Arad Ostracon No. 7: In Search of the True Solution to the Riddle
As commonly interpreted, ostracon 7 from Tel Arad orders Elyashib—the commander of the Judean fortress of Arad—to issue supplies for a troop of soldiers who were supposed to pass through Arad at the first day of the tenth month, and to record that event at the second of the month. This one-day delay...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
The National Association of Professors of Hebrew
2005
|
| In: |
Hebrew studies
Year: 2005, Volume: 46, Issue: 1, Pages: 49-70 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (JSTOR) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | As commonly interpreted, ostracon 7 from Tel Arad orders Elyashib—the commander of the Judean fortress of Arad—to issue supplies for a troop of soldiers who were supposed to pass through Arad at the first day of the tenth month, and to record that event at the second of the month. This one-day delay has been a riddle for research. The common interpretation of the letter explains it by the assumption that it reflects the custom to rest from work on the first of the month (New Moon day). The different variants of this approach fail, however, to explain how that can be the case if Elyashib is ordered to profane the New Moon day by violating the prohibition which was most important in ancient periods to the character of the rest day, namely, the injunction against issuing loads., Recently Nadav Naaman has proposed a new interpretation to this ostracon, based on a new suggested reading for one of its words. According to his interpretation, Elyashib was ordered to issue the supplies not (only) on the first of the month, but (also) on the second; hence, the letter does not instruct him to postpone the act of recording, but rather to do it on time. Following a thorough examination of all relevant aspects, we conclude that Naaman's reading and interpretation cannot stand, and the accepted reading must be adhered to. The abovementioned problem still, then, remains unsolved., The paper suggests a new understanding to the relevant sentence in the ostracon, according to which Elyashib was not ordered to delay the recording of the issue, but rather to falsify it; he was to write down that the issue took place in the second of the month, while it was actually done in the first. The reason for that was obviously the will to prevent a clash with people who would not have seen the desecration of the holy in a good light—probably the priests who served in the Arad temple. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2158-1681 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Hebrew studies
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1353/hbr.2005.0005 |