Printer Friendly

The Aramaic of Qumran.

The recent publication of A Grammar of Qumran Aramaic by T. Muraoka
provides a much-needed analysis of this important corpus of Aramaic
texts. The grammar treats not only the corpus of texts found near Wadi
Qumran, collectively known as the Dead Sea Scrolls, but also texts from
neighboring regions along the Dead Sea, including Wadi Murabba'at and
Nahal Hever. (Collectively, these texts represent some of the most
important sources of information about Aramaic from this period of
time.) The book is thorough and well written and represents the first
in-depth grammar of these texts; it goes well beyond the only other
existing grammar, that of Ursula Schattner-Rieser, L'arameen des
manuscrits de la mer Morte: I. Grammaire. Muraoka's grammar lists
copious textual citations that give a reader the sense that that the
observations are backed up by solid data. All the same, it does not
attempt to state more than the evidence can allow. The thoroughness of
the treatment allows one to compare afresh some points of contact
between the grammar of these texts and that of the Hebrew scrolls.
Despite the usefulness of this grammar and the nuance with which it is
realized, the grammar does contain some points of confusion and
inconsistency, some of which are outlined below.


Muraoka here provides an in-depth grammar of the Aramaic attested in the texts found around Wadi Qumran, as well as in neighboring areas close to the Dead Sea (e.g., documents from around Wadi Murabba'at and Nahal Hever). This corpus is widened slightly by the judicious use of the Aramaic Levi Document as attested in Genizah manuscripts (p. xxv n. 2). All who study Aramaic and who are interested in the Dead Sea Scrolls will appreciate Muraoka's careful and insightful study of this dialect of the language, which study complements his work on other dialects of Aramaic, like that of Egypt from the Persian empire (written with B. Porten, A Grammar of Egyptian Aramaic [Leiden: Brill, 1998]).

The book is laid out like other grammars, with sections covering phonology, morphology, and syntax. It is subdivided into smaller sections dealing with the predictable matters of, e.g., pronunciation of consonants, the shifts and changes of particular phonemes, vowels, etc. Each linguistic phenomenon is clearly titled and addressed in separate paragraphs that bear numeral and letter labels (e.g., "[section]3c"). The grammar is clearly distinct from its predecessor by Ursula Schattner-Rieser, L'arameen des manuscrits de la mer Morte: I. Grammaire (Prahins: Zebre, 2004), in its fine-grained argumentation of specific grammatical matters and in the number of examples cited in illustration of particular phenomena.

The greater depth and detail of Muraoka's text can be gauged, even if only in a superficial way, by a comparison of each book's length. Schattner-Rieser's grammar, which measures 16.5 cm x 24 cm, has 117 pages of description (exclusive of front and back matter), while Muraoka's grammar, which measures 21.5 cm x 30 cm, has 263 pages of description. (This is not to say, however, that Schattner-Rieser's grammar is no longer worthy of study; it too contains arguments and reflections worthy of consideration, like her opinions on the dissimilation of gutturals [pp. 45-46], as well as more basic components lacking in Muraoka's book, like a set of paradigms collected in an appendix.) In particular, readers will appreciate Muraoka's detailed description of Aramaic syntax, a description which is thorough and wide-ranging, extending well beyond the simple consideration of word order or particular features like the [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] construction.

The following remarks are in no way meant to slight Muraoka's achievement, nor are they intended to suggest that I am anything but overjoyed at the grammar's publication.

The grammar does not address orthography in a single section. Although this is consistent with the presentation of other languages where the phonology is largely understood through the orthography (thus allowing any relevant matters of orthography to be taken up in discussion of phonology), the absence of a section at least mentioning scripts and common scribal errors leaves a naive reader uninformed about the nature of the scripts themselves and leaves such a reader unable to evaluate for him- or herself the plausibility of certain mistakes. For example, one might assume, based in part on the uniform manner of transliteration as well as the common treatment of the texts, that the manuscripts were all written in the same Aramaic block script in a relatively pristine fashion. But this is not the case. The documents from Nahal Hever, for example, are written in a script that is markedly distinct from that of the Dead Sea Scrolls, like the Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20). This is important inasmuch as the differences might make certain visual confusions of letters more likely in one text and less likely in another, which, in turn, might make certain explanations of spellings as scribal errors seem more (or less) convincing.

Similarly, a presentation of orthography and scribal lapses might also help demonstrate the likelihood of certain readings over and against others, as well as to help explain why certain words are better illustrations of certain phenomena than others. For example, one is left to wonder how many times a word-medial /i/ is written defectively without yodh. This might have a bearing on Muraoka's suggestion to read [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] in 1Q20 II, 9 as a passive participle plus a lamedh preposition "remember" (p. 172). In addition, in the paragraph titled "Weakening or elision of gutturals" ([section]3k, p. 13), Muraoka does not list the word [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] corrected to [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] "they forgave" (4Q547 3, 5) as an example implying the weakness of the heth phoneme. The reason the word is left out is unclear. It could be that it is due to the fact that this initial misspelling could be explained not as an example of heth's weakness, but rather as an example of haplography, something occasioned by the similarity in shape between heh and heth (a similarity noted not only for medieval Masoretic manuscripts [see, e.g., [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] in Isa. 11:1 for [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] etc.], but also for some Dead Sea texts [see [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] or [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] in 4Q416 2 iv, 10 and [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] or [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] in the Vision of Gabriel text, line 64]). (1)

Consideration of scribal mistakes as a distinct topic within the context of a grammar may also point to alternative explanations for certain spellings other than phonetic shifts. Muraoka writes that the spelling [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] "wood" (usually spelled in Qumran Aramaic as [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) in 4Q211 1 i, 3 is a case where the second 'ayin has dissimilated to aleph and is to be connected with the weakening of the pronunciation of 'ayin (p. 12). While this may be the case, such dissimilation is unlike the dissimilation in the same word found in the Genesis Apocryphon, where it is the initial 'ayin (not the second one) that shifts to aleph [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] in 1Q20 XIV, 11, something also found throughout later Targumic Aramaic (SN). The writing [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] may, in fact, be due not to dissimilation, but rather to dittography ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] "grass of the land and the wood"), if not to the syncope of /'/ preceded by a consonant + muttered vowel (see p. 17; i.e., [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]). (2)

Although the grammar considers texts of diverse registers and time periods (e.g., literary Aramaic from the second century B.C.E. to documents from 120 C.E.), it does not concisely represent the salient distinctions between smaller sub-groupings. In particular, it would have been interesting and helpful to have a short list identifying the main ways that the Aramaic from Wadi Murabba'at and Nahal Hever differs from the Aramaic of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Muraoka does comment here and there where the documents outside the Qumran corpus exhibit particular idiosyncracies (e.g., p. 201), but a list of these features would have thrown into relief the discrepancies between the different corpora.

Muraoka notes that spirantization was already a reality in Qumran Aramaic (p. 13). He cites as evidence of this the LXX translation of [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] "I was informed" (4Q196 2, 1) as "I hid myself," which implies [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]. Possibly another example evidencing spirantization is the mistake of [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] corrected to [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] "and not" (4Q542 1 i, 9). (3)

Muraoka notes that the lack of spelling mistakes involving heth and kaph (in any text among those he studied) suggests the phoneme represented by heth, /h/ (= IPA h), was distinct from the sound of spirantized kaph, what Muraoka indicates as /h/ (p. 13). There are two points to bring up in relation to this description. First, on theoretical grounds, it might have been the case that the phoneme /h/ and spirantized kaph represented different, but related sounds. For example, Khan suggests that spirantized kaph in Tiberian Hebrew represented an unvoiced uvular fricative (IPA [chi square]), while Semitic /h/ is usually assumed to be a velar fricative (IPA x). (4)

Second, there is, in fact, a possible example of a misspelling involving heth and kaph in the Aramaic scrolls: [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] for [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] "one lacking" (4Q540 1, 3). (5) Such confusion finds a parallel among the Hebrew scrolls, where one sees heth written for kaph and vice versa in at least two places: [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] corrected to [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] "they will eat" (4Q514 1 i, 6); [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] corrected to [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] "the sand" (4Q225 2 i, 6). (6) Such misspellings not only suggest that the two letters were articulated in a similar manner (toward the back of the mouth), but also that heth (at least in the mouths of some speakers) had not weakened to the degree that some summaries of Dead Sea scroll languages seem to imply. If the two letters were pronounced similarly by the people writing the Nahal Hever texts, then perhaps the absence of heth at the end of [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (NH 54.6) (for [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) is due to the scribe hearing the heth as a spirantized kaph.

In his treatment of the weakening of gutturals, Muraoka offers a subtle evaluation, suggesting that an alternation in the marking of the causative stem prefix ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) does not necessarily prove that there was no distinction between the pronunciation of the two letters (p. 14). I believe something similar can be argued for Hebrew.

In his presentation on the word-final digraph [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], Muraoka notes that this orthography is like that found frequently among the Hebrew scrolls (p. 25). In proposing an origin for this orthography, he posits an extension in the application of aleph that normally marks the determined state in nouns like [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] "the king" as well as the quiescence of aleph in III-aleph verbs together with the merging of the paradigms of III-waw/yodh and III-aleph verbs. If this or similar digraphs emerged due to these reasons (and not by analogy to certain words, as proposed for the analogous Hebrew spellings), then this is another example of how Aramaic orthographic practice has influenced Hebrew, since these same phenomena (the aleph to mark the determined state and confusion of III-waw/yodh and III-aleph verbs) are not found in Hebrew.

Muraoka writes that certain anomalous spellings with a waw mater imply that the historical short /u/ vowel had not yet fully elided in Qumran Aramaic. He cites forms like [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] "they will be able" (1Q20 XX, 19); [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] "they will let fall" (4Q541 1 ii, 2); [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] "they will dwell" (4Q542 1 ii, 3), which others label as "alleged pausai forms" since they retain the theme vowel as do pausai forms, but they do not occur where we would expect pause to occur.

Similar forms, of course, occur more frequently in the Hebrew scrolls and scholars have offered various explanations for them over time. Muraoka does not engage in an exploration of other possible causes for the waw/yodh mater, other than as an indication of the preserved etymological short vowel, nor does he specify here how he thinks the various forms were pronounced. One wonders, for example, if the waw or yodh maters in these and other forms represent something like a hateph vowel in the Masoretic system, e.g., yikk[??]lun. Muraoka does not elaborate in this section ([section]9, pp. 31-32), but his proposed pronunciation of a similar form, [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] "do (not) neglect it" (4Q541 24 ii, 4) "/timh[??]lehi/" (p. 22), implies that he views these other forms as preserving only a vestige of the historical vowel. (7) This might suggest that the Aramaic forms represent a half-way point in the natural process of short vowel elision. While this seems to explain well the Aramaic evidence, as well as most of the Hebrew evidence, it does not explain all peculiarities. (8)

Muraoka implies that it seems unlikely to him that the perfect, imperfect, and participle could all function as performatives (p. 169 n. 37). His description in other places (pp. 168, 174) seems to suggest that he views only the active participle and perfect as capable of expressing the performative. One wonders why the imperfect is excluded (due to its indication of future events?).

Some observations of a more mundane nature are collected below. The bibliographic references are sometimes inaccurate. The introduction (p. xxviii) mentions "Morgenstern et al. (1996)," though no title matches this in the bibliography; the same item seems to be referred to elsewhere as "Morgenstern et al. (1995)" (p. 16 n. 113). Also on page xxviii, reference is made to "Machiela (2009)" (which is the correct date), though the bibliography lists this as published in 2010.

Muraoka's descriptions of phonology are sometimes confusing. He writes of the shift of the etymological interdental /d/ > /d/ as appearing to be "nearly complete" (p. 4), though his evidence and argument suggest that it was entirely complete. As Muraoka explains, the examples of historical /d/ spelled with zayin instead of daleth are "confined to high-frequency function words" (p. 4) and thus are explainable as due to archaic spelling. It seems, therefore, that what is incomplete is not the phonetic shift, but rather the shift in how the historical /d/ phoneme was represented orthographically (zayin to daleth).

His discussion of the spelling of words that once contained the lateral fricative phoneme (/s/) also seems at first blush confusing. The lateral fricative sound had apparently merged with that of [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (/s/) earlier than the copying of most of the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is thus the case that, as in Hebrew (of the Masoretic text and the scrolls), words that once contained a lateral fricative are sometimes spelled with samekh instead of the sin/shin symbol. All of this Muraoka seems to agree with. However, in the midst of his explanation, he states: "In other words, no phonetic distinction is intended between <[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]> and <[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]> ... The merge between the two phonemes probably took longer than the shift of d to d" (p. 4). Which two phonemes are merging? I infer from context that he means the shift /sI > /s/, not /s/ > /s/. The statement regarding "<[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]> and <[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]>" is confusing since the value of the symbol [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] for the Masoretes (as well as for most contemporary students of the language) was /s/. Presumably Muraoka means to imply that the lateral fricative sound had been lost from Aramaic and that whenever someone wrote [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] in the Aramaic scrolls, he or she was intending either a historical spelling of /s/, though the pronunciation had long since shifted to /s/, or the historical and phonetic representation of /s/. This point of confusion is not only a nit-picking detail. As Muraoka mentions on the following page, Kutscher suggested a merger of /s/ and /s/ in some Aramaic dialects and this is something that Qimron picks up on in his discussion of Hebrew phonology. (9)

Another case of confusion emerges in the discussion of vowels; he notes the form [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] "do (not) neglect it" from 4Q541 24 ii, 4 (mentioned above) and suggests that this is evidence of "a stressed full vowel [that] appears to be somewhat shortened when the stress moves forward as a consequence of a new element added at the end of a word" (p. 22). But the form by itself reveals no such shortening; the mater for the historical /u/ theme vowel is simply a waw. It could conceivably reflect a scribal error (the scribe initially and absent-mindedly writing the default imperfect form and then simply attaching the suffix), or a different accentuation, or simply retention of the full vowel. The significance of the form is realized especially in comparison with other forms that lack a mater in the same corresponding slot (of which there are many).

In the description of the contraction of diphthongs, the first paragraph states that contraction of /ay/ and /aw/ was "universal," appearing "irrespective of their position within a word" (p. 30). This makes it sound like all the diphthongs reduced. However, this may not be right. Muraoka suggests, instead, that diphthongs perhaps reduced only in unaccented syllables (p. 31).

Some sentences are hard to make sense of due to missing words: "In Fekheriyan [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] never assimilates /L/ nor /N/ assimilate, though attested only once before a guttural but in Syr this verb, [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] 'descend,' does not show assimilation" (p. 7).

Sometimes different explanations are offered in different parts of the book. The assimilation of the nun in the preposition [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] is found occasionally among the texts studied. Muraoka implies this is due to Hebrew influence on page 7, note 42, but on page 33 writes that the same phenomenon "can be adequately accounted for in terms of sandhi." While it might be the case that both explanations are applicable, the disparity in explanation in two separate parts of the book (without cross references) leaves the reader wondering what the author truly thinks is the genesis of the phenomenon, and if the latter explanation only pertains to certain forms and/or environments. A similar case is provided by Muraoka's description of [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] "straight" (4Q197 4 iii, 2) as a feminine form of the adjective used as an adverb (p. 163); why could this not be a case of the masculine adjective used as an adverb with word-final -a, as seems to be Muraoka's understanding of [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] "slightly" (p. 92)?

In some cases, Muraoka's translation in one part of the grammar is inconsistent with the translation in another part. He notes (p. 163) that [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] implies possessions in 1Q20 XXII, 11 and translates "their goods," though the same word preceded by the noun [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] ("flocks") in 1Q20 XXI, 3 is translated as "good things" (p. 157).

In assessing the approach to language used in this grammar, one cannot help but compare it to the approach assumed in the best-known grammar of Qumran Hebrew, namely Elisha Qimron's The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Whereas that book often assumes that the idiosyncracies of the written language reflect a common vernacular spoken by the individuals who wrote them, Muraoka accurately points to the disparity between written and spoken registers of a language. He helpfully writes, for example, "One need bear in mind that writing as one speaks is a very modern practice ... a written idiom often changes without... interference of its spoken variety" (p. xxvii).

Moreover, he notes that factors like idiolect and genre expectations may play a role in influencing the idiosyncracies of a written language (p. xxviii). Unlike Qimron, who often construes a single misspelling of a word as evidence that all other regular spellings were pronounced in a manner reflective of the misspelling (e.g., the single spelling [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] for "Sheol" implies the name was pronounced with a prothetic aleph in its fifty odd other occurrences where it is spelled [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] [Hebrew, 39]), Muraoka tends to assume that different spellings reflect different pronunciations. For example, Muraoka notes that prothetic aleph occurs "optionally with an initial consonant cluster" (p. 21), and, in relation to the marking of word-final vowels with maters, he notes that the presence of a mater reflects a final vowel and the absence of a mater reflects the lack of a vowel (p. 43).

Another characteristic difference between the two works is Muraoka's reticence to formulate universal rules of phonology or morphology. The presentation for certain phenomena reflects uncertainty, something entirely appropriate and welcome in a description of a dead language like Qumran Aramaic. For example, in describing the syncope of aleph, Muraoka notes that this process "was evident very early on in the history of Aramaic" (p. 16). After listing some examples from Qumran Aramaic where this does seem to be reflected in the orthography (by the elision of aleph), he notes several frequently occurring words where the aleph (as a graphic letter) is preserved, one of which occurs over thirty times (i.e., [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]). He does not say explicitly whether he thinks these are cases of historical spellings or cases where the aleph was actually pronounced as a glottal stop.

His apparent ambivalence is expressed more explicitly in his discussion of the word [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] "hundred"; he cites the later Targumic form, where the orthography presumes pronunciation of aleph as a glottal stop (e.g., [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] "100"), and the Syriac form, where it does not (ma). In other cases, he notes that the preservation of aleph (e.g., in the infinitives of derived conjugations before the preposition lamedh) reflects the fact that these alephs "must have been pronounced, no mere etymological or historical spelling" (p. 104). Contrast this with Qimron's statement that "it is doubtful whether intervocalic alef was pronounced at all in DSS Hebrew" (Hebrew, 31).

Reading through the grammar and considering it in relation to the Hebrew of the scrolls, I was struck by the numerous parallels to features one finds in the Hebrew text to 1QIsa (a), but only very rarely among the other Hebrew scrolls. Note, e.g., the use of aleph as an internal mater [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] "Miryam" in 4Q549 2, 8 vs. [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] "their fruit" in [1QIsa.sup.a] at Isa. 65:21; the 3fs pronominal suffix [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] "in her" in 1Q20 XX, 17 vs. [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] "in it" in [1QIsa.sup.a] at Isa. 34:10, 11; 62:4; 66:10; an /o/ or /u/ theme vowel where earlier Hebrew and/or Aramaic suggests /a/, as in [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] "do (not) approach" in 4Q541 24 ii, 5 vs. [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] "I will do" in [1QIsa.sup.a] at Isa. 43:13. These similarities highlight the Aramaic qualities of the Hebrew work, which might otherwise be ignored; it also underlines the mixed linguistic heritage of some Hebrew writers, which heritage also seems to influence the writers of some Aramaic texts among the scrolls (e.g., the assimilation of the nun of [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] [p. 7 n. 42], the long spelling of the 2ms pronoun [p. 42], and other phenomena). (10)

ERIC REYMOND

YALE UNIVERSITY

Review article of A Grammar of Qumran Aramaic, by T. MURAOKA. Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplements, vol. 38. Leuven: PEETERS, 2011. Pp. xlv + 285. [euro]70.

(1.) Muraoka also does not cite the possible example of [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] for [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (NH 54.6), which has another potential explanation other than the weakness of heth, as suggested below. The Masoretic references also include [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] in Prov. 20:21 for [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] in Dan. 9:24 for [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]; perhaps also [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] in Ps. 90:10 for [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]; these are mostly drawn from Friedrich Delitzsch, Die Lese- und Schreibfehler im Alten Testament (Berlin/Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter, 1920), 109, and Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (3rd revised ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 231. For the words in the scrolls, see John Strugnell and Daniel J. Harrington, Qumran Cave 4.XXIV: Sapiential Texts, Part 2, 4QInstruction (Musar Le Mevin), 4Q415 ff. (DJD 34; Oxford: Clarendon, 1999), 124-25, and Moshe Bar-Asher, "On the Language of 'The Vision of Gabriel,'" RevQ 23 (2008): 500 n. 55. I have addressed the apparent weakening of gutturals in the Hebrew of the scrolls in some depth in my recent publication, Qumran Hebrew: An Overview of Orthography, Phonology, Morphology (Atlanta: SBL, 2014), 71-114.

(2.) The explanation of [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] as due to a scribal slip means that it does not provide a counter-example to Schattner-Rieser's suggestion that where one sees the apparent dissimilation from /'/ to /'/ the 'ayin that shifts to aleph is always in the environment where a following 'ayin derives from the historical emphatic interdental, i.e., /[theta]/; thus, [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (see L'arameen, 45-46).

(3.) See Emile Puech, Qumran Grotte 4: XXII, Textes Arameens Premiere Partie, 4Q529-549 (DJD 31; Oxford: Clarendon, 2001), 275, who notes alternative explanations. E.g., the mistake is possibly the result of dittography (the preceding and following words begin with beth). Fitzmyer ("Tobit," in Qumran Cave 4.XIV: Para-Biblical Texts, Part 2 [ed. M. Broshi et al.; DJD 19; Oxford: Clarendon, 1998], 10) and Allegro (Qumran Cave 4.1 (4Q158-186) [DJD 5; Oxford: Clarendon, 1968], 41, 49) posit similar possibilities in the Hebrew scrolls: [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] "(in?) their body" in 4Q169 3-4 ii, 4 quoting Nah. 3:3, which has in the MT [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]; and [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] corrected to [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] "in his being judged" in 4Q171 3-10 iv, 7.

(4.) Geoffrey Khan, "The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew," ZAH 9 (1996): 8.

(5.) Puech prefers the possibility of understanding this as "like one lacking," reading [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] for an intended [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (DJD 31, 221). Nevertheless, understanding this word without a preposition seems simpler, especially given the parallel Hebrew misspellings noted above.

(6.) Note also [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] corrected to [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] "your pleasing sacrifice-odor" in 4Q270 7 i, 18. See my Qumran Hebrew for more on this.

(7.) Muraoka's translation for the verb, "do not weaken it (?)," follows from Puech's "ne le repousse/l'affaiblis pas" (DJD 25, 254). The translation of the verb above follows that found in Edward M. Cook, "4Q541, Fragment 24 Reconsidered," in Puzzling Out the Past: Studies in Northwest Semitic Languages and Literatures in Honor of Bruce Zuckerman, ed. Marilyn J. Lundberg et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 15-16.

(8.) If one entertains the possibility of a connection between the respective Aramaic and Hebrew forms, then the explanation that the process of short vowel elision was not complete is not entirely satisfactory. In the Hebrew scrolls one finds certain verbs that attest theme vowels characteristic of Masoretic pausai forms, but different in quality from the theme vowel of the same verbs in context. For example, in the Masoretic text, Hebrew [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] "to delight in" takes an /o/ theme vowel in contextual forms, but an /a/ theme vowel in pause; in the Hebrew scrolls, one sees only forms without a waw mater, implying an /a/ theme vowel; the opposite pattern holds for the verb [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] "to act treacherously," which occurs in the scrolls always with a waw mater. For more on this, see my Qumran Hebrew, 135-37.

(9.) Elisha Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 29-30.

(10.) Notice that the three features mentioned above as similarities between the Aramaic of the scrolls and [1QIsa.sup.a] are not mentioned by Martin Abegg in his brief list of features shared between the Hebrew scroll and Aramaic in general (see "Linguistic Profile of the Isaiah Scrolls," in Qumran Cave 1, II: The Isaiah Scrolls, Part 2: Introductions, Commentary, and Textual Variants, ed. Eugene Ulrich and Peter W. Flint [DJD 32; Oxford: Clarendon, 2010], 41).
COPYRIGHT 2017 American Oriental Society
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2017 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Reymond, Eric
Publication:The Journal of the American Oriental Society
Article Type:Critical essay
Date:Jan 1, 2017
Words:4842
Previous Article:Some shang antecedents of later Chinese ideology and culture.
Next Article:Reading Medieval Chinese Poetry: Text, Context, and Culture.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters