 16 (1957): 254-62.
Baumgartner, William. "Untersuchungen zu den akkadischen Bauausdrücken."
Zeitschriftfür Assyriologie 36 (1925): 29-40, 123-38, 219-53.
Beaulieu, Paul-Alain. The Reign ofNabonidus: King of Babylon 556-539 BC.
New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989.
Beckman, Gary. Hittite Birth Rituals. 2nd ed. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1983.
Berlejung, Angelika. "Washing the Mouth: The Consecration of Divine
Images in Mesopotamia." The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism
and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Edited
by Karel Van der Toorn. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1997.
Bezold, Carl. Babylonisch-assyrisches Glossar. Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1926.
. "Two Inscriptions ofNabonidus," Proceedings of the Society of
Biblical Archaeology 11, 1889.
Black, Jeremy, Andrew George, and Nicholas Postgate. A Concise Dictionary
of Akkadian. SANTAG 5. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1999.
Blau, Ludwig. "Shekinah." Pages 258-60 in vol. 11 of The Jewish Encyclo-
pedia. Edited by Isidore Singer et al. 12 vols. New York: Funk and
Wagnalls, 1905.
. "Tetragrammaton." Pages 118-20 in vol. 12 of The Jewish
Encyclopedia. Edited by Isidore Singer et al. 12 vols. New York: Funk
and Wagnalls, 1905.
Borger, Riekele. Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, Königs von Assyrien. Archiv fur
Orientforschung 9. Graz: Im Selbstverlage des Herausgebers, 1956.
Börker-Klähn, Jutta. Altvorderasiatische Bildstelen und vergleichbare
Felsreliefs. 2 vols. Baghdader Forschungen 4. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von
Zabern, 1982.
Botterweck, G. Johannes, and Helmer Ringgren. Theological Dictionary of the
Old Testament. Translated by J. T. Willis, G. W. Bromiley, and D. E.
Green. 11 Vols. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1974-present. Translation
of Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Stuttgart: W.
Kohlhammer, 1973-present.
Brettler, Marc Z. "Interpretation and Prayer: Notes on the Composition of
1 Kings 8:15-53." Pages 17-35 in Minhah le-Nahum: Biblical and other
Studies Presented to Ν ahum M. Sarna in Honour of his 7(fh Birthday.
Edited by M. Brettler and M. Fishbane. Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament Supplement Series 154. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993.
Brinkman, John A. "Appendix: Mesopotamian Chronology of the Historical
Period," Pages 335-346 in A. Leo Oppenheim's Ancient Mesopotamia:
Portrait of a Dead Civilization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1977.
Brockelmann, Carl. Lexicon Syriacum. 2nd ed. Halis Saxonum: Sumptibus M.
Niemeyer, 1928.
 Bibliography 221

. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen.

2 vols. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1961.
Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. The Brown-Driver-
Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Peabody: Hendrickson Pub. Inc.,
1997. Based on the Lexicon of William Gesenius as translated by Edward
Robinson. London: Oxford, 1907.
Brühl, Lucien Lévy. L 'Ame primitive. Paris: F. Alean, 1927.
Buccellati, Giorgio. "The Kudurrus as Monuments." Pages 283-291 in
Cinquante-deux reflexions sur le Proche-Orient ancien: offertes en
hommage à Léon de Meyer. Edited by Hermann Gashe et al. Mesopotamien
History and Environment 2. Leuven: Peeters, 1994.
. "Through A Tablet Darkly: A Reconstruction of Old Akkadian
Monuments Described in Old Babylonian Copies." Pages 58-71 in The
Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo.
Edited by Mark E. Cohen, Daniel C. Snell, and David Weisberg. Bethesda,
Md: CDL Press, 1993.
Buhl, Marie-Louise, Svend Holm-Nielsen and Flemming Andersen. Shiloh:
The Danish Excavations at Tall Sailun, Palestine in 1926,1929,1932 and
1963. 2 vols. Copenhagen: National Museum of Denmark, 1969-1985.
Bunimovitz, Shlomo and Orna Zimhoni. "'Lamp-and-Bowl' Foundation
Deposits in Canaan." Israel Exploration Journal 43/1 (1993): 100-25.
Bumey, Charles F. Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books ofKings. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1903.

Caird, Edward. The Evolution of Religion: The Gifford Lectures Delivered

Before the University of St. Andrews in Sessions 1890-92. 2 vols. Glasgow:
James Maclehose and Sons, 1894.
Cassirer, Ernst. An Essay on Man. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1944.
. Language and Myth. Translated by S. K. Langer. New York: Dover
Publications, 1953 (1946).
. Philosophy of Symbolic Forms. 3 vols. Translated by Ralph Manheim.
New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953, 55, 57.
Cavigneaux, Antoine and Farouk N. H. Al-Rawi. Gilgames et la mort: textes
de Tell Haddad VI. Gronigen: Styx Publications, 2000.
Charpin, Dominique, F. Joannes, S. Lackenbacher, and B. Lafont, eds.
Archives Epistolaires de Mari 1/2. Archives Royales de Mari 26/2. Paris:
Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1988.
Childs, Brevard. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1979.
Clarke, Ernest G. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Deuteronomy. Aramaic Bible 5B.
Collegeville Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 1998.
222 Bibliography

Clemens, David. "Zakkur Inscription." Pages 387-88 in vol. 5 of The Oxford

Encyclopedia of the Ancient Near East. Edited by Ε. M. Meyers. 5 vols.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Clements, Ronald E. God and Temple. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1965.
Clines, David J. A. Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther. New Century Bible Commentary.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984.
Cook, Albert. Myth & Language. Bloomington: Indiana University Press,
1980.
Cooper, Jerrold S. The Curse of Agade. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1983.
. "Mesopotamian Historical Consciousness and the Production of
Monumental Art in the Third Millennium BC." Investigating Artistic
Environments in the Ancient Near East. Edited by Ann C. Gunter. Madison,
Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 1990.
. PreSargonic Inscriptions. Sumerian & Akkadian Royal Inscriptions 1.
New Haven: The American Oriental Society, 1986.
. Review of Richard Ellis, Foundation Deposits in Ancient
Mesopotamia. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 31 (1972): 207-209.
. "Studies in Mesopotamian Lapidary Inscriptions III." Iraq 46 (1984):
87-93.
Copleston, Frederick. A History of Philosophy. 3 vols. Garden City, N.Y.:
Image Books/Doubleday, 1985.
Cross, Frank M. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1973.
. "A New Aramaic Stele from Taymä3." Catholic Biblical Quarterly
48/3 (1986): 387-94.
. "The Priestly Tabernacle." Pages 201-28 in vol. 1 of The Biblical
Archaeologist Reader. Edited by G. E. Wright and D.N. Freedman. 3 vols.
Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1961.
Cross, Frank M. and David Noel Freedman. Studies in Ancient Yahwistic
Poetry in The Biblical Resource Series. Edited by Astrid Beck and David
Noel Freedman. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1997.
Cuddon, J. A. A Dictionary of Literary Terms. Revised ed. Garden City, N.Y.:
Doubleday, 1976.
Culianu, loan P. "Mircea Eliade at the Crossroad of Anthropology." On
Symbolic Representation of Religion. Edited by Hubertus G. Hubbeling and
Hans G. Kippenberg. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1986.

Dahood, Mitchell. Psalms II: 51-100. Anchor Bible 17. Garden City, N.Y.:
Doubleday, 1968.
Dan, Joseph. "Shekinah: In Kabbalah." Page 1354 in vol. 14 of The
Encyclopedia Judaica. Edited by Cecil Roth et al. 16 vols. Jerusalem: Keter
Publishing House, 1972.
 Bibliography 223

Déaut, Roger le. "The Targumim." Pages 563-90 in vol. 2 of the Cambridge
History of Judaism. 3 vols. Edited by W. D. Davies and Louis Finkelstein.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984-present.
Davies, G. I. assisted by M. N. A. Bockmuehl, D. R. de Lacey and A. J.
Poulter. Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions Corpus and Concordance.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
Dietrich, Manfred, Oswald Loretz, and Joaquín Sanmartín. "Kun-S und SKN
im Ugaritischen." Ugarit Forschungen 6 (1974): 47-53.
Delitzsch, Friedrich. Assyrisches Handwörterbuch. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs
Buchhandlung, 1896.
Dijk, J. van. Lugal udme-LÁM-bi NIR-GÁL. Vol. 1. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1983.
. "Un rituel de purification des armes et de l'armée: Essai de traduction
de YBC 4184." Pages 107-117 in Symbolae Biblicae et Mesopotamicae
Francisco Mario Theodore de Liagre Böhl dedicate. Edited by Μ. Α. Beek
et al. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973.
Donbaz, Veysel, and A. Kirk Grayson. Royal Inscriptions on Clay Cones from
Ashur now in Istanbul. The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia
Supplements 1. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1984.
Donner, H. and Köllig, W. Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften. 3 vols.
Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1962-64.
Dossin, Georges. "Benjaminites dans les textes de Mari." Pages 981-96 in vol.
2 of Mélanges Syriens offerts à monsieur René Dussaud. Paris: Paul
Geuthner, 1939.
. "Les archives épistolaires du palais de Mari." Syria 19/2 (1938):
105-26.
Drazin, Israel. Targum Onkelos to Deuteronomy. New York: Ktav Publishing
House, 1982.
Driel, G. van. "On 'Standard' and 'Triumphal' Inscriptions." Pages 99-106 in
Symbolae Biblicae et Mesopotamicae Francisco Mario Theodoro de Liagre
Böhl dedicatae. Edited by M. A. Beek et al. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973.
Drinkard, Joel. "The Literary Genre of the Mesha' Inscription." Pages 131-54
in Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab. Edited by Andrew Dearman.
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989.
Driver, S. R. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy. 3rd ed.
The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old
and New Testaments 5. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902.
Dumermuth, Fritz. "Zur deuteronomischen Kulttheologie und ihren
Voraussetzungen." Zeitschriftför die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 70/1-2
(1958): 59-98.
Dunham, Sally. "A Study of Ancient Mesopotamian Foundations." Ph.D.
dissertation, Columbia University, 1980.
. "Sumerian Words for Foundation: Part I." Revue d'Assyriologie 80
(1986): 31-64.
224 Bibliography

Durand, Jean-Marie. "In Vino Veritas." Revue d'Assyriologie 76/1 (1982):

43-50.
. "Le culte des bétyles en Syrie." Pages 79-84 in Miscellanea
Babylonica: Mélanges offerts à Maurice Birot. Edited by Jean-Marie
Durand and Jean-Robert Kupper. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les
Civilisations, 1985.
. "Le nom des bétyles à Ebla et en Anatolie." Nouvelles Assyriologiques
Brèves et Utilitaires 1988/1, 5.
. "L'organisation de l'espace dans le palais de Mari." Pages 70-71 in Le
système palatial en Orient, en Grèce et à Rome: actes du Colloque de Stras-
bourg, 19-22 juin 1985. Edited by E. Lèvy. Travaux du Centre de recherche
sur le Proche-Orient et la Grèce antiques 9. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1987.
_ . "Peuplement et sociétés à l'époque amorrite." Amurru II. Paris:
Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, forthcoming.
. "Réalités Amorrites et Traditions bibliques." Revue d'Assyriologie 92
(1998): 3-31.

Edzard, Dietz Otto. Gudea and His Dynasty. The Royal Inscriptions of
Mesopotamia, Early Periods 3/1. Toronto: University of Toronto Press,
1997.
. "Maskan-, Maskan(um)." MaSkan-," page 447 of vol. 7 in Reallexikon
der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Edited by Erich
Ebeling, Bruno Meissner, Ernst Weidner, and Wolfram von Soden. 8 vols.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1957-1971.
. "Sumerische Komposita mit dem 'Nominalpräfix' nu-." Zeitschrift für
Assyriologie 55 (1963): 95-112.
Eichrodt, Walther. Theology of the Old Testament. Translated by J. A. Baker. 2
vols. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961-1967.
Ellis, Richard. Foundation Deposits in Ancient Mesopotamia. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1968.
Eskenazi, Tamara S. In an Age of Prose: A Literary Approach to Ezra-
Nehemiah. Society of Biblical Literature 36. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988.

Faber, Alice. "Akkadian Evidence for Proto-Semitic Affricates," Journal of

Cuneiform Studies 31(1985): 101-107.
Falkenstein, Α. "Sumerische Bauausdrücke." Orientalia 35 (1966): 229-246.
Fichtner, Johannes. "Die etymologische Ätiologie in den Namengebungen der
geschichtlichen Bücher des Alten Testaments." Vetus Testamentum 6
(1956): 372-96.
Finkelstein, Israel. The Archaeology of Israelite Settlement. Jerusalem: Israel
Exploration Society, 1988.
Finkelstein, Israel, Zvi Lederman, and Shlomo Bonimovitch. "Shiloh 1981."
Israel Exploration Journal 32/2-3 (1982): 148-50.
 Bibliography 225

. "Shiloh 1982." Israel Exploration Journal 33/1-2 (1983): 123-26.

. "Shiloh 1983." Israel Exploration Journal 33/3-4 (1983): 267-68.
Fitzmyer, Joseph. "Sefire Aramaic Inscriptions." Pages 512-13 in vol. 4 of The
Oxford Encyclopedia of the Ancient Near East. Edited by Ε. M. Meyers. 5
vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Fleming, Daniel. The Installation of Baal's High Priestess at Emar: A Window
on Ancient Syrian Religion. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992.
. "Mari's Large Public Tent and the Priestly Tent Sanctuary." Vetus
Testamentum 50/4 (2000): 484-98.
. "Tabernacle and Tribal Tent: Mari and Yahweh's Portable Sanctuary."
Bible Review, forthcoming.
Frame, Grant. Rulers of Babylonia: From the Second Dynasty ofIsin to the
End of Assyrian Domination, 1157-612 BC. The Royal Inscriptions of
Mesopotamia. Babylonian Periods 2. Toronto: University of Toronto Press,
1995.
Frankena, R. "Some Remarks on a New Approach to Hebrew." Pages 41-49 in
Travels in the World of the Old Testament: Studies Presented to Professor
M. A. Beek on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday. Edited by M. S. H. G.
Heerma van Voss, Ph. H. J. Houwink ten Cate, and N. A. van Uchelen.
Studia Semitica Neerlandica 16. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1974.
Frankfort, Henri. The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient. The Pelican
History of Art. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1955.
. Kingship and the Gods: A Study of ancient Near Eastern Religion as the
Integration of Society & Nature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948.
Frankfort, Henri, H. A. Frankfort, John A. Wilson, Thorkild Jacobsen, and
William Irwin. The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man: An Essay on
Speculative Thought in the Ancient Near East. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1977 (1946).
Frayne, Douglas. Old Babylonian Period (2003-1595 BC). The Royal
Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early Periods 4. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 1990.
. Sargonic and Gutian Periods (.2334-2113 BC). The Royal Inscriptions
of Mesopotamia. Early Periods 2. Toronto: University of Toronto Press,
1993.
. Urlìi Period (2112-2004 BC). The Royal Inscriptions of
Mesopotamia. Early Periods 3/2. Toronto: University of Toronto Press,
1997.
Frazer, James George. "The Dying God." Journal of the Warburg and
Courtauld Institutes 21 (1958): 141-50.
. The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion. Abridged ed. New
York: The MacMillan Company, 1940.
226 Bibliography

Friedman, Richard E. "Covenant Fidelity and Covenant Stipulation in the

Davidic Dynastic Traditions." Paper in Harvard Hebrew 200, Harvard
University, 1973.
. The Exile and Biblical Narrative: The Formation of the
Deuteronomistic and Priestly Works. Harvard Semitic Monographs 22.
Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1981.

Galloway, George. "The Beginnings and Growth of Religion." Pages 91-105

in The Philosophy of Religion. International Theological Library. Edited by
Charles A. Briggs and Stewart D. F. Salmond. New York: Scribner's Sons,
1923.
Gardiner, Patrick. "Giambattista Vico," Pages 247-251 in vol. 8 of The
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edited by Paul Edwards. 8 vols. New York:
Macmillan, 1967.
Gelb, Ignace J. Glossary of Old Akkadian. Materials for the Assyrian
Dictionary 3. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957.
. "Mari and Kish Civilization" Pages 121-202 in Mari in Retrospect:
Fifty Years of Mari and Mari Studies. Edited by Gordon D. Young. Winona
Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992.
Gelb, Ignace J. and Β. Kienast. Die altakkadischen Königsinschriften des
dritten Jahrtausends v. Chr. Freiburger Altorientalische Studien 7. Stuttart:
Steiner, 1990.
Gelb, Ignace J., Benno Landsberger, A. Leo Oppenheim, and Erica Reiner,
eds. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of
Chicago. 22 vols. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1956-present.
Gelb, Ignace J., Piotr Steinkeller and R. M. Whiting Jr. Earliest Land Tenure
Systems in the Near East: Ancient Kudurrus. 2 vols. Chicago: Oriental
Institute of the University of Chicago, 1989-1991.
Geller, Samuel. Die sumerisch-assyrische Serie Lugal-e ud me-lam-bi nir-gal.
Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1916.
Genette, Gérard. Mimologics. Translated by Thaïs E. Morgan. Lincoln, Nebr.:
University of Nebraska, 1995.
George, Andrew. The Epic of Gilgamesh: The Babylonian Epic Poem and
Other Texts in Akkadian and Sumerian. Allen Lane, London: Penguin
Press, 1999.
Gerstenberger, Erhard S. Psalms, Part 1 with an Introduction to Cultic Poetry.
Forms of the Old Testament Literature 14. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.
Gesenius, Wilhelm. Gesenius ' Hebrew Grammar. Edited by E. Kautzsch. 2nd
English ed. Rev. from the 28th German ed. (1909) by A. E. Cowley. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1985.
Gevirtz, Stanley. "West-Semitic Curses and the Problem of the Origins of
Hebrew Law." Vetus Testamentum 11 (1961): 10, 138-58.
 Bibliography 227

Gibson, John C. L., ed. Canaanite Myths and Legends. Edinburgh: Τ & Τ
Clark, 1977.
. Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions. 3 vols. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1971-1982.
Giesebrecht, F. Die alttestamentliche Schätzung des Gottesnamens und ihre
religionsgeschichtliche Grundlage. Königsberg: Verlag von Thomas &
Oppermann, 1901.
Goetze, Albrecht. "The Meaning of Sumerian kislah and Its Akkadian
Equivalents." American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 52/3
(April 1936): 143-59.
Gray, George B. The Book of Isaiah. International Critical Commentary.
Edinburgh: Τ & Τ Clark, 1975 (1912).
Grayson, Albert Kirk. "Assyria and Babylonia" in John W. Wever's "Histories
and Historians of the ancient Near East." Orientalia 49 (1980): 140-94.
. Assyrian Royal Inscriptions. 2 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1972.
. Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC. The Royal
Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Assyrian Periods 2. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 1991.
. Assyrian Rulers of the Third and Second Millennia BC. The Royal
Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Assyrian Periods 1. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 1987.
Grether, Oskar. Name und Wort Gottes im Alten Testament. Beihefte zur
Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 64. Glessen: A.
Topelmann, 1934.
Gropp, Douglas M. and Theodore J. Lewis. "Notes on Some Problems in the
Aramaic Text of Hadd-Yith'i Bilingual." Bulletin of the American Schools
of Oriental Research 259 (1985): 45-61.
Grossfeld, Bernard. The Targum Onqelos to Deuteronomy. Aramaic Bible 9.
Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1988.
. The Targum Onqelos to Genesis. Aramaic Bible 6. Wilmington, Del.:
Michael Glazier, 1988.
Guzzo, Maria Giulia Amadasi. "MSKT à Karatepe." Orientalia 69/1 (2000):
72-80.

Hallo, William W. "New Viewpoints on Cuneiform Literature." Israel

Exploration Journal 12 (1962): 13-26.
. "Royal Inscriptions of the Early Old Babylonian Period: A
Bibliography." Bibliotheca Orientalis 18 (1961): 4-14.
. "The Royal Inscriptions of Ur: A Typology." Hebrew Union College
Annual 33(1962): 1-43.
Hallo, William W., and Lawson K. Younger, eds. The Context of Scripture. 2
vols. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1997-2000.
228 Bibliography

Hallo, William W. and Hayim Tadmor. "A Lawsuit from Hazor." Israel
Exploration Journal 2771 (1977): 1-11.
Halpern, Baruch. The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History. San
Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988.
Hanson, Paul. "Song of Heshbon and David's M r (Num 21:26-30)." Harvard
Theological Review 61/3(1968): 297-320.
Haran, Menahem. Temples & Temple Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry
into the Character of Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the
Priestly School. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978.
Harper, Prudence O., Joan Aruz, and Françoise Talion, eds. The Royal City of
Susa: Ancient Near Eastern Treasures in the Louvre. New York: The
Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1992.
Haupt, Paul. "Der Achtundsechzigste Psalm." American Journal of Semitic
Languages and Literatures 23 (1906): 220-40.
Hayes, John H. "Wellhausen as a Historian of Israel." Semeia 25 (1983):
37-59.
Hensley, L. V. "The Official Persian Documents in the Book of Ezra." Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Liverpool, 1977.
Herdner, Andrée. Corpus des tablettes en cunéiformes alphabétiques
découvertes à Ras Shamra-Ugarit de 1929 à 1939. 2 vols. Mission de Ras
Shamra 10. Paris: P. Geuthner, 1963.
Hillers, Delbert. "Mskn 'Temple' in Inscriptions from Hatra." Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 207 (April, 1972): 54-56.
Hoftijzer, J. and Κ. Jongeling, eds. Dictionary of the North-West Semitic
Inscriptions. 2 vols. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995.
Holladay, William. Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet
Jeremiah, Chapters 1-25. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986.
Horst, F. Gottes Recht, Gesammelte Studien zum Recht im Alten Testament.
Theologische Bücherei 12. München: C. Kaiser, 1961.
Horwitz, Rivka. "Shekinah: In Jewish Philosophy." Page 1352f. in vol. 14 of
The Encyclopedia Judaica. Edited by Cecil Roth et al. 16 vols. Jerusalem:
Keter Publishing House, 1971.
Huehnergard, John. A Grammar of Akkadian. Harvard Semitic Studies 45.
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997.
. "Further South Semitic Cognates in the Akkadian Lexicon." Pages
690-713 in vol. 1 of Semitic Studies in Honor ofWolfLeslau on the
Occasion of his 85th Birthday. Edited by Alan S. Kaye. 2 vols. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 1991.
. Ugaritic Vocabulary in Syllabic Transcription. Harvard Semitic
Studies 32. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987.
Huffmon, Herbert Bardwell. Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts: A
Structural and Lexical Study. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1965.
 Bibliography 229

Hulin, P. "The Inscriptions on the Carved Throne-Base of Shalmaneser III."

Iraq 25 (1963): 48-68.
Hurowitz, Victor (Avigdor). I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple
Building in the Bible in Light ofMesopotamian and Northwest Semitic
Writings. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series
115. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992.

Jacob, Benno. In Namen Gottes, eine sprachliche und religionsgeschichtliche

Untersuchung zum Alten und Neuen Testament. Berlin: Verlag von S.
Calvary & Company, 1903.
Jacobsen, Thorkild. "The Descent of Enki." Pages 1-4 in The Tablet and the
Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William. W. Hallo. Edited by
Mark E. Cohen, Daniel C. Snell, and David Weisberg. Bethesda, Md: CDL
Press, 1993.
. "The Graven Image." Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of
Frank Moore Cross. S. D. McBride, P. D. Miller, P. D. Hanson, eds.
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987.
. The Harps that Once... Sumerian Poetry in Translation. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1987.
. The Treasures of Darkness. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976.
Jastrow, Marcus. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and
Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. New York: Judaica Press, 1992.
Jastrow, Morris and Albert T. Clay. An Old Babylonian Version of the
Gilgamesh Epic On the Basis of Recently Discovered Texts. Yale Oriental
Series 4/3. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1920.
Jenni, Ernst. Das hebräische Pi'el. Zürich: EVZ-Verlag, 1968.
Jenni, Ernst and Claus Westermann, eds. Theological Lexicon of the Old
Testament. Translated by Mark E. Biddle. 3 vols. Peabody, Mass.:
Hendrickson Publishers, 1997.
Jespersen, Otto. Mankind, Nation and Individualfrom a Linguistic Point of
View. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1946.
Jones, E. "A Linguistic Factor in English Characterology." International
Journal of Psycho-Analysis 1/3 (1920): 256.
Joosten, J. "The Functions of the Semitic D-stem: Biblical Hebrew Materials
for a Comparative-Historical Approach." Orientalia 67 (1998): 202-30.

Kaufman, Stephen. The Akkadian Influences on Aramaic. Assyriological

Studies 19. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974.
. "Reflections on the Assyrian-Aramaic Bilingual From Tell
Fakhariyeh." Maarav 3/2 (1982): 137-175.
Keil, C. F. andF. Delitzsch. Psalms. Vol. 5. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson,
1989.
230 Bibliography

Keller, Martin. Untersuchungen zur deuteronomisch-deuteronomistischen

Namenstheologie. Bonner Biblische Beiträge 105. Weinheim: Beiz
Athenäum Verlag, 1996.
King, L. W. Chronicles concerning Early Babylonian Kings. 2 vols. London:
Luzac & Co., 1907.
Klein, Ernest. A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew
Language for Readers of English. Jerusalem: The University of Haifa,
1987.
Klein, Jacob. Three Sulgi Hymns: Sumerian Royal Hymns Glorifying King
Sulgi of Ur. Bar-Ilan University Press, 1981.
Knight, Douglas. "The Pentateuch." Pages 283-87 in The Hebrew Bible and Its
Modern Interpreters. Edited by D. Knight and Gene M. Tucker. Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1985.
. Foreword to Prolegomena to the History of Israel, by Julius Wellhausen.
Edited by Harry W. Gilmer et al. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994.
. "Wellhausen and the Interpretation of Israel's Literature." Semeia 25
(1983): 21-36.
Knoppers, Gary N. "Ancient Near Eastern Royal Grants and the Davidic
Covenant: A Parallel?" Journal of the American Oriental Society 116/4
(1996): 670-97.
Knoppers, Gary N. and J. Gordon Wenham, eds. Reconsidering Israel &
Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History. Winona Lake,
Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2000.
Knudtzon, J. Α., ed. Die el-Amarna-Tafeln. Vol. 2 of Vorderasiatische
Bibliothek 2. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1915.
Koehler, Ludwig and Walter Baumgartner. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon
of the Old Testament. Edited and translated by M. E. J. Richardson. 4 vols.
Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2000.
Kramer, Samuel N. "Gilgamesh and the Land of the Living." Journal of
Cuneiform Studies 1 (1947): 3-23.
Kraus, F. R. "Altmesopotamisches Lebensgefiihl "Journal of Near Eastern
Studies 19(1960): 117-132.
. "Altmesopotamische Tonnaegel mit Keilinschriften." Pages 71-113.
Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayinlarindan VII. Seri no. 5. Vol. 1. Ankara:
Türk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, 1947.
. "Zu zikir sumim: Sumam zakärum." Revue d'Assyriologie et
d'Archéologie orientale 65 (1971): 99-112.
Kraus, H. J. Worship in Israel: A Cultic History of the Old Testament. Oxford:
Blackwell, 1966.
Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed. International
Encyclopedia of Unified Science 2/2. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1970.
 Bibliography 231

Kupper, Jean-Robert. "Les inscriptions triomphales akkadiennes." Oriens

Antiquus 10(1971): 12,92-106.
. "Les formules de malédiction dans les inscriptions royales de l'époque
paléo-babylonienne." Revue d'assyriologie et d'archéologie orientale 84/2
(1990): 157-63.

Labat, René. Le caractère religieux de la royauté assyro-babylortienne. Études

d'Assyriologie 11. Paris: Librairie d'Amérique et d'Orient, 1939.
Lackenbacher, S. Le roi bâtisseur: les récits de construction assyriens des
origines à Teglatphalasar III in Études assyriologiques 11. Paris: Éditions
Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1982.
Laessoe, Jorgen. "IM 62100: A Letter from Tell-Shemshara." Pages 191-96 in
Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on his 75th Birthday. Assyriological
Studies 16. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965.
Lafont, Bertrand. "Le roi de Mari et les prophètes du dieu Adad." Revue
d'assyriologie et d'archéologie orientale 78 (1984): 7-13.
Lambdin, Thomas O. Review of Ernst Jenni, Das hebräische Pi 'el. Catholic
Biblical Quarterly 31(1969): 435-37.
Lambert, W. G. "DINGIR.SÀ.DIB.BA Incantations." Journal ofNear Estern
Studies 33/3(1974): 267-305.
Landsberger, Benno and Κ. Balkan. "Die Inschrift des assyrischen Königs
Irisum gefunden in Kültepe 1948." Belleten 14 (1950) [Turk Tarih
Kurumu]: 219-68.
Langdon, Stephen. Les inscriptions dù WadiBrissa et du Nahr El-Kelb.
Recueil de Tracaux relatifs à la Philogie at à l'Archéologie égyptiennes et
assyriennes 28. Paris: Librairie Emile Bouillon, 1905.
. Die Neubabylonischen Königsinschriften. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1912.
Lapp, Paul W. Review of Richard Ellis, Foundation Deposits in Ancient
Mesopotamia. Journal of Biblical Literature 88 (March 1969): 494-6.
Leeuw, Gerardus van der. Phänomenologie der Religion. London: G. Allen &
Unwin, 1938. Repr. in English as Religion In Essence and Manifestation.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, c.1986.
Lemaire, André. "La stèle araméenne de Barhadad." Orientalia 53/3 (1984):
337-46.
Leslau, Wolf. "Additional Arabic Loanwords in Tigre." Festschrift Maria
Höfner zum 80 Geburtstag. Edited by Roswitha G. Stiegner. Karl-Franzens
Universität Graz, 1981.
Levenson, Jon D. "The Davidic Covenant and its Modem Interpreters."
Catholic Biblical Quarterly 41/2 (1979): 205-19.
. "From Temple to Synagogue: 1 Kings 8." Pages 143-166 in Traditions
in Transformation. Edited by B. Halpern and J. Levenson. Winona Lake,
Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1981.
232 Bibliography

. "The Last Four Verses in Kings," Journal of Biblical Literature 103/3

(1984): 353-61.
. Sinai & Zion. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1985.
. "Who Inserted the Book of the Torah?" Harvard Theological Review
68/3-4 (1975): 203-33.
Levine, Louis D. Two Neo-Assyrian Stelae from Iran. Art and Archaeology of
the Royal Ontario Museum, Occasional Paper 23. Edited by A. D. Tushing-
ham & T. Cuyler Young, Jr. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum, 1972.
Lévy-Bruhl, Lucien. L 'Ameprimitive. Paris: F. Alean, 1927.
. La Pensée Sauvage. Paris: Pion, 1955. Repr. in English as The Savage
Mind. Chicago: University Press, 1966.
Liddell, Henry George, and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1869.
Lieberman, Stephen. The Sumerian Loanwords in Old-Babylonian Akkadian:
Prolegomena and Evidence, vol. 1. Harvard Semitic Studies 22. Missoula,
Montana: Scholars Press, 1977. Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah 1-20. Anchor
Bible 21A. New York: Doubleday, 1999.
Ling-Israel, Pinna. "The Sennacherib Prism in the Israel Museum-Jerusalem."
Page 213-21 in Bar-Han Studies in Assyriology. Edited by Jacob Klein and
Aaron Skaist. Bar-Ilan University Press, 1990.
LipMski, E. "SKN et SGN dans le sémitique occidental du nord." Ugarit-
Forschungen 5 (1973): 191-207.
Liverani, Mario. "The Deeds of Ancient Mesopotamian Kings." Pages 2353-
66 in vol. 4 of Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Edited by Jack M.
Sasson et al. 4 vols. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons MacMillan Library
Reference, 1995.
Loux, Michael J. "The Problem of Universale" Pages 3-15 in Universals and
Particulars'. Readings in Ontology. Edited by Michael J. Loux. Garden
City, N.Y.: Anchor Books, 1970.
Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah 1-20. The Anchor Bible 21 A. New York:
Doubleday, 1999.

Machinist, Peter. "Literature as Politics: The Tukulti-Ninurta Epic and the

Bible." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 38/4 (1976): 455-82.
Maclntyre, Alasdair. "Essence and Existence." Pages 59-61 in vol. 3 of The
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edited by Paul Edwards. 8 vols. New York:
Macmillan, 1967.
. "Myth." Pages 434-37 in vol. 5 of The Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Edited by Paul Edwards. 8 vols. New York: Macmillan, 1967.
Maimonides, Moses. The Guide of the Perplexed. Translated by Chaim Rabin.
London: East & West Library, 1952.
Malamat, Abraham. "Campaigns to the Mediterranean by Iahdunlim and Other
Early Mesopotamian Rulers." Pages 365-73 in Studies in Honor of Benno
 Bibliography 233

Landsberger on his Seventy-fifth Birthday. Assyriological Studies 16.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965.
. "History and Prophetic Vision in a Mari Letter." Eretz Israel 5 (1958):
67-73.
. Mari and the Early Israelite Experience: The Schweich Lectures 1984
of the British Academy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.
Mallowan, M. E. I. "The Excavations at Nimrud (KaUiu), 1957." Iraq 20/2
(1958): 101-108.
Mankowski, Paul. Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew. Harvard Semitic
Studies 47. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2000.
Marks, Herbert. "Biblical Naming and Poetic Etymology" Journal of Biblical
Literature 114/1(1995): 21-42.
Masson, Olivier and Maurice Sznycer. Recherches sur les Phéniciens à
Chypre. Publications du centre de recherches d'histoire et de philologie 2/3.
Geneva: Hautes Études Orientales, 1972.
Matous, L. "Les rapports entre la version sumérienne et la version akkadienne
de l'épopée de Gilgames." Pages 83-94 in Gilgames et sa légende. Edited by
P. Garelli. Paris: C. Klincksieck, 1958.
Mayes, A. D. H. Deuteronomy. New Century Bible. London: Oliphants, 1979.
Mazar, Eilat. "Royal Gateway to ancient Jerusalem Uncovered." Biblical
Archaeology Review May/June 1989: 38-51.
McBride, S. Dean. "The Deuteronomic Name Theology." Ph.D. diss., Harvard
University, 1969.
McCarthy, Dennis J. "II Samuel and the Structure of the Deuteronomic
History." Journal of Biblical Literature 84 (1965): 131-38.
. Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Docu-
ments and in the Old Testament. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963.
McConville, J. Gordon. "God's 'Name' and God's 'Glory.'" Tyndale Bulletin
30(1979): 149-63.
. "The Old Testament Historical Books in Modern Scholarship."
Themelios 22/3 (1997): 3-13.
McKane, William. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah. 2 vols.
International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986-1996.
McKenzie Steven L. "Deuteronomistic History." Pages 160-68 in vol. 2 of The
Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York:
Doubleday, c. 1992.
McNamara, Marin. Targum Neofiti 1: Deuteronomy. The Aramaic Bible 5A.
Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 1997.
Meissner, Bruno. Beiträge zum Assyrischen Wörterbuch. Assyriological
Studies 1/1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1931.
Mercer, Samel Α. Β. The Tell El-amarna Tablets. 2 vols. New York: AMS
Press, 1939.
234 Bibliography

Mettinger, Tryggve Ν. D. The Dethronement of Sabaoth: Studies in the Shem

and Kabod Theologies. Translated by F. H. Cryer. ConBOT 18. Lund:
Gleerup, 1982.
. King and Messiah: The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite
Kings. ConBOT 8. Lund: LiberLaromedel/Gleerup, 1976.
Metzger, M. "Himmlische und Irdische Wohnstatt Jahwehs." Ugarit-
Forschungen 2 (1970): 139-58.
Meyers, Carol. "David As Temple Builder." Pages 357-76 in Ancient Israelite
Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross. Edited by Patrick Miller,
Paul Hanson, and S. Dean McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987.
Miller, Max. "The Moabite Stone as a Memorial Stele." Palestine Exploration
Quarterly 106 (1974): 9-18.
Miller, Patrick D. "Israelite Religion." Pages 201-213 in The Hebrew Bible
and Its Modern Interpreters. Edited by Douglas A. Knight and Gene M.
Tucker. Decatur, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1985.
Montgomery, James. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of
Kings. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1951.
Moran, William, ed. The Amarna Letters. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1992.
. "The ANE Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy."
Catholic Biblical Quarterly 25 (1963): 77-85.
Mowinckel, Sigmund. "Die vorderasiatischen Königs- und Fürsteninschriften:
Eine stilistische Studie." Pages 278-322 in Eucharisterion: Gunkel zum 60.
Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments
19. Hans Schmidt. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1923.
Müller, F. Max. Comparative Mythology. New York: Arno Press, 1977 (1856).
. Lectures on the Science of Language. New York: Scribner, 1865.
. "The Philosophy of Mythology." Pages 353-55 in Introduction to the
Science of Religion. London: Longmans, 1873.
Myers, Jacob. Ezra*Nehemiah. Anchor Bible 14. Garden City, N.Y.:
Doubleday, 1965.

Na'aman, N. "Amarna sakänu 'govern' and WS sökin." Nouvelles

Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires 42 (1995).
Nelson, R. D. The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History. Journal
for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 18. Sheffield: JSOT
Press, 1981.
Niehaus, J. God at Sinai: Covenant and Theophany in the Bible and the ANE.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.
Nissen, Hans J. "'Sumerian' vs. 'Akkadian' Art: Art and Politics in Babylonia
of the Mid-Third Millennium B.C." Pages 189-96 in Insight Through
Images: Studies in Honor of Edith Porada. Edited by R. D. Barnett.
Bibliotheca Mesopotamia 21. Malibu, Calif., 1986.
 Bibliography 235

Noth, Martin. The Deuteronomistic History. Translated by J. A. Clines et al.

JSOTSup 15. Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 1981. Translation of
Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien. 2nd ed. Halle: M. Niemeyer, 1943.
Nylander, Carl. "Earless in Nineveh: Who Mutilated 'Sargon's' Head?"
American Journal of Archeology 84/3 (1980): 329-35.

Oppenheim, A. L. Catalogue of the Cuneiform Tablets of the Wilbetforce

Eames Babylonian Collection in the New York Public Library. American
Oriental Series 32. New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1948.
Orman Quine, Willard van. "On What There Is." Page 24-34 in Universals and
Particulars: Readings in Ontology. Edited by Michael J. Loux. Garden
City, N.Y.: Anchor Books, 1970.

Page, Stephanie. "A Stela of Adad-Nirari III and Nergal-EreS from Tell Al
Rimah"/ra?30(1968): 139-153.
Pardee, Dennis. "The Preposition in Ugaritic." Ugarit-Forschungen 7 (1975):
329-78.
Parker, Simon, ed. Ugaritic Narrative Poetry. Writings from the Ancient
World 9. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997.
Parpóla, Simo. The Correspondence of Sargon II. Vol. 1 of Letters from
Assyria and the West in the State Archives of Assyria. Helsinki University
Press, 1987.
Parrot, André. "Acquisitions et Inédits du Musée du Louvre." Syria 31 (1954):
7-13.
Paul, Shalom M. Studies in the Book of the Covenant in the Light of Cuneiform
and Biblical Law. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970.
Peckham, Brian. "Notes on a Fifth-Century Phoenician Inscription from
Kition, Cyprus (CIS 86)." Orientalia 37 (1968): 304-24.
. Review of Olivier Masson and Maurice Sznycer, Recherches sur les
Phéniciens à Chypre. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 35/3 (1976): 286-87.
Pedersen, Johannes. Israel: Its Life and Culture. 2 vols. Atlanta: Scholars
Press, c.1991. Repr., Israel Its Life and Culture. Translated by A. Moller
and A. Fausboll. 4 vols, in 2. London: Oxford University Press, 1926-1940.
Petschow, H. P. H. "Die Sklavenkaufverträge des sandabakku Enlil-kidinnï
von Nippur." Orientalia 52/1 (1983): 143-55.
Piaget, Jean. The Child's Conception of the World. Translated by John
Tomlinson and Andrew Tomlinson. The International Library of
Psychology, Philosophy and Scientific Method. Edited by C. K. Ogden.
Totawa, N.J.: Littlefield, Adams & Company, 1967.
. The Language and Thought of the Child. New York: Meridian, 1957.
Piepkorn, Arthur Carl. Historical Prism Inscriptions of Ashurbanipal.
Assyriological Studies 5. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1933.
236 Bibliography

Pitard, Wayne. "The Identity of the Bir-Hadad of the Melqart Stela." Bulletin
of the American Schools of Oriental Research 272 (1988): 3-21.
Polzin, Robert. "Reporting Speech in the Book of Deuteronomy." Pages 193-
212 in Traditions in Transformation. Edited by B. Halpern and J. Levenson.
Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1981.
Porter, Barbara N. "Conquest or Kudurru's? A Note on Peaceful Strategies of
Assyrian Government." Pages 194-97 in The Tablet and the Scroll: Ancient
Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William E. Hallo. Edited by Mark E.
Cohen, Daniel C. Snell, and David B. Weisberg. Bethesda, Md.: CDL
Press, 1993.
Postgate, J. N. Early Mesopotamia: Society and Economy at the Dawn of
History. New York: Rutledge, 1992.
Pury, Albert de, Thomas Römer, and Jean-Daniel Macchi. Israel Constructs its
History: Deuteronomistic Historiography in Recent Research. JSOTSup 306.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.

Rad, Gerhard von. Deuteronomy in the Old Testament Library. London: SCM
Press, 1966.
. Old Testament Theology. Translated by D. Stalker. 2 vols. San
Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1962.
. The Problem of the Hexateuch. New York: McGraw Hill Book
Company, 1966.
. Studies in Deuteronomy. Translated by D. Stalker. London: SCM
Press, 1953.
Rahlfs, Alfred, ed. Septuaginta. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979.
Rainey, Anson. Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets: A Linguistic Analysis of the
Mixed Dialect used by the Scribes from Canaan. 4 vols. Handbuch der
Orientalistik 25. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996.
."Observations on Ugaritic Grammar." Ugarit-Forschungen 3 (1971):
17-21.
Rashid, Subhi Anwar. "Gründungsbeigaben." Pages 655-61 in vol. 3 of
Reallexikon der Assyriologie. Edited by Erich Ebeling, Bruno Meissner,
Ernst Weidner, and Wolfram von Soden. 8 vols. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,
1957-1971.
Roaf, Michael. Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East.
Oxford: Equinox, 1990.
Roberts, J. J. M. "Yahweh's Foundation in Zion (Isa 28:16)." Journal of
Biblical Literature 106/1 (1987): 27-45.
Rose, M. Der Ausschliesslichkeitsanspruch Jahwes: Deuteronomische Schul-
theologie und die Volksfrömmigkeit in der späten Königszeit. Beiträge zur
Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 106. Stuttgart, 1975.
Rousch, D. A. "Nominalism." Page 778 in Evangelical Dictionary of
Theology. Edited by Walter A. Elwell. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984.
 Bibliography 237

Roux, George. Ancient Iraq. London: Penguin Books, 1992.

Russell, Bertrand. Universals and Particulars: Readings In Ontology. Edited
by Michael J. Loux. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1976.

Saggs, H. W. F. The Greatness that was Babylon. New York: Hawthorn

Books, 1962.
. "The Nimrud Letters, 1952-Part IV," Iraq 20/2 (1958): 196-197.
Sawyer, John F. A. Sacred Languages and Sacred Texts: Religion in the First
Christian Centuries. New York: Routledge, 1999.
Schlossman, Betty L. "Portraiture in Mesopotamia in the Late Third and Early
Second Millennium B. C." Archiv für Orientforschung 26 (1978/79): 56-77
and 28 (1981/82): 143-70.
Schmidt, Werner, "ρφο als Ausdruck Jerusalemer Kultsprache." Zeitschrift für
die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 75 (1963): 91-92.
Schneider, Tammi J. Form and Context in the Royal Inscriptions of
Shalmaneser III. The Institute for Antiquity and Christianity, Occasional
Paper 26. The Claremont Graduate School, 1993.
Schoors, A. "Two Notes on Isaiah XL-LV." Vetus Testamentum 21 (1971):
501-03.
Schramm, W. Einleitung in die assyrischen Königsinschriften, Zweiter Teil:
934-722 v. Chr. Edited by Β. Spuler. Handbuch der Orientalistik 1.
Abteilung: der Nahe- und der Mittlere-Osten. Ergänzungsband 5. Leiden:
E. J. Brill, 1973.
Schreiner, Josef. Sion-Jerusalem Jahwes Königssitz: Theologie der Heiligen
Stadt im Alten Testament. Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 7.
München: Kosel-Verlag, 1963.
Serrus, Charles. Le parallélisme logico-grammatical. Bibliothèque de
philosophie contemporaine. Paris: F. Alean, 1933.
Silberman, Lou H. "Wellhausen and Judaism." Semeia 25 (1983): 75-81.
Silva, Moisés. Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical
Semantics. Grand Rapids: Academie Books, 1983.
Slanski, Kathryn. "A Study in the Form and Function of the Babylonian
Kudurrus." Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University, 1997.
Smend, Rudolf. Die alttestamentliche Schätzung des Gottesnamens und ihre
religionsgeschichtliche Grundlage. Königsberg: Verlag von Thomas &
Oppermann, 1901.
. Lehrbuch der Alttestamentliche Religions-Geschichte. Freiburg: J. C.
B.Mohr, 1893.
Smend, Rudolf. Deutsche Alttestamentier in Drei Jahrhunderten. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989.
. "Julius Wellhausen and His Prolegomena to the History of Israel."
Semeia 25 (1983): 1-20.
238 Bibliography

Soden, Wolfram von. Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. 3 vols. Wiesbaden:

Harrassowitz, 1965.
Sokoloff, Michael. A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic. Bar-Ilan
University Press, 1990.
Sollberger, Edmond and Jean-Robert Küpper. Inscriptions royales
sumériennes et akkadiennes. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1971.
Sollberger, Edmond. "Notes on the Early Inscriptions from Ur." Iraq 22
(1960): 69-89.
Speiser, E. A. Genesis. Anchor Bible 1. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1964.
Spycket, Agnès. "Reliefs, Statuary, and Monumental Paintings in Ancient
Mesopotamia." Pages 2583-600 in vol. 4 of Civilizations of the Ancient
Near East. Edited by Jack Sasson et al. 4 vols. New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons MacMillan Library Reference, 1995.
Stade, Bernhard. Geschichte des Volkes Israel. 2 vols. Berlin: G. Grote, 1887.
Stade, Bernhard and F. Schwally. The Book of Kings. Sacred Books of the Old
Testament 9. Edited by Paul Haupt. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1904.
Steele, Francis Rue. "The University Museum Esarhaddon Prism." Journal of
the American Oriental Society 71/1 (1951): 1-9.
Steinkeller, Piotr. "A Building Inscription of Sin-iddinam and Other Inscribed
Materials from Abu Duwari." The Anatomy of a Mesopotamian City: The
Survey and Soundings at Mashkan-shapir. Edited by E. C. Stone and P.
Zimansky. Winona Lake, forthcoming.
. Sale Documents of the Ur-III Period. Freiburger Altorientalische
Studien 17. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1989.
Stephens, Ferris J. Votive and Historical Texts from Babylonia and Assyria.
Yale Oriental Series Babylonian Texts 9. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1937.
Stohl, M. Review of J.-M. Durand Archives épistolaires de Mari, 1.1. Journal
of the American Oriental Society 111/3 (1991): 626-28.
Stol, Marten. "Biblical Idiom in Akkadian." Pages 246-49 in The Tablet and
the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo. Edited by
Mark E. Cohen, Daniel C. Snell, and David Weisberg. Bethesda, Md: CDL
Press, 1993.
Streck, Michael P. Das amurritische Onomastiken der altbabylonischen Zeit.
Alter Orient und Altes Testament 271/1. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2000.

Tadmor, Hayim. "A Lexicographical Text from Hazor." Israel Exploration

Journal 27 (1977): 98-102.
Terrien, Samuel. The Elusive Presence: Toward a New Biblical Theology.
Religious Perspectives 26. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978.
Thierry, G. J. "Notes on Hebrew Grammar and Etymology." Oudtestament-
ische Studien 9, ( 1951 ): 1 -17.
 Bibliography 239

Thureau-Dangin, F. "Notes Assyriologiques." Revue d'assyriologie et

d'archéologie orientale 11(1914-1917): 88-104.
Thompson, R. Campbell. The Epic of Gilgamish: Text, Transliteration, and
Notes. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1930.
Thompson, Thomas, and Dorothy Thompson. "Some Legal Problems in the
Book of Ruth." Vetus Testamentum 18 (1968): 79-99.
Thomsen, Marie-Louise. The Sumerian Language: An Introduction to its
History and Grammatical Structure. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1984.
Tigay, Jeffrey H. Deuteronomy. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: The
Jewish Publication Society, 1996.
. "On Evaluating Claims of Literary Borrowing." Pages 250-55 in The
Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo.
Edited by Mark E. Cohen, Daniel C. Snell, and David Weisberg. Bethesda,
Md: CDL Press, 1993.
Τον, Emmanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1992.
Tsevat, Matitiahu. "Studies in the Book of Samuel: The Steadfast House: What
was David Promised in II Sam. 7:1 lb-16." Hebrew Union College Annual
34 (1963): 71-82.

Unterman, Alan. "Shekinah." Pages 1349-52 in vol. 14 of Encyclopedia

Judaica. Edited by Cecil Roth et al. 16 vols. Jerusalem: Keter, 1971.

Vaux, Roland de. "Le lieu que Yahvé a choisi pour y établir son nom." Das
ferne und nahe Wort, Festschrift Leonhard Rost zur Vollendung seines 70
Lebensjahres. Edited by Fritz Mass. Berlin: Alfred Töpelmann, 1967.
Villard, Pierre. "Shamshi-Adad and Sons: The Rise and Fall of an Upper
Mesopotamian Empire." Pages 873-83 in vol. 2 of Civilizations of the
Ancient Near East. Edited by Jack M. Sasson et al. 4 vols. New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons MacMillan Library Reference USA, 1995.
Veenhof, K. Aspects of Old Assyrian Trade and its Terminology. Leiden: E. J.
Brill, 1972.
Velde, Herman te. "Frankfort and Religious Symbols." Pages 35-56 in On
Symbolic Representation of Religion: Groninger Contributions to Theories
of Symbols. Edited by Hubertus G. Hubbeling and Hans G. Kippenberg.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1986.
. "Some Remarks on the Concept 'Person' in the Ancient Egyptian
Culture." Pages 83-101 in Concepts of Person in Religion and Thought.
Edited by Hans G. Kippenberg et al. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1990.
Voigtlander, Elizabeth Ν. von. The Bisitun Inscription of Darius the Great:
Babylonian Version. Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum: Part 1 Inscriptions
of Ancient Iran. Vol. 2 of the Babylonian Versions of the Achaemenian
Inscriptions. London: Lund Humphries, 1978.
240 Bibliography

Wächter, Ludwig. "Reste von Safel-Bildungen im Hebräischen." Zeitschrift

für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 83 (1971): 380-89.
Waltke, Bruce K. and M. O'Connor. An Inroduction to Biblical Hebrew
Syntax. Winona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns, 1990.
Waterman, Leroy trans. Royal Correspondence of the Assyrian Empire. 2 vols.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1930.
Wehr, Hans. A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic. Edited by J. Milton
Cowan. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1979.
Weinfeld, Moshe. "The Book of Deuteronomy." Pages 171-3 in vol. 2 of The
Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York:
Doubleday, c. 1992.
. Deuteronomy 1-11: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary. Anchor Bible 5. New York: Doubleday, 1991.
. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Winona Lake, Ind.:
Eisenbrauns, 1992.
. "The Covenant of Grant in the OT and in the ANE." Journal of the
American Oriental Society 90(1970): 184-203.
Wellhausen, Julius. Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels. Reprint of
Geschichte Israels. Vol 1. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1878.
. Review of Bernhard Stade, Geschichte des Volkes Israels. 2 vols.
Berlin: G. Grote, 1887.
Wenham, Gordon J. "Deuteronomy and the Central Sanctuary." Tyndale
Bulletin 22 (1971): 103-118.
Westermann, Claus. Genesis 1-11: A Continental Commentary. Translated by
John J. Scullion; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994.
. Die Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testament: gab es ein deuteronomis-
tisches Geschichtswerk? Theologische Bücherei Altes Testament 87.
Gütersloh: Kaiser, 1994.
. The Psalms: Structure, Content & Message. Minneapolis, Minn.:
Augsburg, 1980.
Whitaker, R. E. A Concordance of the Ugaritic Literature. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1972.
Williamson, Hugh G. M. Ezra, Nehemiah. Word Bible Commentary 16. Waco,
Tex.: Word, 1985.
Wilson, Ian. Out of the Midst of the Fire: Divine Presence in Deuteronomy.
Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 151. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars
Press, 1995.
Winter, Irene. "After the Battle is Over: The Stele of the Vultures and the
beginning of Historical Narrative in the Art of the Ancient Near East."
Pictorial Narrative in Antiquity and the Middle Ages, Studies in the History
of Art 16. Edited by Herbert L. Kessler and Marianna S. Simpson.
Washington: National Gallery of Art, 1985.
 Bibliography 241

. '"Idols of the King': Royal Images as Recipients of Ritual Action in

Ancient Mesopotamia." Journal of Ritual Studies 6/1 (1992): 13-42.
. "Sex, Rhetoric and the Public Monument." Sexuality in Ancient Art:
Near East, Egypt, Greece and Italy. Edited by Natalie Kampen. Cambridge
University Press, 1996.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Preliminary Studies for the 'Philosophical
Investigations ': Generally known as the Blue and Brown Books. 2nd ed
Oxford: Blackwell, 1969.
Wolff. H. W. "The Kerygma of the Deuteronomic Historical Work." The
Vitality of Old Testament Traditions. Edited by W. Brueggemann and H. W.
Wolff. Atlanta, Ga.: John Knox Press, 1975.
Wright, G. Ernest. The Rule of God: Essays in Biblical Theology. Garden City,
N.Y.: Doubleday, 1960.
Wright, G. Ernest et al., "The Book of Deuteronomy." Vol. 2 of The Inter-
preter's Bible. Edited by G. A. Buttrick. 12 vols. New York: Abingdon-
Cokesbury Press, 1953.

Yon, Marguerite. "Stelae." Translated by Nancy Leinwand. Pages 79-82 in

vol. 5 of The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. Edited
by E. M. Meyers. 5 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.

Zimmerli, Walther. I Am Yahweh. Edited by Walter Brueggemann. Translated

by Douglas Scott. Atlanta, Ga.: John Knox Press, 1982.
 Index of Texts

BIBLE
31:11 53
Genesis 33:12 119
3:24 103, 104 33:20 119

Exodus Joshua
3:13 26 18:1 103,104, 120
15:16-17 54-56,58, 73, 96, 101, 21:43-45 205
102,211 23:3-5 205
23:20 55
Judges
Numbers 5:17 119
6:25-26 124
10:29 54 2 Samuel
14:30 99 7:1-17
14:40 55 7:13 68, 70-71,79, 86, 89,
90,215-16
Deuteronomy
4:37-38 101,205 2 Samuel 7 4, 6, 7, 9, 27, 36, 65,
12:1-5 209-11 66-78, 82, 86, 90, 191
12:1-7 58-59
12:3 57, 209 1 Kings
12:5 8,13,45-49,51,53-54, 2:2-4 4
58-59, 61-63, 67, 73, 88 3:6 4
97,102, 207,210-11 5:18-21 4
12:11 8-9, 11, 14,24,42,43, 8:13 55, 72,101
44,47, 53,211 8:16 4,24,48,50-51,67, 77,
12:8-12 58-59 85-87, 89, 205, 207,
12:13-19 60-61 215-17
12:20-24 60-61 8:17 4, 68, 79
12:20-28 58-59 8:18 4, 80
12:21 45,46, 53, 58,60-61, 8:19 4,80
63, 97, 207 8:20 4, 80
14:23-24 8,24,44-46, 57-59, 61, 8:21 4,9
63,97, 207,211 8:29 24, 50-51,65,77, 85,
16:2 24,43-44,45,53,211 87-89, 205,215-17
16:6 24, 44, 53 8:33 83
16:11 24,44,53,211 8:35 83
16:21 67 8:41-43 81-82, 85
18:4 56 8:44 68, 80
26:2 24,44, 53 8:48 68, 80
28:10 84-85 9:3 4,35, 45,48-51,65, 67,
28:36-37 92 88-89, 96-97, 205,
30:5 50,95,215 210-11
244 Index of Texts

11:36 45, 48-51,65-67, 97, Isaiah

205,211 4:1 84
14:21 45,48-49,51,66-67, 26:8 70
97, 205-211 37:24 169, 199, 204
50:7 125
1 Kings 8 2, 5, 9, 24, 27, 28, 36, 55:13 70-71
48, 50-51,67-68, 72, 63:12 69
76-90, 95, 207, 63:19 84
215-17
Jeremiah
2 Kings 7:1-15 91,212
10:10 124 7:3 92, 99-102,212
21:4 45,48-50, 63, 66-67, 7:7 92,100-102
97, 205,211 7:9 91
21:7 4, 48-49,51,63,66, 7:10 25, 84, 86
205,211 7:12 9, 11,29, 50,90-92,
23:27 50-51,67, 85, 87, 89, 212
91,95,205,207, 7:14 96
215-17 14:9 84
15:16 84
2 Chronicles 21:10 124
6:5-6 50-51,87, 89,215-17 25:29 84
6:20 8, 50-51,88-89,217 32:34 84
7:15-16 50-51,87-88,215-17 34:15 84
33:4 50-51,87,215-17
Amos
Ezra 9:12 84
6:12 9, 11,14, 50-52, 55,90,
93-95,214 Daniel
6:1-12 213-14 3:8 122-23
6:25 122-23
Nehemiah
1:8-9 8-9, 11, 14, 50-52, 55, Ezekiel
63, 90,94-95, 120,215 6:2 124
1:1-11 213-15 16:30 123
21:2 124
Job 21:7 124
11:14 103, 104 25:2 124
28:21 124
Psalms 32:4 103, 104
7:6 103, 104 36:22 70
20:1 11 38:2 124
33:21 11
44:5 11 John
54:8 83 1:14 12
78:55 103, 104
78:60 99, 102-103, 120 Revelation
109:30 83 21:3 12
111:1 83
118:19 83
132 71
 Index of Texts 245

MESOPOTAMIAN TEXTS §amas-suma-ukin 194

Samsi-Adad I 143, 160,162,167,
Adad-narari I 134,144,195,197 183,187,191-92,196,
AsSur-banipal 133,193, 194 205
Assur-Dan II 195 Sar-kali-sarri 156-57, 185
Aäsur-najiipal II 160,162,187 Sîn-Iddinam 170-71, 179, 182, 184
Sulgi-Hymns 181-83
Ean(n)atum 132, 133, 140, 185 Sutruk-Nanhunte 136, 138
Enlil-nirari 196
Esarhaddon 56, 146-47, 178, 181, Takil-ilissu 173-174
192-93 Tiglath-pilesar I 160, 163, 168,192, 194

Gilgameä 165-70, 180, 182 Utu-hegel 157-58, 185

Gudea 158-59
Cylindar A 145,147,165 Warad-Sln 170-71
HSM cone fragment 151
Statue Β 158,165,185
Statue C 185
Statue Κ 186 NORTHWEST SEMITIC TEXTS

Ahiram 199,200
Hammurapi 194
Ars (Baal-Hammon) 201
Azatiwadda (Karatepe) 199, 201-202
Iahdun-Lim 160-62, 167,170, 175,
179-80, 186, 205
Bar-IJadad 200
Iasmah-Addu 175-76, 186-87
Bar-Rakib (Panamuwa) 200-201

Kudur-mabuk 172, 180

Hadad-Yith'i (Tell Fakhariyeh) 199,
200, 202-204,
La-'arab 157
209,211
Kilamuwa 199,200
Meli-§ipak 136
Nansat 201
Nabonidus 190, 193-94
Nhm (Baal-Hammon) 201
Nabopolassar 145, 193
Naram-Sîn 140-41, 147, 155-56,
Sefire 199,200
166
Nebuchadnezzar II 161, 174,193
Tay ma' 201
Nimrud Letter no. 45 177-79, 210
Ninurta-kudurri-ujur 170,173
Yehawmilk 199,202

Puzur-Assur 196
Zakkur(Hamath) 199,200

Rimus 154-56, 160,165,

185-86
MARI TEXTS
Sargon I 138, 160-62, 167, 183,
185-86 ARMI no. 35 113
§almaneserl 143,186-87,192 ARM 3 no. 12 108
Salmaneser III 140, 160-163, 165,168, ARM 26/Ï no. 35 108, 115-16
170, 183, 194-97, 205 no. 180 108, 115
Salmaneser IV 135 no. 519 114
ARM 26/2 no. 316 108,115
246 Index of Texts

no. 392 108,115 286:22,34,35,

no. 490 108 38,55,56,
no. 519 108,111,114-15 58,60,64 177
FM III 4 116 287:13,25-28,31 177
"Benjaminites" 115 287:60-63 26,31,176-77,
179,210
288:5-7 26, 176-77
AMARNA LETTERS 288:23-24,38,
48,55 177
EA 285:20 177
289:15-16,44,46 177
290:7, 12 177