818 REVIEWS

Translating Empire: Tell Fekheriyeh, Deuteronomy, and the

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jts/article/71/2/818/5918208 by University Library of Salzburg user on 28 December 2022

Akkadian Treaty Tradition. By C. L. CROUCH and
JEREMY HUTTON. Pp. xv þ 342. (Forschungen zum Alten
Testament, 135). T€ ubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019. ISBN
978 3 16 159026 9. Hardback e129.
THIS is a learned book, not easy to read and understand for
the uninitiated. Crouch and Hutton embark on a study of the
thorny subject of translation in the ancient world, ‘especially with
regard to translation of an officially produced text from Akkadian
into one of the Northwest Semitic languages’ (p. 1). The textual
evidence they choose comes from the bilingual inscriptions
discovered at Tell Fekheriyeh (Fekh.; KAI 309). Their starting
point is the scholarly consensus that the Akkadian version is the
source text and the Aramaic is the translation. Rather than simply
restating the consensus, Crouch and Hutton want to offer a better
understanding how the translation was done. Following recent
developments in cognitive models of translation and bilinguality
they argue from the outset that ‘translated texts constitute a
subset of bilingual behavior’ (p. 23). Crouch and Hutton define
the theoretical model employed to uncover the strategies behind
the process of transforming the Akkadian source text into
Aramaic as ‘Optimal Translation’. The term is a fusion, recently
proposed and applied by Hutton, of two approaches to grammar
and linguistics: Descriptive Translation Studies and Optimality
Theory. Both approaches rightly stress that translation styles are
not ad hoc decisions but may be subjected to detailed and theoret-
ically informed description and quantification. ‘Adequacy’ and
‘acceptability’ govern the translation process. Since such an ap-
proach assumes the equivalence of a translation to its source text,
it can be argued that ‘a translation is the translator’s best-formed
target text, in which all relevant constraints have been balanced
optimally, with regard to their respective levels of violability
and forcefulness within the cultural system for which the target
text has been produced’ (p. 31). As someone who occasionally
works as a translator, this reviewer is struck by how many of the
constraints and norms uncovered and detailed by Crouch and
Hutton one subconsciously employs in the quest for an acceptable
translation.
The main body of the monograph is devoted to a detailed study
of Fekh. A and Fekh. B. In regard to the translation process at
work for Fekh. A, Crouch and Hutton assume ‘that the bilingual
inscription . . . was not the product of a single moment of
 REVIEWS 819

bilingual composition but rather the product of a two-stage pro-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jts/article/71/2/818/5918208 by University Library of Salzburg user on 28 December 2022

cess in which the Akkadian text was composed first and the
Aramaic text was translated from it’ (p. 137). They are further
able to show that the translation is mostly isomorphic and that
the translator displays a tendency to avoid new loanwords and
calques but focuses on semantic correspondence. He remains
close to the Akkadian source text but is devoted to making his
translation acceptable to its audience. Before turning their atten-
tion to Fekh. B, Crouch and Hutton take a closer look at the rela-
tionship between the two inscriptions. This is a highly useful
enterprise as it bolsters the authors’ claim that both texts are the
product of a single bilingual individual who engaged in a process
of translation rather than bilingual composition. As far as Fekh. B
is concerned Crouch and Hutton identify ‘sufficient linguistic
and translational differences between the two Aramaic texts . . . to
attribute them to two different moments of translation’ (p. 222).
As a result, they suggest that different individuals did both trans-
lations. The differences also allow for some plausible reconstruc-
tion of the social context of the origin, uncovering four
‘moments’ of composition: ‘[T]he composition of Akk. A and its
translation into Aram. A, both of which were inscribed on the
first object in Guzan, and then the composition of Akk. B, and its
translation into Aram. B, both of which were combined with the
A text on the occasion of their inscription on the statue at Sikan’
(p. 227).
The model developed for Tell Fekheriyeh is then applied to
some verses from Deuteronomy (Deut. 28:22–24.30–32) some-
times labelled a ‘translation’ from VTE, which are then used as
external evidence for dating some form of Deuteronomy to the
pre-exilic period. This proposal by H. U. Steymanns, E. Otto,
and B. M Levinson has rightly been criticized by scholars like T.
Veijola and C. Koch who have drawn attention to the fact that
treaty language and motifs persisted in the ancient Near East over
a long period and can be regarded as part of a cultural koine so
that—in light of the manifold differences—it is highly unlikely
that the authors of Deuteronomy actually translated anything
from an Akkadian Vorlage. Crouch and Hutton’s data-driven
approach simply confirms such earlier assessment. The brief dis-
cussion on a small part of Deuteronomy (pp. 231–5) is supple-
mented by a close reading of the Sefire treaties (KAI 222–4),
which could be understood as being related to the treaty between
Assur-nerari and Mati’ilu of Arpad (SAA 2 2) as the name
Mati‘’el also appears here. Helpfully, Crouch and Hutton note
820 REVIEWS

the fragmentary character of the Sefire treaties and refrain from

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jts/article/71/2/818/5918208 by University Library of Salzburg user on 28 December 2022

overconfident restorations. Though they seem to favour a com-
mon Northwest Semitic treaty language, they side with those
scholars who have expressed reservations about the close relation-
ship between the Assur-nerari treaty and the three Sefire treaties.
Such negative results make, according to Crouch and Hutton,
the inscriptions from Tell Fekheriyeh the only complete evidence
for translation in the Iron Age. Since both authors frequently re-
cord the indebtedness to Septuagint studies and occasionally look
at the Phoenician-Punic realm, this reviewer would have liked to
see a closer look at further multilingual inscriptions from the east-
ern Mediterranean. Here, the trilingue from Xanthus (KAI 319)
comes to mind, which seems to cater to different ethnic identities
while showing that the Xanthias are not entirely at home with the
idioms of Greek inscriptions.
For the biblical scholar, the impressive set of data amassed
by Crouch and Hutton, and the theoretical framework created
to assess it, confirm the methodological reservations regarding
overconfidence in the use of so-called external evidence. Despite
obvious parallels and allusions to the cultural milieu in which
the texts were composed, other processes were at work in the
composition of biblical books than translation from Akkadian.
The credit belongs to Crouch and Hutton to have once again
drawn attention to this important methodological issue.

doi: 10.1093/jts/flaa127 ANSELM C. HAGEDORN

Advance Access publication 6 October 2020 Universit€
at Osnabr€
uck
anselm.hagedorn@uni-osnabrueck.de

David Remembered: Kingship and National Identity in

Ancient Israel. By Joseph Blenkinsopp. Pp. xii þ 219.
Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans,
2013. ISBN 978 0 8028 6958 6. Paper $26/£17.99.
JOSEPH BLENKINSOPP’s monograph on the David tradition arrived
with several endorsements already on the cover. That these were
offered by the likes of J. L. Kugel, J. D. Levenson, J. Barton, L. L.
Grabbe, and S. L. McKenzie was evidence, even before reading a
page, that it would be yet another insightful and important work
from the pen of Blenkinsopp. I was not disappointed.
Before I get into Blenkinsopp’s treatment of the David theme,
I would like first to point out the prescience of his comments in