CAT 1.115, a trial run
I realized earlier this week that I needed a translation of CAT 1.115 in my handout for the Society of Biblical Literature meeting. While I spend my days reading obscure Ugaritic ritual texts, I imagine that most of my audience won’t know this text — even at the Ugaritic and Northwest Semitic Epigraphy section. So I needed a quick translation. Here’s a trial cut:
Text
1. id. ydbḥ mlk
2. l ušḫr ḫlmẓ
3. l b bt . il bt
4. š l ḫlmẓ
5. w tr . l qlḥ
6. w šḥll . ydm
7. b qdš il bt
8. w tlḥm aṯt
——————
9. š l il bt . šlmm
10. kl l ylḥm bh
——————
11. w l b bt šqym
12. š l u<š>ḫr ḫlmẓ
——————
low.e.
13. w tr l qlḥ
rev.
14. ym aḥd
Translation
1. When the king sacrifices
2. to ʾUšḫarâ Ḫulmiẓẓi
3. inside the temple of the god of the palace,
4. a ram for Ḫulmiẓẓi
5. and a dove for QLḤ.
6. and you shall cause the desacralization of the hands
7. in the sanctuary of the god of the palace,
8. and the woman/women may eat.
————————-
9. A ram for the god of the palace as a communion offering;
10. all may eat of it.
————————-
11. And within the temple: libations,
12. a ram for U<š>ḫarâ Ḫulmiẓẓi,
—————————
13. And a dove for QLḤ.
14. One day.
Discussion
For the paper at SBL, what is most important are lines 1-2. However, probably the most intersting facet of the text is in lines 6-8. The translation above is awkward but gets across the meaning as I see it. It appears that the king is desacralized and then is able to partake of a meal with a woman or group of women. However, a dove doesn’t really provide a lot to eat. Is the following communal sacrifice of a ram what is actually consumed? It’s difficult to tell….
Comments are closed.
Ketuvim: the Writings of James R. Getz Jr. 
Is šḥll “cause to desecrate” or is it “cause to purify” as Pardee seems to think? Take a look at the Arabic cognate, “untie,” sometimes “remit sin.”
Duane,
I’m aware of Pardee’s translation, but I’m not convinced by the reasoning.
Del Olmo Lete takes Pardee to task on the rendering in his UF review of Les Textes Rituels. I tend to side with del Olmo Lete on this one.
Arabic is notorious for holding contradictory meanings of the same root given its long history as a language. Ugaritic hasn’t proven to have that kind of semantic diversity. If ḥll usually means “to desecrate” or “to profane” in Ugaritic ritual texts, I don’t see much of a reason why it shouldn’t mean that here.
You are so right about contradictory meanings in Arabic. You and Del Olma may even be right about ḥll.
One other thing: I’ve never been completely sure what ḥl mlk means in those other ritual texts.
A good hunk of my dissertation focuses on what ḥl mlk means. I think I might have it down at this point.