Review

Author(s): Dennis Pardee

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of Near Eastern Studies

This content downloaded from 137.99.31.134 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 05:17:46 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Book Reviews  F 359

two appendices add to the usability of this resource ritic instruction and learning. It not only provides an
for students. ­excellent introductory tool, but also may facilitate stu-
Tropper’s Kleines Wörterbuch is a welcome addi- dents’ transition to a more advanced treatment of the
tion to an increasing assortment of tools for Uga- language, such as Tropper’s Ugaritische Grammatik.

The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism. By Adele Berlin. Revised and expanded edition. The Biblical Resource
Series. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Pp. xxiv + 200. $21/£11.99 (paperback).
Reviewed by Dennis Pardee, University of Chicago

The first edition of this work was an important part of study of the forms of metaphor expressed in genitive
the wave of studies on Hebrew poetry that appeared expressions authored by a Russian scholar who died
in the eighth and ninth decades of the last century young, Lida Knorina (pp. 171–92, including some
that were characterized by an attempt to move in a relevant correspondence).
linguistically informed way beyond the strictures of Because of the quality and the lucidity of Berlin’s
metrics and a view of parallelism that was confined to presentation and because I remain a firm believer in
its semantic aspect. The author has chosen, wisely, to the importance of including all forms of parallelism in
alter the principal text only for the most necessary of a descriptive analysis of the poetries expressed in the
corrections. The work is brought into the twenty-first Northwest-Semitic languages, I am grateful to have
century by means of an updated bibliography (pp. xix– this classic work again immediately available to the
xxii) and a gracious nod to the place that the study of students in my classes for whom it has been required
metaphor has more recently taken in biblical studies reading for the last three decades.
that consists of printing as an appendix a preliminary

Handbook of Neo-Punic Inscriptions. By Karel Jongeling. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Pp. xxiii + 435 +
320 figs. €139 (cloth).
Reviewed by Dennis Pardee, University of Chicago

Late Punic Epigraphy, by the same author with Rob- older copies and of photographs. He considered it
ert M. Kerr (reviewed in this journal: vol. 69 [2010] a worthwhile project to put together this collection,
143), consisted of a pre-selection from this fuller col- firmly grounded in the history of the edition of these
lection, about one fourth the length, with briefer com- very difficult texts and in the subsequent discussions
mentaries and indices. The presentation of the texts is of them, rather than to put off any publication for
identical here, though the bibliographical data may be years or decades while chasing down the originals—
more complete and the commentary is usually more those that might in fact be located!—in museums and
detailed. The indices of personal names and common in private collections across the globe. We can only
vocabulary are also more thorough and detailed. I thank him for this intermediate stage of the project
expressed my dissatisfaction with the earlier volume and wish him the best of possible fortunes in pursuing
as a learning tool, especially for the self-learner, but the more basic epigraphic enterprise. This checking of
noted that it would “surely be of interest to Punic the originals, a commonplace in epigraphic research, is
experts.” Such is even more the case of this fuller col- particularly necessary, as the introduction makes clear,
lection with its more extensive indications of the au- if anything approaching a full view of this corpus is to
thor’s interpretations. be gained. This is both because of the long history of
This is essentially a collection of previous render- editing and commenting these texts have seen (back
ings of the Late‑Punic corpus, for the author has not, to Gesenius himself), with a significant portion of the
for the most part, consulted the originals, though he texts unavailable in modern editions, and because of
does provide his own translations accompanied by the difficulty of the script. With all this spadework in
“remarks” on each text and in some cases provides the history of research behind him, Jongeling is ­ideally
re‑touched copies based on his examination of the suited to follow up on it with the epigraphically rig-

This content downloaded from 137.99.31.134 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 05:17:46 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
360  F  Journal of Near Eastern Studies

orous studies that so many of these texts require. We or his research) will continue the project along these
may only hope that he (or a student inspired by him most basic lines.

Exchange Relationships at Ugarit. By Kevin M. McGeough. Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement 26.
Leuven: Peeters, 2007. Pp. xviii + 438. €95 (cloth).
Reviewed by Dennis Pardee, University of Chicago

Because I have no expertise in socio-economic theory, of “economic modalities,” i.e., who did what, where,
I refer the reader immediately to the assessment of this with what, under whose direction, and within what
work’s contribution to the ongoing discussion of the economic structures (ch. 5); three chapters on archae-
identification of the socio-economic system operative ological context (ch. 6, the palace; ch. 7: other struc-
in ancient Ugarit (14th–early 12th c. b.c.) by R. S. tures belonging to the “elite”; ch. 8, the kingdom
Nam in Review of Biblical Literature, online edition, of Ugarit and its neighbors); a final chapter propos-
2009. McGeough also attempts to treat the texts from ing “A Network-Based Model of Economic Modali-
Ugarit in their archaeological context, another area in ties” (ch. 9); and a bibliography and series of indices
which I have little expertise, but here I know of no (subject, modern authors, ancient terms, and ancient
review of the work by a specialist in archaeological texts).
theory and practice. From this brief outline, it should be clear that this
After the discussion of socio-economic theory is an extraordinarily ambitious undertaking for a dis-
(ch. 1) and of previous attempts to identify the econ- sertation: it attempts to include a socio-economic
omy of Ugarit in theoretical terms (ch. 2), the balance theoretical approach, an analysis of the entire corpus,
of the book is set out as follows: “The Language of and an attempt to describe the local and regional ar-
the Ugaritic Economy,” in fact largely a treatment chaeological context. Has the author been able to
of occupational categories and of some of the terms bring off this tour de force? In the areas in which I
expressing obligations (ch. 3);1 “The Form and Func- have some experience, the answer must be a qualified
tion of Ugaritic Economic Texts” (ch. 4);2 a study negative. The author is certainly bright and shows
generally good judgment in assessing data. But the
1 
Strangely missing here are several key terms, for example: (1) treatment of these data is perforce superficial, hasty,
the occupational category nqdm is not discussed in this section but
and reductionist. I cite as an example his very first
it is translated “shepherd(s)” below (e.g., pp. 147, 154), a rendering
that is not universally accepted for reasons that cannot be discussed category of economic texts, texts that are presented
here for lack of space (suffice it to say here that the Ugaritic terms as simple lists of personal names (pp. 138–40). In
nqdm and rʿym lie behind references to “shepherds” in this work); his introduction, he refers to the problem posed by
(2) also missing here is the Ugaritic word ṣbu͗ corresponding to the incomplete tablets, i.e., without a heading or a final
logogram {erín} both in syllabic epigraphs to Ugaritic texts and
summation (both are termed “headings” on p. 134),
in texts written in Akkadian, elsewhere translated “soldier(s)” (see
remarks below on nḥlhm and on the Ugaritic text RS 21.002), but
there is no way of knowing whether or not the list
such an interpretation requires an explanation of the place of the was placed within a specific category by the scribe.
“soldier” in Ugaritic society. Nevertheless, he proposes a list of “tablets consisting
2 
J. Sanmartín’s outline of the economic texts according to for- simply of a list of personal names” and describes the
mal categories, the only global attempt at such an organization of category as “abundant” (p. 138). So as not to mislead
these texts in recent years of which I am aware, goes unmentioned
his reader as to the quality of his data, he appends an
here and is absent from the bibliography: “Wirtschaft und Handel
in Ugarit: Kulturgrammatische Aspekte,” Ugarit. Ein ostmediter- asterisk to the tablet numbers that refer to complete
ranes Kulturzentrum im Alten Orient. Ergebnisse und Perspektiven tablets. The list contains 35 numbers, but only six
der Forschung. Band I: Ugarit und seine altorientalische Umwelt, or seven of these numbers in fact reference complete
edited by O. Loretz and M. Dietrich, Abhandlungen zur Literatur
Alt-Syrien-Palästinas 7 (Münster 1995), 131–58. Also missing is
any reference to M. Sznycer’s important overview of the economic expect because the last lot of economic texts from the palace had
texts, part of the long article on Ugarit by several authors in the been published in time (1965) for him to include them in his over-
Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible 9 (1979), his contribution view. Moreover, though Sznycer did not attempt an exhaustive clas-
on cols. 1417–1425. Though more than a quarter century older sification, he did provide more explicit justification for his categories
than Sanmartín’s study, Sznycer’s is not as out of date as one might than did Sanmartín.

This content downloaded from 137.99.31.134 on Mon, 27 Jun 2016 05:17:46 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms