DOCSLIB.ORG

Aramaic Language 626 the Famous Murashû Archive Illustrate (Ibid.: 296– Maic Owned at Least 29 Consonantal Phonems: , , 306)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Aramaic Language 626 the Famous Murashû Archive Illustrate (Ibid.: 296– Maic Owned at Least 29 Consonantal Phonems: �, �, 306) 625 Aramaic Language 626 the famous Murashû archive illustrate (ibid.: 296– maic owned at least 29 consonantal phonems: , , 306). b, d, dß, dø, g, g˙, h, hø, h˚, k, l, m, n, p, q, r, s, sø, s´ , sˇ, t, øt, e) In Iran, hundreds of tablets from Persepolis ßt, w, y, z, zø. were found which are still to be edited. In addition, Other conservative features, which are some- there are administrative notations written with ink times blurred by the use of the Phoenician orthog- on 163 ritual vessels (ibid.: 337–57). raphy or lost in later dialects, are the preservation f) Finally, in Egypt hundreds of letters, eco- of n before a consonant which at least in some dia- nomic texts like accounts and lists, dedicatory, fu- lects was still realized phonetically as n or as an nerary, and others types of inscriptions were pre- nasalization of the following consonant, the dis- served which are written on ostraca and other tinction of roots III-w and III-y even in verbal forms objects (ibid.: 150–87). From these, the literary (yqth :: yqty), and the use of a Gt-stem (with infixed texts written on the walls of a burial cave near t) in opposite to tG (with prefixed t). Sheikh-Fadl deserve mentioning as a specimen of The features which distinguish Aramaic from an Aramaic adaption of Egyptian literature. Northwest Semitic languages and from most others After the end of the Persian Empire, Aramaic Central Semitic Languages like Arabic and Ugaritic was still used throughout the ancient Near East as are the use of a postponed article, in older texts a common language, although at this time the dif- written with , and the absence of a reflexive-pas- ferent local dialects began to influence heavily the sive stem built with n (cf. e.g., Heb. Niphal). written language. These later inscriptions, which Since all these features of Aramaic can be found are now found even in regions east of Iran (e.g., in Ancient South Arabic languages like Old Sabaic ibid.: Asok: 1–6), show different local dialects and which probably also belong to Central Semitic thus are taken to be inscriptions of the different (Voigt), the common presumed close connection of groups (cf. esp. “Haran,” “Nabateans,” “Palmy- Aramaic with the Northwest Semitic branch should rene Inscriptions”). be questioned. Aramaic should be deemed instead Bibliography: ■ J. Dusˇek, Les manuscrits araméens du Wadi as an independent Central Semitic language with Daliyeh et la Samarie vers 450–332 av. J.-C. (CHANE 30; Leiden affinities to the southern branch of this group (or 2007). ■ J. C. L. Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions South Semitic Languages based on areal influen- II (Oxford 1975). ■ W. W. Hallo (ed.), The Context of Scrip- ces). And since Aramaic shares the postponed arti- ture, 3 vols. (Leiden 1997/2000/2002). ■ J. A. Fitzmyer/S. A. cle and the missing of an N-stem with the southern Kaufman, Old, Official, and Biblical Aramaic, vol. 1 of id., An languages, these features do belong to a Proto Ara- ■ I. Aramaic Bibliography (Baltimore, Md./London 1992). maic stratum and are no later inner Aramaic devel- Kottsieper,“The Tel Dan Inscription (KAI 310) and the Po- opments, thus excluding the dialects of Samal/Ya- litical Relations between Aram-Damascus and Israel in the First Half of the First Millennium B.C.E.,” in Ahab Agonistes udi and of the Deir Alla Inscription from being (ed. L. L. Grabbe; LHB/OTS 421; London 2007) 104–34. ■ I. considered genuine Aramaic (Kottsieper 2009). Kottsieper, “Aramaic Literature,” in Literatures of the Ancient Beside the already mentioned features, the old- Near East (ed. C. S. Ehrlich; Lanham, Md. 2009) 393–444. est known Aramaic can be characterized by the fol- ■ D. Schwiderski, Texte und Bibliographie (FoSub 2; 2004), vol. lowing: 2 of id., Die alt- und reichsaramäischen Inschriften (FoSub 2 and a) There is no shift from a¯ < *a¯ to o¯ as, e.g., in He- 4; Berlin/New York 2004–8). ■ D. Schwiderski, Konkordanz (FoSub 4; 2008), vol. 1 of id., Die alt- und reichsaramäischen brew. Inschriften (FoSub 2 and 4; Berlin/New York 2004–8). ■ W. b) Aramaic contains three main stems (G *qatvl Röllig, “Aramäer und Assyrer,” in Essays on Syria in the Iron *yaqtvl[u], D *qattil *yaqattil[u], H *haqtil *y[a]haq- Age (ed. G. Bunnens; ANES.S 7; Louvain 2000) 177–86. ■ J. til[u]) of which the H-stem is always written Tropper, Die Inschriften von Zincirli (ALASP 6; Münster with h in the older texts. All three stems own a 1993). passive variant which is expressed only by Ingo Kottsieper changes of vocalization (Gp *qatı¯ l *yuqtal[u], Dp / See also Arameans *quttal *yuqattal[u], Hp *huqtal *y[a]huqtal[u]). Thus, Participle passive of the G-stem also fol- lows the qatı¯ l pattern and not, as in Hebrew, Aramaic Language qatu¯ l. Probably all three stems also had a t-vari- 1. Linguistic Characterization. Aramaic belongs ant with reflexive-passive meaning, but D and to the group of Central Semitic languages and is H obviously used a prefixed form (tD *atqattal commonly taken as a member of its Northwest Se- *yatqattal[u], tH *athaqtil *yathaqtil[u]) in con- mitic branch. This impression is fostered by the trast to G which originally had an infixed t (Gt fact that the Aramaic script is an offshoot of the *aqtatal *yaqtatal[u]). Phoenician script and thus includes only 22 graph- c) There is one suffix conjugation and two prefix emes, giving Aramaic texts the appearance of being conjugations: a short form (sg. *yáqtul, pl. *yaq- Northwest Semitic. But the phonetic developments túlu¯ ) originally used for acts which happened shown by orthographic changes and Aramaic texts or will/should happen in connection with the written in other scripts reveal that, initially, Ara- present situation of the speaker or of the told Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception vol. 2 Authenticated | [email protected] © Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/New York, 2009 Download Date | 12/4/18 12:52 AM Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception 2 (© Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/New York 2009) 627 Aramaic Language 628 context, and a long form (sg. *yaqtúlu, pl. *yaq- rial Aramaic. Even on the language of the Targu- túlu¯ n) just describing an act (Kottsieper 1999). mim, which came into use after Hebrew had ceased d) Broken plurals are not common. as a common spoken language even in Judah, Im- e) The plural forms in the status absolutus ends on perial Aramaic influence is detectable. n:-ı¯ n (masculine), -a¯ n (feminine). The later Middle Aramaic texts of the Jewish f) *bar “son” and *tßir- “two” appear, as in Modern tradition, the Oriental churches and the Mandae- South Arabic dialects, with r as last consonant ans particularly show the dialectal diversity of Ara- and not with n as in other Semitic languages. maic, whose dialects can be assigned to two main 2. History of Aramaic. Aramaic was the language groups. To Western Aramaic, the dialects of the Jews of a semi-nomadic group which appears at the end and Christians in Palestine belong, together with of the 2nd millennium BCE in the vicinity of Gˇebel the dialect of the Samaritans. Even the inscriptions Bisˇri. Given that the linguistic connections to An- from the synagogue in Dura-Europos are influ- cient South Arabic are not by chance, this group enced by such a Western dialect, although in this probably came from an area south of the Syrian area an Eastern Aramaic dialect was commonly spo- Desert (Kottsieper 2009). ken, as it was throughout Syria and Mesopotamia. In the 1st half of the 1st millennium BCE, Ara- There, Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, Syriac, and maic spread throughout the whole Neo-Assyrian Mandaic are the main known Eastern Aramaic dia- Empire, its western neighbors, and Babylonia and lects for which we posses written sources. One gained the status of a lingua franca. Thus in Syria should not be misled by the traditional labeling of but also in eastern and northern territories outside those dialects according to religious groups. Espe- of Mesopotamia, it became a common language of cially non-standard texts like magical bowls reveal inscriptions (Old Aramaic; cf. Aramaic Inscrip- that regionalism was also an important aspect for tions). Though surely different local dialects did ex- the evolution of different dialects. ist, this lingua franca used as a kind of standard lit- Early forms of Eastern Aramaic can be found in erary Aramaic was based on a western dialect of the Palmyrene inscriptions, early Syriac inscrip- Aramaic which obviously was influenced by the tions and Aramaic inscriptions from eastern Meso- neighboring Northwest Semitic languages. Thus, potamia mainly discovered in Hatra and Asshur. Aramaic started to reduce its high number of pho- Aramaic is still spoken today. Western Aramaic nemes and also changed rapidly its verbal system is used in the dialects of Malu¯ la, Baxa und to the well known later one using the suffix conju- Gˇubbadı¯ n, three villages some 60 km northwest of gation for the past, the participle for the present, Damascus. Eastern Aramaic is still found in many and (finally) only one prefix conjugation for the fu- different dialects of non-Islamic groups from ture tense, as an extemporalis, or for modal express- south-eastern Turkey (esp. T u¯ ro¯ yo in the T u¯ r Ab- sions. dı¯ n), Iraq (beside others also Modern Mandaic) and After the decline of the Neo-Assyrian and the Iran. These modern dialects show a strong develop- Neo-Babylonian empires, the rising Persian Empire ment in contrast to the literary Aramaic dialects took over Aramaic as the official language used in still used in the religious literature of those groups.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Old Greek of Isaiah Septuagint and Cognate Studies
    The Old Greek Of IsaIah Septuagint and Cognate Studies Editor Wolfgang Kraus Editorial Board Robert Hiebert Karen H. Jobes Siegfried Kreuzer Arie van der Kooij Volume 61 The Old Greek Of IsaIah The Old Greek Of IsaIah an analysIs Of ITs Pluses and MInuses MIrjaM van der vOrM-CrOuGhs SBL Press Atlanta Copyright © 2014 by SBL Press All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by means of any information storage or retrieval system, except as may be expressly permitted by the 1976 Copyright Act or in writing from the publisher. Requests for permission should be addressed in writing to the Rights and Permissions Office, SBL Press, 825 Houston Mill Road, Atlanta, GA 30329, USA. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Van der Vorm-Croughs, Mirjam. The old Greek of Isaiah : an analysis of its pluses and minuses / Mirjam van der Vorm-Croughs. pages cm. — (Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and cognate stud- ies ; no. 61) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-58983-978-6 (paper binding : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-1-58983- 980-9 (electronic format) — ISBN 978-1-58983-979-3 (hardcover binding : alk. paper) 1. Bible. Isaiah. Greek—Versions—Septuagint. 2. Bible. Isaiah—Language, style. 3. Greek language, Biblical. 4. Hebrew language. I. Title. BS1514.G7S486 2014 224’.10486—dc23 2014010033 Printed on acid-free, recycled paper conforming to ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (R1997) and ISO 9706:1994 CONTENTS Preface ix Abbreviations xi CHAPTER 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Late Aramaic: the Literary and Linguistic Context of the Zohar’, Was Conducted in the Department of Hebrew and Jewish Studies at University College London
    As per the self-archiving policy of Brill Academic Publishers: the article below is the submitted version. The final version is published as ‘The Aramaic of the Zohar: The Status Quaestionis’, in L.O. Kahn (ed.), Jewish Languages in Historical Perspective (IJS Studies in Judaica; Leiden: Brill, 2018), pp. 9–38. The Aramaic of the Zohar: The Status Quaestionis1 Alinda Damsma Toward the end of the thirteenth century the Kabbalah in Spain reached its creative peak with the emergence of Sefer ha-Zohar, Judaism’s most important corpus of mystical texts.2 It is a 1 This is an extended version of the paper I presented at the ‘Jewish Languages’ conference at University College London (26–27 July 2016). I would like to thank the conference organisers, Dr Lily Kahn and Prof. Mark Geller, for their kind invitation as well as for the acceptance of my paper in this volume. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the conference ‘Zohar — East and West’ at Ben Gurion University, Beer Sheva, in conjunction with the Ben-Zvi Institute in Jerusalem (28–30 December 2015). It is a pleasure to thank my respective hosts and audiences. I am particularly indebted to Prof. Theodore Kwasman, Prof. Ronit Meroz, and Prof. Willem Smelik, for reading the draft of this paper and kindly offering their expertise. I bear sole responsibility, however, for any errors that this paper may contain. The Aramaic dialects referred to in this article are abbreviated as follows: JBA = Jewish Babylonian Aramaic. This dialect was used in Babylonia from about 200 CE until 900 CE (one of its sub-dialects is BTA= Babylonian Talmudic Aramaic, the main dialect employed in the Babylonian Talmud).
    [Show full text]
  • The Bible, Part 4
    The Doctrine of the Bible Hilo, Hawaii – June 2008 13 Part 4: Canonicity Canonicity refers to the character of a book that qualifies it for inclusion in the authoritative list of books comprising the Scriptures. Canon is derived from a Greek word meaning “rule” or “measurement” — a “straight rod” (see Ezekiel 42:16 for an example). Canon refers to the set of writings regarded as authentic and definitive for Scripture’s contents. Canonicity has the same basic meaning as the thought involved in talking about “the yardstick by which we determine what belongs in the Bible.” Determining the Canon of Scripture Nowhere in Scripture is there any suggestion that any standard outside of Scripture itself should be used to judge the canon. Deciding which books to include in the Bible should not be a human decision. No church or church council can create or validate the canon of Scripture — they merely give assent to it. The testimony of the Holy Spirit Himself is the only acceptable standard: . 1 Corinthians 2:4–11 – the Holy Spirit is the persuasive power behind the words of Scripture. 1 Thessalonians 1:5 – the Holy Spirit was the force behind the words of the apostles. Romans 8:15–16 – the Holy Spirit bears witness with (and to) our spirit with regard to the recognition of spiritual truth. Ephesians 2:20 – the testimony of the Spirit through His Word is superior to the testimony of the church because the church was established upon the foundation of the Word. The only true test of canonicity is the testimony of God the Holy Spirit to the authority of His own Word.” Gleason Archer, Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, updated and revised edition (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), 85 Ganonicity is determined by God.
    [Show full text]
  • Reading Biblical Aramaic
    TITLE: BS400 READING BIBLICAL ARAMAIC WORKLOAD: Duration: 4 Terms Teaching (1 hr p.w.): 26 hrs Language exercises and set reading: 30 hrs Text preparation: 40 hrs Examination preparation and writing: 24 hrs Total commitment: 120 hrs STATUS: Elective CO/PREREQUISITE(S): At least 60% in BS300 Hebrew 3, or at least 70% in BS200 Hebrew 2 if Hebrew 3 is taken concurrently. GENERAL AIM: This unit aims to build on students’ knowledge of Biblcal Hebrew by imparting a working knowledge of biblical Aramaic, enabling them to read all the passages in the Old Testament where Aramaic is employed. The unit focuses on building a comprehensive vocabulary of biblical Aramaic, understanding its grammar and syntax, and applying this knowledge to the translation of the relevant texts in Daniel and Ezra. The purpose of this unit is not only to enable students to work from the original language in all parts of the Old Testament, but also to lay a linguistic foundation for any subsequent study involving Aramaic texts. LEARNING OUTCOMES: At the end of this course students should be able to: • Recognise and distinguish biblical Aramaic from biblical Hebrew; • Translate all biblical Aramaic texts into good, accurate English; • Parse and reproduce regular forms of the biblical Aramaic verbal system; • Analyse and explain most grammatical and phrase-level syntactical constructions. CONTENT: Part 1: Biblical Aramaic Grammar • Introduction to biblical Aramaic: occurrences; name; relationship to Hebrew; vocalization and phonology • Aramaic Nouns, pronouns, and adjectives • Prepositions and conjunctions • The Aramaic verbal system & conjugations • Strong verbs • Weak verbs • Syntax • Numerals Part 2: Reading of set texts • Reading of Daniel 2 – 7 • Reading of Ezra 4 – 7 TEACHING AND Classroom teaching and tutorials; LEARNING METHODS: Private preparation of homework assignments, reviewed in class; Class tests and oral participation; Strong emphasis on peer learning and collaborative group work.
    [Show full text]
  • Ancient Scripts
    The Unicode® Standard Version 13.0 – Core Specification To learn about the latest version of the Unicode Standard, see http://www.unicode.org/versions/latest/. Many of the designations used by manufacturers and sellers to distinguish their products are claimed as trademarks. Where those designations appear in this book, and the publisher was aware of a trade- mark claim, the designations have been printed with initial capital letters or in all capitals. Unicode and the Unicode Logo are registered trademarks of Unicode, Inc., in the United States and other countries. The authors and publisher have taken care in the preparation of this specification, but make no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assume no responsibility for errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of the use of the information or programs contained herein. The Unicode Character Database and other files are provided as-is by Unicode, Inc. No claims are made as to fitness for any particular purpose. No warranties of any kind are expressed or implied. The recipient agrees to determine applicability of information provided. © 2020 Unicode, Inc. All rights reserved. This publication is protected by copyright, and permission must be obtained from the publisher prior to any prohibited reproduction. For information regarding permissions, inquire at http://www.unicode.org/reporting.html. For information about the Unicode terms of use, please see http://www.unicode.org/copyright.html. The Unicode Standard / the Unicode Consortium; edited by the Unicode Consortium. — Version 13.0. Includes index. ISBN 978-1-936213-26-9 (http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode13.0.0/) 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Studies in Semitic Vocalisation and Reading Traditions
    Cambridge Semitic Languages and Cultures Hornkohl and Khan (eds.) Studies in Semitic Vocalisation and Studies in Semitic Vocalisation Reading Traditions and Reading Traditions Aaron D. Hornkohl and Geoffrey Khan (eds.) EDITED BY AARON D. HORNKOHL AND GEOFFREY KHAN This volume brings together papers rela� ng to the pronuncia� on of Semi� c languages and the representa� on of their pronuncia� on in wri� en form. The papers focus on sources representa� ve of a period that stretches from late an� quity un� l the Middle Ages. A large propor� on of them concern reading tradi� ons of Biblical Hebrew, especially the vocalisa� on nota� on systems used to represent them. Also discussed are orthography and the wri� en representa� on of prosody. Beyond Biblical Hebrew, there are studies concerning Punic, Biblical Aramaic, Syriac, and Arabic, as well as post-biblical tradi� ons of Hebrew such as piyyuṭ and medieval Hebrew poetry. There were many parallels and interac� ons between these various language Studies in Semitic Vocalisation tradi� ons and the volume demonstrates that important insights can be gained from such a wide range of perspec� ves across diff erent historical periods. As with all Open Book publica� ons, this en� re book is available to read for free on the publisher’s website. Printed and digital edi� ons, together with supplementary digital material, can also be found here: www.openbookpublishers.com Cover image: Detail from a bilingual La� n-Punic inscrip� on at the theatre at Lepcis Magna, IRT 321 (accessed from h� ps://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Inscrip� on_Theatre_Lep� s_Magna_Libya.JPG).
    [Show full text]
  • New Perspectives on Aramic Epigraphy in Mesopotamia
    Orientalische Religionen in der Antike Ägypten, Israel, Alter Orient Oriental Religions in Antiquity Egypt, Israel, Ancient Near East (ORA) Herausgegeben von / Edited by Angelika Berlejung (Leipzig) Nils P. Heeßel (Marburg) Joachim Friedrich Quack (Heidelberg) Beirat / Advisory Board Uri Gabbay (Jerusalem) Michael Blömer (Aarhus) Christopher Rollston (Washington, D.C.) Rita Lucarelli (Berkeley) 40 New Perspectives on Aramaic Epigraphy in Mesopotamia, Qumran, Egypt, and Idumea Proceedings of the Joint RIAB Minerva Center and the Jeselsohn Epigraphic Center of Jewish History Conference Research on Israel and Aram in Biblical Times II Edited by Aren M. Maeir, Angelika Berlejung, Esther Eshel, and Takayoshi M. Oshima Mohr Siebeck AREN M. MAEIR is a full professor of archaeology at the Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel. ANGELIKA BERLEJUNG is a professor for Old Testament Studies at the University of Leipzig, Germany, and professor extraordinaire for Ancient Near Eastern Studies at the University of Stellenbosch, South Africa. ESTHER ESHEL is an associate professor of Bible and Epigraphy at the Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology and the Department of Bible, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel. TAKAYOSHI M. OSHIMA is a privatdozent at the Altorientalisches Institut, the Faculty of History, Art, and Area Stuides, of the University of Leipzig, Germany. ISBN 978-3-16-159894-4 / eISBN 978-3-16-159895-1 DOI 10.1628/978-3-16-159895-1 ISSN 1869-0513 / eISSN 2568-7492 (Orientalische Religionen in der Antike) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available at http://dnb.dnb.de.
    [Show full text]
  • Qumran Hebrew (With a Trial Cut [1Qs])*
    QUMRAN HEBREW (WITH A TRIAL CUT [1QS])* Gary A. Rendsburg Rutgers University One would think that after sixty years of studying the scrolls, scholars would have reached a consensus concerning the nature of the language of these texts. But such is not the case—the picture is no different for Qumran Hebrew (QH) than it is for identifying the sect of the Qum- ran community, for understanding the origins of the scroll depository in the caves, or for the classification of the archaeological remains at Qumran. At first glance, this is a bit difficult to comprehend, since in theory, at least, linguistic research should be the most objective form of scholarly inquiry, and the facts should speak for themselves—in contrast to, let’s say, the interpretation of texts, where subjectivity may be considered necessary at all times. But as we shall see, even though the data themselves are derived from purely empirical observation, the interpretation of the linguistic picture that emerges from the study of Qumran Hebrew has no less a range of options than the other subjects canvassed during this symposium. Before entering into such discussion, however, let us begin with the presentation of some basic facts. Of the 930 assorted documents from Qumran, 790, or about 85% of them are written in Hebrew (120 or about 13% are written in Aramaic, and 20 or about 2% are written in Greek). Of these 930, about 230 are biblical manuscripts, which * It was my pleasure to present this paper on three occasions during calendar year 2008: first and most importantly at the symposium entitled “The Dead Sea Scrolls at 60: The Scholarly Contributions of NYU Faculty and Alumni” (March 6), next at the “Semitic Philology Workshop” of Harvard University (November 20), and finally at the panel on “New Directions in Dead Sea Scrolls Scholarship” at the annual meeting of the Association of Jewish Studies held in Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Hebrew Language
    A HISTOI'{Y OF TFIE HEBREW LANGUAGE ANGEL SAENZ-BADILLOS Translated by IOHN ELWOLDE Department of BtuIical Sludies' Uniaer s i t y of Shellizl d CavrnRrDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS Acknozaledgements progressed and prepared a prelirninary version of the Index, and Chapter F{EBREW {I{ T E CCb{TEXT OF THE SEMITIC I-ANGT-TAGES '1.1 ASB Flehrezu, a Semitic language Madrid F{ebrew is a Semitic dialect or tranguage which developed in the northvsestern part of the Near East between the River jordan and the Mediterranean Sea during the latter half of tl'te second milienniurn tsCE. The country cornprising this area was known as Canaan, a nan'ne that is aiso associated witl'l the language in its earLiest written sources: Jllp nDq 6"p^! kena'an) 'the language of Canaan' (Xs 19:18). Eisewhere, the language is called n'Tln1 (ye-lru{i!) 'judaean, Judahite' (2Kn8:26,28, etc.). In the Hellenistic period, writers refer to it by the Greek terwv Hebraios, Hebrar'sti (Josephus, Antiquities tr, 1:2 etc.),1 and under the Rornan Ernpire it was known as fillJJ ('ibrr!) 'F{ebrew' or (f"l)'lJ$ litU! (la6on 'ibri[!l) 'Hebrew language' (Mishnah, Gittin 9:8, etc.), terms that recalled Eber (Gn 77:14), ancestor of the people that would become known,like Abraharn (Gn 74:73), by the narne'Flebrew'.2 Frorn a cultural perspective, this language was to ptray an extremely important r6le, not only in the history of the peoptre rvkro spoke it, but also wifhin Western culture in general. It was fo be 1 .l) How"u"r, C.H.
    [Show full text]
  • From Persepolis to Jerusalem: a Reevaluation of Old Persian-Hebrew Contact in the Achaemenid Period
    Vetus Testamentum 65 (�0�5) �5�-�67 Vetus Testamentum brill.com/vt From Persepolis to Jerusalem: A Reevaluation of Old Persian-Hebrew Contact in the Achaemenid Period Aren Wilson-Wright University of Texas at Austin Waggener 14a, 2210 Speedway C3400, Austin, TX 78712 512-417-4606 [email protected] Abstract This paper examines the effects and mechanisms of Old Persian contact on Biblical Hebrew. I first reevaluate the number and distribution of Old Persian loanwords in the Hebrew Bible. Then I demonstrate that there was direct contact between speak- ers of Old Persian and speakers of Hebrew in the Achaemenid period beginning under Artaxerxes I, before proposing the existence of two Old Persian calques in Biblical Hebrew. The distribution of these Old Persian loanwords and calques strengthens the case for distinguishing between Late Biblical Hebrew and Classical Biblical Hebrew on linguistic grounds. With one exception, these features cluster in well-known Late Biblical Hebrew texts. Keywords late Biblical Hebrew – language contact – linguistic dating – Persian period The administration of the Persian Empire (529-333 b.c.e.) was a multilingual affair. Members of the Achaemenid Court centered in Southeastern Iran and * An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew session at the 2011 Society of Biblical Literature annual meeting in San Francisco. My thanks go to the members of the audience for their comments and critiques. I would also like to thank Naʾama Pat-El, Noam Mizrahi, Saralyn McKinnon-Crowley, and Yuhan S. D. Vevaina for commenting on an earlier draft of this paper and John Makujina for providing me with a copy of his dis- sertation.
    [Show full text]
  • Languages and Scripts in Graeco-Bactria and The
    ISBN 978-92-3-102846-5 Old Persian, Imperial Aramaic,. 16 LANGUAGES AND SCRIPTS IN GRAECO-BACTRIA AND THE SAKA KINGDOMS* J. Harmatta Contents Old Persian, Imperial Aramaic, Old Bactrian ...................... 386 The survival of Aramaic ................................ 390 The language of ancient Bactria ............................ 391 Greek language and script in Central Asia ....................... 394 The language of the Southern Sakas .......................... 398 Old Persian, Imperial Aramaic, Old Bactrian Script and writing appeared in eastern Iran long before the Yüeh-chih conquest of Bactria. Under Darius I, Old Persian administration and chancellery practice had probably been introduced into the eastern Achaemenid satrapies. This involved the use of the Old Per- sian language and cuneiform script, and the adoption of the Aramaic language and script as intermediary instruments of communication between administrative centres. The royal weight inscribed with an Old Persian cuneiform text from Bost (modern Qal‘a-i˘ Bist in Afghanistan) shows this development, even though it was prepared at the royal court in western Iran; and the borrowing by the Prakrit languages of such important terms as Old Persian dipi- (document), nipis- (to write) and nipistam. (inscription) clearly proves the use of Old Persian in the Indus territories belonging to the Achaemenid Empire at that time. * See Map 3. 386 ISBN 978-92-3-102846-5 Old Persian, Imperial Aramaic,. The introduction and use of Aramaic chancellery practice was, however, of much greater importance for the spread of literacy in the Middle East. Although not a single Aramaic document from the Achaemenid period has so far come to light in eastern Iran, indirect evi- dence exists.
    [Show full text]
  • 301 Holger Gzella and Margaretha L. Folmer, Eds., Aramaic in Its Histori- Cal and Linguistic Setting, Akademie Der Wissenschafte
    BOOK REVIEWS Holger Gzella and Margaretha L. Folmer, eds., Aramaic in its Histori- cal and Linguistic Setting, Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur. Mainz. Veröffentlichungen der Orientalischen Kommission. Band 50 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2008) Pp. vii + 388. Hardback. AARON MICHAEL BUTTS UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, CHICAGO, IL 60615, USA In the last several years, volumes dealing with the historical and linguistic contexts of both Akkadian and Hebrew have appeared.1 Thanks to the book under review, the Aramaicist can now boast of a similarly conceived collection of studies devoted to the historical and linguistic setting of Aramaic. This volume contains most of the papers that were presented at the conference Aramaic in its Historical and Linguistic Setting in Oegstgeest (near Leiden), August 24-27, 2006. It includes 20 contributions, the authors and titles of which are: Otto Jastrow, “Old Aramaic and Neo-Aramaic: Some Reflec- tions on Language History” (1-10); Agustinus Gianto, “Lost and Found in the Grammar of First-Millennium Aramaic” (11-25); Ed- ward Lipiński, “Aramaic Broken Plurals in the Wider Semitic Con- text” (27-40); Steven E. Fassberg, “The Forms of ‘Son’ and ‘Daughter’ in Aramaic” (41-53); Na’ama Pat-El, “Historical Syntax of Aramaic: A Note on Subordination” (55-76); André Lemaire, “Remarks on the Aramaic of Upper Mesopotamia in the Seventh Century B.C.” (77-92); Jan Joosten, “The Septuagint as a Source of Information on Egyptian Aramaic in the Hellenistic Period” (93- 105); Holger Gzella, “Aramaic in the Parthian Period: The Arsacid Inscriptions” (107-130); Margaretha L. Folmer, “The Use and Form of the nota objecti in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic Inscriptions” (131-158); Abraham Tal, “The Role of Targum Onqelos in Literary Activity During the Middle Ages” (159-171); W.
    [Show full text]