Bulletin for Biblical Research (BBR) 1991
Bulletin for Biblical Research 1 (1991) 41-61
Ezra and Nehemiah in the Light of
the Texts from
Persepolis
H. G. M. WILLIAMSON
THE
UNIVERSITY
OF
CAMBRIDGE
Between the years of 1931 and 1939 a major excavation of
Persepolis
,
one of the capitals of the Achaemenid empire, was undertaken by the
Oriental Institute of the
University
of
Chicago.1
During the course of
these excavations, many discoveries of texts were made, of which
three are of particular concern to us here. The first and largest group
to be unearthed was found initially by accident during the third sea-
son (1933), when E. E. Herzfeld was still leader of the excavation.
"When leveling debris for the construction of a road, Herzfeld dis-
covered great numbers of cuneiform tablets in the northeastern rem-
nants of the Terrace fortification."2 These "remnants" proved to have
been a bastion on the northern edge of the terrace, the tablets being lo-
cated in its southeastern portion.3
1. The following special abbreviations should be noted: AD = G. R. Driver, Aramaic
Documents of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1957); AP = A. Cowley, Aramaic
Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1923); BMAP = E. G. Kraeling, The
Brooklyn
Museum
Aramaic Papyri (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953); CHI =
I. Gershevitch (ed.), The
Cambridge
History of
Iran
. Volume 2: The Median and Achaemenian
Periods (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985); PFa = R. T. Hallock, "Selected
Fortification Texts," Cahiers de In Délégation Archéologique Française en Iran 8 (1978) 109-
36; PFT = R. T. Hallock,
Persepolis
Fortification Tablets (
University
of
Chicago
Oriental In-
stitute Publications 92;
Chicago
:
University
of
Chicago Press
, 1969); PTT = G. G. Cam-
eron, Persepolis Treasury Tablets (University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications 65;
Chicago
:
University
of
Chicago
Press, 1948). In all cases where these abbreviations refer
to collections of texts, the references in what follows are to the number of the text cited
unless otherwise stated.
2. E. F. Schmidt,
Persepolis
I.
Structures, Reliefs, Inscriptions (The
University
of
Chi-
cago Oriental Institute Publications 68;
Chicago
:
University
of
Chicago Press
, 1953) 3; cf.
E. E. Herzfeld,
Iran
in the Ancient East (London: Oxford University Press, 1941) 226. See
more popularly E. F. Schmidt, The Treasury of
Persepolis
and Other Discoveries in the Home-
land of the Achaemenians (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939).
3. Schmidt,
Persepolis
140.
42 Bulletin for Biblical Research 1
In 1935, when E. F. Schmidt had succeeded Herzfeld as director,
work was begun on the Treasury, and here in 1936 a further, though
much smaller, group of tablets was found in Room 33.4 Finally, prin-
cipally in Hall 38 of the Treasury, a number of (probably) ritual
objects, such as pestles, mortars and plates, were discovered. Made of
a hard green stone known as (impure) chert, and usually highly pol-
ished, many of these objects were found to have Aramaic inscriptions
written on them.5
Although the three groups of texts, and especially the fortifica-
tion and treasury tablets, share a number of points in common, it is
important to distinguish carefully their individual characteristics.
Most obviously distinctive is the small group of about 200 texts in
Aramaic (not all legible). Cameron was the first to study these texts,
and he came to the conclusion that they referred to the delivery of the
objects on which they were written at Persepolis.6 Bowman, however,
to whom was entrusted the publication of the material, rejected this
conclusion in favor of the view that they described the objects' use in
the religious haoma ceremony. Subsequent study has vindicated
Cam-
eron's basic approach,7 so that although several differences of opinion,
to say nothing of a number of obscurities, remain in the realm of
4. Ibid. 4 and 173-74; see also N. Cahill, "The Treasury at
Persepolis
: Gift-Giving
at the City of the Persians," AJA 89 (1985) 373-89. Aspects of Cahill's interpretation of
the treasury's function have been challenged by C. Tuplin ("The Administration of the
Achaemenid Empire," in
I.
Carradice [ed.], Coinage and Administration in the Athenian and
Persian Empires [BAR International Series 343;
Oxford
: B.A.R., 1987] 109-66, esp. 139).
5. Schmidt,
Persepolis
I 181ff.; E. F. Schmidt,
Persepolis
II. Contents of the Treasury
and Other Discoveries (The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications 69; Chicago:
University
of
Chicago
Press, 1957) 53-56.
6. Cf. G. G. Cameron in Schmidt,
Persepolis
II 55.
7. For reviews that support this, see especially J. B. Segal, BSOAS 35 (1972) 354-55;
Ph. Gignoux, RHR 181 (1972) 86-87; J. R. Hinnells, "Religion at
Persepolis
," Religion 3 .
(1973) 157-60; R. Degen, BibOr 31 (1974) 124-27; for studies, see P. Bernard, "Les
mortiers et pilons inscrits de Persépolis," Studia Iranica 1 (1972) 165-76; B. A. Levine,
"Aramaic Texts from
Persepolis
," JAOS 92 (1972) 70-79;
W. Hinz
, Neue Wege im Altper-
sischen (Gottinger Orientforschungen III/1; Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1973) 43-52;
J. Naveh and Sh. Shaked, "Ritual Texts or Treasury Documents?" Orientalia ns 42 (1973)
445-57; J. A. Delaunay, "À propos des 'Aramaic Ritual Texts from Persepolis' de R. A.
Bowman," Acta Iranica 2 (1974) 193-217;
I.
Gershevitch, "An Iranianist's View of the
Soma Controversy," in Ph. Gignoux and A. Tafazzoli (eds.), Mémorial Jean de Menasce
(Louvain: Imprimerie Orientaliste, 1974) 45-75, especially 52-54 and 69-71; W. Hinz,
"Zu den Mörsern and Stösseln aus
Persepolis
," Acta Iranica 4 (1974) 371-85; K. Kami-
oka, "Philological Observations on the Aramaic Texts from
Persepolis
," Orient 11 (1975)
45-66; W. Vogelsang, "Early Historical Arachosia in
South-East Afghanistan
," Iranica
Antigua
20 (1985) 55-99, esp. 82-86). I regret that M. N. Bogoljubov, "Aramejskie nadpisi
ne ritual 'nyh predmetah iz Persepolja," Izvestija Akademii Nauk SSSR, Serija Literatury i
Jazyka 32 (1973) 172-77, is not accessible to me.
WILLAMSON: Ezra and Nehemiah 43
detail, the general approach that should be taken to these texts is now
agreed. For instance, instead of Bowman's translation of text no. 18:
)ngs Krtm dyl )tryb Krsb 1) In the ritual of the fortress,
beside Mithraka the segan,
/br hnz rxs db( / t#pgb 2) I Bago-paušta used this plate, a
large one,
tddzm Mdq )rbzng tpg [b dyl] 3) [beside Ba]ga-pāta the treasurer
(and) before Mazda-data
/// /// /// ytn# rk#) )rbzngp) 4) the sub-treasurer. 'škr of year 19
we should probably translate along the lines:
1) In the fortress of Sāruka,8 (which is) under the authority of9 Mithraka
the prefect,10
2) I Bago-paušta handed over11 this plate, a large one,
3) under the authority of/to (or 'made for') Baga-pāta the treasurer in the
presence of Mazda-dāta
4) the sub-treasurer (as) tribute/a gift12 of year 19.
The texts are dated to the years 479/78-436/35 B.C. or perhaps a
little later, during the reigns of Xerxes and Artaxerxes I, so that they
overlap with the work of Ezra and Nehemiah on a traditional dating.
8. Three words with the preposition b stand in this initial position: prkn, srk, and
hst. Bowman related them to his ritual interpretation (e.g., prkn = "(haoma)-crushing
ceremony"), but others all find an indication of place, as suggested by comparable for-
mulae with b ... byrt') in other texts (so frequently, inter alia, in AP and BMAP; the most
recent example is reported to be in the as yet unpublished
Samaria
Papyri 4:1, where
bšmryn byrt' stands in an equivalent position to bšmryn qryt' at 14:1; this shows that
"fortress" is not a fully satisfactory translation of byrt'; cf. F. M. Cross, "Samaria Papyrus
1: An Aramaic Slave Conveyance of 335 B.C.E. found in the Wâdi ed-Dâliyeh," EI [1985]
7*-17* [11* with nn 9 and 10]); A. Lemaire and H. Lozachmeur, "Birah/birta' en
araméen,"
Syria
64 (1987) 261-66. Whereas Levine, Gershevitch and Delaunay argue
that reference is to rooms within the palace or treasury, Bernard and especially Hinz
("Zu den Mörsern") have advanced strong arguments for finding here three place
names in the eastern part of the empire known as Arachosia, itself mentioned several
times in these texts (e.g., 9:4; 13:4; 19:4; 43:6). It will have been in this region that the ob-
jects were made before being sent to
Persepolis
. Kamioka's compromise suggestion, that
these are place names in the vicinity of
Persepolis
("Philological Observations" 60-61)
has nothing to commend it.
9. For this meaning of lyd, cf. AD iv 1.
10. The plural is familiar from Dan 2:48; 3:2, 3, 27; 6:8. In Bowman 2:2, rb' has
apparently been added secondarily after sgn', making an interesting parallel with
Dan 2:48.
11. Or "made,"
Aram
. 'bd. Uncertainty over the precise significance of these texts
remains because of the double use of lyd. Both occurrences could mean "under the
authority of," or the second might mean more simply "to" or "for."
12. Bowman thought that 'škr meant "intoxicant," though he regularly left it un-
translated. For the now generally accepted association with Akkadian iškaru, either as
"finished products, staples, or material to be delivered" or as some kind of tax (CAD 7,
244-49), cf. Levine 78, and for criticism of Bowman in this regard, cf. Kamioka 52-54.
44 Bulletin for Biblical Research 1
By far the largest group of texts, of which over two thousand have
been published to date,13 are the so-called fortification tablets, which
date from the earlier period of 509-494 B.C. Being written in Elamite,14
they are by no means perfectly understood, but the number of them,
together with the degree of overlap between one text and another,
means that there is no doubt about the general situation. For the most
part they record receipts or payments in kind for a variety of pur-
poses. Their discovery in the 'fortifications' of
Persepolis
is an explica-
ble accident of history15 which has no bearing on the fact that they
give us a direct insight into various aspects of administration at one of
the Achaemenid capital cities.
The situation with regard to the treasury tablets is not dissimilar.
Published in a variety of works by G. G. Cameron,16 they date from
13. Cf. PFT and PFa; it appears from PFT (1) that there are over three and a half
thousand tablets in all. It should also be noted that an unspecified number of texts in
Aramaic from the same source remain unpublished. For introductory studies, cf. R. T.
Hallock ("The Evidence of the
Persepolis
Tablets," CHI 588-609); J. M. Cook (The Persian
Empire [
London
: J. M. Dent & Sons, 1983] 85-90); D. M. Lewis ("Postscript," in A. R.
Burn
,
Persia
and the Greeks: the Defence of the West, c. 546-478 B.C. [
London
: Duckworth,
19842] 587-609). For a major effort to integrate the evidence from these texts with that of
other sources relating to the geographical divisions and tribute of the empire, cf. Tuplin
("The Administration of the Achaemenid Empire"), and for historical geography cf
W. M. Sumner ("Achaemenid Settlement in the Persepolis Plain," AJA 90 [1986] 3-31).
14. I freely admit to knowing no Elamite; this aspect of the present study is based
on the translations of Hallock and Cameron, together with the published comments of
the few other specialists in that field. The linguistic position is probably in any case com-
plicated by the peculiar circumstances of having Elamite scribes to record business
which was basically conducted in Old Persian; cf. I. Gershevitch, "The Alloglottography
of Old Persian," TPS (1979) 114-90.
15. Schmidt linked the dates of the tablets with the phases in the development of
the building of the treasury (
Persepolis
1 41-42). He believed that the original treasury
was completed at about the time when the series of fortification tablets begins, so that it
cannot be deduced that there were no administrative texts, since lost, at an earlier time.
Later, the treasury was twice expanded, the date of the first of these expansions coincid-
ing with the break between the fortification and the treasury tablets. "We believe that
the fortification tablets had been removed—sometime after 494/93 B.C.—from their
original archives to be stored (or discarded) in rooms of the fortification" (41). He fur-
ther argued that the cessation of the treasury tablets indicated another change in the lo-
cation of the administration, though others have argued that at that time the scribes
went over to making their records (presumably in Aramaic) on perishable material; cf.
W. Hinz, "Zu den Persepolis-Tafelchen," ZDMG N.F. 35 (1961) 236-51. R. T. Hallock 4
further believes that the use of Aramaic on perishable material accounts for the many
gaps in even what we do have of the archive ("The Persepolis Fortification Archive,"
Orientalia ns 42 [1973] 320-23).
16. PTT; see also G. G. Cameron, "Persepolis Treasury Tablets Old and New,"
JNES 17 (1958) 161-76; "New Tablets from the
Persepolis
Treasury," JNES 24 (1965
167-92.
WILLAMSON: Ezra and Nehemiah 45
492-458 B.C. The chief difference from the fortification tablets is that
payments are now made in cash rather than in kind.
So far as I can tell, this wealth of material has largely been
ignored by biblical scholars, and even occasional references that may
be found in commentaries17 hardly do justice to their potential. In
what follows I cannot, of course, attempt fully to remedy this situa-
tion. The most I can set out to achieve is to draw attention to the rele-
vance and scope of this material, in the hope that others with the
necessary linguistic skills may be able later to refine what will, I fear,
be seen in retrospect as a very crude comparison.18
Towards the conclusion of my 1987 Tyndale Biblical Archaeology
Lecture,19 I made a start on this comparison by suggesting six ways in
which the
Persepolis
material could help forward our understanding
of Neh 5:14-19. I shall not repeat that discussion here, but will pro-
vide rather an introduction to three more general topics—language,
religion, and travel—while emphasizing once more that this is far
from an exhaustive survey.
1) Language
We may begin by noting, then, that despite the geographical distance
which separates Arachosia from
Judah
, there are several points of
contact between the language of the Aramaic texts from
Persepolis
and that of Ezra and Nehemiah. This is due, of course, to the fact that
both reflect the current language of Persian administration, and to
that extent little is added to what was already known or strongly sur-
mised from other sources. Thus, for instance, we have the regular
opening of the texts with b + place name + byrt', "in the fortress of X,"
17. E.g., R. A. Bowman, IB 3, 613; J. M. Myers, Ezra, Nehemiah (AB 14; Garden City:
Doubleday, 1965) 43, 51, referring quite reasonably to the association attested between
archives and treasury (Ezra 5:17; 6:1). On this, see now J. C. Greenfield, "Aspects of Ar-
chives in the Achaemenid Period," in K. R. Veenhof (ed.), Cuneiform Archives and Librar-
ies (Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut to Istanbul, 1986) 289-95.
18. The comments of D. M. Lewis in his pioneering work on bringing this material
to the attention of classicists are appropriate in our context too; he writes of the new evi-
dence that "although it seldom bears directly on the points which principally concern
us, (it) nevertheless sometimes suggests new approaches," Sparta and Persia (
Cincinnati
Classical Studies, ns 1;
Leiden
: E. J. Brill, 1977) 3.
19. "The Governors of
Judah
under the Persians," TynB 39 (1988) 59-82. To the lit-
erature cited there, there should now be added Tuplin, "The Administration of the
Achaemenid Empire," and D. M. Lewis, "The King's Dinner (Polyaenus IV 3,32)," in
H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg and A. Kuhrt (eds.), Achaemenid History II. The Greek Sources.
Proceedings of the
Groningen
1984 Achaemenid History Workshop (
Leiden
: Nederlands Insti-
tuut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1987) 79-87.
46 Bulletin for Biblical Research 1
to set alongside be'ahmeta' bîrta' of Ezra 6:220 and the Hebrew bešûšan
habbîra of Neh 1:1; the official title gnzbr',21 "the treasurer," to com-
pare with Hebrew haggizbār at Ezra 1:8 and the Aramaic plural gizzab-
rayyā' at Ezra 7:21; the use of the anarthrous kl in the summary of a
list,22 which may help explain the unusual Hebrew kol-kēlîm at Ezra
1:11;23 and the use of PN + šmh (literally, "his name") to mean "a man
named PN," exactly like šēšbassar šemēh at Ezra 5:14.24
Although we should not, therefore, expect any major new
advance of understanding in this area, there are nevertheless a few
matters, of which we will here consider three examples, concerning
which our texts can add clarification.25 To take first the idiom just
referred to, Clines has observed that it "is found regularly in contem-
porary papyri in reference to slaves," from which he concludes that
"the possibility must be considered that he (Sheshbazzar) was a high-
ranking Babylonian official of slave status."26 Hinz, however, has
made out a strong case for the suggestion that those so designated in
the
Persepolis
texts were wealthy nobles in the area of the three
named fortresses who regarded it as a privilege to supply the vessels
20. For the omission of b before byrt' as a dittograph, cf. W. Rudolph, Esra und
Nehemia (HAT; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1949) 54.
21. A loan-word from Old Persian ganzabara, not previously attested in Aramaic
with retention of the nun, but cf. Late Babylonian ganzabaru; CAD 5, 43.
22. Misunderstood as a proper name by Bowman at 94:3 and 95:3; see rather Segal
354; Naveh and Shaked 453; and Hinz, "Zu den Mörsern" 378. One should compare the
regular use of PAP, "total," to similar effect in many of the Elamite texts.
23. For the suggestion that the inventory and its heading in Ezra 1:7-11 are based
on an Aramaic original, see my Ezra, Nehemiah (WBC 16; Waco: Word Books, 1985) 7.
24. Both Persian and Akkadian origins can be proposed for this idiom; cf. Bowman,
p. 66, and Delaunay 206f. It was already misunderstood by the Greek versions as well as
by some more modern commentators; cf. L. W. Batten, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah
(ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1913) 140: "its omission seems necessary," an opinion
still tentatively favored by A. H. J. Gunneweg, Esra (KAT; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Ver-
lagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1985) 100. Dr. W. Horbury has suggested to me that šĕmô in Zech
6:12 may be an example of the use of the same idiom in Hebrew.
25. For some examples of refinements to, or support for, views already held about,
for instance, "'uššarnā' (Ezra 5:3, 9), šetar bôzenay (Ezra 5:3; 6:6), ništewān (Ezra 4:7; 7:11),
and especially tiršātā') (Ezra 2:63; Neh 7:65, 69; 8:9; 10:2), cf. Hinz, Neue Wege im Altper-
sischen 39-45.
26. D. J. A. Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (NCB;
Grand Rapids
: Eerdmans, and Lon-
don: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1984) 87, citing AP 28:4; BMAP 5:2, 4; 8:3; AD 5:2-3; 8:1;
9:1. Without reference to the case of Sheshbazzar, this explanation of the idiom's signifi-
cance had already been advanced by Kraeling, BMAP (145, 208). The idiom is attested
most recently in J. B. Segal, Aramaic Texts from North Saqqâra (
London
: Egypt Exploration
Society, 1983) 5:1; 9:3; 17:1; 29:3, 6; 55a:4; 60:4; 63:2, 3; and in the
Samaria
Papyrus 1:2 (cf.
Cross, "Samaria Papyrus I") and in a reconstructed part of papyrus 2; cf. F. M. Cross, "A
Report on the
Samaria
Papyri," SVT 40 (1988) 17-26.
WILLAMSON: Ezra and Nehemiah 47
needed for the periodic festival at Persepolis.27 If he is right, then, of
course, no deductions can be drawn from the use of this idiom about
the social status of the individuals concerned.28 We might surmise
that it was used rather in cases where the individual was unknown
personally to the recipient of the document,29 for in our texts it is
striking that it is only used in connection with the donors of the ves-
sels, whose names are hardly ever repeated, but never in connection
with the various officials, whose names recur frequently and who
would have been known to others in the state bureaucracy. This
would also, of course, readily explain its use with slaves—and with
Sheshbazzar in the context presupposed by Ezra 5:14.
Second, light can be shed from these texts on the troublesome
'eben gelāl referred to in connection with the building of the temple at
Ezra 5:8 and 6:4, and which has generally been translated into English
by "large stones" or the like.30 A number of other translations have
been proposed, however, among which we may notice most recently
the suggestion that the reference is to cobble or rubble fill in connec-
tion with what is known as pier-and-rubble construction.31
In something like a quarter of the Aramaic texts from
Persepolis
,
the objects described are said to be zy gll, which Bowman translates
"of stone." In some cases, a further modifier is added, varying from
one text to another. Sometimes an adjective is used, and on other
occasions another noun joined by zy. The meaning of these words is
uncertain, but the suggestion that the first group refers to something
like coloring or patterning and the second to the type of stone seems
reasonable.
27. Cf. Hinz, "Zu den Mörsern" 380: "adlige Herren und Grundbesitzer im Bezirk
der drei Festungen Parikāna, Sāruka und Hasta ...Vermutlich gehörte diese besondere
Abgabe zu den Ehrenpflichten jener iranischen Gutsbesitzer, die zugleich dem Reichs-
beer als Offiziere zu dienen hatten."
28. In fact, Clines's theory might already have been found questionable in light of,
for instance, AP 33.
29. I have subsequently discovered that this suggestion has already been advanced
by E. Y. Kutscher ("New Aramaic Texts," Hebrew and Aramaic Studies [
Jerusalem
: The
Magnes Press, 1977] 37-52, esp. 40, 45).
30. AV, RV: "great stones"; RSV: "huge stones/great stones"; ASB: "huge stones";
NEB
: "massive stones"; JB: "blocks of stone/stone blocks"; GNB: "large stone blocks";
but note now the JPS version, "hewn stone."
31. Cf. L. E. Stager, "The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient
Israel
," BASOR 260
(1985) 1-35, esp. 13; for the method of construction, cf. E. Stern ("The Excavations at Tel
Mevorach and the Late Phoenician Elements in the Architecture of
Palestine
," BASOR
225 [1977] 17-27, and Excavations at Tel Mevorakh (1973-1976) [Qedem 9;
Jerusalem
: The
Hebrew
University
, 1978] 71-75.
48 Bulletin for Biblical Research 1
On the basis of this material, together with the evidence collected
concerning Akkadian galālu for the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary,32
Bowman wrote an article in 1965 arguing, inter alia, that (i) a distinc-
tion should be drawn between galālu (and some later Aramaic uses of
gll) meaning "pebble," "cobble," and the many passages in Akkadian
of the Persian period where such a meaning is inappropriate; he reck-
oned Ezra 5:8 and 6:4 among the latter; (ii) because of the variety of
objects described by gll (including stelae, pillars, window frames and
dishes), gll cannot refer to either the shape or type of stone: it "should
be translated simply as 'stone,' without further specification" (67); (iii)
the use of 'bn should be regarded as a determinative; whether or not
gll once had a more specific meaning, by the time of Ezra, with or
without the determinative 'bn, it simply meant "stone."33
Although Bowman's article is a helpful collection of material and
is certainly moving in the right direction, its conclusion nevertheless
raises two particular difficulties. First, Aramaic is not Akkadian, and
to speak of 'eben as "a determinative" is inappropriate. It is simply not
a usage that would have been recognized by Aramaic speaking Jews
in
Judah
. Whatever its history, the phrase must have meant something
more to them than just "stone," for which 'eben alone would have
sufficed. Secondly, Delaunay34 has argued that "stone" is also inap-
propriate for gll in the
Persepolis
texts on the ground that it would be
superfluous, and even absurd, so to qualify certain vessels when in
fact they are all made of stone in any case. (It should be remembered,
however, that the Persians were obsessed with bureaucratic pedantry,
so that Delaunay's objection may not be so strong as at first appears.)
Delaunay thus returns to a proposal of Herzfeld35 that, in accordance
with the root meaning of gll, the reference is to turning or polishing,
and so work that might attract extra remuneration.
This suggestion seems to fit the varied uses of both gll and galālu,
and one may well imagine how it could come to be used without the
pedantically correct use of 'eben, "stone," with it; compare, for
instance, how we regularly speak of "hardback" and "paperback"
without thereby implying that either is the exact equivalent of
"book." Bowman seems to have fallen into the trap of asserting that
32. CAD 5, 11.
33. R. A. Bowman, "llFg@; NbE)E—aban galâlu (Ezra 5:8; 6:4)," in I. T. Naamani and
D. Rudaysky (eds.), Dōrōn. Hebraic Studies. Essays in Honor of Professor Abraham I. Katsh
(
New York
: The National Association of Professors of Hebrew in American Institutions
of Higher Learning, 1965) 64-74; see also Aramaic Ritual Texts 44-45; IB 3, 610.
34. Delaunay, "A propos" 204f.
35. Delaunay refers only to the citation of Herzfeld's views apud Schmidt, Persepo-
lis II 55, n 68; cf.
E. Herzfeld
, Altpersische Inschriften (Berlin: Dietrich Reimer, 1938) 100.
WILLAMSON: Ezra and Nehemiah 49
"all gll is 'bn, therefore all 'bn is gll." Thus "dressed/hewn/polished
stone" seems appropriate for the Biblical occurrences.
A final line of support for this understanding may come from an
Aramaic gloss on one of the fortification tablets. PFT 1587 is translated
by Hallock, "185 (BAR of) grain, supplied by Hatarbanus, Ramakka
received. It was taken (to)
Persepolis
(for) rations of makers of stone
(sculptures). Second month, . . . th year." The Aramaic gloss reads rmk
ybl prs ptp lnqry gll, and is translated (apparently by Bowman; cf. PFT
p. 82) "Ramakka brought (it to)
Persepolis
, (for) rations of diggers of
stone." The Elamite text, however, as Hallock's bracketed explanation
suggests, implies something more than just quarrymen, for which
other terms are used (cf. PTT 9); the word in question translated
"makers" is elsewhere used with such other finished products as wine
and oil. The Aramaic translation nqr can reasonably fit with this, for
although in all the cognate languages the root can have the meaning
"to quarry, bore,"36 it is also used, both in Aramaic and Akkadian, for
carving stone or the like. Indeed, when it is thought by Bowman to
occur in a very damaged text on one of his mortars (no. 160), he trans-
lates "chiseled(?)," and comments, "The word nqwr may be from the
root nqr meaning 'to chisel,' 'to shape stones by chiseling,' 'to whet a
millstone.'"37 It may be suggested that here again the evidence is best
explained if gll means not just "stone," but stone that has been
worked in some particular manner.
A final area where our texts may help towards a better under-
standing of the vocabulary of Ezra and Nehemiah derives, strangely
enough, not from the Aramaic texts at all, but the Elamite.38 Not
infrequently in the records of payments in kind to some individual,
there is reference also to what Hallock translates as his "boys" (puhu);
for instance, we are told concerning Parnaka, a well-known senior
official, that "Daily (by) Parnaka together with his boys 48 BAR is
received. (By) Parnaka himself 18 BAR is received. (By) his 300 boys 1
QA each is received."39 There is a good deal of evidence, however, that
"boy" is a reference to status rather than age. For instance, though
36. Cf. CAD 11, 329-32; BDB 669; Payne Smith 352.
37. Aramaic Ritual Texts 185, with reference to M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targu-
mim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushahmi, and the Midrashic Literature (
New York
and
Berlin
:
1926) 935a.
38. A further potential example from this source is unfortunately inconclusive in
the present state of knowledge. Elamite baribara (PFT 107:7; 161:7-8; 586:3-4 and 995:3-
4) probably represents Old Persian *paribāra, whence the enigmatic Hebrew loan-word
parbār/parwār (2 Kgs 23:11; 1 Chr 26:18). However, the meaning of baribāra is disputed; cf.
I. Gershevitch in Hallock, PFT p. 675, and
W. Hinz
, Orientalia ns 39 (1970) 436.
39. PFa 4, lines 8-16. 10 QA = 1 BAR, 1 QA being roughly equivalent to a quart (cf.
PFT p. 72).
50 Bulletin for Biblical Research 1
rations vary, theirs are often as much as an adult male,40 they receive
rations of wine, they do "men's" work, and occasionally are even
referred to in the same text as "men" (ruh).41 It thus looks as though
puhu has a similar semantic range as Hebrew na'ar in Nehemiah 4
and 5 (and 13:19; perhaps also at 6:5), where the ne‘ārîm are clearly a
group who owe particular and personal loyalty to Nehemiah (or who-
|