We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 June 2011
In several passages in the Hebrew Bible, we find similar phrases used to describe the punishment the authors hope the deity will mete out to those who are their enemies. In Psalm 3, the psalmist's situation is described in this way:
1 Reading mērībōt following Targumic mimmaṣṣĕwātā (cf. the note in BHS), rather than MT mēriběbôt. Our reading eliminates the difficulties of construing šātû as intransitive, and is in keeping with the legal language which is present in the psalm, as we will argue below.
2 Reading precative perfects with Mitchell Dahood (Psalms I [AB 16; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965] 19–20Google Scholar; cf. Buttenweiser, Moses, The Psalms Chronologically Treated [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1938] 18–25)Google Scholar, and construing kî as an emphatic, again with Dahood (19). See also Muilenburg, James, “The Linguistic and Rhetorical Usages of the Particle 
in the Old Testament,” HUCA 32 (1961) 135–60, esp. 145, 147.Google Scholar We have opted to leave kî untranslated. Most commentators have read the perfects as past tense and have attempted to explain the switch from imperative to past tense as an expression of the absolute certainty the psalmist displays that his wishes will be carried out. Cf., e.g., Kraus, Hans-Joachim, Psalmen I (BKAT 15/1; 2d ed.; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Kreis Moers, 1960) 27–28Google Scholar; Kittel, Rudolph, Die Psalmen (KAT 13; Leipzig: Diechertsche, 1929) 13Google Scholar; Gunkel, Hermann, Die Psalmen (HAT 2.2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1926) 14.Google Scholar Briggs, Charles Augustus and Briggs, Emilie Grace (The Book of Psalms [ICC; 2 vols.; Edinburgh: T. T. Clark, 1906] 1. 24–25)Google Scholar also translate past tense here, but they go even further; in Ps 58:7, where the MT verbs are actually imperatives, they read them as perfects, following LXX (ibid., 2. 42–44).
3 “Their cheek” assumes an original Iḥym. To account for the Greek mataiōs, which indicates Hebrew ḥnm or better Iḥnm, we must assume either that a translator simply misread Hebrew Iḥym, or that a mistake had crept into the Hebrew text, with n substituted for the original y in our word. In either case, the Greek argues for an original pronominal suffix, as do the Targumic lîsālěhồn and Syr. pakkayhồn. Cf. Gunkel, Die Psalmen, 14 (cited above, n. 2) and Kittel, Die Psalmen, 13 (cited above, n. 2).
4 “Fangs”: maltĕʿôt here and mĕtallĕʿôt elsewhere (Joel 1:6; Job 29:17; Prov 30:14). The simplest explanation for the etymology of these two words is to derive mĕtallĕʿôt from the root tlʿ “to gnaw” (cf. BDB 1068–69), and propose that *maltāʿôt which occurs in the Hebrew Bible only here, comes about by metathesis. Others have proposed that mĕtallĕʿôt arises from metathesis from an original *maltāʿôt, and that the latter form is either derived from the root ntʿ with n — by dissimilation, or cognate to Eth. maltāḥt. The former is Dahood's view. Psalms II (AB 17; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1968) 61Google Scholar; “The Etymology of Maltaʿot (PS 58,7),” CBQ 17 (1955) 300–303.Google Scholar The latter can be found in Tur-Sinai, N. H., The Book of Job: A New Commentary (Jerusalem: Kiryath Sepher, 1957) 414.Google Scholar
5 Cf. Ps 63:12, where “those who speak falsely” (dôbĕrê šāqer) have their mouths “stopped.” Cf. UET 7 25: r.9 –12, cited below, p. 266, in which the mouth of one who contests is, among other abuses, stuffed with goat hair and wool.
6 We leave aside the controversy over the original reading of ʾĕlem in vs 2, whether “gods” or “rulers,” as not pertinent to our present concerns.
7 We might also mention a fifth passage here, Prov 25:19, where faithlessness is compared to a broken tooth, šēn rōʿâ, or a foot that slips; but the simile is probably simply based on the wobbly and unpredictable nature of a broken tooth.
8 Note the LXX tas mylas “mills” or “grinders,” and the Latin molares “millstones” or “molars.”
9 Gunkel, Die Psalmen, 13 (cited above, n. 2). He pointed to Ps 5:10; 10:7; 31:19; 52:4; 57:5; 58:7; 59:8; 140:4; Prov 30:14.
10 ibid., 14.
11 Kraus, Psalmen I, 28 (cited above, n. 2).
12 ibid.
13 Driver, Samuel Rolles and Gray, George Buchanan, The Book of Job (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1921) 44.Google Scholar They also point out the curious but effective nature of the verse, which says literally: the roar of the lion (ʾaryēh), the voice of the growling lion (šāḥal), and the teeth of the young lions (kĕpîrîm) are broken. They report that the verb “broken” (they translate “dashed out”) “belongs properly only to teeth; roaring and voice are connected with it by zeugma.”
14 Pope, Marvin H., Job (AB 15; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965) 36.Google Scholar
15 Dahood, Psalms I, 20 (cited above, n. 2).
16 Psalms II, 61 (cited above, n. 4).
17 Mowinckel, Sigmund, Psalmenstudien I (Kristiana: Dybwad, 1921) 46.Google Scholar He was followed in this by Nicolsky, Nicolaj, Spuren magischer Formeln in den Psalmen (BZAW 46; Giessen: Töpelmann, 1927) 33.Google Scholar
18 Mowinckel, Psalmenstudien I, 46 (cited above, n. 17).
19 Recent French excavations at Emar/Meskeneh yielded several hundred cuneiform tablets, soon to be published by Daniel Arnaud. The tablet under consideration here, for which see the following note, was not excavated, but taken illicitly from the Emar region. Arnaud has determined that the excavated texts span approximately the years 1320–1187 BCE; see his article, “Les textes d'Emar et la chronologie de la fin du Bronze récent,” Syria 52 (1975) 87–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20 Huehnergard, John, “Five Tablets from the Vicinity of Emar,” RA 77 (1983) 11–43Google Scholar, text 3 (copy on p. 18, transliteration and translation pp. 19–21, commentary pp. 31–33, esp. p. 33 and n. 78, and the addendum, p. 43).
21 Reading basrū. Also possible is baṣrū (cf. ibid., 33), perhaps analogous to Old Babylonian zīzū gamrū “they have fully taken shares,” as suggested by Claus Wilcke, “Familiengründung im alten Babylonien,” Anhang (n. 169) in Ernst W. Müller, ed., Geschlechtsreife und Legitimation zur Zeugung (Institut für Historische Anthropologie, forthcoming). Prof. Wilcke kindly provided a copy of the typescript of his article. The same expression occurs in other, contemporary texts in the Syro-Hittite area; cf. Huehnergard, , “Five Tablets,” 33 (cited above, n. 20); see further JCS 34 (1982) 250:17Google Scholar (read probably dual zi!-za ba-aZ-ra); Damaszener Mitteilungen 1 (1983) 249:12'Google Scholar (zi-zu ba-aZ-ru).
22 The reading and interpretation of these signs (li AŠÀ ?) are not certain. It is possible that DUMU.MEŠ -ia at the beginning of line 20 is the subject (māruya), in which case we should translate, “…? …concerning my estate (and) my property my children may not contest.”
23 According to D. Arnaud (private communication, 25 September 1982).
24 E.g., Nougayrol, Jean, Le palais royal d'Ugarit, vol. 4 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1956) 166:12–13, 168:24–25 (Carchemish)Google Scholar; 127:49–50, 106b:r.6'–7' (Hattusas); 143:41; 146:25' (Amurru). Note too the following example, uniquely with apālu, also written at Hattusas: [š]a iraggum tuppu annû ippalšu “Whoever contests, this tablet will answer him” ibid., 65:r.8'.
25 This clause is mistakenly written twice, the second time with an additional error, in a curious scribal lapse: 20 … «šum-ma i-ra-gu-mu» 21 šúm-ma «i-» i-ra-gu-mu …
26 See Huehnergard, “Five Tablets,” 42–43 (cited above, n. 20). Many of the personal names are also West Semitic.
27 The phrase is very rare in Akkadian; cf. however, the following: ša kalbi dayyālu išabbir [ū šin] nīšu “the hunting dog's teeth will be broken ”Lambert, W. G., Babylonian Wisdom Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1960) 144:26Google Scholar (in contrast to kalbu dayyālu eṣemta iḫeppe “the hunting dog will break the [prey's] bone “ibid., 144:20); note also KAR 391:6', in a fragmentary text of omens concerning the teeth (lines l'–9'): šumma āšu šubburā “if his teeth are broken … rdquo;
28 UET 7 21, 22, 25. Texts 21 and 22 are from the reign of Adad-šuma-iddina (1222–1217), text 25 from the third year of Kaštiliašu IV (1230; dates follow J. A. Brinkman, in A. Leo Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia [rev. ed. completed by Reiner, Erica; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977] 338).Google Scholar
29 Written si-kát in UET 7 21:r.3, GAGin 22:r.13, GIŠ.GAGin 25:r.10.
30 UET 7 21:15–r.7.
31 UET 7 22:15' –r.15. The buyer, one of the three sellers, and the child being sold in this text are the same as those involved in UET 7 21. The double-indemnity clause precedes rather than follows as in UET 7 21; the penalty then reads: “At any time in the future, whoever among the brothers, children, family, kin, and relatives would alter this agreement, make a claim, whoever would appear and state concerning PN (the child), ‘the slave is my brother’ (or) ‘my son’—they will fix a copper nail in his mouth; and they will deal with him according to the order of king Adad-šuma-iddina.”
32 UET 7 25:r.9–12. We read the last clause as follows: I MA.NA AN.NA! I MA.NA A.BÁ[R] a-na pi-i-šu ú-[ša-pa-ku]. After a two-line break, in which another penalty may have been prescribed, the double-indemnity clause follows.
33 For t he translation of this clause, cf. CAD ḫ 95b; see also Soldt, W. H. van, Review of UET 7, JAOS 98 (1978) 501a.Google Scholar
34 Wiseman, Alalakh, 8:29–32; 28:left edge; 61:18'–19'; idem, JCS 8 (1954) 8, text 95:r.2'–6'; 96:r.l–5. Cf. Kienast, Burkhart, “Die altbabylonischen Kaufurkunden aus Alalah,” WO 11 (1980) 44 and n. 18.Google Scholar Note also the smearing of the head with hot tar in Old and Middle Babylonian documents from ḫana (see CAD E 150a [emmu a] for references).
35 Eleven such texts are noted by Fadhil, Abdulillah, “Ein frühes tuppi maruti aus Tell al-Faḫḫar/Kurruḫanni,”in Morrison, M. A. and Owen, D. I., eds., Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians (Festschrift Ernest R. Lacheman; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981) 375–76Google Scholar (with Korrektursatz; see ibid., 434–35). One of the texts, SMN 2647, remains unpublished at this writing, but will appear as number 427 in Excavations at Nuzi, vol. 9 ( = D. I. Owen and M. A. Morrison, eds., Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians, vol. 2 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, forthcoming). The writers wish to thank Prof. Morrison for discussing SMN 2647 with them.
36 Written si-ik-ka-tu in HSS 13 20:18; GAG in JEN79:10 and WO 9 (1977) 23:11Google ScholarPubMed, 15; GIŠ.GAG in all other examples (TCL 9 14:12 is broken). The qualification “of copper” is lacking in VAS 1 109:17, HSS 13 366:26, and WO 9 (1977) 23:11, 15.Google ScholarPubMed
37 But retû occurs in JEN 79:11.
38 Fadhil, “Ein frühes ṭuppi mārüti” 375–76 (cited above, n. 35).
39 HSS 13 20:17–18.
40 A financial payment is lacking in HSS 13 366:24–26; WO 9 (1977) 23:8–11, 12–15.Google ScholarPubMed
41 VAS 8 19:1–14.
42 CT 45 18:12'–18'.
43 “Literary legal decisions,” all of which date from the Isin-Larsa period, constitute a genre of famous cases in which legal principles were exemplified. Unlike actual court records, they contain neither witnesses nor a date, and usually exist in duplicate copies. See Hallo, William W.'s remarks in Studies Oppenheim (From the workshop of the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary: Studies presented to A. Leo Oppenheim [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964]) 105Google Scholar; on the text cited below, see Greengus, Samuel, “A Textbook Case of Adultery in Ancient Mesopotamia,” HUCA 40–41 (1969–1970) 33–44, esp. 43–44.Google Scholar
44 For the interpretation of the KA sign here as kiri3 “nose,” see the comments of Dijk, J. J. A. van, “Neusumerische Gerichtsurkunden in Bagdad,” ZA 55 (1962) 77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45 Dijk, J. J. A. van, “Textes divers du Musée de Bagdad III,” Sumer 15 (1959) 12–14 (copy plate 9), lines 21–26.Google Scholar The text was republished and discussed in detail by van Dijk, “Neusumerische Gerichtsurkunden,” 70–77 (cited above, n. 44). We follow here, however, the interpretation of Greengus, “Textbook Case,” (cited above n. 43).
46 Note that the implement in this case is a dart or arrow (giš-gag-si-sá) rather than a nail ((giš.)gag); see van Dijk, “Neusumerische Gerichtsurkunden,” 77 (cited above, n. 44).
47 Still another example appears in a poorly preserved statute (early 12th century) of the Middle Assyrian harem edicts. The punishment to be inflicted on a harem woman, apparently for uttering a curse, appears as follows: sinništu š[a ekalle a]ppaša ipallušū [30 ina ḫaṭṭē] imaḫḫuṣūši “they will pierce the harem woman's nose; they will strike her 30 (times) with a rod” AfO 17 (1954–1956) 283:81.Google Scholar
48 See the following notes for references.
49 I.e., ka reduplicated (cf. MSL 9 145 n. 2), pace Krecher, Joachim, “Neue sumerische Rechtsurkunden des 3. Jahrtausends” (ZA 63 [1973CrossRefGoogle Scholar] 190 n. 111, and 191), who interprets the sign groups KA-KA and KA-gv as indicating that Sumerian “mouth”was/ka(k/g)/ (cf. also ŠL 2/1 53). Krecher is followed by Müller, Manfred, “Ursprung und Bedeutung einer sumerisch-akkadischen Vertragsstrafe,” AoF 6 (1979) 264Google Scholar and n. 10; cf. also Th. Jacobsen apud Lieberman, Stephen J., The Sumerian Loanwords in Old-Babylonian Akkadian (Harvard Semitic Studies 22; Missoula: Scholars, 1977) 336 n. 570.Google Scholar It is more likely, however, that writings of the type KA-gv all reflect du11-gv.
50 Cf. Jestin, R. R., Review of Edzard, SRU, BO 26 (1969) 355–56.Google Scholar
51 Several other interpretations of KA-KA and KA-KA-na in these texts have been proposed. These are discussed where appropriate in the notes to the texts, below.
52 TIM 9 94:B ii (v'):8'–9'; treated by Sollberger, Edmond, “Sumerica,” ZA 53 (1959) 6–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar ( = B+C ii:9'–10'), and Edzard, SRU 74–76, text 32a ( = B+C ii:9'–11'.
53 The verb dù in these clauses is difficult (the identical form appears in the second of our Sumerian texts, while an-dù appears in the third). At base, dù means “to fix”; in a transferred meaning, it denotes “to detain, withhold, hold.” Edzard discussed the form in SRU 46 (ad text 17:17–19), and translated in our text (75), “wer ihn daran behindert.” Krecher (“Neue sumerische Rechtsurkunden,” 190–91 [cited above, n. 49]), after a rather convoluted explanation of the semantic development, offers “mit eigener Hand (durch symbolische Handlung) als Eigentum bezeichnen,” “im Wege der Selbsthilfe ein (angebliches) Eigentumsrecht durchzusetzen (versuchen),” thus approximately “mit Beschlag belegen” (191). These interpretations are criticized by Burkhart Kienast (“Verzichtklausel und Eviktionsgarantie in den ältesten sumerischen Kaufurkunden,” ZA 72 [1982] 31–33)Google Scholar, who offers instead “Ansprüche erheben” (34–36). While the latter interpretation is admittedly closer to the later Akkadian ragāmu and b/paqāru (and nabalkutu at Nuzi), Kienast's arguments find little support among other, related Sumerian documents. Thus we follow here the proposal of Piotr Steinkeller (“Sale Documents of the Ur III Period” [Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1977] 86–93)Google Scholar, that dù in the first two of our texts (as well as in other early Sumerian texts) means simply “to hold,” and that the clause covers the contingency that a third party, not the seller in the document, is the rightful owner of the property. If such turned out to be the case in any given sale, of course, the seller would be guilty of disposing of property not rightfully hers/his, and therefore automatically guilty of breach of contract.
54 I.e., /gag.bi ka.ka(.a) e.gaz/ (cf. Krecher, “Neue sumerische Rechtsurkunden,” 191 [cited above, n. 49]; Müller, “Ursprung und Bedeutung,” 264–65 [cited above, n. 49]) or /gag.bi zú.zú(.a) e.gaz/. For van Dijk's interpretation, see below, n. 59. (Both Sollberger and Edzard [see above, n. 52] refrain from translating this clause.) While gaz is normally equivalent to Akkadian dâku “to kill” or ḫepû “to break, crush” (see the next note), it is on rare occasion rendered by maḫāṣu, the verb found in the Nuzi penalty clauses cited above. Cf, e.g., with part of the body as object: [sa-bi] ba-an-gaz = [še-er a]-ni-šú im-ḫaṣ-ma “(the asakku demon) struck his ligaments” CT 17 10:49–50; note also ga-az GAZ= ma-ḫa-a-ṣum MSL 2 140: C r. i:9'.
55 I.e., reading gag-bé, and taking gaz as transitive (with the marū marker -e unexpressed in the writing): /gag.b(i).e ka.ka/zú.zú e.(b.)gaz(.e)/; note that gaz = ḫepû “to break, crush,” and cf. šubburu in the Emar text cited above.
56 In the copy, the sign after KA-KA appears to be -m[a], which led Sollberger (“Sumerica,” 8 [cited above, n. 52]) to suggest that inim-inim-m[a] is to be read (and, accordingly, inim-inim in the previous text); but “(in) the words”leads to no satisfactory interpretation of the clause. Müller (“Ursprung und Bedeutung,” 264–65 n. 15 [cited above, n. 49]) proposed ka-inim-m[a-ka] “in den Mund der Klage,” but this too seems forced. Thus, despite Müller's caveat (ibid.) we must read either -n[a]! (cf. Krecher, “Neue sumerische Rechtsurkunden,” 189 [cited above, n. 49]; Kienast, “Verzichtklausel,” 30 [cited above, n. 53]; Steinkeller, “Sale Documents,” 89 [cited above, n. 53]) or -n[i]! (cf. van Dijk, “Neusumerische Gerichtsurkunden,” 78 n. 17 [cited above, n. 44]).
57 DP 31:base; treated by Edzard, SRU 67–70 (text 31).
58 Reading KA-KA-n[a]!. as /ka.ka.(a)n(i).a/ (cf. Krecher, “Neue sumerische Rechtsurkunden,” 191 [cited above, n. 49]; Kienast, “Verzichtklausel,” 41 [cited above, n. 53]; Steinkeller, “Sale Documents,” 89 [cited above, n. 53]) or /zú.zú.(a)n(i).a/.
59 Reading KA-KA-n[i]! as /ka.ka.(a)ni/ or /zú.zú.(a)ni/. For Müller's rendering of this clause, see n. 56. Van Dijk (“Neusumerische Gerichtsurkunden,” 78 n. 17 [cited above, n. 44]) proposed ka-kiri3(-n[é]) or even kiri3-kiri3(-n[é]) for these two texts, following Falkenstein's interpretation of RTC 16: vi:2 (see n. 68 below).
60 “Ursprung und Bedeutung,” 263–67 (cited above, n. 49).
61 As Müller points out (ibid., 266), a direct derivation of the mid- to late 2d millennium examples from these Sumerian clauses cannot be demonstrated, due to the substantial periods of time intervening without similar textual evidence. Nevertheless, an independent, unrelated origin of the later clauses, so similar in their content, is extremely unlikely.
62 ibid., 265 (“eine ‘spiegelnde’ Vertragsstrafe”). That the “principle of talion” was in effect in all of the cases under consideration was already noted by Samuel Greengus (“Textbook Case,” 43 n. 28 [cited above, n. 43]). See also Kilmer, Anne Draffkorn, “Symbolic Gestures in Akkadian Contracts from Alalakh and Ugarit,” JAOS 94 (1974) 177–83, esp. 182–83 n. 24Google Scholar; Kilmer discusses actions, such as pulling the nose, that are probably to be seen as “legal formula[e] denoting breach of contract” (178).
63 E.g., immediately before the penalty clause in DP 31 (cited above): gag-bi é-gar gra bi-dù! i-bi zà-ge bé-aka “he fixed this nail in the wall; he performed its oil (-ceremony) close by” DP 31: vi: 16–18; see Edzard's comments, SRU 70; cf. also Kraus, F. R., “Altmesopotamische Tonnaegel mit Keilinschriften,” in Halil Edhem Hâtira Kitabi vol. 1 (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1947) 71–113, esp. 88–92.Google Scholar
64 Cf. Nicolò, Mariano San, Die Schlussklauseln der altbabylonischen Kauf- und Tauschverträge (Munich: Beck, 1922) 138–75Google Scholar; Steinkeller, “Sale Documents,” 84–102, esp. 88–89 (cited above, n. 53).
65 RTC 16:v:7–vi:2; treated by Edzard in SRU 89–90 (text 43).
66 Again we follow Steinkeller (“Sale Documents,” 92 [cited above, n. 53]), here interpreting dù as “to detain.”
67 Probably to be read gù an-gál (cf. MSL 1 79:8: KAgu-gál-la=bu-qur-ru-ú “claim”). The expression is discussed by Krecher, “Neue sumerische Rechtsurkunden,” 190 (cited above, n. 49); cf. Steinkeller, “Sale Documents,” 92–93 (cited above, n. 53). Kienast argues (“Verzichtklausel,” 37–40 [cited above, n. 53]) that inim an-gál “he is under oath” is to be read. This is unlikely, however, especially without -ma after KA (inim).
68 We read KA-KA-na both times as either /ka.ka.(a)n(i).a/ “in her mouth”(so also Krecher, “Neue sumerische Rechtsurkunden,” 189, 191 [cited above, n. 49], followed by Müller, “Ursprung und Bedeutung,” 264 and n. 10 [cited above, n. 49]; cf. Steinkeller, “Sale Documents,” 92 [cited above, n. 53]; Kienast, “Verzichtklausel,” 41 [cited above, n. 53]) or /zú.zú.(a)n(i).a/ “in her teeth”(cf. Jestin, Review of Edzard, 356 [cited above, n. 50]; Jestin also suggests [ibid.] zú-ka-na “in the teeth of her mouth” [for which, however, we might expect *KA-KA-na-ka, i.e., /*zú.ka.(a)n(i).ak.a/]). Adam Falkenstein (“Zur Grammatik der altsumerischen Sprache,” AfO 18 [1957] 95 and n. 26)Google Scholar, followed by Edzard (SRU 90), van Dijk (“Neusumerische Gerichtsurkunden,” 77–78 n. 17 [cited above, n. 44]), and Greengus (“Textbook Case,” 41–42 n. 25 [cited above, n. 43]), proposed that the first KA-KA-na be read du11-du11-na “in her words,” and the second ka-kiri3-na “in her mouth (and) nose.” It seems more likely, however, that the same expression is intended in both instances; and while the mutilation of the nose is paralleled by the Old Babylonian examples cited above, “mouth (and) nose” is less plausible than either “mouth” (alone) or “teeth.” Sollberger's suggestion (“Sumerica,” 8 [cited above, n. 52]) to read du11-du11-na in both instances, and to take giš-gag-du11-du11-na together as “the nail of her words,” is forced, as Edzard (SRU 90) has noted; further, one might then expect du11-du11 ga-na.
69 “Ursprung und Bedeutung,” 265 (cited above, n. 49).
70 In the reforms of Uru-KA-gina (also 24th century) we find mention of a punishment involving facial mutilation by means of a kiln-fired brick. Unfortunately, the text is slightly damaged, so that we are unable to identify the offense precisely; it is, however, verbal in nature, and so the penalty in this instance too may be said to be talionic: munus-e nita-ra x x gá-gá(?)-ba-ni i-du11 munus-ba KA-KA-ni LAK-742 í-šu4 “(If) a woman said to a man, ‘…,’ a kiln-fired brick crushed that woman's mouth (/ka.ka.(a)ni/)/teeth(/zú.zú.(a)ni/)” Sollberger Corpus 54 (Ukg. 6):iii: 14'–17' (= OrAnt 15 [1976] 6–7Google Scholar: iii: 13'–16'); for this interpretation, cf. Steinkeller, Piotr, “On the Reading and Meaning of a-ZAR-la,” RA 72 (1978) 74 and n. 6.Google Scholar
71 Facial mutilation was not the only penalty prescribed for breach of contract. Other physical punishments are attested in various periods; see above, e.g., on (UET 7 25 (and n. 34), VAS 8 19, and CT 45 18. In all periods payment of a fine was also a common penalty.
72 See nn. 23 and 24.
73 Parallel to “break the teeth of the wicked” in Ps 3:8 is kî hikkîtāʾet-kol-ʾōyĕbay leḥ î “may you strike all my enemies on the[ir] cheek.” While striking the cheek is surely too common an action to be traced to facial mutilation as a legal punishment, there are several other interesting examples of the use of this expression in the Hebrew Bible and elsewhere in the ancient Near East. In 1 Kgs 22:24 (paralleled in 2 Chr 18:23), the prophet Zedekiah's reaction to Micaiah's slander is to strike him on the cheek. In Job 16:10 and Lam 3:30, being hit on the cheek is described as an act of reproach. A similar passage is Mic 4:14, where the ruler of Israel is said to be hit on the cheek with a rod, clearly a sign of insult. Finally, in Isa 50:6 in the MT we find gēwî nātatû lěmakkîm ûlĕḥāyay lĕm¯orĕṭîm “I have given my back to strikers and my cheeks to pluckers,” but lQIsa reads mṭlym “beaters” instead of mōrĕṭim.
In the Ugaritic Aqhat epic, in the list of the duties of a son, we find the following: ṭbq lḥt niṣh (CTA 17: i: 29–30). Dahood suggested translating, “who will shut the jaws of his detractors” (Psalms I, 20–21 [cited above, n. 2]; and Mélanges Eugène Tisserant, vol. 1 [Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1964] 90).Google Scholar Note that here, too, the punishment fits the crime.
A penalty for breach of treaty in one of the Aramaic treaty texts from Sefire is that the vassal's wives will be hit on the face (I A 42); see Fitzmyer, Joseph A., The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967) 16–17, 57.Google Scholar
From Mesopotamia, finally, note, e.g., a Neo-Assyrian incantation against a legal adversary: [ša] šamê qū[lā] ša qaqqari šimâ pīya: adi anāku ša bēl dabābīya annanna apil annanna aṭerru lēssu, anettipu lišānšu, utarra amāssu ana pīšu, pīšu ana dabābi suḫḫâšu “Pay attention, those in heaven; hear, those on earth! Until I strike the cheek, tear out the tongue, return his word to the mouth òf my adversary (so-and-so son of so-and-so), make his mouth too confused to speak” KAR 71:r. 1–7. For other cuneiform examples of slapping the cheek, see CAD M/l 74–75 (maḫāṣu l b l').
74 See, e.g., the following passages where (a) the author's or the nation's adversaries, or “the wicked” in general, are described as lions or other wild animals: Isa 5:29; Jer 2:30; Ezek 22:25, 27; Joel 1:6; Nah 2:12–14; Zeph 3:3; Ps 7:3; 10:9; 17:12; 22:13–14, 22; 34:11; 35:17; Prov 28:15; (b) Yahweh is described as a lion-like adversary: Isa 38:13; Hos 5:14; 13:7–8; Job 10:16; (c) the remnant of Jacob is described as a lion among other nations: Mic 5:7; and (d) the teeth of the enemy are mentioned without reference to a specific wild animal: Ps 124:6; Prov 30:14; and obliquely in the Hebrew of Ps 27:2 (where evildoers are said to eat the flesh of the psalmist).
75 Job 4:11 reports that the lion perishes because of lack of prey, probably because its teeth have been broken as reported in vs 10. For a striking photograph of just such a situation, see Des, and Bartlett, Jen, “Family Life of Lions,” National Geographic 162/6 (December 1982) 819.Google Scholar
