Studies in Biblical Philology and Lexicography 9781463240363

Citation preview

Studies in Biblical Philology and Lexicography

Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages

 Editorial Board James K. Aitken Daniel King Michael P. Theophilos Wido van Peursen

3HUVSHFWLYHV RQ /LQJXLVWLFV DQG $QFLHQW /DQJXDJHV (PLAL) contains peer-reviewed essays, monographs, and reference works. It focuses on the theory and practice of ancientlanguage research and lexicography that is informed by modern linguistics.

Studies in Biblical Philology and Lexicography

Edited by

Daniel King

gp 2019

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2019 by Gorgias Press LLC All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC.

‫ܕ‬

1

2019

ISBN 978-1-4632-4035-6

ISSN 2165-2600

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A Cataloging-in-Publication Record is available from the Library of Congress. Printed in the United States of America

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ................................................................................................................... v Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................ vii Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 DANIEL KING The History, Aims, Ethos, and Research of the International Syriac Language Project (ISLP) ................................................................................................................. 5 TERRY FALLA AND BERYL TURNER The Elusive ‘Again’: Hebrew Two-Verb Constructions and the Particle ʿŌḏ in Greek and Aramaic Rendition ................................................................................... 89 MATS ESKHULT Shedding Light on the Introduction to Daniel’s Vision in Chapter 7 (Dan 7:1b–2a) ....................................................................................................................... 101 ANNE E. GARDNER Development Units in Ruth .............................................................................................. 119 STEPHEN H. LEVINSOHN The Word that was from the Beginning: Syriac Etymology in a Digital Age ........... 131 DAVID CALABRO The Syriac Reading Dot in Transmission: Consistency and Confusion .................... 159 JONATHAN LOOPSTRA The “Translation Enterprise”: Translation Universals in the Peshitta Rendering of Kings .................................................................................................... 177 JANET DYK Aphrahat’s Use of Ezekiel and its Value for the Textual Criticism of the Peshitta ........................................................................................................................ 191 JEROME A. LUND Constructing a foundation for the study of the Old Testament quotations in the Old Syriac Gospels .............................................................................................. 213 GODWIN MUSHAYABASA When hapax legomena in the New Testament are exegetically important ................ 233 LAURENŢIU FLORENTIN MOŢ Index ..................................................................................................................................... 255 v

ABBREVIATIONS BAG

William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. A translation and adaptation of Walter Bauer’s Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957.

BAGD

William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. A translation and adaptation of the fourth revised and augmented edition of Walter Bauer’s GriechischDeutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur. 2nd ed. rev. and augmented by F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker from Walter Bauer’s fifth edition, 1958. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.

BASOR

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research

BDAG

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd edition. Revised and edited by Frederick William Danker, based on Walter Bauer’s Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur, 6th edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

BDB

Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. The Brown-DriverBriggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1959.

BLex

Brockelmann, Carl. Lexicon Syriacum. Edinburgh, 1895. 2nd ed. Halle, 1928. Repr. Hildesheim, Zurich, New York: Georg Olms, 1982.

BSLex

Sokoloff, Michael. A Syriac Lexicon: A Translation from the Latin, Correction, Expansion, and Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum. Winona Lake and Piscataway: Eisenbrauns and Gorgias Press, 2009.

CBQ

Catholic Biblical Quarterly

CGEL

Danker, The Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. University of Chicago Press, 2009.

CSD

J. Payne Smith. A Compendious Syriac Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1902. vii

viii

STUDIES IN BIBLICAL PHILOLOGY AND LEXICOGRAPHY

DGENT

Diccionario Griego-Español del Nuevo Testamento

DCH

David J. A. Clines. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. 8 vols. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993–2011.

DJD

Discoveries in the Judean Desert

ETL

Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses

HAL

William L. Holladay. A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Based on the First, Second, and Third Editions of the KoehlerBaumgartner Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971.

HALAT

Walter Baumgartner. Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament. 5 vols. and supplement. Leiden: Brill, 1967–1996.

HALOT

Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994.

HSED

Vladimir E. Orel and Olga V. Stolbova. Hamito-Semitic Etymological Dictionary: Materials for a Reconstruction. Leiden: Brill, 1994.

IGL

Intermediate Ancient Greek-English Lexicon

INTF

Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung

IOSOT

International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament

ISLP

International Syriac Language Project

JAOS

Journal of the American Oriental Society

JSNT

Journal for the Study of the New Testament

JPAram

Jewish Palestinian Aramaic

KAHAL

Kurze Ausgabe Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexikon

KB

The Koehler-Baumgartner family of lexica

KBL

Koehler-Baumgartner Lexicon

KG

Key to the Peshitta Gospels

LS

Liddell & Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon

MPI

Monographs of the Peshitta Institute

PLAL

Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages

PoSL

Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics

SDBH

De Blois, ed., Semantic Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew. Online at www.sdbh.org

SED

Alexander Militarev and Leonid Kogan. Semitic Etymological Dictionary, Volume 1: Anatomy of Man and Animals. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2000.

ABBREVIATIONS

ix

SLP

Syriac Language Project

SEERI

Saint Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute

TS

R. Payne Smith. Thesaurus Syriacus. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1879–91. repr. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1981.

INTRODUCTION DANIEL KING At the meeting of the International Syriac Language Project held under the aegis of the IOSOT (International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament) at Stellenbosch, South Africa, in September 2016, Terry Falla and Beryl Turner royally entertained the audience with an engaging review of the history of the ISLP since its inception in 2001, a vision that grew out of Falla’s own preoccupation with the challenges of the lexicographical project of writing a Key to the Peshitta Gospels. Together they kindly agreed to develop that wonderful lecture into a full essay on the ‘storyso-far’ of the ISLP, a contribution that forms the first, and most substantial, part of the present volume. Their oral presentations remain always a heady mix of acute scholarly observation, spiritual nourishment, nostalgic reflection, poetic inspiration, and academic encouragement. The essay that follows proves no exception to the pattern. Falla and Turner unashamedly mix the detached scholarship of lexicography with the lived realities of the (aspiring) scholars who produce it. Beyond offering current and future lexicographers of ancient languages this degree of personal encouragement, the opening paper of the present collection amounts to a complete, even an exhaustive, account of the progress of Syriac lexicography through the eyes of ISLP, summarizing work accomplished so far through the series of volumes of which this is but the latest. The aim of these summaries is not merely to provide us with handy lists and summaries of past work, but to offer clear signposts for what ought to come next, new methodologies for ancient language lexicography built on the most important theoretical insights of the past generation, set within an ethos that allows for mutual support and refreshment, and the growth of future scholars. By extending the purview of ISLP to include ancient languages beyond only Syriac, its founders have at the same time extended the more intangible benefits of the group to a wider circle of researchers. Falla & Turner’s essay is followed by a selection of papers drawn principally from the 2016 (Stellenbosch) and 2017 (Berlin) meetings of the ISLP. The former, as mentioned above, was held under the auspices of IOSOT; the latter was held within the context of the International Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) in Berlin, August 2017. To begin with, three papers on Hebrew matters. Mats Eskhult explores the Greek and Aramaic translation values of šūḇ, hōsīf, and ʿōḏ when they are compounded with other verbs; a study that makes a helpful contribution to the lexicon 1

2

STUDIES IN BIBLICAL PHILOLOGY AND LEXICOGRAPHY

of the Greek and Aramaic Bibles as well as to our understanding of the translation techniques employed for these versions. Then Anne Gardner executes a finely detailed philological and lexicographical study of Dan 7:1–2 in its various textual reflexes, arguing for the priority of the Old Greek version of the text over the Masoretic, despite the support the latter receives through the Qumran text. In the last of the set of three, Stephen Levinsohn adds a paper to the growing studies of delimitation strategies in the discourse grammar of ancient languages. He has explored the varying participant reference strategies found in the narrative of the book of Ruth, using these to identify not only major episodic units but also smaller ‘development units’. In this way the very different discourse patterns of two chapters can be readily and constructively contrasted. This trio of ‘Hebrew’ papers is followed by five papers with more of a Syriac focus, each contributing important insights to general textual and lexicographical studies through their detailed analyses of specific topics. David Calabro examines the theoretical groundwork necessarily antecedent to the creation of a digital etymological dictionary of Syriac that is oriented to issues of cultural history. Calabro seeks to overcome the anti-etymological trend in lexicons which stemmed from Barr’s critiques of earlier faulty methodologies, and seeks thereby to resurrect etymology for dictionary-making, for instance in the contribution it makes to the deeper appreciation of language-contact issues and to cultural history, specifically what he engagingly calls “the cultural narratives of words.” The cultural-embeddedness of words themselves comes to the fore again in Loopstra’s essay about what is now coming to be called ‘dottology’ (a George Kiraz neologism). The history of the Syriac Bible is a lived history of recitation and physical interaction with manuscripts. The pointing of those manuscripts is often as important as the strokes of the stylus that constitute the graphemes themselves. The lexicographer’s challenge has been satisfactorily to understand the work that the ‘dots’ do, although rather often in the past the excuse has been made that the ancient scribes were too haphazard in their application of the principles of ‘dottology’ for modern lexicographers to draw useful conclusions. By being one of a handful of people actually willing to look at the dots with the attention they richly deserve, Loopstra is able to challenge this assumption and to show us just how careful ancient scribes could be and what benefits we may derive from reading them with the close attention that their application requires. Roman Jakobson defined philology as ‘the art of reading slowly.’ It is through reading just so slowly that, as Loopstra shows, we can attend as we ought to the “echoes and resonances” of culturally situated ancient texts. Interestingly, the sounds of recited words arise again as an issue in Dyk’s paper on Translation Universals. Dyk offers some results of computer-aided analysis of translation style (Hebrew-Syriac), focusing especially on ‘translation universals’ a category that has come to the fore in Translation Studies and which seeks at the cognitive level to understand strategies of translation that are found across a broad spectrum of instances. Rather often, a secure understanding of these strategies will explain similarities and divergences between different translations that are preferable to the positing of alternative Vorlagen. It is especially notable how often the aural characteristics of the source text have an impact upon translation strategies. This

INTRODUCTION

3

reminds us always to look beyond the text merely as a repository of letters, and rather to texts as lived experiences. Jerome Lund contributes to the ever-growing and ever-significant literature on the textual value of patristic citations, in this case taking the philologist’s scalpel to the citations of Ezekiel in Aphrahat’s Demonstrations. His study confirms conclusions previously drawn for Aphrahat’s citations of other books, namely that these citations are woven into the structure and argument of the theologian’s text and are adapted to his needs. They can therefore be used as textual witnesses to the Peshitta only with due caution and as support for one or another extant reading and not as a source of independent variants. The study of patristic citations has been tending in this direction for some time now, across the spectrum of languages, periods, and genres. In this way it has contributed substantially to the increasing recognition now being given to the received history of texts, rather than hyparchetypes and autographs, as the proper object of study for the textual historian. Intertextual citation is also the subject matter tackled by Mushayabasa. He enters again into the old question of how and why the translators of the Syriac Gospels (both Vetus Syra and Peshitta) used the wording of the Peshitta Old Testament when offering renderings of Old Testament citations within the Gospels, mediated perhaps vita the Diatessaron. Mushayabasa explores in particular the translation methodology adopted by the translators of the Vetus Syra, the better to distinguish renderings that are merely the product of their methods from those that are clearly influenced by parallel texts. This is a methodologically-focused essay that will assist the development of this area of research. Our collection is rounded off with an essay by Laurenţiu Moţ focused solely on the Greek text of the NT, namely on the hapax legomena found therein and how these should be approached lexicographically. Moţ offers a stepped method for unravelling the meanings of these terms. He offers intertextual as well as etymological, grammatical, and pragmatic considerations of these important but challenging lexemes. He applies these steps to the hapax θυμιατήριον and considers the various interpretations that have been offered for it. The papers here offered represent the broad interests of the ISLP while at the same time each in its own sphere contributing to the task of ancient language lexicography. Recurring issues in the field, such as translation studies, etymologies, and citations, are well represented. In some, received wisdom is questioned, in others it is substantiated; in some, old themes are being re-opened, in others largely new ideas are being proffered. Falla & Turner write that, “our task has been the quest for methodologies that ask the right questions….This quest has the power to question and change how we see ancient-language lexicography and all other subjects relating to it” (p.26). I trust that the present set of papers may supply one more expedition to the greater quest.

THE HISTORY, AIMS, ETHOS, AND RESEARCH OF THE INTERNATIONAL SYRIAC LANGUAGE PROJECT (ISLP)1 TERRY FALLA AND BERYL TURNER WHITLEY COLLEGE UNIVERSITY OF DIVINITY

To Max and Marion Loy, John and Marion Garbutt, Lois Dickinson, Colin and Angie Carter, Graham Corr, Dean Forbes, and Frank Andersen, who helped make our lexical work, KPG, possible, and thus ISLP, and to all who over the years have participated in ISLP This essay was conceived in gratitude for all that its two authors have gained from the International Syriac Language Project (ISLP) and its participants since its inception eighteen years ago and is offered as a celebration of the handing over of the project’s leadership to Richard Taylor as Conference Coordinator and Wido van Peursen and Michael Theophilos as Series Editors. It tells the story of the ISLP: its origins, its evolution, its aims to research pertinent theoretical and applied issues, be interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary, meet annually, and publish a peer-reviewed series of its symposia and other linguistic research. From the beginning, the values of the project were as important to its participants as the quality of the research it envisaged. For this reason, a substantial segment is devoted to the ISLP’s ethos. The second last section entitled “The quest for methodologies for ancient-language lexica—towards the future” is given a place because of its centrality in the research of contemporary ancientAs the authors of this essay, we record here our thanks to Anne Thompson for suggesting improvements and corrections to this essay, and to our team colleague Tricia Elliott for her valued help in editing and proofreading the manuscript and her suggestions that significantly improved the shape and flow of its presentation. 1

5

6

TERRY FALLA AND BERYL TURNER language lexicography, which has remained the heartbeat of the project. The essay ends with an account of the ISLP’s published research. This account provides a summary of every article and monograph published in ISLP’s series Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics (PoSL) and its successor Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages (PLAL) and of monographs in preparation.2 A list of all articles and monographs arranged according to subject precedes the bibliography, which also cites under the author’s name every article published in PoSL and PLAL.

1. CLASSICAL SYRIAC LEXICOGRAPHY FROM THE NINETEENTH CENTURY TO THE PRESENT

‫܇‬

‫ܙ ̈ ܐ‬

‫̈ ܬܪܨܘ܆ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܀‬

‫ܘܢ ܕ‬

‫ܐ ܘ܇‬ ‫ܘܐ‬

̇ ‫ܘܢ‬

Some have expounded ideas, some have corrected words, others have composed chronicles, and still others love to write lexica. Bar ‘Ebroyo (1226–1286), Storehouse of Mysteries3

Once upon a time romance and fervour spiced Classical Syriac lexicography. Its zenith was in the nineteenth century. Though I (Terry) was not aware of it at the time, its methodology was still stranded there when I began my work on A Key to the Peshitta Gospels (KPG) in the nineteen-seventies. New specialist disciplines, vital for the whole spectrum of contemporary ancient-language lexicography, had emerged and were to continue emerging, but they had not yet found a place in Syriac lexicography. In retrospect, it is obvious that the long history of Syriac lexicography and the preparation of KPG over the last five decades are inseparable from my involvement in the creation of the ISLP. With Bruce M. Metzger as my editor, 4 I had worked out for KPG a unique design for the format of lexical entries that would embrace and integrate a range of lexical information not previously covered in a Syriac lexicon. In

To avoid unnecessary repetition in the footnotes, references to PoSL and PLAL volumes and their editors are provided in full only in the bibliography at the end of the article. 3 Quoted by George Kiraz in his article “Computing the Syriac Lexicon,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography I, PoSL 1, 93, from Martin Sprengling and William Creighton Graham, eds., Barhebraeus’ Scholia on the Old Testament. Part I: Genesis–II Samuel (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1931), 1. 4 On a Thursday morning in 1971, I received in the mail one of those then familiar ultralight blue aerogrammes from Metzger, who was one of my doctoral examiners, inviting me to prepare and publish what became A Key to the Peshitta Gospels in his series New Testament Tools and Studies. 2

THE INTERNATIONAL SYRIAC LANGUAGE PROJECT (ISLP)

7

each entry, six sets of foundational information complement each other. Each feature has its own methodology to ensure consistency in research and presentation: x The grammatical classification immediately following the Syriac headword. x The meaning or meanings of the headword based on a comprehensive and detailed examination of all textual and syntactic contexts in the Gospels and sometimes in other corpora. x Syriac words of similar meaning attested in the Peshitta New Testament and in the non-Peshitta texts of the Minor Catholic Epistles 2 John, 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, and the book of Revelation.5 x The Greek term corresponding to every occurrence in the Peshitta Gospels of the Syriac term in question—an analysis that takes into account the existence of variant Greek readings, with which the Peshitta is often in accord. This feature, which recognizes the significance of the Peshitta as a translation and as a witness to the Greek New Testament, was of particular interest to Metzger, and after the publication of the first two volumes of KPG, to the Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung (INTF), Münster, in their preparation of the Greek New Testament text. x A complete sequential concordance of Gospel references, completed on 12 July 1969. x The comprehensive analytical collocations (analytical categories) that often characterize an entry.6 The aim is to allow the user to explore the Syriac text as a translation of the Greek and as a literary work in its own right. Together, design, methodology, and data give beginner and specialist a “key” to unlock many points of entry in the study of a sophisticated, colourful and poetic translation. When I began KPG, I was not in a position to comprehend properly the task I had set myself.7 Some entries gobbled up six months or more. Years became decThe BFBS edition of The New Testament in Syriac (London: The British and Foreign Bible Society, 1905–1920) took the Minor Catholic Epistles and Revelation, which do not belong to the Peshitta canon, from the editions of John Gwynn: 2 John, 3 John, 2 Peter, and Jude (all edited by Gwynn in 1893), and Revelation (1897). The Minor Catholic Epistles are reedited in Daniel King, J. Edward Walters, and George A. Kiraz, The Syriac Peshiṭta Bible with English Translation: Hebrews and the General Catholic Epistles (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2016). Revelation is re-edited in Jerome Lund and George Kiraz, The Syriac Bible with English Translation: Revelation (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2014). 6 These analytical collocations (or analytical categories) serve several purposes. They are employed to make distinctions between semantic and syntactic differences; differences in orthography and vocalization; different persons called by the same name; idioms; significant terms and phrases, especially (though not exclusively) genitive constructions; and substantives qualified by an adjectival attribute or in apposition. 7 This task did not include the fully expected manual typing of a camera-ready copy of the lexicon for publication by Brill (see p. 10 on the need to abandon this form of prepara5

8

TERRY FALLA AND BERYL TURNER

ades. It did not however take me as long to become aware of the intricate interrelatedness and interdependence between the seemingly different categories of lexical information. An example is the relationship between the Syriac headword of a lexical entry and the Greek underlying it, and their relationship with Syriac words of similar meaning. An examination of these cycles of information may help to illuminate any one of a number of issues: the complex relationship between the source and target texts; the meaning(s) of a Syriac word in certain contexts; semantic similarities and differences between Syriac words of similar meaning; patterns and exceptions in the treatment of Greek polysemous terms and of Greek syntax; the lexical predilections of different Syriac translators and why a Greek word with a single and clear meaning may be translated by different Syriac words in different Gospels: the Peshitta New Testament as the product of multiple translators. One category illuminates another. There are instances where it is only because of the detailed work involved in providing lexical items such as the headword, the underlying Greek, and words of similar meaning that the analysis of a Syriac word’s lexical meaning is saved from incompleteness or even being misleading. Inevitably, the arrested history of Classical Syriac lexicographical methodology became a barrier to my progress. In my preparation of volume one, unresolved questions kept snapping at my heels. There was the ever-present question of how to ascertain and present adequately the semantic value(s) of a Syriac word or syntagma. There was the issue emerging in Ancient Greek lexicography of the definition of words as distinct from glosses. There was the place of syntax in a contemporary ancient-language lexicon. Syriac prepositions constituted an especially difficult challenge. There was the complex issue of grammatical classification, which remained chaotic and inconsistent in even the best of Syriac lexica, especially regarding the citation of words with the form of a passive participle. I reached a turning point not long after the publication of the first volume. With a mixture of excitement and dismay, I read a hard-hitting review article of a Classical Hebrew lexicon. Several of its criticisms, I realized, could, potentially at least, be applied to my own lexicon. Thus, while retaining the work’s format, I introduced several improvements into volume two. Conversations and/or correspondence with a number of scholars had contributed to KPG’s formation: ongoing tion). The task involved typing the English and Greek on an IBM Selectric typewriter, creating precisely hand-measured and pencilled-in spaces on each page for the Syriac words, and transferring the page to a manual Adler Syriac typewriter in order to insert the Syriac words. However, my efforts to locate an Adler Syriac typewriter were unsuccessful. Then in 1974, while visiting the director of Brill, I stayed in Utrecht, Holland, with John and Marion Garbutt, whom I had not met previously and were to become life-long friends. Marion, after my return to Melbourne, was finally able to track down an Adler Syriac typewriter, to her great surprise, in an Amsterdam warehouse. Although we had only known each other for a few days, she purchased it there and then, and a few months later I was able to begin typing up the hand-written manuscript. Ever since, John and Marion have closely followed and supported KPG and, from its birth, the ISLP.

THE INTERNATIONAL SYRIAC LANGUAGE PROJECT (ISLP)

9

animated discussions with Francis I. Andersen on details of grammar, syntax, and discourse analysis and their place in a lexicon, and on classifying words according to their syntactic function rather than morphology; James Barr on the inclusion of Syriac words of similar meaning; Sebastian Brock who made valuable comments on both volumes and recommended the inclusion of paradigmatic information from the second volume on; Gideon Goldenberg on his analysis of the Syriac participle and “verbalized Syriac adjectives;”8 Jan Joosten on issues of Syriac syntax; Bruce M. Metzger on methodology, especially regarding text-critical matters; and Takamitsu Muraoka who perused drafts of the introduction to both volumes, offered judicious comments on the definition of the adjective, and reviewed all root derivations for both volumes. The publication of volume two coincided with the birth of the ISLP. This input was invaluable. Nevertheless, the time had come for consultation with fellow ancient-language lexicographers that went beyond correspondence and discussion on a one-to-one basis. Classical Syriac lexicography had to become interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary. This became readily apparent to the founders of the ISLP who in their first meeting sowed the seeds of a project that would one day give equal weight to other ancient-language disciplines and their discoveries. How to evaluate the support of one’s wife and family for a lifetime project and its spilling over into an ISLP is altogether another matter. I can only say, and this seems the right place to say it, that the poem at the front of the first volume of KPG still says it all so long as one adds that, long since its penning, young children now have their own grown children―Berris’ and my grandchildren plus a greatgrandchild; and griefs, best unforeseen, darknesses, and joys have filled the intervening years: To my beloved Berris—and to Matthew, Lynette, Daniel and Jeremy for their contribution to delaying the completion of this work in the most ingenious ways; for helping Dad, in his absence of course, by re-arranging as many of the ten-thousand index cards of concordance information as time allowed; for measles and mumps; Moomintroll, Treasure Island, Tolkien; bush walks, ghost gums, and aching feet; tents by mountain streams and laughing shores; Passiontide peace marches, Mansfield Autumns,

See Terry C. Falla, A Key to the Peshitta Gospels vol. 2, Hē–Yōdh (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2000), XXIX. 8

10

TERRY FALLA AND BERYL TURNER hugs, tears, partings; discoveries of roots undreamed— and all the other life-changing intermissions and diversions which, despite my grumbles, have given more joy and meaning to the story of Syriac nouns, particles, and good news verbs than they will ever know.

To this point, I have made no mention of the indispensable place of Beryl Turner in the preparation of KPG and the research it requires. It is now impossible to imagine the work without her. Her involvement began after a carton of cans of peaches fell on her head. Someone else was moving the peaches, stacked on a high shelf in a supermarket where she was working to help support her theological education. When she was recovering from the lengthy period of concussion and needed something simple to do for a few weeks, mutual friends who knew of my project suggested she could help. I was professor of Hebrew Bible at the same New Zealand institution. I had to convert my just-completed hand-typed ready-for-publication manuscript of the first volume of KPG into computer format―George Kiraz had created a computer programme for Classical Syriac. Beryl agreed to work part time for the estimated nine weeks it would take to produce a camera-ready manuscript of the volume. Her first task was the creation of aesthetically compatible Syriac and Greek fonts. Two years later, after my introducing countless improvements made possible by the advent of the computer, she finished the volume. We have worked together ever since. That was over thirty years ago.

2. FORMATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL SYRIAC LANGUAGE PROJECT A word is dead when it is said, Some say— I say it just begins to live that day. Emily Dickinson9

Astronomer Brian Cox likes to say, “Give me an atom and I will give you a universe.” Those of us with a passion for an ancient language might well respond, “Give me a word and I will take you to galaxies alight with them.” The formation of the ISLP was about words and the universes they inhabit. A beginning became an adventure. Most adventures have more than one motivation. The ISLP had several. Ours began with the invitation, explained below in more detail, to create an international group of scholars to make KPG more attractive in our applications for fundPoem 278 in The Poems of Emily Dickinson: Reading Edition (ed. R.W. Franklin; Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap, 1999), 124. 9

THE INTERNATIONAL SYRIAC LANGUAGE PROJECT (ISLP)

11

ing. For this reason, we called our lexical project The Syriac Language Project (SLP). As the project developed, our room at Whitley College, University of Melbourne and Melbourne College of Divinity (now University of Divinity), became the Syriac Language Research Centre. However, more long-lasting motivations quickly complemented the search for funding. One was to bring together the expertise and experience of lexicographers from various ancient-language disciplines and other ancient-language specialists in order “to reassess Classical Syriac lexicography, by critiquing its theory and practice and discussing what kind of Syriac-English lexicon would best serve the needs of the twenty-first century.”10 Another was to create an academic environment that valued relationships as much as academic endeavour. More specifically, the ISLP owes its existence to a support group formed in Melbourne in 2000. The support group’s initiator and leader, Colin Carter, a founder of Boston Consulting Group, and chairman, Prof. Graham Corr, a former Dean of Education at the University of Melbourne, suggested we take a round-the-globe trip in 2001 financed by Colin’s flyer points. Its goal was to seek funding for our SLP project. We found some. But the greater outcome was the birth of the ISLP. Atlanta, the home of the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL), was one of sixteen destinations in the thirty-one-day trip. Mid-morning on 28 August, Kent Richards, SBL’s Executive Director, met us at the airport. He was gracious, lively, visionary. At day’s end, he offered us the role of coordinating sessions on Syriac lexicography on an annual basis at SBL International Meetings. This, he felt, would give us the international exposure we needed, and provide SBL with a forum for the study of Classical Syriac lexicography. With the dawn of the next day came the dream of forming a small international group that could gather annually. A week later, we took a still tentative idea to computational linguist Dean Forbes in Palo Alto, California, and three months later to England, where Terry chatted it over with Alison Salvesen, Sebastian Brock, and David Taylor. We will always be grateful to these four for their taking an emerging but tender proposal seriously. From the beginning we recognized the need to be interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary. Hence, neither Syriac lexicography nor Syriac as an ancient language were prerequisites for membership. Indeed, the strength of our founding group would lie in its diversity. An example was the inclusion of Dean Forbes, mathematician and linguist, who uses computational linguistics for the grammatical analysis of the Hebrew Bible.11 He was concerned that his research was tangential to our interests. Instead, he introduced us to a way of perceiving and investigating, completely unfamiliar to most of us, which pointed to a new horizon of lexicographical and ancient-language study. Furthermore, we sought not just to gather specialists, but Terry C. Falla, “A Conceptual Framework for a New Comprehensive Syriac-English Lexicon,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography I, PoSL 1, 7. 11 See A. Dean Forbes, “A Tale of Two Sitters and a Crazy Blue Jay,” in Reflections on Lexicography, PLAL 4, 211–32. 10

12

TERRY FALLA AND BERYL TURNER

specialists who would like to work together as a group. We approached a few potential members. They variously had expertise in Classical Syriac, Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, ancient-language lexicography, and computational linguistics. The result was an exploratory Syriac lexicography group. The first ten members were Janet Dyk, Dean Forbes, Andreas Juckel, George Kiraz, Abdul-Massih Saadi,12 Alison Salvesen, David Taylor, Peter Williams, and ourselves, Terry Falla and Beryl Turner. In 2003, Bas ter Haar Romeny and Wido van Peursen turned ten into twelve. In 2004, Michael Sokoloff joined, and in 2005 Kristian Heal. To our good fortune, our publisher was in our midst: George Kiraz, founder of Gorgias Press. From the beginning, George’s enthusiasm and vision for how we might disseminate the group’s research spilled spontaneously into an emerging ISLP. The first full-day gathering was at the International SBL Meeting in Cambridge in 2003. On Tuesday 22 July in our student digs at 2 Thompson’s Lane we gathered our group, and over some good Australian reds we prepared a publishing programme complete with style details; we discussed the ethos of the group and drafted a mission statement. Dean Forbes and David Taylor volunteered to be the editors of the first volume of peer-reviewed articles in the ISLP series Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics. Terry was appointed Series Editor. These and all other relevant conversations over the course of the conference were taped and later transcribed and archived. They include a conversation with Greek lexicographer Anne Thompson (University of Cambridge) on aspects of ancient-language lexicography. This early contribution by a highly specialized lexicographer of a language other than Classical Syriac would help shape the thinking and direction of the group. In later years, Anne Thompson and other non-Syriac as well as Syriac specialists joined the ISLP when it more intentionally widened its scope: Reinier de Blois (2007), Richard Taylor (2008), Robert Owens (2009), James Aitken and Jonathan Loopstra (2010), and Aaron Butts, Sargon Hasso and Anne Thompson (2011). Over the next three years they were joined by Daniel King, Marketta Liljeström, and Alexey Muraviev (2012), Michael Theophilos (2013), and Nicholas Al-Jeloo (2014). A mission statement formulated at our first meeting (see §3 below) in 2003 helped set us on our way. This mission statement, which cites SBL International Meetings as our annual venue, was later revised to include, with SBL’s approval, SBL Annual Meetings and other conferences that met on a cyclic basis: IOSOT (International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament), Symposium Syriacum, and the World Syriac Conference at SEERI (Saint Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute) in Kottayam, Kerala, India. Despite the allure of the venue, the ISLP has not found it possible to meet in Kottayam. However, the 2002 symposium there did provide a valuable preliminary planning session for informal discussions that were to influence ISLP formation and aims, and canvassed the subject of a future complete lexicon of Classical Syriac. These discussions included Sebastian We had formative conversations with Abdul-Massih Saadi at his home in Chicago, but he was never able to join us at conferences. 12

THE INTERNATIONAL SYRIAC LANGUAGE PROJECT (ISLP)

13

Brock, Terry Falla, Alison Salvesen, David Taylor, Richard Taylor, and Beryl Turner. In one conversation, Brock emphasized the benefits of beginning a corpus-bycorpus series―in which each volume is limited to a defined corpus of Syriac literature―with the Syriac New Testament.13 Since Cambridge (2003), the ISLP has met at Groningen (2004), Philadelphia (2005), Edinburgh (2006), Ljubljana (2007), Granada (2008), New Orleans (2009), Helsinki (2010), San Francisco (2011), Malta (2012), Chicago (2012), Munich (2013), St Petersburg (2014), Atlanta (2015), Stellenbosch (2016), San Antonio (2016), Berlin (2017), Boston (2017), and Denver (2018). Meeting more than once in 2012, when a small specialist group presented papers on valence at the Chicago SBL Meeting, proved beneficial and created a precedent. Two meetings a year at different venues may well become more regular. ISLP will meet at Aberdeen with IOSOT in August 2019, with the Symposium Syriacum in Paris in 2020, and may in both years also gather at the SBL Annual Meeting. The 2014 conference in St Petersburg deserves special comment. St Petersburg had more than once been mentioned as a potential venue where we might meet Russian ancient-language scholars and lexicographers. The obstacle was that for logistical reasons none of our umbrella conferences met there. We therefore explored the possibility with Russian colleagues of planning and holding an ISLP conference in collaboration with the Russian Academy of Sciences at the St Petersburg Institute of Oriental Manuscripts.14 This became a reality because of the creative and dedicated assistance of Dr. Natalia Smelova, Researcher in Syriac Studies and Curator of Manuscripts at the Institute, and Prof. Alexey Muraviev, Moscow State University and Institute of World History, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, and the wonderful support and welcome of Prof. Irina F. Popova, Director of the Institute. Several ISLP participants organized, coordinated, or took responsibility for preconference and at-conference essentials and unforeseen incidents requiring sensitive attention: James Aitken, Anatoly Alexeev, Nicholas Al-Jeloo, Dean Forbes, Georgia Kelly, Marketta Liljeström, Wido van Peursen, Steven Shaw,15 Michael and Simone Sokoloff, Richard Taylor, Anne Thompson, and Sonya Yampolskaya. Because we wanted to make the most of this meeting, we ventured beyond the scope of conferences before and since: we made it exceptional in the breadth of its subject matter and the number of languages it included. This had its benefits, and these we recall with much pleasure, but also its difficulties. From an organizational and publishing perspective, we stepped over the wisdom of our own boundaries in two ways. Time: the conference took three years to coordinate, overlapping with the demands of other conferences. The other was the resulting diversity of published papers (see Options for a comprehensive lexicon of Classical Syriac are discussed in Falla, “A Conceptual Framework,” 1–79. 14 www.orientalstudies.ru/rus/images/stories/plal_program_2014.pdf 15 I am grateful to Steven for his practical assistance at other ISLP conferences we have travelled to and attended together. 13

14

TERRY FALLA AND BERYL TURNER

below, §5), which these days, irrespective of their research worth, is a marketing challenge for the publisher. For this reason, we record here our special thanks to Gorgias Press for presenting the St Petersburg papers in a fine 425-page volume that also includes papers from the ISLP meeting at IOSOT in Munich the preceding year. Our conferences have been followed by peer-reviewed publications of the research presented. So far, we have published sixteen volumes, nine of them colloquia, including this one, and seven of them monographs. Five further monographs are in preparation. The ISLP, we should emphasize, is more than its printed output. Its story also has a philosophical, evolutionary, and human dimension. To give context to this story, we need to go back before the events outlined above and even before the ISLP was an idea.

3. AIMS AND DEVELOPMENTS OF THE ISLP —a life’s work in the agony and sweat of the human spirit, not for the glory and least of all for profit, but to create out of the materials of the human spirit something which did not exist before William Faulkner16

The Mission Statement formulated at our first ISLP meeting in 2003 read: The aim of the International Syriac Language Project (ISLP) is to further the knowledge of Syriac by laying the foundations for Syriac lexicography and Syriac-English lexica by (a) exploring pertinent theoretical and applied issues in research papers; (b) presenting papers for discussion at annual SBL International Meetings; (c) Gorgias Press publishing the annual proceedings and other papers as part of a series; (d) creating a multifunctional modular database for the project.

In implementing these aims we were acknowledging that scientific endeavour has always recognized that specialization can produce small solar systems of expertise that are part of a larger universe. These solar systems, to remain part of the scientific endeavour, must see themselves, not in isolation from, but as part of the bigger universe. In our meetings, conversations, collaboration, and publications, we particiWilliam Faulkner, Quotation from Nobel Prize acceptance speech at the Nobel Banquet at the City Hall in Stockholm, December 10, 1950. 16

THE INTERNATIONAL SYRIAC LANGUAGE PROJECT (ISLP)

15

pants in the ISLP individually and collectively have become more acutely aware of each other’s solar systems and of what lies beyond our own and have discovered that, in the end, everything is interconnected; that we do not and cannot know everything; that in this human enterprise we need each other. It is a humbling, beautiful and freeing kind of knowing. A decade down the track, we were able to say of our own small solar system that the aim of the ISLP and its publications is to address the disciplines of ancientlanguage research, lexicography, and issues of linguistics as they relate to a contemporary approach to each other. This aim affirms that today, lexicography, no less than ancient-language research, is a mature discipline in its own right. It sees the disciplines of linguistics, ancient-language study, and lexicography as standing beside each other rather than one being subordinate to the other. The Series Preface to the colloquia volumes of our second series provides perspective: The study of ancient languages constitutes a time-honoured field of endeavour. Lexicography is an equally venerable and even more ancient tradition. Modern lexicography, the art and science of dictionary making, began about four centuries ago. But pre-scientific lexicography has ancestors in many ancient languages and stretches back four millennia. Yet as old as lexicography and ancient-language study are, on the time-line of history they were conceived only recently when compared to the emergence of human language, which may go back, say, 100,000 years: lexicography about an hour ago, and modern lexicography around five minutes if we reduce the life span of language to a twenty-four-hour period. The related discipline of modern linguistics is more recent still, beginning in the mid-nineteenth century and experiencing rapid growth in the latter half of the twentieth century. Because it is the science of the study of language, it became an integral part of ancient-language inquiry and adopted lexicography of ancient and contemporary languages as one of its sub-disciplines. Today, lexicography, no less than ancient-language research, is a mature discipline in its own right. All three—linguistics, ancient-language study, and lexicography—therefore stand beside each other rather than one being subordinate to the other. For ancient-language research, the dictionary is a primary resource. For its part, ancient-language lexicography in its microscopic probing, quest for the larger perspective, and provision of various forms of information, must draw on all aspects of ancient-language study. In contemporary inquiry, these two disciplines are inextricably linked to developments in modern linguistics. Sound lexicography re-

16

TERRY FALLA AND BERYL TURNER quires sound linguistic theory. Linguistic theory and practice are implicit in a methodology for ancient-language study.17

In consequence, three primary factors motivate the ISLP in its seeking to be both interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary in its research: the recognition that: x x x

Many linguistic disciplines meet in the investigation of ancient languages and in the making of modern lexica. Developments in the study of one language, theoretical and applied, are often pertinent to another language. The development of electronic ancient-language data and lexica require attention to advances in computational linguistics.

Thus, we do not pursue our planning for a lexicon for a particular language for a new generation in isolation from other interconnected disciplines, but embrace what is taking place in the study of other ancient languages and in the wider world of lexicography, linguistics, and digital technologies. For a long time, the gap between the disciplines of Classical Syriac lexicography and Ancient Greek and Hebrew lexicography had been a gulf. Now, we in the Syriac world could see ourselves as travelling beside rather than behind these disciplines, as journeying alongside a scholar such as John Lee when, in 2003, the year of our first meeting, he lamented the lack of adequate methodologies for Greek New Testament lexicography. Now, we were in a position to recognise, appreciate, and even celebrate his insights as applicable to our own Classical Syriac projects. Now, problems previously unknown to us became maps in our hands. We were not to know that in days to come lexicographers would explore in ISLP sessions and publish as peerreviewed articles in our series the very issue that was of concern to Lee and with which we could so readily identify. We may note that Lee confined his observations to the question of meaning— to definitions and glosses. In Classical Syriac, other lexical features were equally, if not so centrally, problematic. The ISLP was a forum for the identification and exploration of all such desiderata. A full description of the ISLP’s research is presented in §7.

Richard A. Taylor and Craig E. Morrison, eds., Reflections on Lexicography: Explorations in Ancient Syriac, Hebrew, and Greek Sources, PLAL 4, ix–x. For an earlier form of this preface, see Foundations for Syriac Lexicography I, PoSL 1, xiii. 17

THE INTERNATIONAL SYRIAC LANGUAGE PROJECT (ISLP)

17

4. LEADERSHIP AND ORGANIZATION OF THE ISLP 4.1 Leadership Community in whatever form is essentially a place of presence. Thus we must not forget that the best nourishment of community whenever we gather or communicate, the one which renews us and opens our hearts, is in all the small gestures of fidelity, tenderness, humility, forgiveness, sensitivity and welcome which make up everyday life. Jean Vanier18

Responsibilities and leadership take many forms and may be expressed over long periods or in a single quiet act of concern. The ISLP exists only because of the many who have given to it in one way or another. Many details of ISLP history are available because of Richard Taylor’s valuable contribution as ISLP Minute Secretary over several years. The chairing of business meetings became a shared role. On various occasions James Aitken, Aaron Butts, Janet Dyk, Wido van Peursen, and Anne Thompson either chaired a meeting or took the minutes. In their leadership roles, Terry and Beryl coordinated the ISLP from its inception when Terry was appointed Series Editor and Beryl became Managing Editor. They fulfilled these responsibilities until the ISLP St Petersburg conference in 2014, though Terry remained Series Editor for the PLAL volume that included the symposia of that conference. A little anecdote will help tell the tale of Terry and Beryl relinquishing their tasks to younger members. One evening in San Francisco—the year was 2011— ISLP participants, friends, spouses, colleagues, whoever wanted to come, were crammed into taxis on the way to one of our famed informal annual kosher dinners arranged by Michael and Simone Sokoloff. In our hurry to leave, Janet Dyk, Anne Thompson and Terry suddenly found themselves jammed into the same taxi. Somehow the conversation turned to the future of the ISLP and Janet and Anne trusted Terry with the question as to whether he and Beryl had given thought to that day when they would need to pass on the leadership baton. It was the kind of friendship and thoughtfulness that stands everyone in good stead. And so it was that at St Petersburg in 2014, as Terry anticipated his seventy-fifth birthday, the ISLP appointed a new leadership team: Richard Taylor, Coordinator of annual meetings, Wido van Peursen, and Michael Theophilos, Co-editors of our PLAL series. Together they represent the ISLP’s evolution and inter- and multi-disciplinary development. 18 Slightly adapted from Jean Vanier, Community and Growth (Sydney: St Paul’s Publications, 1979), 223 and 227.

18

TERRY FALLA AND BERYL TURNER

4.2 Organization and Outcomes 4.2.1 Collaboration with Biblical Lexicography–SBL By the end of 2005, the aim to be interdisciplinary took an unexpected turn. John Lee, then SBL Chair of Biblical Lexicography, asked whether we might include in our annual publications a selection of their best peer-reviewed papers on Hebrew lexica.19 New bonds were formed between Biblical Lexicography–SBL and ISLP. A few years later, James K. Aitken and Anne Thompson, at different times, would accept the role of Chair of Biblical Lexicography–SBL. Both would become members of ISLP, Jim in 2010, Anne in 2011, bringing with them, together with others named above,20 developments and discoveries in their own research and fields, and new directions for our group and project. 4.2.2 Editorial board In addition to its Annual Business Meetings, conference organization and management of publications, ISLP established a formal interdisciplinary Editorial Board in 2008 to meet an increase in monographs. The first three members were James Aitken, Terry Falla and Wido van Peursen. 2012 saw the welcome addition of Aaron Butts and Daniel King, 2014 of Michael Theophilos, and 2018 of Richard Taylor. To its credit, the Editorial Board not only conducted vigorous internal discussions of the manuscripts it received, but also, in keeping with the values of the ISLP, undertook, whenever it was appropriate, considerable liaison and discussion with contributors, and helped foster and encourage new authors. This spirit of collegiality, we believe, is essential if academic endeavour is to develop and flourish in an interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary age. 4.2.3 Index editors In several instances, volume editors fulfilled the task of indexing the contents of their volumes. However, for some large volumes this required a separate index editor. We were most fortunate to have the voluntary expertise initially of Andreas Juckel and more recently of Georgia Kelly. 4.2.4 From PoSL to PLAL The ISLP business meeting in San Francisco, 2011, unanimously agreed that Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics (PoSL), the name we had given our series, was now unacceptably narrow. We replaced it with Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages (PLAL). The new title conveyed an inclusive intention, yet was sufficiently specific to allow the editors discretion over content. Soon two monographs were published,

19 20

See Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III, PoSL 4, xxv. See p. 12.

THE INTERNATIONAL SYRIAC LANGUAGE PROJECT (ISLP)

19

one in each series.21 In 2014, we celebrated the first colloquium of the new series, a handsome volume of 382 pages edited by Richard Taylor and Craig Morrison.22 Our aims reappear in its prefaces. However, without losing their original focus, they are more inclusive. They give equal weight to all ancient languages and for the first time they recognize that all ancient-language study can potentially contribute to the preparation of a lexicon.23 One major discipline that has noticeably lacked its rightful place in ancientlanguage lexicography is modern linguistics. As a discipline, it is relatively new compared to the discipline of modern lexicography (see quotation on page 15). This in part may account for the fact that with a few exceptions we ancient-language lexicographers have not been properly immersed in it.24 Its absence has been a weakness. But this is changing. The influence of the linguists among us and the inclusion of participants from an ever-wider circle of ancient-language disciplines has deepened and broadened our vision. As a principle, we are therefore now able to affirm the fact that some feature or even field of ancient-language study that may seem unconnected to lexicography may contribute to the evaluation of the meaning of a word and its context or some other aspect of the theory and practice of ancient-language lexicography. For instance, Greek lexicographer Fred Danker submitted to us a paper in which he Margherita Farina, An Outline of Middle Voice in Syriac: Evidences of a Linguistic Category, PoSL 6, 2011; Na’ama Pat-El, Historical Syntax of Aramaic, PLAL 1, 2012. 22 Taylor and Morrison, eds., Reflections on Lexicography. 23 Terry C. Falla, “Looking for what’s not there,” volume preface in Taylor and Morrison, eds., Reflections on Lexicography, xii. 24 Two lexical works that do employ modern-linguistic methodologies are the Semantic Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew (SDBH), edited by Reinier de Blois, which is informed by a cognitive linguistic perspective (see Reinier de Blois, “The Semantic Structure of Biblical Hebrew,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography VI, PoSL 7, 3–20), and the Diccionario griego-español del Nuevo Testamento (DGENT), “which incorporates the latest developments in linguistics and semantics” (see Lautaro Roig Lanzillotta, “The Greek-Spanish Dictionary of the New Testament (DGENT): Meaning and Translation of the Lexemes; Some Practical Examples,” in Reflections on Lexicography, PLAL 4, 278). Several other contributors to PoSL and PLAL also use modern linguistic methods for syntactic and semantic analysis, such as Janet Dyk and Dean Forbes in their respective articles; Margaret Sim, who uses a cognitive theory of communication in her study of the genitive absolute in discourse (“The Genitive Absolute in Discourse: More than a Change of Subject,” in Reflections on Lexicography, PLAL 4, 289–302); Paul Stevenson, who employs semantic componential analysis to elucidate the precise shades of the meaning of verbs and to make distinctions between near-synonyms (“The Semantics of Syriac Motion Verbs in Exodus Chapters 1–19,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography IV, Part I, PoSL 5, 119–54; Part II, Foundations for Syriac Lexicography V, PoSL 7, 107–21); and Todd Price in his monograph Structural Lexicology and the Greek New Testament: Applying Corpus Linguistics for Word Sense Possibility Delimitation Using Collocational Indicators, PLAL 6. Price begins with a discussion of recent advances in linguistics and lexicography. 21

20

TERRY FALLA AND BERYL TURNER

demonstrated that the socio-cultural context of some lexemes has emerged as a vital element in our consideration of their definition. Hence the need to be open to a wide spectrum of disciplines. These disciplines range from a highly focussed linguistic subject such as Syriac dottology, which concerns the use of dotted marks in ancient manuscripts for the purpose of punctuation, prosody, and vocalization, and so are of interest to the lexicographer,25 to codicology, etymology, archaeology, the research of translationists, and many other disciplines, including various aspects of modern linguistics. 4.2.5 ISLP Computational lexicography group Another development was the appointing of the ISLP computational lexicography group. Its aim was the creation of a database-template for corpus-by-corpus lexica, beginning with a lexicon for the Syriac versions of the New Testament. By 2012 the group consisted of Sargon Hasso (chair), Reinier de Blois, Terry Falla, Dean Forbes, George Kiraz, Janet Dyk, and Wido van Peursen. Reinier de Blois and Sargon Hasso each presented papers on the project. While this group is currently in abeyance, computational lexicography is nevertheless a key inclusion in the work of ISLP.

5. THE ETHOS OF THE ISLP So many people demand answers that can’t be refuted— not realising this is impossible if the issue is a transcendent one—when the search itself remains the important part. Patrick White26

In his article “Reading the Bible with the Taḥtāyā ḏa-Ṯlāṯā,” in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries, PLAL 9, 109, Jonathan Loopstra points out that “[t]he reader of EastSyrian biblical manuscripts is confronted by a ‘bewildering profusion of points;’ some are small—such as diacritics and vowel marks—and others are large … Moreover, because many of these larger dots are absent from printed editions of the Syriac bible, modern students of Syriac are generally unaware that such a variety of these punctuation and prosodic marks exist. Understandably, this can lead to confusion when the reader first encounters these dots in East-Syrian manuscripts.” See also George Kiraz, Tūrrās Mamllā: A Grammar of the Syriac Language (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2012); —―, The Syriac Dot (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2015); and J.B. Segal, The Diacritical Point and Accents in Syriac (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1953). 26 Patrick White, opening paragraph in “The Search for an Alternative to Futility,” La Trobe University Bulletin, Vol. 15, No 15, 6th August, 1984; retitled “In this World of Hypocrisy and Cynicism,” in Patrick White Speaks (eds. Christine Flynn and Paul Brennan, Leichardt, NSW, Australia: Primavera, 1989), 151–58. 25

THE INTERNATIONAL SYRIAC LANGUAGE PROJECT (ISLP)

21

At the beginning of this story we said we would return to a motivation that has helped shape the ISLP’s identity and character—its ethos. A primary value of the group is what can be called collegiality. In today’s business world, there is recognition that cooperation rather than competition is what results in increased creativity, productivity, and job satisfaction. The minutes of our first 2003 meeting in Cambridge record the group as emphasizing that the quality of relationships was as important as the quality of the research. All felt that the ISLP would work only if we sought to incarnate values that would enable us to cohere as a group. With this is mind, we have sought to provide a safe environment for trying out new ideas and concepts. Similarly, we have given thought to the next generation: as a group we have welcomed young scholars and given them a place to present papers and be published, and a chance to meet and get to know the names that inhabit their footnotes. At the other end of the career spectrum, established lexicographers David Clines and Fred Danker have joined us to reflect on a lifetime of lexicographical endeavour. Their candour and wisdom have been a gift to us that we have been grateful to receive. Especially poignant was Fred’s making an enormous effort to join us at San Francisco SBL Annual Meeting in 2011 to reflect on his life’s work. This was his last ever presentation: six weeks later he was gone. Ours is a specialist group, but the specialties are many. It is this diversity that invests the group with its breadth of vision. Physiologist and geographer Jared Diamond comments that “extreme specialization prevents scholars from developing a perspective,”27 and that it is only this wider perspective that allows us to come to valid conclusions. We agree. We seek to locate the microscopic in its place on the wide horizon. Connected with this is developing the courage to be confronted with the very different, the alien, the challenging. We specialists can become very comfortable and safe as we master our fields, but to really grow, learn and develop in our field, to stand at the cutting edge and take our research into new domains—this requires contact with research in languages and fields in which we are not competent, to hear about questions we hadn’t yet thought of, and different approaches and methodologies that can inform ours. And to discover that the planet these alien researchers are on has a lot of similarities to ours after all. We also recognize that academic research is not just academic. A recent Australian radio broadcast featured a philosopher stressing the ethical and social dimensions of scientific research. His premise was that research is educational and education is primarily ethical and social. Researchers may persevere with or abandon their research for reasons other than academic, as the following experience at a conference illustrates. Conferences, as many have experienced, can be lonely affairs. They can feel unfriendly, exclusivist, 27

Stefan Klein, We are all stardust (trans. Ross Benjamin; Melbourne: Scribe, 2015), 54.

22

TERRY FALLA AND BERYL TURNER

negatively critical, and even hostile. I will not forget the impression a small group of senior well-known academics made on me as a younger scholar. We had just heard an even younger scholar hesitantly present his first paper. I overheard them decimating it. In my estimation, the gossiping group was right in its analysis. But did any one of those seniors think to take the young scholar aside or to a cup of coffee and offer constructive guidance and comment? No. Instead, I noted that they ostracized him. My regret is that I remained silent and didn’t approach him myself. Not one of us is free from bad behaviour at some point or another. But there is something fundamentally wrong about creating this kind of environment and fostering this kind of attitude. It can be dangerous and destructive. As Oliver Sacks, the world’s most well-known neurologist, tells us in his book The River of Consciousness, which he dictated in the weeks before his death from liver cancer in 2015, “egotism and antagonism can prematurely shut down promising fields of science.”28 This is not to dismiss the place of healthy competitiveness in human endeavour. “The history of science [and medicine],” says Sacks, “has taken much of its shape from intellectual rivalries that force scientists to confront both anomalies and deeply held ideologies. Such competition, in the form of open and straightforward debate and trial, is essential to scientific progress. This is ‘clean’ science, in which friendly or collegial competition encourages an advance in understanding—but there is a good deal of ‘dirty’ science too, in which competition and personal rivalry become malignant and obstructive.”29 As months gave way to years, we in the ISLP found ourselves shaped and informed by a kind of social purpose and social responsibility, which sometimes took the form of unobtrusive yet real pastoral purpose and responsibility. Somewhere in the mix of the ISLP, as many of us have experienced it, are the values of care, collaboration, generosity, hospitality, inclusivity. Every now and again, there comes an unexpected moment that we find ourselves treasuring as well as remembering. Not long after I relinquished the ISLP’s leadership I sent an email of thanks to all participants. For me, it was, perhaps inevitably, a time of adjustment, of letting go, and finding, despite the call of family and work, a new sense of direction. Then came an email from an ISLP participant that in part read: “Feeling especially discouraged just now (flu? Work issues? Age? Global wretchedness?), I was so uplifted by this by you that I’ve put it on my monitor …” Thus it was that I found this kind and thoughtful person quoting myself back to me: “And in this conflicted, tormented, beautiful world how grateful I am for moments of grace, humour, inclusivity, hospitality and down-to-earth goodwill and friendship offered and made possible by ISLP participants as they meet from year to year.” But our memorable moments are not born in a vacuum. They are forged, as great souls such as Mohandas Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr, Nelson Mandela, and This sentence is from Natasha Mitchell’s review of Sacks’ book in The Age Spectrum, Saturday, December 16, 2017, 20. 29 Oliver Sacks, The River of Consciousness (London: Picador, 2017), 206. 28

THE INTERNATIONAL SYRIAC LANGUAGE PROJECT (ISLP)

23

Desmond Tutu would tell us, on the anvils of choice: they are the consequences of intentional aim. And so it is that the ISLP group is purposely disparate and embraces different traditions, approaches, expertise, and ways of seeing the world. It is consciously communal. It premeditatedly seeks to provide a safe place: a community that is supportive of everyone who presents, where disagreement does not lead to ridicule or personal disapproval, but where we can hear each other into speech; a space, where limited as our time together may be, our goal is to help each other on the next step of our journey. The ISLP came to birth as a millennium ended. With it a most violent, fearfilled, hate-fuelled, and self-destructive century came to its close. Yet around the globe, new forms of encounter and dialogue had emerged. Many began to see things with a clear eye—and they liked the view. They denied violence and despair as the last word: they put their trust in the power of good to overcome evil, the power of love to overcome hatred. In the world of Syriac studies, East and West had come together in new and unassuming ways, due as always to the work and foresight of a few.30 Quietly and without embarrassment we have therefore, flawed as we are, sought to step over the disempowering obstacles of status, class, gender, ethnicity, and injurious academic rivalry. We have sought to affirm that only good can come from letting our academic pursuits and the reasoning part of our brain be companioned by our positive emotions, by consideration, love, compassion, respect, forgiveness, and the gentle courage of an open and reflective heart. We trust this to be a good and wise foundation on which to build.

6. THE QUEST FOR METHODOLOGIES FOR ANCIENT-LANGUAGE LEXICA—TOWARDS THE FUTURE How important it is to walk along, not in haste but slowly, Looking at everything and calling out Yes! No! … To pay attention, this is our endless and proper work. Mary Oliver31

In composing a lexicon, the lexicographer(s) must first devise a methodology. This begins with a conceptual framework determining the principles, aims and content of the proposed lexicon. How large a corpus will it address? Who is its target audience? How much information will it contain? What information will be included? How will it be arranged and presented? All these questions and many, many more will inform the conceptual framework. Each lexicon also requires a carefully thoughtthrough methodology for every item of a lexical entry. Together, these methodoloSee Falla, “Looking for what’s not there,” xi. Mary Oliver, from the poem “Yes! No!” in New and Selected Poems vol. 2. (Boston: Beacon, 2005), 151. 30 31

24

TERRY FALLA AND BERYL TURNER

gies will form a web of multiple methodologies that interconnect and in the long term will be open to critique and revision, singly or together. Only in this way can the internal methodologies, on which the contents of an entry are based, be properly available to scrutiny, so that if needs be, they can be consulted and tested by scholarship and the lexicon user. Creating this web of methodologies is a time-andenergy-consuming task, but there is no other way of fulfilling what ISLP participants have identified as “the quest for increased linguistic precision and lexical thoroughness.”32 Inevitably the lexicographer will stand on the shoulders of the preceding lexicographers in that language, building on what has gone before and developing new features. In my work on KPG I drew on the three major Syriac lexicographical traditions of Robert Payne Smith33 et al., Brockelmann34 et al., and Audo,35 and also on the Greek lexical tradition of BAG/BADG/BDAG36 et al. Some features that are offered sparingly in these lexica are more fully developed in KPG, such as giving the Greek behind every instance of the Syriac headword. Some new features are included, such as offering synonyms where possible for every meaning of the headword. Comparisons of other works with one’s own inevitably lead to a reexamination of one’s own purposes and practices, and an appreciation of what we can learn from each other. This is the situation for each of us who came together in the ISLP. Those of us who are lexicographers had each been building on and developing the traditions we had inherited. We then discovered from each other a variety of conceptual frameworks and a wider range of lexicographical and linguistic features and issues than we had previously been aware of, both within and outside our own language disciplines. To illustrate this diversity, we can compare the different conceptual frameworks and contents of a small sample of some recent Greek and Hebrew lexica that have been the subject of ISLP papers: the multi-corpus-based new Ancient Greek-English Lexicon to be published by Cambridge University Press in 2019;37 the corpus-specific BDAG38 for the New Testament and other early ChrisTaylor and Morrison in their Introduction to Reflections on Lexicography, PLAL 4, xiii. R. Payne Smith, ed., Thesaurus Syriacus (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1879–1891. repr. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1981). 34 Carl Brockelmann, Lexicon Syriacum (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1895; 2nd ed., Halle: Niemeyer, 1928; repr. Hildesheim, Zurich, New York: Georg Olms, 1982). 35 Toma Audo, Audo’s Syriac-Syriac Lexicon (repr. as Simta d-leshana suryaya by Toma Audo, Metropolitan of Urmia [Iran] in Mosul: 1897; repr. 1978, 1979, 1985). 36 BAG/BADG/BDAG, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 37 The lexicon is of intermediate size and covers the mostly widely read ancient literary texts, from Homer to the Hellenistic poets, the historian Polybius and Plutarch’s Lives, and the New Testament Gospels and Acts of the Apostles. For a discussion of methodological issues before the project started, see Anne Thompson, “New Intermediate Ancient Greek-English Lexicon: Problems and Perspectives,” in The Lexicography of Ancient, Medieval and Modern Greek Projects (ed. J.N. Kazazis; Thessaloniki: Centre for the Greek Language, 2003), 165–76; see 32 33

THE INTERNATIONAL SYRIAC LANGUAGE PROJECT (ISLP)

25

tian literature, which includes some theological information, and now includes definitions as well as glosses; CGEL,39 which is concise and also includes definitions; DGENT,40 which is based on five semantic categories and gives special consideration to context when giving the definitions of a term; SDBH,41 which is based on semantic domains, with a recognition of the difference that cultural background makes to those domains; DCH,42 which identifies many new Hebrew words, includes the Dead Sea Scrolls, includes extensive syntagmatic information, and excludes etymological information and reference to figurative speech; the shorter HALAT,43 which differs from BDB and DCH in organization and often in the meanings it assigns to words; and the revision of BDB,44 which will completely and radically update the dictionary’s etymology. Editors of all these and other lexica have participated in the ISLP, some over several years. We have listened, learned and influenced one another. But this does not mean that our lexica have relinquished their individuality. More often than not what we learn from one another helps us to improve and refine also http://www.greek-language.gr/greekLang/files/document/conference-1997/04-en167–178.pdf, accessed 20/05/2018; see also Anne Thompson’s recent article, “The Lexicographic Editor and the Problem of Consistency,” in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries, PLAL 9, 481–507. 38 W. Bauer, F.W. Danker, W.F. Arndt, and F.W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (3rd ed. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2000). 39 Frederick W. Danker, The Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2009). 40 J. Peláez et al., Diccionario griego-español del Nuevo Testamento (DGENT) I. Córdoba: El Almendro, 2000. See also Roig Lanzillotta, “The Greek-Spanish Dictionary;” Jesús Peláez, Metodología del Diccionario griego-español del Nuevo Testamento (Córdoba: El Almendro, 1996); —–, “Contextual Factors in the Greek-Spanish Dictionary of the New Testament (DGENT),” in Reflections on Lexicography, PLAL 4, 265–75; Jesús Peláez and Juan Mateos, New Testament Lexicography. Introduction – Theory – Method (ed. David S. du Toit; trans. Andrew Bowden; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2018). 41 Blois, ed., Semantic Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew. 42 David J.A. Clines, ed., The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (9 vols.; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993–2011); see also Clines, “How My (Lexicographical) Mind Has Changed, Or Else Remained the Same,” in Reflections on Lexicography, PLAL 4, 233–40. 43 See Regina Hunziker-Rodewald, “KAHAL—The Shorter HALAT: A Hebrew Lexicon Project in Progress,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III, PoSL 4, 243–49. 44 In 2013, Semitists Jo Ann Hackett and John Huehnergard received a National Endowment for the Humanities grant to fund creation of a revised and updated electronic version of BDB; the resulting Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon will be available through a website (Semitica Electronica) or via print-on-demand. See also Jo Ann Hackett and John Huehnergard, “On Revising and Updating BDB,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III, PoSL 4, 227–34.

26

TERRY FALLA AND BERYL TURNER

an already existing feature and how we research it, or become aware of an aspect of our discipline that had remained outside our ken for different and complex reasons, as all too frequently happens in scientific endeavour.45 This lexical “diversity of approach, opinion, and experimentation”46 is producing lexica, including electronic, that offer different kinds and different levels of information, and illustrates the point that certain lexical information may have a justified and useful place in one lexicon, but not in another. It is a phenomenon that has ensured that no one lexical resource or methodology is sufficient for all purposes,47 and will not be, at least in the near future. Indeed, we see that ancient-language lexica have become more diverse in aims and contents over the past half-century and, in some instances, methodologically more multiplex in character. While lexicographers are becoming increasingly cognizant of each other’s work, we discern no drive towards simplification, no movement towards standardization. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does bring with it the responsibility to discern how and why projects develop in different ways. We can achieve this only through a proper comparative understanding of the conceptual framework of the projects in question: how they are constructed, and why they have been formed in that way. Our task has been the quest for methodologies that ask the right questions and seek internal coherence and consistency for the provision of all types of lexical information. This quest has the power to question and change how we see ancientlanguage lexicography and all other subjects relating to it. On a lighter note, while our attempts at systematizing are essential, a finding of the relatively new discipline of cognitive science might help to keep our methodologies grounded and in perspective: “Much of the order that physics perceives in the world is no more than dogmatic belief ‘imposed by the prisms of our nervous system, a mere artefact of the way evolution has wired the brain’48.”49 It is a useful caution against an unwarranted faith in the eternal perfection of our own constructs.

In this regard, Oliver Sacks has a fascinating chapter on “Scotoma: Forgetting and Neglect in Science,” in his book The River of Consciousness. 46 Terry C. Falla, “The Lexicon for Which We Long? Some Primary Issues Regarding the Future of Classical Syriac Lexicography,” The Harp 11–12 (1998): 282. 47 Falla, “The Lexicon for Which We Long?” 282. 48 George Johnson, Fire in the Mind: Science, Faith, and the Search for Order (New York: Knopf, 1995), 6. 49 George Vaillant, Spiritual Evolution: A Scientific Defense of Faith (New York: Broadway, 2009), 73. 45

THE INTERNATIONAL SYRIAC LANGUAGE PROJECT (ISLP)

27

7. PUBLISHED RESEARCH What you see is not what others see. We inhabit parallel worlds of perceptions, bounded by our interests and experience. What is obvious to some is invisible to others. George Monbiot50

The predominant subjects of the sixteen publications of the ISLP published by Gorgias Press in our two series, Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics (PoSL) and its successor Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages (PLAL) are lexicographical, grammatical, syntactical, and semantic. Nevertheless, as a whole the subject matter, macroscopic and microscopic, is interdisciplinary and wide-ranging. This section presents a volume-by-volume overview of this subject matter; it draws substantially from or reproduces material in these volumes. To complement this section, the following one (§8) arranges each PoSL and PLAL article and monograph according to its subject. All articles and monographs are cited in the bibliography. The first series, Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics, consists of six volumes. Five are colloquia. One is a monograph: A. Dean Forbes and David G.K. Taylor, eds. Foundations for Syriac Lexicography I. PoSL 1, 2005. P.J. Williams, ed. Foundations for Syriac Lexicography II. PoSL 3, 2009. Janet Dyk and Wido van Peursen, eds. Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III. PoSL 4, 2008. Kristian S. Heal and Alison G. Salvesen, eds. Foundations for Syriac Lexicography IV. PoSL 5, 2012. Jonathon Loopstra and Michael Sokoloff, eds. Foundations for Syriac Lexicography V. PoSL 7, 2012. Margherita Farina. An Outline of Middle Voice in Syriac: Evidences of a Linguistic Category. PoSL 6, 2011. The second series, Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages, consists of ten volumes. Seven are monographs. Three are colloquia: Na’ama Pat-El. Studies in the Historical Syntax of Aramaic. PLAL 1, 2012. Mark Meyer. A Comparative Dialectical Study of Genitive Constructions in Aramaic Translations of Exodus. PLAL 2, 2012. Tarsee Li. Greek Indicative Verbs in the Christian Palestinian Aramaic Gospels: Translation Techniques and the Aramaic Verbal System. PLAL 3, 2013.

50

George Monbiot, untitled article, The Guardian Weekly (5–11 January 2018): 48.

28

TERRY FALLA AND BERYL TURNER Richard A. Taylor and Craig E. Morrison, eds. Reflections on Lexicography: Explorations in Ancient Syriac, Hebrew and Greek Sources. PLAL 4, 2014. Todd L. Price. Structural Lexicology and the Greek New Testament: Applying Corpus Linguistics for Word Sense Possibility Delimitation Using Collocational Indicators. PLAL 6, 2015. Ebbe E. Knudsen. Classical Syriac Phonology. PLAL 7, 2015. Timothy Martin Lewis, Alison G. Salvesen and Beryl Turner, eds. Contemporary Examinations of Classical Languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac and Greek): Valency, Lexicography, Grammar, And Manuscripts. PLAL 8, 2016. Tarsee Li and Keith Dyer, eds. From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries: Select Studies in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek. PLAL 9, 2017 Giuseppe Mandala and Inmaculada Pérez Martín, eds. Multilingual and Multigraphic Manuscripts of East and West. PLAL 5, 2018.

To the above publications is to be added the present volume edited by Daniel King. Five other PLAL monographs are in preparation, consisting of three lexical projects, an annotated bibliography of Syriac lexica, and a grammatical work: Andreas Juckel. Analytical Concordance to the Harklean Version.51 The work consists of two parts. The first part is a concordance of the Syriac text with lexemes organised by root. Citations illustrate the context of every word. The header of each entry notes the Greek correspondence of the Syriac word. The second part is an alphabetical Greek-Syriac word list, which gives the Syriac correspondences for every Greek word. This word list seeks to reconstruct the source Thomas of Harkel had at hand when translating the Greek New Testament into Syriac in 615/16. The “analytical” feature of the concordance refers to the morphological analysis of the Syriac lexemes and to the translational information given by the Greek-Syriac correspondences. Daniel King. A. Merx, Historia Artis Grammaticae apud Syros: English Translation. –—. A Lexicon of Syriac Philosophical Terms.52 Alexey Muraviev. Syriac Nosological Lexicon: A Word-list of Diseases Occurring in Syriac Medical Texts with Greek and Arabic Parallels. David G.K. Taylor. An Annotated Bibliography of Printed Syriac Lexica.

See Andreas Juckel, “Should the Harklean Version be Included in a Future Lexicon of the Syriac New Testament?” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography I, PoSL 1, 167–94. 52 See Daniel King, “Remarks on the Future of a Syriac Lexicon Based upon the Corpus of Philosophical Texts,” in Reflections on Lexicography, PLAL 4, 63–81. 51

THE INTERNATIONAL SYRIAC LANGUAGE PROJECT (ISLP)

29

7.1 Monographs in order of publication Margherita Farina’s An Outline of Middle Voice in Syriac: Evidences of a Linguistic Category (PoSL 6) presents a modern linguistic approach to the function of the Syriac etverbal prefix. Based on a detailed analysis of a number of early Syriac texts, it proposes a unified account of the different values traditionally attributed to the Syriac et-stems. Farina views the data within a typologically comparative framework derived from a cross-linguistic study of middle voice conjugations. Na’ama Pat-El’s Studies in the Historical Syntax of Aramaic (PLAL 1) has two primary goals. The first goal is to give a historical comparative account of several syntactic patterns in the Aramaic dialects in order to locate syntactic differences between these dialects and to explain them, if possible. The second goal is primarily methodological: to prove the advantage and validity of syntax to historical Semitic linguistics and dialectology. In order to show the merits of historical syntax for comparative Semitic linguistics, Pat-El has chosen Aramaic as the main source of data. She explains that this choice is not random. The work focuses on the development of adverbial subordination, nominal modifiers and direct speech marking, as well as reviewing changes through language contact and drift. Mark Meyer’s A Comparative Dialectical Study of Genitive Constructions in Aramaic Translations of Exodus (PLAL 2) reveals important similarities and differences between five Aramaic dialects in the use of genitive constructions: the Syriac Peshitta, Targum Onkelos, three corpora of the Palestinian Targum, the Samaritan Targum, and fragments of a Christian Palestinian Aramaic translation of Exodus. Meyer argues that there are three primary Aramaic genitive constructions that translate the construct phrase in Hebrew: the construct phrase, the genitive adjunct phrase with d-, and the genitive phrase with d- anticipated by a possessive suffix on the head noun (cataphoric construction). Meyer finds that all the Aramaic dialects, except Samaritan Aramaic, use the adjunct genitive construction when the second member denotes the material composition of the first member. Tarsee Li’s Greek Indicative Verbs in the Christian Palestinian Aramaic Gospels: Translation Techniques and the Aramaic Verbal System (PLAL 3) is based on the recognition that virtually all Christian Palestinian Aramaic (CPA) texts consist of translations, so that one cannot adequately discuss its verbal system without considering translation technique. His study consists of an examination of the translation of Greek indicative verbs in the CPA Gospels and its implications for the understanding of the CPA verbal system. The presence of textual, stylistic, and/or idiomatic variation in an otherwise literal translation provides useful clues concerning both the nature of the CPA translation and the function of CPA verbs. Hence, Li discusses the evidence afforded by translation technique concerning the syntax and morphosyntax of the CPA verbal system in light of synchronic and diachronic comparative evidence. Todd L. Price’s Structural Lexicology and the Greek New Testament: Applying Corpus Linguistics for Word Sense Possibility Delimitation Using Collocational Indicators (PLAL 6) moves beyond a traditional view of dictionary definitions to show how an analysis of large corpora of Hellenistic Greek can advance our understanding of lexical semantics. Price traces the development of corpus linguistics as used in dictionary making and demonstrates how this approach can be applied to Greek-English lexi-

30

TERRY FALLA AND BERYL TURNER

ca, with special emphasis on defining words in context by disambiguating their possible meanings. Price includes numerous case studies in the Greek New Testament applying the method to exegetically problematic texts. Ebbe E. Knudsen’s Classical Syriac Phonology (PLAL 7) provides a description of Classical Syriac phonology based on fully vocalized biblical texts and the detailed comments by medieval grammarians. Knudsen discusses Syriac consonants and vowels (including vowel quantity and stress), the comparative Semitic background of Syriac phonology, the grammatical features of the pre-Classical inscriptions, and compares eastern and western varieties of Jewish Aramaic. The author also examines the modern dialect of Turoyo. Two appendices discuss the traditional pronunciation of West Syriac and the pronunciation of Modern Literary Syriac, and offer a sketch of Turoyo phonology. The volume edited by Giuseppe Mandala and Inmaculada Pérez Martín, Multilingual and Multigraphic Manuscripts of East and West (PLAL 5) deals with the evidence from manuscripts and handwritten documents with multilingual and multigraphic structures in Arabic, Hebrew, Latin, and Greek, conceived and designed to display texts in different languages or scripts. The work addresses the historical context of these testimonia (their production, use, and circulation) and focusses on problems inherent to multicultural societies. Until now, this flourishing manuscript tradition, especially of the ancient world, but also of the Middle Ages, has been studied almost exclusively by segments and by disciplines that do not always allow a comprehensive understanding of the manuscripts and their multi-graphic and multilingual contexts. 7.2 Colloquia in order of publication The ISLP colloquia volumes address a wide range of topics, including the histories of Greek, Hebrew, and Syriac lexicography; descriptions and critiques of a number of ancient-language lexica; issues of lexicographical methodology; modern linguistic methodology, grammar and syntax, semantics, translation, and textual criticism. 7.2.1 PoSL 1 (Colloquia) The first volume (PoSL 1) arises from the ISLP’s first meeting at the SBL International Meeting in Cambridge, 2003.53 A number of themes are introduced, many of which are continued in subsequent volumes. It begins with a substantial article by Terry Falla54 in which he draws from and further develops his work on KPG to outline a conceptual framework for a new comprehensive Syriac-English lexicon. The article begins by outlining the need for such a lexicon and then proposes a conceptual framework, initially for a comprehensive lexicon to the Syriac New Testament, and in the long-term as a basis for the lexicalizing of other Syriac literature. The article addresses five basic questions: for whom is the work intended (audience); what A. Dean Forbes and David G.K. Taylor, eds., Foundations for Syriac Lexicography I, PoSL 1. 54 Falla, “A Conceptual Framework.” 53

THE INTERNATIONAL SYRIAC LANGUAGE PROJECT (ISLP)

31

Syriac literature would it cover and would it present that literature in a single work or a corpus-by-corpus series (scope); what sort of and how much information should be included (content); and how is that information to be ascertained (methodology); and can it be organized in a user-friendly manner that is methodologically compatible with its contents and is aesthetically pleasing (arrangement and presentation)? Alison Salvesen55 focusses on the needs of the various types of lexicon user, stressing that the needs of the majority of users, namely new learners of Syriac, should not be forgotten—a challenge that has frequently been referred to in subsequent discussions on creating lexical entries. A new lexicon, says the author, would have to be built up layer by layer, like a snowball, starting with the Gospels and then the New Testament, followed by other widely read texts such as the Peshitta Old Testament, Aphrahat, and Ephrem. Salvesen then turns her attention to several specific lexicographical issues, ending with the emphasis that the lexicon should be fully scientific while remaining as “user-friendly” as possible. George Kiraz56 provides an account of the history of Syriac computational lexicography. He outlines previous projects known to him, where possible with reference to further technical descriptions. Projects, which he has personally been involved in, are described in more detail in order to document some of the work that has been done. He concludes with some remarks on the future implementation of a fuller Syriac electronic lexicon. Dean Forbes57 introduces us to the use of statistics in his computational analysis of the syntax of the Hebrew Bible. He examines the problem with traditional views of part-of-speech classes and proposes a solution for dealing with nondiscrete syntactic classes. He begins with a discussion of the central problem that he addresses. Traditional views of part-of-speech classes see them as hard, “either/or” categories. Several analysts have shown that morphologically-defined parts of speech may overlap (are “mixed”) and may be heterogeneous (“gradient”). How, Forbes asks, are we to detect and deal with such mixed and gradient classes so that a coherent taxonomy can be devised? The rest of the article proposes a solution that involves a four-stage process: 1. We first use contextual information about the classes to compute their distances apart. 2. We then use this set of distances to produce a hierarchical clustering of the classes, on the basis of which we define a set of superclasses. 3. We use the distances among these super-classes to infer a onedimensional continuum along which the super-classes are ordered. 4. Based on the class squish ordering, we plot each text token in a context space in which mixed and Alison G. Salvesen, “The User versus the Lexicographer: Practical and Scientific Issues in Creating Entries,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography I, PoSL 1, 81–92. 56 George Kiraz, “Computing the Syriac Lexicon: Historical Notes and Considerations for a Future Implementation,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography I, PoSL 1, 93–104. 57 A. Dean Forbes, “Squishes, Clines, and Fuzzy Signs: Mixed and Gradient Categories in the Biblical Hebrew Lexicon,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography I, PoSL 1, 105–39. 55

32

TERRY FALLA AND BERYL TURNER

gradient classes are discernible. The article concludes by outlining directions for future work. Janet Dyk,58 from a linguistic perspective, illustrates how syntax affects semantics and asks whether syntactic information should be included in the Syriac lexicon, and, if so, what type and how the lexicon should present it. She begins with the formal point of view that words display distinct contrastive and combinatorial functions and that these unique properties can be stored in the lexicon. The fact that an element may function as different parts of speech in a specific environment is the systematic product of the interaction of the basic qualities of the element itself with the context in which it occurs. Though the lexicon could include as separate items the various functions which an element may have, reference should be made to the basic form from which the other functions are derivable on the basis of consistently applied syntactic rules. Traced with an extensive text corpus, an element manifests a limited number of shifts in part of speech and the possible shifts within the language can be represented in a single unidirectional chain of parts of speech. Peter Williams59 raises some issues of translation when comparing Syriac words with their Greek Vorlage. Syriac lexicographers approaching the New Testament must ask to what extent the Greek should guide their understanding of the Syriac. This paper dwells on some of the difficulties involved in matching Syriac words with Greek ones and also on some of the counter-intuitive or surprising results that the comparison of the Syriac and Greek leads us to. Examples are taken from the Old Syriac and Peshitta Gospels. Andreas Juckel60 argues for the inclusion of unique Harklean vocabulary in a future lexicon of the Syriac New Testament and lists eighteen pages of such words. This vocabulary would enrich the lexicon’s semantic analysis and facilitate a comparison between Harklean and non-Harklean Syriac-Greek correspondences. Without burdening the proposed future lexicon too much with an anticipated analytical concordance, selected Harklean readings would provide sufficient lexical and comparative information. To employ the Harklean in this way would reduce comparison to the version’s characteristic lexical features and leave the Peshitta to serve as the corpus’s unrivalled point of comparison. The reduction of comparison to characteristic lexical features would contribute to the incorporation of the diachronic aspects inherent in the corpus of different versions. The volume concludes with “reflections” by Sebastian Brock61 on sources and resources available for Syriac lexicography. The first part of the article offers remarks about the three major Syriac dictionaries (R. Payne Smith, Brockelmann, and Janet W. Dyk, “Desiderata for the Lexicon from a Syntactic Point of View,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography I, PoSL 1, 141–56. 59 Peter J. Williams, “On Matching Syriac Words with Their Greek Vorlage,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography I, PoSL 1, 157–66. 60 Juckel, “Should the Harklean Version be Included?” 61 Sebastian P. Brock, “Syriac Lexicography: Reflections on Sources and Resources,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography I, PoSL 1, 195–208. 58

THE INTERNATIONAL SYRIAC LANGUAGE PROJECT (ISLP)

33

Audo) and their offspring. The second part discusses sources that might prove useful for any future work on Syriac lexicography. Such a task of supplementing the combined resources of the three existing major dictionaries, although formidable, would be a manageable undertaking—provided, of course, the resources, financial and of suitably qualified personnel, could be found. And indeed, on a smaller scale it would be desirable if a database of materials could be built up gradually, and to which editors of new texts could contribute individually, so that this would eventually become a major lexicographical resource for Syriac scholars, and one from which one day in the distant future a new major Syriac lexicon might be compiled. 7.2.2 PoSL 3 (Colloquia)62 The second volume of colloquia (PoSL 3),63 following the SBL International Meeting in Groningen in 2004, increases the breadth and depth of our studies. Dean Forbes64 analyses the distributions of the words and the word segments of biblical Hebrew by using the rigorous computational methods of unsupervised pattern recognition (all explained in the paper). This allows the inference of part-of-speech classes. The classes are in most cases gratifyingly homogeneous, but some contain perplexing constituents. Peter Williams’ paper65 considers a particular feature of the Greek language that appears to have provided the Peshitta translators with some difficulty. Specifically, he considers the Greek alpha privative—a feature of lexical formation whereby the letter alpha (or alpha-nu) is prefixed to a Greek form and the form is thereby negated. This is especially common in the epistles, which in the article should be understood as referring solely to the 13-letter Pauline corpus. For Janet Dyk,66 the transitivity, intransitivity, stativity, or passivity of a verbal form affects the number and nature of elements in its valence pattern, that is, elements occurring along with it in a grammatically well-formed sentence. The more elements required, the more “verbal” the form is considered to be. The opposite is also true: the fewer the elements, the less inherently verbal the form is taken to be. Thus our judgements in classifying verbal forms is affected by the class of verbs to which a form belongs. Whole sets of verbs have ended up in classical lexica listed without certain paradigmatic forms, for example, participles, while the form correPoSL 2, a monograph, is in preparation: David G.K. Taylor. An Annotated Bibliography of Printed Syriac Lexica. 63 Peter J. Williams, ed., Foundations for Syriac Lexicography II, PoSL 3. 64 A. Dean Forbes, “Distributionally-Inferred Word and Form Classes in the Hebrew Lexicon: Known by the Company They Keep,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography II, PoSL 3, 1–34. 65 Peter J. Williams, “Alpha Privatives in the New Testament Epistles,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography II, PoSL 3, 35–43. 66 Janet W. Dyk, “Form and Function in the Treatment of the Passive Participle,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography II, PoSL 3, 45–61. 62

34

TERRY FALLA AND BERYL TURNER

sponding exactly to the participle is given as a separate entry and called an adjective. Yet the latter function does not satisfactorily account for all occurrences of the form. Due to their passive nature, passive participles tend to function attributively, but this is not the case everywhere and at all times. It is the “Doppelnatur” of the participle which allows for the variety in its syntactic functions, but this does not change its part of speech. For lexica to be consistent in their treatment of language data, the systematic functioning of elements within the whole of the language must be kept in focus. In constructing a lexicon, various principles can be followed. Usability and systematic elegance are both worthy goals. The effects of the two can be in conflict in the practical treatment of language data. Alternative treatments of the passive participle are presented and the effects are compared. Suggestions are made for preserving the best of both approaches. Wido van Peursen and Terry Falla67 address some questions related to ܶ and ‫ ܷܕ‬in Classical Syriac, which it is usual to study together because they share some characteristics of syntactic behaviour, and also because of the similar ways they have been treated in Syriac grammars and lexica. They argue that a syntactic analysis of these particles can go beyond the general observation that they usually come after the first word of the clause. Defining the rule for the position of these particles more precisely decreases the number of exceptions to the rule considerably. The parallels with the syntactic behaviour of Greek γάρ and δέ, too, can be described more precisely than in terms of “after the first word.” As for the semantic analysis of these particles, they show that the formal and syntactical equivalence of Syriac ܶ and ‫ ܕ‬and Greek γάρ and δέ should not lead to the assumption that they are ܷ also semantic and functional equivalents, an assumption that is pervasive not only in Syriac grammars and dictionaries, but also in modern editions of the Greek New Testament. Andreas Juckel68 provides scholars for the first time with the text of the Harklean margin to the Pauline corpus along with detailed analysis, and lays the foundation for an analytical concordance of the Harklean New Testament and its possible inclusion in a future Syriac lexicon. He provides illustrative examples throughout his presentation. The first part of the article justifies the dominance of the translational perspective through demonstrating the accessibility of the version’s Greek model, by an analysis of the translator’s philological principles. The second part determines the non-Peshitta vocabulary of the Harklean for possible inclusion in a future Syriac lexicon. The article concludes with a twenty-five-page glossary of Syriac words that are employed in the Harklean Pauline corpus, but that do not occur in the Peshitta version.

Wido van Peursen and Terry C. Falla, “The Particles ܶ and ‫ ܷܕ‬in Classical Syriac: Syntactic and Semantic Aspects,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography II, PoSL 3, 63–98. 68 Andreas Juckel, “Towards an Analytical Concordance of the Harklean New Testament,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography II, PoSL 3, 99–154. 67

THE INTERNATIONAL SYRIAC LANGUAGE PROJECT (ISLP)

35

George Kiraz69 describes the lexical and grammatical works of eastern scholars in the second half of the nineteenth century and the early decades of the twentieth century. He examines three authors and their works: Thoma Audo and his SyriacSyriac lexicon ‫ܨܠ‬ ‫ܕܐܘܪ‬ ‫ܐܘܕܘ‬ ‫ܬܐܘ‬ ‫ܪ‬ ‫ܕ‬ (Simta d-leshana suryaya, Treasure of the Syriac Language), 1897, Awgen (Eugene) Manna and his Syriac-Arabic lexicon (ƣƽƯDžǁ ƣƾLJ‫ ܐܪ‬ƣNjǢDŽ‫ܬ ܕ‬Ƣƽ‫ ܗܕ‬/ Vocabulaire chaldéen-arabe / ‫دﻟﯿﻞ‬ ‫اﻟﺮاﻏﺒﯿﻦ ﻓﻲ ﻟﻐﺔ اﻵراﻣﯿﯿﻦ‬, 1900, reprinted under the title ‫ܐܪ‬‫ܢ‬ Chaldean-Arabic Dictionary / ‫ﻋﺮﺑﻲ‬-‫ﻗﺎﻣﻮس ﻛﻠﺪاﻧﻲ‬, 1975), and Clemens Joseph David and his grammar al-lumʿa al-shahiyya fi naḥw al-lugha al-suryaniyya (1879), which is the largest grammar produced in the East after the time of Bar ʿEbroyo. It was published posthumously in a second revised edition under the title Grammatica Aramaica seu Syriaca (1896). Mor Polycarpus Augin Aydin70 translates Awgen Manna’s methodology for his Syriac-Arabic lexicon. This methodology is part of the introduction to the lexicon, and its translation will provide future scholars with valuable insights into how earlier lexicographers approached the task. 7.2.3 PoSL 4 (Colloquia) By the time the ISLP next met, at the SBL Annual Meeting in Philadelphia, 2005, the number of members and presenters had grown, and several presented research from the projects they were involved in: CALAP,71 Werkgroep Informatica72 at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Turgama73 (the successor of CALAP), and UBS’s Semantic Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew (SDBH). The resultant volume (PoSL 4) was over 300 pages, arranged in four parts.74 In Part One, “Lexicography and Morphology,” Dirk Bakker75 argues that traditional dictionaries of Syriac and other Aramaic dialects do not always provide all the information required to meet modern linguistic needs. Often the entries in these dictionaries are ambiguous as to the morphological structure of words, and do not provide a clear distinction between a lexeme and its inflectional affixes. The lemmas often consist of inflected forms, and the information in the entries is insufficient for determining the identity of the lexeme. A result of these inaccuracies is the possible George A. Kiraz, “Lexica and Grammars in the Late Syriac Tradition: The Three Bishops: Audo, Manna, and David,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography II, PoSL 3, 155–63. 70 Mor Polycarpus Augin Aydin, “The Introduction to Awgen Manna’s Lexicon,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography II, PoSL 3, 165–71. 71 CALAP: Computer-Assisted Linguistic Analysis of the Peshitta, which was at the time a joint research project of the Peshitta Institute Leiden. 72 A computational linguistic project researching the text structure of the Hebrew Bible. 73 Turgama: Computer-Assisted Analysis of the Peshitta and the Targum: Text, Language and Interpretation, directed by Wido van Peursen. 74 Janet Dyk and Wido van Peursen, eds., Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III, PoSL 4. 75 Dirk Bakker, “Lemma and Lexeme: The Case of Third-Alaph and Third-Yodh Verbs,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III, PoSL 4, 11–25. 69

36

TERRY FALLA AND BERYL TURNER

loss of distinction between separate types of lexemes, a clear example of which is the treatment of third-Alaph and third-Yodh verbs in Syriac and other Aramaic dialects. Unlike grammars, dictionaries rarely reflect the morphological distinction between these two verb types. Bakker maintains that a modern dictionary cannot allow such a loss of information to occur, but should meet the needs both of a linguistic scholar and of a translator. The entries should provide full linguistic information on the words they cover, granting a prominent position to the lexeme. The lexeme stands at the basis of word formation, and as such is an indispensable piece of information for the study of the morphological behaviour of grammatical forms. Percy van Keulen76 proposes that the linguist would be served greatly if lexemes of feminine substantives were included in Hebrew, Aramaic and Syriac dictionaries. In order to determine the forms of these lexemes, we need to know the precise extent to which feminine substantives are subjected to derivation and inflection. In particular, the nature of the feminine ending in the absolute state singular is of importance. His article makes suggestions as to how one may distinguish between feminine derivational and inflectional endings in order to determine the form of the lexeme. Wido van Peursen77 notes that Classical Syriac and other forms of Aramaic have verbs which contain a causative prefix ša-. The existing grammars treat them in various ways: some discuss them in their section of the binyan system as belonging to the Shaphel, an equivalent of the Aphel; others mention them in their description of the quadri-radical verbs. Similarly, some dictionaries list these verbs under the lemma of the tri-radical root, others consider ša- to be part of the lexemes and list them under the Shin. These treatments reflect differing views on the status of the alleged Shaphel-forms in Classical Syriac. Various questions arise: Was the ša- prefix taken to be a causative morpheme? Are there any signs that it has been productive in some stage of the history of Syriac or another form of Aramaic? What would be a proper treatment of these verbs in the Syriac lexicon within the framework of the ISLP? Peursen concludes that making a choice for either the lexeme approach or the verbal-stem interpretation and then applying that choice to all forms with the šaelement attested in Classical Syriac, would not do justice to the rich diversity of the phenomenon. He recommends that the lexicon provides some forms with the šaprefix under the Shin and others under the tri-radical base, and that the criteria by which the lemmatization is done be improved. Any inconvenience that might arise from the decision that some forms with the ša- prefix appear under the Shin and others under the element that remains when the ša- prefix is omitted, can be overcome by the use of cross-reference. Percy S. F. van Keulen, “Feminine Nominal Endings in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Syriac: Derivation or Inflection?” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III, PoSL 4, 27–39. 77 Wido van Peursen, “Inflectional Morpheme or Part of the Lexeme? Some Reflections on Verbs Beginning with ša- in Classical Syriac,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III, PoSL 4, 41–57. 76

THE INTERNATIONAL SYRIAC LANGUAGE PROJECT (ISLP)

37

Constantijn Sikkel78 observes that researchers at the Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam and Leiden University have been using the standard dictionaries as reference works in their computer-assisted morphological analysis of biblical languages. This type of linguistic work makes somewhat different demands of a lexicon than the traditional philology does. One of the problems with using a classical lexicon for morphological analysis is that traditional dictionaries do not provide information on the pronominal suffix. There are a number of good reasons to regard the suffixes as lexemes rather than affixes: they have their own part of speech and their own grammatical functions of person, number, and gender. The enclitic personal pronouns would therefore deserve a place in the lexicon like the proclitic prepositions do. For computer-assisted textual analysis, it is desirable that a new standard dictionary be developed as an authority for the morphology. Part Two focusses on lexicography and syntax. Terry Falla79 notes that grammatical classification (taxonomy and parts of speech) and the methodology by which it is provided are the foundation stones of every entry in a lexicon. Even the initial act of citing a lexeme requires a classificatory judgement, irrespective of whether or not the lexeme is qualified by a part of speech notation. In Semitic lexicography the lack of a reliable methodology for taxonomy and parts of speech has perpetuated the confusion that exists in lexical classification. The proposed solution is a methodology that allows for a coherent and systematic analysis of complex morphological, syntactic, and semantic data, and is designed to accommodate future lexicosyntactic and semantic revisions and improvements. Of equal importance is its quest for concinnity. The solution incorporates a feature based on a recommendation by Janet Dyk, and the article concludes with an appendix which provides a comprehensive referenced definition of the syntactic functions of the Classical Syriac adjective. Beginning with a discussion of the changing role of linguistic theory in lexicography, Dean Forbes80 examines how lexicography can be advanced by: (i) introducing carefully nuanced syntactic categories, (ii) taking the idea underlying the hierarchical lexicon seriously, and (iii) customizing the presentation of syntactic information. All of this is in keeping with the observation that in current syntactic theories lexical entries have evolved from simple pairings of phonological forms with grammatical categories into elaborate information structures. Part Three presents articles on “Words, Texts and Contexts.” Janet Dyk81 notes that from 2000 to 2004 the Peshitta Institute in Leiden and the Werkgroep Informatica at the Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, collaborated in the CALAP Constantijn J. Sikkel, “Lexeme Status of Pronominal Suffixes,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III, PoSL 4, 59–67. 79 Terry C. Falla, “Grammatical Classification in Syriac Lexica: A Syntactically Based Alternative,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III, PoSL 4, 71–138. 80 A. Dean Forbes, “How Syntactic Formalisms Can Advance the Lexicographer’s Art,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III, PoSL 4, 139–58. 81 Janet W. Dyk, “A Synopsis-Based Translation Concordance as a Tool for Lexical and Text-Critical Exploration,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III, PoSL 4, 161–79. 78

38

TERRY FALLA AND BERYL TURNER

(Computer-Assisted Linguistic Analysis of the Peshitta) project to develop a database of the Peshitta of Kings. One of the products is a translation concordance, which couples words to one another based on a synopsis at clause level, with phrases matched according to their function as clause constituents, and with parts of speech serving as a basis for matching words within a phrase. This matching reveals the most frequent equivalents, the range of synonyms, and glaring exceptions. One result is the possible effect of the phonetic characteristics/graphic representation of an item upon its transmission, a feature often important for textual criticism. Greek lexicographer James Aitken82 addresses the question of social context in ascertaining meaning, and advocates the need for some contextual information in biblical lexica. At the same time, he recognizes that the practicalities of how to incorporate such data in lexica are complex and that they should be used with restraint. In this regard, he notes that, because of our lack of familiarity with the ancient world, the traditional distinction between information contained in a dictionary and that contained in an encyclopaedia has been blurred in lexica on ancient languages; a distinction that cognitive linguistics also wishes to minimize. His examples from Greek lexica show how attention to the history of a word (although not to such diachronic elements as etymology), its use within different types of literature and other sources, and especially the social circumstances within which a word is used, are important. He concludes that the tendency to opt for glosses, or for definitions that are little more than a rewording of the glosses, is not sufficient and that it is possible to say more than the current lexica allow. While they need not be extensive or cover many lines of the lexicon, more detailed definitions that describe the uses of a particular word are called for and would serve the needs of the lexicon user to far greater extent than what is currently available. Hebrew lexicographer Reinier de Blois83 notes that effective methodology and appropriate tools can greatly enhance the efficiency and quality of a lexicographer’s work. One tool specifically designed for creating lexica of biblical texts is the Source Language Tools programme developed by the United Bible Societies. The programme consists of two sets of tools: textual, which give access to interlinear versions of the biblical source texts and allow for different kinds of searches; and lexical, which give access to existing lexica and allow the user to create new ones. One such dictionary is the Semantic Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew (SDBH), of which Blois is editor. The first part of the article discusses the theoretical framework behind SDBH: the cognitive context of words and the importance of the use of semantic categorization, which may have different results in different languages. The second part demonstrates how the programme facilitates the compilation process, gives

James K. Aitken, “Context of Situation in Biblical Lexica,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III, PoSL 4, 181–201. 83 Reinier de Blois, “New Tools and Methodologies for Biblical Lexicography,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III, PoSL 4, 203–16. 82

THE INTERNATIONAL SYRIAC LANGUAGE PROJECT (ISLP)

39

access to data from biblical languages, and enables the user to do lexicographical research and create and edit a dictionary of a biblical language. Part Four offers a survey of Hebrew and Greek lexicography. Regina Hunziker-Rodewald presents two articles. The first84 discusses the Gesenius/Brown-Driver-Briggs family of Hebrew lexica: the Hebrew-German Handwörterbuch of Wilhelm Gesenius (Ges17,1915; Ges18, in preparation)85 and the Hebrew-English Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon (BDB; 1906/1907),86 which is historically dependent on Ges17. The author compares these three lexica, noting that the main distinction between Ges17 and BDB is the alphabetical arrangement in the former and the root-based arrangement in the latter, and that their internal arrangements also differ considerably. Ges18 has the advantage of marking non-attested roots. It is rewriting the etymological section of each entry, is providing Semitic data other than Aramaic in transcription, and including Ugaritic, Dead Sea Scrolls, Ben Sira, and inscriptional evidence. It is recording all biblical word forms, augmenting syntactic constructions, and adding relevant literature, and much more. Hunziker-Rodewald’s second article87 focuses on the Swiss KAHAL project (Kurze Ausgabe Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon). This project aims to reduce the five-volume, 1,800 page HALAT (Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament),88 which William Holladay translated into a concise non-scientific English edition in 1971,89 to a single volume of 1,000 pages. While in principle all of the lexical entries of HALAT will be adopted, some lemmas, for example, conjectures, will be omitted. Etymologies will be shortened and updated, references will be checked, and errors corrected. The project is based at the University of Berne. Jo-Ann Hackett and John Huehnegaard90 report on revising and updating the etymological information in the Hebrew-English lexicon of Brown-Driver-Briggs (BDB). They note that it is still a standard resource for many, but is seriously in need of updating, especially with regard to its virtually unmatched etymological inRegina Hunziker-Rodewald, “The Gesenius/Brown-Driver-Briggs Family,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III, PoSL 4, 219–26. 85 Wilhelm Gesenius, Hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament, 17th ed. Leipzig: Vogel, 1921; 18th ed. Berlin: Springer, 1995–. 86 Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament with an appendix containing the Biblical Aramaic, based on the lexicon of William Gesenius as translated by Edward Robinson, 1907. Corrected ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1955. 87 Regina Hunziker-Rodewald, “KAHAL—the Shorter HALAT,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III, PoSL 4, 243–49. 88 Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann Jakob Stamm, et al., eds. Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament. 5 vols. 3rd ed. Leiden: Brill, 1967–1996. 89 William L. Holladay, ed. A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Based on the First, Second, and Third Editions of the Koehler-Baumgartner Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971. 90 Hackett and Huehnergard, “On Revising and Updating BDB,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III, PoSL 4, 227–34. 84

40

TERRY FALLA AND BERYL TURNER

formation. This article includes the plans for the revision of BDB and an account of the resources to be employed to update its etymological information—regarded as a fundamental part of any lexicon of an ancient and incompletely attested language such as Biblical Hebrew. The editors hope that the result will be a new BrownDriver-Briggs Hebrew lexicon which will be the lexicon of choice for scholars and students for the foreseeable future. John Kaltner91 examines the Koehler-Baumgartner family of lexica, which is designated KB, and includes Koehler-Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros (KBL 1st edition, 1953); KBL 2nd edition (1958); HALAT (Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament, 1967–1996); and HALOT (The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, translated and revised version of HALAT, 1994– 2000). Two key factors should be kept in mind when evaluating the work. The first is indicated by the designation “family”, which calls attention to the multiple editions in which the lexicon has appeared and to the many changes in editors throughout the project’s history. The second is that KB first appeared and developed further during a period of unprecedented scholarly activity by lexicographers and Bible scholars, who had at their disposal recently discovered texts and new research tools that had a tremendous impact on their work. As a result, KB should be considered as several different lexica rather than as a single one that remained more or less constant from one edition to the next. That there is a strong family resemblance among the editions is undeniable, but this article explains the differences that emerged as the project evolved. A brief history of the family is followed by an overview of the main strengths and weaknesses of the lexicon, as identified by reviewers and other users. Finally, a description of the revision of HALOT (A Companion to HALOT, edited by Chaim Cohen, Ben-Gurion University), which is currently under way, is discussed in reference to the use of Arabic. James Aitken92 discusses the advantages of considering a number of lexica at a time, and then compares the two modern lexica, Zorell’s Lexicon Hebraicum et Aramaicum Veteris Testamenti (1947–1954) and Alonso Schökel’s Diccionario bíblico hebreoespañol (3rd ed., 2008) as products of their time, each reflecting linguistic principles in their organization and content. Aitken draws illustrations from the semantic field of derogatory speech to show how each lexicon presents its data and to indicate how informative each of them can be for the careful reader. By way of conclusion, he cites O’Connor’s observation93 that the lexica of Clines (DCH) and Alonso Schökel are alike, in a similar way that Zorell’s lexicon and the first edition of KBL are. Each is a product of its time, seen especially in those produced in the 1990’s (Clines and John Kaltner, “The Koehler-Baumgartner Family,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III, PoSL 4, 235–42. 92 James K. Aitken, “Other Hebrew Lexica: Zorell and Alonso Schoekel,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III, PoSL 4, 251–64. 93 M. O’Connor, “Semitic Lexicography: European Dictionaries of Biblical Hebrew in the Twentieth Century,” in S. Isre’el, ed., Semitic Linguistics: The State of the Art at the Turn of the 21st Century (IOS 20; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2002), 203. 91

THE INTERNATIONAL SYRIAC LANGUAGE PROJECT (ISLP)

41

Alonso Schökel) with their removal of data such as etymology or comparative material, and their focus upon contextual and syntactic evidence. No doubt the lexica of the twenty-first century will also be products of their time, but reflect a happy balance between all these recent lexica. A sign of this is the current revision by Hackett and Huehnergard of the comparative material in BDB (see “On Revising and Updating BDB,” PoSL 4, 227–34), an improvement rather than an abandonment. Finally, Reinier de Blois94 looks at semantic domain theory and its use in biblical lexicography, and discusses Louw and Nida’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, the first biblical lexicon making use of this theory. The theoretical framework of Louw and Nida’s work is based on the semantic model usually referred to as componential analysis of meaning. Over recent decades, new linguistic insights have emerged, which have a significant impact on domain theory. This article looks at semantic domain theory from the perspective of cognitive linguistics and shows how this new approach may serve to improve Louw and Nida’s framework. 7.2.4 PoSL 5 (Colloquia) The ISLP meetings at IOSOT in Ljubljana (2007) and at Symposium Syriacum in Granada (2008) resulted in the fourth volume (PoSL 5).95 It opens with Fred Danker’s reflections96 on a lifetime’s engagement with Greek lexicography and offers pointers for the future based on his experience “as having a hand in the production of two editions of Walter Bauer’s legacy,” namely, the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. What makes his paper particularly relevant to this collection, as well as to readers engaged in the study of Syriac from a lexical perspective, is his advocacy of the interaction of lexicographical theory and practice. He recognizes that lexicographers often work in the shadow of a long tradition—in his case one that began in 1514—and in practice they are conditioned by and build upon the labours of their predecessors. In this article, he argues that lexicographical and linguistic research allows the lexicographer to see the weaknesses and strengths of their predecessors’ work and reconceive their enterprise accordingly. In a discussion regarding the preparation of definitions to establish lexical meaning, he examines a range of Greek terms.

Reinier de Blois, “Semantic Domains for Biblical Greek: Louw and Nida’s Framework Evaluated from a Cognitive Perspective,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III, PoSL 4, 265–78. 95 Kristian S. Heal and Alison G. Salvesen, eds., Foundations for Syriac Lexicography IV, PoSL 5. 96 Frederick W. Danker, “Moving Beyond Borders: Thoughts of a Greek Lexicographer,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography IV, PoSL 5, 1–20. 94

42

TERRY FALLA AND BERYL TURNER

Terry Falla97 begins his article on figurative speech in ancient-language lexica by noting the wide range of views on this topic, from the acceptance of figurative speech in numerous dictionaries of both ancient and modern languages, through to the Lakoff-Johnson-Turner theory on metaphor, which rejects the very notion of figurative speech in a dictionary. In surveying a range of linguistic theory literature on this matter, Falla concludes that “modern linguistics” does not represent any one position on the issue. Non-cognitive-linguists present no obstacle to registering and analysing figurative speech in a lexicon, while cognitive linguists embrace a range of positions from the disallowing of figurative speech to the identification and lexicalization of metaphor and other forms of figurative speech, using those very theories that in other instances have been used to disallow figurative speech. Falla’s essay also explores the issue of “live” and “dead” metaphors, and methodological problems requiring resolution before metaphor and other forms of figurative speech are incorporated in a future comprehensive Syriac-English lexicon. Finally, he notes that his discussion is equally applicable to other ancient-language lexica. Jonathan Loopstra98 provides an overview of several features present in the patristic collections in manuscripts of the “Syriac Masora” (large compilations of vocalized and diacritically marked sample texts from the Syriac translations of the Bible and the Greek Fathers of the Church). The principal interest of the compliers of these “masoretic” mansucripts was the proper reading, or orthoepy, of the writings of the Greek fathers in Syriac translation. Many words in these manuscripts were vocalized and marked because, it seems, they may have been difficult for the posttenth-century reader to understand or pronounce. “Non-masoretic” words in marginal notations indicate that these manuscripts were developed to be used with the glossating tradition present in West Syrian mansucripts of the writings of the Fathers. As pedagogical aids to reading and as some of the earliest complete systems of Syriac vocalization and diacritics, these “masoretic” manuscripts hold particular value for our understanding of the development of the Syriac language between the ninth and thirteenth centuries. They are a helpful resource for modern Syriac lexicography. On a more particular level, Wido van Peursen and Dirk Bakker99 examine three interpretations of the Syriac verb ‫ܗ‬, to believe: as a causative stem, as a quadrilateral verb, and as a Pai‘el. They argue that because objections can be raised against ‫ ܗ‬as a causative Haph‘el or Aph‘el and it has an etymological rather interpreting than an inflectional relationship with the root ‫ܐ‬, it is preferable to analyze it as a Terry C. Falla, “Metaphor, Lexicography and Modern Linguistics: Should Figurative Speech Figure in Future Ancient-Language Lexica?,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography IV, PoSL 5, 21–57. 98 Jonathan Loopstra, “The Patristic ‘Syriac Masora’ as a Resource for Modern Syriac Lexicography,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography IV, PoSL 5, 59–72. 99 Wido van Peursen and Dirk Bakker, “Lemmatization and Morphological Analysis: The Case of ܶ ‫ ܰܗ‬in Classical Syriac,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography IV, PoSL 5, 73–80. 97

THE INTERNATIONAL SYRIAC LANGUAGE PROJECT (ISLP)

43

‫ ܗ‬as a quadrilateral quadrilateral verb. For this reason, dictionaries should treat root. Beryl Turner100 observes that our best comprehensive Classical Syriac lexica are more than a century old, and their lexicalization of words is often partial or outdated in their taxonomy, parts of speech, and syntactic and semantic analysis. So today’s reader of Classical Syriac often encounters in a text a word or syntagm with a function and/or meaning that is not cited in Syriac lexica, or, if it is, is either misleading or generalized to the extent that it is difficult to know whether it is applicable to the instantiation in question. To demonstrate this, she examines the grammatical classification, syntactic functions and meanings of the Syriac particle ܰ . Despite the particle being low in frequency, she demonstrates that in the Syriac Gospels alone, its uses and meanings go beyond those recorded in existing Syriac lexica. Turner analyses every occurrence of ܰ in its Syriac context in the Peshitta text and in relation to the Greek underlying it and ends her article with a proposed lexical entry based on the format of entries in KPG. The entry defines ܰ as an intensifying and/or exclamatory particle marking a heightened response that is usually in the form of a startled, puzzled, amazed, freighted or poignant rhetorical question or exclamation; it occurs only in direct or reported speech, and can be glossed with an expression that suits the situation. It is the second element in a phrase, and does not occur elsewhere in the Peshitta New Testament. Craig Morrison101 examines the particle and other citation markers that purportedly introduce citations of the Peshitta text in Jacob of Serugh’s Memra on David and Goliath and the Memra on David and Uriah. Recognizing the complexity of the problems involved in his study, Morrison utilizes the discipline of intertextuality to study the strategies that an author employs to introduce a text into his own composition. Morrison’s study focuses on the perspective of the author (as opposed to the text itself, or the reader): what are the “signs” in the memra that alert the audience to a biblical reference? He concludes that Jacob’s Bible is the Peshitta and summarizes the various functions of the particles in question. His summaries have the precision of lexical definitions. The particle , for example, is classified as a “presentative” when it alerts the audience to a biblical citation. When the exact biblical wording serves his argument, Jacob can cite the biblical text with precision. But what normally follows is Jacob’s rewriting of the biblical citation, his exegesis of it. Citation and interpretation merge. The same holds true for the citation that follows the expression ‫ ܐ ܕ‬just as it is written. Paul Stevenson102 offers a detailed semantic analysis of a large number of the motion verbs found in the text of the Peshitta to Exodus, chapters 1–19. It makes Beryl Turner, “Analysis of the Syriac Particle ܰ ,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography IV, PoSL 5, 81–100. 101 Craig E. Morrison, “The Peshitta in Jacob of Serugh: The Particle and Other Citation Markers,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography IV, PoSL 5, 101–17. 102 Stevenson, “The Semantics of Syriac Motion Verbs in Exodus Chapters 1–19” [Part I]. 100

44

TERRY FALLA AND BERYL TURNER

use of semantic componential analysis to elucidate precise shades of meaning of each verb and makes some helpful distinctions between near-synonyms. After analysing the semantics of the verbs studied, the article examines the equivalences between the roots and the forms (Peal, Pael, etc.) of the verbs in the Peshitta and the Masoretic text, to demonstrate that certain Hebrew forms are translated with the “cognate” form in Syriac, while other Hebrew forms are translated with a noncognate form. His overall conclusion is that the Syriac translators were guided by semantic content and not by cognate equivalence. In his second article in this volume, Wido van Peursen103 examines numerals in Classical Syriac that are inflected for gender (including the feminine, or perhaps pseudo-feminine forms), state (including some specialized usages of the emphatic state and the use of the construct state in combinations with a noun or suffix pronoun and as the first element of the numbers 11–19), and number (including the formation of the decades as plurals of the digits). He argues that Syriac and other forms of Aramaic numerals have some typical morphological and syntactic features that are related to the unique class of concepts that they represent. They share some features with nouns and others with adjectives, but the particular way in which they modify other nouns makes them a category sui generis. Percy van Keulen’s study104 also concerns numerals. He examines the cardinal numerals 1–20 in the Aramaic of the Targumim and in Classical Syriac, and their inadequate and sometimes inconsistent treatment in lexica. He argues that a coherent lexicography of these numerals is feasible if their morphology is taken as the point of departure and advocates a lexeme-oriented approach in which each lemma corresponds to a unique lexeme. The article ends with a summary of a morphological approach in a lexicon to the numerals 1–20, which distinguishes between the numerals 3–10; 11–19; the teen word in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Syriac; and 20 in Syriac, Aramaic, and Hebrew. Janet Dyk105 compares the cognate Syriac and Hebrew verb ‫ שׂים‬and ‫ ܡ‬, to place in the book of Kings. Using the Hebrew material already available in the Werkgroep Informatica database,106 Dyk, working with Percy van Keulen, has made a synopsis of the Masoretic text and the Peshitta at clause level. On the basis of the synopsis, clause constituents are matched, providing a basis for matching phrases within clauses, and for matching words within phrases. One of the products of this work is an electronic translation concordance with lists of translation correspondWido van Peursen, “Numerals and Nominal Inflection in Classical Syriac,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography IV, PoSL 5, 155–67. 104 Percy S. F. van Keulen, “Lexicographical Troubles with the Cardinal Numerals 1–20 in the Aramaic of the Targumim and in Classical Syriac,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography IV, PoSL 5, 169–80. 105 Janet W. Dyk, “The Cognate Verbs ‫ שים‬and ‫ܡ‬ in the Book of Kings: Similarities and Differences,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography IV, PoSL 5, 181–94. 106 For further information regarding the Werkgroep Informatica database see above §7.2.3 PoSL 4 and notes 72 and 81. 103

THE INTERNATIONAL SYRIAC LANGUAGE PROJECT (ISLP)

45

ences occurring within Kings (introduced at the 2005 ISLP meeting). The lexical items occurring at corresponding points in the two texts need not necessarily be lexicon-based semantic translations of one another, but they are what do occur at that point in the two texts. The study allows two different types of observation: observations concerning the language systems involved, and the choices made by the translator; it reveals factors at work during the translation process, and similarities and differences between the two texts. 7.2.5 PoSL 7 (Colloquia) Research presented at the SBL Annual Meeting in New Orleans in 2009, and at IOSOT in Helsinki in 2010, appears in the fifth volume of colloquia (PoSL 7).107 First is Reinier de Blois’ semantic analysis108 of Biblical Hebrew from a cognitive linguistic perspective, providing a more effective method for determining the meaning of words, especially for those languages no longer spoken in the same form today. He demonstrates how this method of analysis can help to reconstruct a kind of “semantic grid” for Biblical Hebrew, and how this grid provides the lexicographer with more certainty in his/her efforts to determine the meaning of “difficult” words such as hapax legomena and other words with a limited distribution in the available texts. He illustrates the advantages of this method with a number of Hebrew words of uncertain meaning. Marie-Louise Craig’s examination109 of early Hebrew-English lexica between 1593 and 1800 identifies two distinct groups: those written between 1593 and 1656, and those written in the second half of the eighteenth century. She probes the motivations, aims, language theories, sources, resources, and methods of presenting the entries of each group, and notes that the works of each group, though pioneering in nature, had limited publication life and were not used by subsequent generations of scholars to any significant degree. Craig explores the problems encountered by these lexicographical pioneers and the reasons for the dead ends their works encountered. One element is the non-conformist motivations for their lexica that led future generations to neglect or reject their scholarship. Another is the theological foundation of their linguistic theory, which understood Hebrew to be the divine and original language. Once linguistic science had established that Hebrew was one of a number of related Semitic languages, lexicographical scholarship passed over any lexicon based on the earlier theory for productions that were more modern.

Jonathan Loopstra and Michael Sokoloff, eds., Foundations for Syriac Lexicography V, PoSL 7. 108 Blois, “The Semantic Structure of Biblical Hebrew,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography V, PoSL 7, 3–20. 109 Marie-Louise Craig, “Pioneers and ‘No Through Roads’: The Story of the Early Hebrew-English Lexicons,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography V, PoSL 7, 21–42. 107

46

TERRY FALLA AND BERYL TURNER

Janet Dyk110 compares the Hebrew and Syriac texts of Psalm 25. She notes that the very act of making a translation implies that the rendered text will differ from the source text, and that translations differ in how close they stay to the source text. Using the Masoretic and Peshitta versions of the psalm, she explores the characteristics of the Syriac renderings, taking note of issues involving spelling, synonyms, and syntax. Among the various findings detailed in the conclusion, is the pleasant and surprising discovery that Peshitta Psalm 25 contains a higher number of unique lexical items than the source text, testifying to a conscious effort to produce variation in lexical choice. Marketta Liljeström111 discusses some translational features of the Syrohexapla of 1 Samuel supported by examples of the use of Greek loanwords, transcriptions, proper nouns, and certain syntactic features. The focus is on the consistency of translation correspondences, which for lexicographers presents interesting points of comparison with the Harklean version. The author notes that the Syrohexaplaric material in 1 Samuel is very fragmentary and has been preserved only in lectionaries and quotations. The only passages of substantial length are from the second, seventh, and twentieth chapters. Liljeström first compares the lectionary passages with Syrohexaplaric manuscripts in order to evaluate how carefully the lectionaries repeat the original translation. Secondly, she gives attention to the method of translation. This is accomplished by examining not only the mechanical relationship with the Greek text, but also comparing the passages in question with other available Syriac versions—for 1 Samuel this means the Peshitta and the version of Jacob of Edessa. Craig Morrison112 divides his investigation of the hwā qātel and hwā qĕtīl constructions into two sections. The first asks how the Peshitta renders Hebrew periphrastic constructions: does it mirror the Hebrew construction or does it adjust the construction to suit Syriac idiom? The second studies the uses of the hwā qātel/qětīl construction in the entire Peshitta Old Testament as renderings of a Hebrew exemplar. Is it possible, the author asks, to describe the Peshitta’s use of this construction so that a hwā qātel that expresses only a past durative aspect can be distinguished from one expressing deontic modality? The article provides criteria for distinguishing between the two, especially in the Peshitta, where the preference is to place hwā after the participle even if the Hebrew has the participle in the last position. This study of the translator’s use of hwā qātel witnesses to the elegance of the language of the Peshitta Old Testament version. By employing this construction, the translator made explicit the deontic modality in Syriac that remains implicit in the Hebrew text. Janet W. Dyk, “The Peshitta Rendering of Psalm 25: Spelling, Synonyms, and Syntax,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography V, PoSL 7, 43–70. 111 Marketta Liljeström, “Observations on the Mode of Translation in the Syrohexapla,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography V, PoSL 7, 71–82. 112 Craig E. Morrison, “The hwā qātel and hwā qĕtīl Constructions in the Peshitta Old Testament,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography V, PoSL 7, 83–106. 110

THE INTERNATIONAL SYRIAC LANGUAGE PROJECT (ISLP)

47

In his article, Paul Stevenson113 continues his semantic componential analysis of Syriac motion verbs in Exodus 1–19, covering the verbs of motion that limitations of space prevented him from including in his first article published in PoSL 5 (see §7.2.4). The study consists of the less common verbs in the corpus. As in the previous article, this study considers six case roles in the description of the semantics of each verb: actor, agent, patient, source, path, and goal. Other relevant semantic features are horizontal movement, vertical movement, speed, and boundary crossing. After his analysis of the semantics of Syriac verbs of motion, Stevenson investigates the equivalences between the roots and the forms (Peal, Pael, etc.) of the verbs in the Peshitta and the Masoretic text. He finds that the Peshitta employs the “cognate” form in Syriac to translate certain Hebrew forms, while it uses a noncognate form to render other Hebrew forms. He concludes that semantic content rather than cognate equivalence guided the Syriac translators. Stevenson is confident that componential analysis will prove to be a valuable means of studying the entire range of Syriac vocabulary. Lexicography can usefully apply it to vocabulary in particular semantic domains in specific corpora as has been done in the present study. As part of a wider study of prepositions, Beryl Turner114 examines the preposition ‫ ܳ ܬ‬in the Peshitta Gospels, particularly where it co-occurs with a verb. Her aim is to devise a methodology for examining every occurrence of ‫ ܳ ܬ‬and creating a lexical entry that gives a readily accessible overview of the preposition and does justice to its many nuances of meaning as they are found in the Gospels. The study will assist in the preparation of the remaining volumes of KPG and ultimately in the compilation of a new comprehensive Syriac-English dictionary. The article concludes with a five-column lexical entry that distinguishes between ‫ ܳ ܬ‬with verbs of motion or orientation; with verbs of being or activity in a place or with a person; in a prepositional phrase indicating location in the vicinity of, near; in a prepositional phrase following expressions bestowing benefit from one person to another, indicating agent or patient; in constructions indicating possessor or agent; in non-verbal clauses; and with Peal ‫ ܐ‬of telling parables to people (only in Luke). 7.2.6 PLAL 4 (Colloquia) The first volume of colloquia (PLAL 4) in the new PLAL series has three sections.115 Lexicography is the common thread that ties them together. The first, “Reflections on Syriac Lexicography,” begins with a tribute by Terry Falla to Frederick William Danker,116 followed by Fred’s article on “synonymy and metonymy and Paul S. Stevenson, “The Semantics of Syriac Motion Verbs in Exodus Chapters 1–19, Part II,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography V, PoSL 7, 107–19. 114 Beryl Turner, “Lexicalizing the Syriac Preposition ‫ܳ ܬ‬ ,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography V, PoSL 7, 121–39. 115 Taylor and Morrison, eds., Reflections on Lexicography, PLAL 4. 116 Terry C. Falla, “Reflections on Two Articles by Frederick W. Danker: Background and Appreciation,” in Reflections on Lexicography, PLAL 4, 3–4. 113

48

TERRY FALLA AND BERYL TURNER

related issues.”117 By invitation, Fred presented his paper at one of the ISLP sessions in November 2011 at the SBL Annual Meeting in San Francisco. As Terry’s tribute records, anyone who heard this paper and was familiar with Danker’s characteristic approach would have been conscious of the presence of an unexpected genre: autobiography. He brings his life’s work, his insistence on scientific method, and his specific subject into conversation with one another. Only in retrospect could one appreciate that the “related issues” in the title refers to moments in this man’s long journey that shaped and defined his academic vocation and that bring us, in a few words, to contemporary frontiers of the subject about which has was so passionate. Towards the end of the article, Danker turns his attention to the meaning of six Greek words as they are employed in a particular New Testament contexts: λόγος in Rom 13, δοῦλος in Rom 1:1, Ἰουδαῖος in the New Testament, “for which the least semantically hazardous option is Judean,” ἄνθρωπε in Lk 5:20, αἴνιγμα in 1 Cor 13:12, and κάθημαι in Mt 27:61. Shortly after the conference, Fred sent Terry as Series Editor his completed article. The abstract to follow never arrived. Born on July 12, 1920, he died, having farewelled his family, on February 2, 2012. Fred Danker was a wonderful supporter of the ISLP. His second article in this volume was unsolicited.118 He said he wished to support the series. Perhaps his second last publication, it demonstrates that at age ninety-one Danker was, in his thinking and methodological perspective, still at the forefront of ancient-language lexicography. The aim of the article is, in Danker’s own words, to examine “the problem of contextual consideration in determining the meaning of a term.” It takes into account the problems generated by endeavours to relate the meaning of an ancient text to the modern interpreter’s world. The article fulfils this aim by considering the alleged disparity between the writings of Paul and Luke, who, despite their different perspectives, share a common language for understanding the significance of Jesus. Both writings borrowed diction, phrasing, and themes from public monuments. Danker provides evidence of this borrowing in his examination of Jesus described as a “great benefactor” in the Gospel of Luke and Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Janet Dyk119 compares and contrasts the Hebrew copula ‫ היה‬and Syriac copula ‫ ܗܘ‬in Kings. In the Masoretic and Peshitta texts, she observes that, although these verbs are cognates, they do not always correspond to each other and in a significant number of cases one text lacks an equivalent in the other text. The article explores the reasons for these differences by presenting a limited number of syntactic and distributional factors that account for the majority of cases where the copula is without correspondence in the other version. Based on these observations, Dyk Frederick W. Danker, “Lexical Problems: Synonymy and Metonymy and Related Issues,” in Reflections on Lexicography, PLAL 4, 7–11. 118 Frederick W. Danker, “A Linguistic-Cultural Approach to Alleged Pauline and Lukan Christological Disparity,” in Reflections on Lexicography, PLAL 4, 243–64. 119 Janet W. Dyk, “The Hebrew and the Syriac Copula in Kings,” in Reflections on Lexicography, PLAL 4, 13–23. 117

THE INTERNATIONAL SYRIAC LANGUAGE PROJECT (ISLP)

49

draws some conclusions on differences between the Hebrew and Syriac language systems. Timothy Lewis120 proposes principles and a methodology for examining, from a semantic perspective, low-frequency lexemes in the Peshitta New Testament, particularly lexemes in the Gospels with parallel contexts in another Gospel. While many low-frequency lexemes require attention, he focuses on one example, the Peal in Mk 9:18, 20 in the Gospel episodes of the so-called “epileptic boy” (Mt 17:14–20//Mk 9:14–29//Lk 9:37–43). The study ends with a suggested revised enin Mk 9:18, 20 in KPG. Lewis advocates the avoidance of any try for the Peal gloss that infers a “convulsive (and unintentional ‘epileptic’) supposition,” and provides the glosses and definition, “beat against the ground, beat to the ground, beat on the ground, beat the life out of, knock down against the ground; assault repetitively, attack, of a non-speaking spirit’s frequent and sudden attacks upon a boy that were intended to take his life.” Daniel King121 discusses issues arising from the proposal to produce a specialist lexicon of philosophical terminology in Syriac. He shows that while this proposal is conceived within the framework of the ISLP corpus-based lexica project, it also presents its own peculiar difficulties. In his discussion of some of these problems, King offers criteria for the inclusion of texts, a tentative list of texts that the corpus could include, and asks whether the corpus should include translations. He concludes that although the research of the International Syriac Language Project has largely worked out a good lexical methodology, we still face the problem that only some of the relevant philosophical material is readily available in published editions. A lexicon that lacks the inclusion of unpublished texts would suffer the same problems as the old lexica. Moreover, lexicographer and user require a good background in not only the Aristotelian texts, but also the Alexandrian commentary tradition that lies at the root of so much of the Syriac tradition. Arabic philosophy is also key to understanding the later authors. Nonetheless, King emphasizes that the field is wide open and is ready to be occupied. Richard Taylor122 argues for the inclusion of encyclopaedic information in future Syriac dictionaries. Most current Syriac dictionaries, he says, provide lexical coverage for a large and diverse quantity of Syriac literature. The extent of treatment for particular lexical items is of necessity limited by practical considerations of space and size. However, in the future Syriac lexicography will likely focus on detailed analyses of particular corpora of texts such as Ephrem, Aphrahat, or the Peshitta Old and New Testaments. Syriac dictionaries that specifically target such corpora will be able to provide a fuller analysis of lexical items as used throughout these Timothy Martin Lewis, “Lexemes with High Risk of Infection: Methodology for Examining Low-Frequency Lexemes,” in Reflections on Lexicography, PLAL 4, 25–62. 121 King, “Remarks on the Future of a Syriac Lexicon.” 122 Richard A. Taylor, “The Inclusion of Encyclopedic Information in Syriac Lexical Entries,” in Reflections on Lexicography, PLAL 4, 83–99. 120

50

TERRY FALLA AND BERYL TURNER

texts. A desideratum is that future Syriac dictionaries include analysis of figurative language, as well as a limited amount of relevant encyclopaedic information for items that present significant interpretational difficulties. His essay illustrates the benefits of such an approach by considering the meaning of selected terms that are key to the interpretation of the book of Daniel. Taylor discusses four examples in animal, ‫ܕ‬ Peshitta Daniel in relation to their Hebrew or Aramaic cognates: ‫ܬ‬ ram, ‫ ܨ‬goat, and horn. Alison Salvesen123 and Takamitsu Muraoka124 each review Michael Sokoloff’s translation and update of Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum (BLex; 2nd ed., 1928). For both reviewers, “the result is certainly much more usable than its predecessor and represents an enormous contribution to Syriac studies” (Salvesen)125 and is a “most welcome event for every Syriacist and Semitist” (Muraoka).126 With illustrative examples, both reviewers discuss what they consider to be the strengths and weaknesses of Sokoloff’s A Syriac Lexicon (BSLex). For Salvesen, its strengths include: not having to go via a Latin dictionary; its updating of abbreviations; the listing of entries in alphabetical order; the comparative philology section of entries and references to other Aramaic dialects as they serve to contextualize Syriac within a larger linguistic sphere; statistics about occurrences of words in various sources, though these do not include many texts published since Blex’s second edition; the inclusion of Syriac collocations; and CD-ROM listing lexemes in Syriac and English. For Muraoka, the most important and valuable contribution made by BSLex is its replacement of mere references in BLex with actual texts; “Sokoloff not only typed and keyed in tens of thousands of phrases or clauses or copied from a digitalised version, but he actually read them in their contexts.”127 “It is also wonderful,” says Muraoka, “to have BLex translated into a language nowadays more widely and easily understood.”128 Other assets are the elimination of many errors in BLex, including wrong references, and provision of the English translation of many quoted Syriac phrases and clauses. However, for both Salvesen and Muraoka, the English translations of BLex’s Latin glosses are problematic: “[D]id Sokoloff and his team consider whether Brockelmann’s definitions and lexicographical analysis are correct?”129 (Muraoka); “Unfortunately, the translations of glosses in Latin are not wholly reliable, as they were generally rendered into English without regard to the Syriac they represented”

Alison G. Salvesen, “A User’s View of Michael Sokoloff, ed., A Syriac Lexicon,” in Reflections on Lexicography, PLAL 4, 101–5. 124 Takamitsu Muraoka, “Brockelmann in English Guise,” in Reflections on Lexicography, PLAL 4, 107–12. 125 Salvesen, “A User’s View,” 101. 126 Muraoka, “Brockelmann in English Guise,” 107. 127 Muraoka, “Brockelmann in English Guise,” 110. 128 Muraoka, “Brockelmann in English Guise,” 110. 129 Muraoka, “Brockelmann in English Guise,” 111. 123

THE INTERNATIONAL SYRIAC LANGUAGE PROJECT (ISLP)

51

(Salvesen).130 Salvesen also suggests a different handling of the inclusion of words found only in the Harklean version of the New Testament. For Salvesen, the use of the Estrangelo script and the East Syriac vocalization rather than the Serto and West Syrian vowels is a disadvantage, as most beginner Syriacists start with the latter. As in the case of any other lexicon, says Salvesen, scholars should use BSLex in tandem with other dictionaries. For reasons he details, Muraoka laments the loss of arrangement by root. He also questions the discarding of some data in BLex pertaining to etymology and comparative Aramaic/Semitic lexicography, and takes issue with the quoting of nouns and adjectives in their emphatic form rather than in their absolute form.131 Part Two contains “Reflections on Hebrew Lexicography.” Reinier de Blois132 discusses the role that syntax can play in the semantic analysis of a Hebrew lexeme and focuses on the valence of the frequently occurring Hebrew verb ‫ שׁלח‬to send. He brings to light the subtle nuances of meaning in certain passages that can easily be overlooked, such as irony, disdain, etc. The article acknowledges the range of lexical meanings of ‫שׁלח‬, and examines “five different frames, consisting of the verb ‫ שׁלח‬together with its core constituents,”133 that is, the noun phrases and prepositional phrases that co-occur with it. A number of apparent exceptions are also discussed, with an explanation as to why they may not be exceptions at all. If lexicographers would pay more attention to valence, says the author, and present their data in such a way that these valence relations receive the attention they deserve, the user would get another step closer to a better understanding of Biblical Hebrew. The two next papers visit the work of James Barr fifty years after the publication of his book The Semantics of Biblical Language. Jan Joosten134 discusses, with illustrative examples from the Septuagint, two aspects of Barr’s refutation of Thorleif Bowman’s views on the way language regulates thought. One aspect is the concept of translatability, which strongly relativizes the notion that Hebrew thought can only be expressed in the Hebrew language. Translators find, and the Septuagint demonstrates, says Joosten, that everything can be translated, even although in some cases it means doing violence to the target language. The other aspect is that the concept of frame in cognitive linguistics strengthens the idea that there is a link between language and thought. Even where Hebrew words find ready equivalents in Greek, the associative implications of the words may be rather different. Thus, although associative meaning is difficult to define when one is dealing with ancient languages, some examples suggest that the Greek translators, although ostensibly faithful to the source text, did indeed inject Hellenistic thoughts into the translation. Having exSalvesen, “A User’s View,” 102. St. det. and st. abs. in Muraoka’s paper. 132 Reinier de Blois, “Where Syntax and Semantics Intersect: The Story of ‫שׁלח‬,” in Reflections on Lexicography, PLAL 4, 115–24. 133 Blois, “Where Syntax and Semantics Intersect,” 118. 134 Jan Joosten, “Hebrew Thought and Greek Thought in the Septuagint: Fifty Years after Barr’s Semantics,” in Reflections on Lexicography, PLAL 4, 125–33. 130 131

52

TERRY FALLA AND BERYL TURNER

plored these two aspects, Joosten concludes that a vast domain is still open for investigation. Barr’s criticisms should be taken to heart, but far from discouraging us from probing the relation between language and thought they should spur us on to explore this issue further. Charles Lee Irons135 examines the relational concept of the term for righteousness (‫צ ֶדק‬,ֶ ‫)צ ׇד ֳקה‬ ְ in the Hebrew Bible as it has been contrasted to righteousness (δικαιοσύνη and iustitia) in Hellenistic contexts, where it is a norm concept. In the spirit of James Barr, he raises some doubts about the widely held scholarly assumption regarding the relational interpretation of “righteousness” in the Hebrew Bible, which, due to Hermann Cremer’s novel lexical theory (1899), has exercised a profound influence in both Old Testament and New Testament scholarship throughout the twentieth century to the present. Irons argues that both Hebrew and Greek broadly use their respective terms with two main meanings, an ethical meaning, as conformity to a moral standard, and a judicial usage in terms of the justice of the judge or king exercising iustitia distributiva. There may in fact be many differences between Greek and Hebrew thought, and these worldview differences may be reflected in a whole range of lexical differences as well, but the alleged contrast between a Hebraic/relational concept of “righteousness” and a Greek/normative or distributive concept of “righteousness” is not one of them. Marie-Louise Craig136 explores the impact of theology on Hebrew-English lexica in the past and the extent to which they were influenced by the intellectual milieu of the day. In particular, she examines the influence of theology in the lexica of four specific lexicographers—Parkhurst,137 Levi,138 Leo,139 and Lee140—of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. She cautions against the danger of repeating history and challenges modern lexicographers of biblical languages to beware of assuming that a particular method is independent of specific cultural and intellectual influences and of the impact of their own theology and culture on their work, critically assessing whether it will produce the kind of lexicon for which they are aiming. Charles Lee Irons, “Is ‘Righteousness’ a Relational Concept in the Hebrew Bible?” in Reflections on Lexicography, PLAL 4, 135–45. 136 Marie-Louise Craig, “Take One Hebrew Lexicon, Add Fresh Theology, and Mix Well: The Impact of Theology on Hebrew-English Lexicons,” in Reflections on Lexicography, PLAL 4, 147–210. 137 John Parkhurst, An Hebrew and English Lexicon, Without Points: to this work is prefixed a methodical Hebrew grammar, without points (London: Faben, 1762; seven further editions were published from 1778–1823). 138 David Levi, Lingua sacra in Three Parts (3 vols.; London: Justins, 1785–1788). 139 Christopher Leo, A Hebrew Lexicon to the Books of the Old Testament: Including the Geographical Names and Chaldaic Words in Daniel, Ezra, etc. by D. Wilhelm Gesenius (2 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1825–1828). 140 Samuel Lee, A Lexicon, Hebrew, Chaldee, and English: Compiled from the Most Approved Sources, Oriental and European, Jewish and Christian (London: Duncan and Malcolm, 1840 and 1844.) 135

THE INTERNATIONAL SYRIAC LANGUAGE PROJECT (ISLP)

53

Dean Forbes141 recounts the history of his forty-plus-years collaboration with Frank Andersen creating a grammatical analysis of the Biblical Hebrew corpus, beginning with Dean’s access to Hewlett Packard’s first computer at his workplace, Hewlett Packard Laboratories, in 1970, and tracing the development of computers and of the project which culminated in The Hebrew Bible: Andersen-Forbes Phrase Marker Analysis (2009), Biblical Hebrew Grammar Visualized (2012). He concludes with an outline of their ongoing work investigating discourse analysis, and lessons learned on the way. In response to our request, veteran Hebrew lexicographer David Clines142 offers “for the interest of co-workers on the International Syriac Language Project,” some reflections on lexicographical practice in the light of his experience with the eight-volume The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, completed in 2011.143 Clines begins with a number of principles and procedures that he would consider changing or improving if he were beginning the work again, and continues with some of the features that he would be most eager to preserve. Part Three, “Reflections on Greek lexicography,” begins with Frederick William Danker’s article. It is summarized at the beginning of this section (§7.2.6 PLAL 4) along with his other article on “synonymy and metonymy and related issues.” Jesús Peláez and Lautaro Roig Lanzillotta introduce features of the new GreekSpanish Dictionary of the New Testament (DGENT). Peláez144 illustrates the importance in a lexicon of providing contextual factors in order to explain the different senses of a given word that arise when it enters a new context. Taking as example the entry βαπτίζω, the author shows grosso modo how this word is treated in other New Testament dictionaries and then compares this with its treatment in DGENT. In the second part of this contribution, Peláez proposes the way in which lexicography should advance and explores various types of contextual factors. Roig Lanzillotta145 describes the method and purpose underlying DGENT. The first part of the article discusses the project from a theoretical standpoint and the second presents some examples that serve to illustrate two of the basic principles behind DGENT. On the one hand, there is the systematic distinction between meaning and translation. On the other hand, there is the construction of an entry by first establishing a semantic formula, semic development, and full definition that takes into account the semantic reality of the term. Margaret Sim146 rethinks a significant function of the genitive absolute in Classical and Koine Greek. In addition to effecting cohesion in discourse, the genitive absolute has been viewed as giving background information as well as indicating a Forbes, “A Tale of Two Sitters and a Crazy Blue Jay.” Clines, “How my (Lexicographical) Mind Has Changed.” 143 A ninth volume, The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, IX: English–Hebrew Index; Word Frequency Table, was published in 2016. 144 Peláez, “Contextual Factors in the Greek-Spanish Dictionary.” 145 Roig Lanzillotta, “The Greek-Spanish Dictionary.” 146 Sim, “The Genitive Absolute in Discourse.” 141 142

54

TERRY FALLA AND BERYL TURNER

change of subject or “switch reference.” Sim disputes the latter as being a predominant function of this participial construction and discusses its role in the New Testament, Xenophon, and the papyri with reference to a modern theory of cognition, which claims to give principles for the way in which humans communicate with one another. Steven Runge147 employs prototype theory to clarify the roles of temporal adverbs as discourse markers by going beyond the tendency of treating them monolithically. Using New Testament examples of νῦν and τότε, he outlines principles for determining whether or not a temporal adverb is functioning as a marker within the discourse. Stephen Levinsohn148 compares and contrasts the most common inferential connectives in the Greek New Testament and, in particular, the Pauline Epistles (including those whose authorship is disputed): οὖν, διό, ἄρα and ἄρα οὖν, ὥστε, and διὰ τοῦτο. The function of each connective is described, not “according to emphasis,” but in terms of the unique cognitive “constraint” on interpretation that it conveys. The paper concludes with suggestions as to the constraints associated with three other inferential connectives: τοιγαροῦν, τοίνυν, and διόπερ. 7.2.7 PLAL 8 (Colloquia) Papers presented at Symposium Syriacum in Malta, 2012, and at IOSOT, Munich, in 2013, were published in Contemporary Examinations of Classical Languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, and Greek): Valency, Lexicography, Grammar, and Manuscripts in 2016 (PLAL 8).149 The first of the three sections examines verbs, the second particles, and the third manuscript and text-critical matters. The first five articles treat specific Syriac and Hebrew verbs by taking into account relevant syntactic information. The first two studies by Beryl Turner and Jerome A. Lund follow up the challenge posed in an earlier article by Janet Dyk in which she argues that it is essential for a lexicon to include syntactic information.150 Turner151 observes that adultery committed by males can be distinguished, syntactically, from adultery committed by females. Turner argues that such an observation is relevant to include when writing a lexical entry for Syriac verbs with the root ‫ ܪ‬. She demonstrates that the transitive use of such Syriac verbs (by males) should Steven E. Runge, “Now and Then: Clarifying the Role of Temporal Adverbs as Discourse Markers,” in Reflections on Lexicography, PLAL 4, 303–23. 148 Stephen H. Levinsohn, ‘“Therefore’ or ‘Wherefore’: What’s the Difference?” in Reflections on Lexicography, PLAL 4, 325–43. 149 Timothy Martin Lewis, Alison G. Salvesen and Beryl Turner, eds., Contemporary Examinations of Classical Languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac and Greek): Valency, Lexicography, Grammar, and Manuscripts, PLAL 8. 150 Dyk, “Desiderata for the Lexicon.” 151 Beryl Turner, “Who Commits Adultery with Whom, and Why it Matters in a Lexicon,” in Contemporary Examinations of Classical Languages, PLAL 8, 1–18. 147

THE INTERNATIONAL SYRIAC LANGUAGE PROJECT (ISLP)

55

be distinguished from other constructions mediated by prepositions and hence not all constructions can be glossed by the traditional intransitive construction “to commit adultery with.” Among the several points that Turner raises for the lexicographer in her conclusion, she notes that in her examination of the Peal, Pael, and Aphel ‫ܪ‬ she certainly had not expected the gender of the participants to be a vital clue to defining the semantic fields. Who knows, she asks, what other criteria may be essential for other lexemes in their various constructions? Lund’s study152 of verbal valency in the Peshitta Old Testament examines the ‫ ܕ‬fear, Pael ‫ ܨ‬pray, and Peal ‫ ܗܘ‬the verb to be. prepositions used with Peal Lund’s computer-assisted analysis allows him, for example, to distinguish between ‫ ܕ‬fear someone and ‫ ܕ‬fear for someone as well as observing the compound used with ‫ ܕ‬fear from before [someone or something]. Lund also preposition ‫ܡ‬ suggests several other points for lexicographers to consider, such as the order of presentation for a verbal lexical entry. The next three articles by Janet Dyk, John Cook, and Nicolai Winther-Nielsen represent three different linguistic approaches to identifying and treating verbal valency patterns as an essential component of Hebrew grammar. Janet Dyk153 demonstrates how we might identify the semantics of a Hebrew verb by examining how its core lexical meaning is made visible in the syntactic elements of the sentence in which it occurs. With the aid of a methodological flow chart she asks the questions pertinent to the analysis of the verb in question. These questions can lead to an exposure of the core lexical meaning of the verb. The flow chart brings together the differences between verbs as projected onto the syntax of their sentence. A set of choices charts the presence or absence of specific sentence constituents. In this way differences between verbs are traceable and can be compared. John Cook154 presents a theory of valency that has been developed out of the Accordance syntax project, and discusses its contribution to our knowledge of Biblical Hebrew syntax and lexicography. He points out that so far verbal valency has played only a minor role in Hebrew grammars due to the fact that its study is still in its infancy. He demonstrates the superiority of a valency approach over traditional grammatical approaches, and distinguishes between valency, voice, and transitivity. He also identifies several issues currently under discussion, such as the difficulty of distinguishing between complements and adjuncts, and advocates his preference for Thomas Herbst’s three-way complement distinction.

Jerome A. Lund, “Soundings with Regard to Verbal Valency in the Peshitta Old Testament,” in Contemporary Examinations of Classical Languages, PLAL 8, 19–32. 153 Janet W. Dyk, “How do Hebrew Verbs Differ? A Flow Chart of the Differences,” in Contemporary Examinations of Classical Languages, PLAL 8, 33–51. 154 John A. Cook, “Valency: The Intersection of Syntax and Semantics,” in Contemporary Examinations of Classical Languages, PLAL 8, 53–66. 152

56

TERRY FALLA AND BERYL TURNER

Nicolai Winther-Nielsen155 illustrates a decision process developed for lexical decomposition. A database application called the Role Lexical Module plots predicates in the database of the Eep Talstra Centre for Bible and Computing at the Vrije Universiteit (http://lex.qwirx.com/lex/clause.jsp). His article presents the results of analyzing the 100 most frequent verbs in the basic (Qal) stem of Biblical Hebrew and classifies them according to the logical structure categories developed for Role and Reference Grammar. In the sixth and concluding article of the first section, Dean Forbes156 ponders preliminary questions concerning the criteria needed for determining the meaning of biblical verbs and the expectations of those who wish to examine verbs and syntax. He provides a counterbalance to the growing optimism concerning valency studies as necessarily promising. He agrees with Herbst that “valency is one of the more messy aspects of language” and pinpoints several theoretical issues that remain unsolved and potentially unsolvable, arguing that valency approaches have their limitations. In the second section, consisting of two articles on particles, Mats Eskhult157 compares ‫ ܳܗ‬, ‫הנֵ ה‬,ִ and ἰδού or ἴδε in the Peshitta to Genesis and the Gospels. Revealing some of the differences between these Hebrew and Greek particles, he finds that Syriac ‫ ܳܗ‬exhibits a stronger connection to direct speech than the corresponding Greek particles ἰδού or ἴδε. In her examination of the function and etymology of the particle lm (Official Aramaic particle ‫ לם‬and Syriac ), Na’ama Pat-El158 contests the commonly held assumption that the particle is a quotative marker, that is, that it functions as a marker introducing direct speech, and argues that no reconstruction should be attempted without fully understanding the various aspects of the form’s syntax and distribution. She concludes that lm is probably an emphatic adverb and that, considering its function in biblical quotations, it may have been used to mark the relative truth value the speaker attributes to the words. The article further shows that Kaufman’s etymology is not justified on phonological and morphological grounds. An alternative etymology is proposed. The first three articles in the third section address three different Syriac manuscripts from the British Library, while the final two articles examine some text-

Nicolai Winther-Nielsen, “How to Classify Hebrew Verbs: Plotting Verb-Specific Roles,” in Contemporary Examinations of Classical Languages, PLAL 8, 67–94. 156 A. Dean Forbes, “The Proper Role of Valency in Biblical Hebrew Studies,” in Contemporary Examinations of Classical Languages, PLAL 8, 95–112. 157 Mats Eskhult, “The use of Syriac ‫ ܗ‬in rendering Hebrew ‫ ִהנֵ ה‬and Greek ἰδού or ἴδε in the Peshitta to Genesis and the Gospels,” in Contemporary Examinations of Classical Languages, PLAL 8, 113–19. 158 Na’ama Pat-El, “The Function and Etymology of the Aramaic Particle Lm: A ReExamination,” in Contemporary Examinations of Classical Languages, PLAL 8, 121–38. 155

THE INTERNATIONAL SYRIAC LANGUAGE PROJECT (ISLP)

57

critical matters in Syriac manuscripts. In the first article, Jonathan Loopstra 159 demonstrates the value of one ninth-century Syriac manuscript (BL Add. 12138) for enriching our understanding of patterns of pitch variation between Syriac words. Previously, such patterns of “accentuation” (or “prosody” or “intonation”) had been largely undeveloped or under-researched. Loopstra provides a lexicographical application showing that normally an accent is placed above or below ‫ ܡ‬, except when ‫ ܡ‬is followed by ‫ܕ‬. In these cases, ‫ ܕ‬usually receives the accent from ‫ ܡ‬. Jeff Childers160 examines a unique sixth- or seventh-century Peshitta manuscript of John’s Gospel (BL Add. 17119), which supplies a glimpse into the practises of specialized interpreters who sought mystical guidance in the Bible according to methods that were often considered illicit. The manuscript includes an unusual apparatus for sortilege, incorporated directly into the biblical text. This Syriac manuscript is the most complete and intact instance of the phenomenon known to exist. Alison Salvesen161 examines the nature of the Syrohexapla’s renderings for items in the Tabernacle described in Exodus. She asks to what degree such terms in this early seventh-century CE “mirror translation” of Greek Scripture already existed in Syriac, and how consistent the translators were in using them. Her study illustrates something of the working methods of the ancient translators and their lexicographical experience. Johan D. Hofstra162 provides an extensive study of the sources used in Ishoʿdad of Merw’s commentary on the Gospel of John, and demonstrates the need for a new critical edition of of Ishoʿdad’s commentary. Building on the work of Margaret Dunlop Gibson, Hofstra attempts to make the text of Ishoʿdad’s commentary—frequently so intractable and complicated—more accessible to the readers of the present time. Hofstra furthers research on two fronts: the identification of Ishoʿdad’s sources and the best manuscripts to use for a new critical edition. Jerome A. Lund163 demonstrates how Hebrew manuscripts of Isaiah can assist in making emendations to the extant Peshitta Syriac text of Isaiah that represent the original translation. Lund argues that the underlying Masoretic text can be used with discretion as a text-critical tool to restore genuine Peshitta readings. No Syriac bibli-

Jonathan Loopstra, “Exploring Patterns of Accentuation in BL Add. MS 12138 (the East-Syrian “Masora”): Perspectives and Possibilities,” in Contemporary Examinations of Classical Languages, PLAL 8, 139–65. 160 Jeff Childers, “Embedded Oracles: Sortilege in a Syriac Gospel Codex,” in Contemporary Examinations of Classical Languages, PLAL 8, 167–85. 161 Alison G. Salvesen, “The Lexicon of the Tabernacle Accounts in the Syrohexapla Version of Exodus,” in Contemporary Examinations of Classical Languages, PLAL 8, 187–99. 162 Johan D. Hofstra, “Towards a New Critical Edition and Translation of Ishoʿdad of Merw’s Commentary on the Gospel of John with an Identification of his Sources,” in Contemporary Examinations of Classical Languages, PLAL 8, 201–38. 163 Jerome A. Lund, “The Hebrew as a Text-Critical Tool in Restoring Genuine Peshitta Readings in Isaiah,” in Contemporary Examinations of Classical Languages, PLAL 8, 239–49. 159

58

TERRY FALLA AND BERYL TURNER

cal manuscripts collated for the Leiden scientific edition contain any of these readings. 7.2.8 PLAL 9 (Colloquia) A special ISLP conference held in collaboration with the Russian Academy of Sciences at the St Petersburg Institute of Oriental Manuscripts in St Petersburg resulted in a substantial volume, From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries: Select Studies in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek,164 which also included some papers from the earlier IOSOT conference in Munich. The three sections of the book, respectively featuring Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek, cover a wide range of topics. At the same time, we should note that all but six of the twenty-four articles belong to one of six interrelated subjects familiar to PoSL and PLAL readers: grammar and syntax, lexicography, linguistics, semantics, textual criticism, and translation (see PoSL and PLAL Articles Arranged According to Subject in §8). Five of the six other articles are socio-cultural studies. Three of them study aspects of public worship and private devotion, the fourth examines sortilege in a Syriac codex, and the fifth examines internationalisms in the Hebrew press in Russia from the 1860’s to the 1910’s. The sixth article provides a literary analysis of the Jewish recension of a Syriac version of Aesop’s Fables. The Aramaic section covers several dialects as well as subjects. Terry Falla165 explores the issue of semantic and syntactic ambiguity in a corpus-specific ancientlanguage lexicon. He discusses the problems and advantages that confront the lexicographer who seeks to provide information on instances of ambiguity and what future Classical Syriac lexicography can learn from them. Four primary types of ambiguity are identified and discussed: ambiguity due to a lack of information, semantic ambiguity due to syntactic ambiguity, intentional ambiguity, and ambiguous figurative speech requiring interpretation. The author concludes by suggesting fourteen principles for citing ambiguity in future Classical Syriac corpus-by-corpus lexica and other ancient-language lexica to which they may be applicable. Binyamin Goldstein166 examines the Jewish recension of a Syriac collection of Aesop’s Fables as a case study for the broader topic of the literary interaction between writers of Syriac and dialects of Jewish Aramaic in the second half of the first millennium CE. Along with Targum Proverbs and a handful of other texts, this recension attests to interaction between Jews and Syriac Christians in the literary sphere. Its mixed dialect further informs on the context of the Syriac text’s assimilation into Jewish literature. The Jewish recension is also important as another witness to the Syriac text. The implications of such a project, says the author by way of conTarsee Li and Keith Dyer, eds., From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries: Select Studies in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek, PLAL 9. 165 Terry C. Falla, “What to Do About Citing Ambiguity in a Corpus-Specific Lexicon,” in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries, PLAL 9, 9–59. 166 Binyamin Y. Goldstein, “The Jewish Recension of a Syriac Version of Aesop’s Fables,” in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries, PLAL 9, 61–76. 164

THE INTERNATIONAL SYRIAC LANGUAGE PROJECT (ISLP)

59

clusion, will significantly reshape our conception of how religious minority groups interacted with one another under the Abbasid Caliphate. Erica Hunter167 selects a number of manuscripts from the Syriac fragments found at the monastery near Bulayïq to discuss public and private dimensions of worship at Turfan. Notable amongst these many liturgical manuscripts is MIK III 45, which consists of 61 folios, dated to the 8th–9th centuries, and is a witness to the liturgy in the first millennium, shortly after Isoyabh III compiled the Hudra. As for private devotion, several prayer-amulets that name various saints suggest that the terminology and commemoration of saints in the selected manuscripts are prototypes of prayer-amulets that were used by the Syriac Christian communities who dwelt in the Hakkari region of northern Kurdistan until the opening decades of the 20th century. These include the fragments SyrHT 152, SyrHT 99, SyrHT 330, and SyrHT 102, n.364–365. The latter two are presented with text, transliteration, and translation. The selected manuscripts respectively demonstrate the public and private dimensions of faith that took place at the remote outpost of Turfan in the medieval period, where the heritage of the Church of the East was robustly maintained. Tarsee Li168 surveys the employment of Christian Palestinian Aramaic (CPA) imperative constructions and related forms in light of the translation of Greek imperatives and related forms. The study reports the extent to which the employment of different types of directive expressions in CPA corresponds to different types of directive expressions in Greek. As in other forms of Aramaic, the CPA imperative is restricted to affirmative directives, whereas negative directives are expressed not with imperatives, but with the imperfect. However, in both affirmative and negative directives, the aspectual distinction between the Greek aorist and the present is seldom reflected in CPA translation. This fact is evidence that the latter is not simply “translation Aramaic.” The CPA bears witness to native Aramaic syntax. Notwithstanding some unavoidable Greek influence, the CPA translation of the Gospels is one that would be understood as Aramaic by native speakers of the language. This further confirms the same observation made in Li’s monograph Greek Indicative Verbs in the Christian Palestinian Aramaic Gospels: Translation Techniques and the Aramaic Verbal System (PLAL 3). Li also makes other important observations, amongst them that, although the aspectual distinction between the Greek aorist and present in the imperative mood is only seldom reflected in CPA translation, the existence of a potential aspectual distinction in CPA directives is shown by the fact that the expression imperative of ÝÏË + participle only occurs in the translation of the Greek present imperative, never of the aorist imperative or subjunctive. This stands in clear contrast to the translation of the indicative verbs, where the aspectual distinction

Erica C.D. Hunter, “Syriac Manuscripts from Turfan: Public Worship and Private Devotion,” in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries, PLAL 9, 77–96. 168 Tarsee Li, “Greek Imperatives and Corresponding Expressions in Christian Palestinian Aramaic,” in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries, PLAL 9, 97–108. 167

60

TERRY FALLA AND BERYL TURNER

between the aorist and imperfect indicatives is usually reflected in the CPA translation. Jonathan Loopstra169 researches the use of a Syriac scribal sign consisting of three dots called taḥtāyā ḏa-tlāṯā, which is attested in East-Syrian biblical manuscripts from the seventh century onwards. His examination of biblical passages demonstrates that this mark appears in passages that seem to indicate a strong pause as well as possible “rhetorical” interpretations such as a sense of address, petition, or conditional statements. Although the interpretations of later post-eleventh-century Syriac grammarians vary, there is a general agreement that the taḥtāyā ḏa-tlāṯā include both a pausal and “rhetorical” function. While it is unclear how exactly the presence of a taḥtāyā ḏa-tlāṯā would have impacted the intonation of a passage, there are hints that this mark was reserved mainly for character dialogue where dramatic readings would have been possible. However, we should keep in mind that the taḥtāyā ḏa-tlāṯā is only one of a number of reading marks that began to appear in East-Syrian manuscripts after the seventh century and for which there are as yet very few comprehensive studies. Together, these reading marks represent the vestiges of a system of biblical oral recitation that scribes attempted to pass down for a millennium alongside the biblical text. Matthew Morgenstern,170 who is preparing a new Mandaic dictionary, reviews the history of Mandaic studies, especially Mandaic lexicography. He focuses mainly on the Mandaic dictionary of Drower and Macuch,171 which, for five decades, has been an essential resource for Mandaic and comparative Aramaic lexicography. Without this work, the study of Mandaic, a south-eastern dialect of Aramaic that is closely related to Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmud and post-Talmudic rabbinic literature, may not have survived and enjoyed its current revival. However, by contemporary standards this iconic dictionary can no longer meet the needs of Aramaic lexicography. The aim of this new project is to build on the accomplishments of Drower and Macuch, while bringing Mandaic lexicography up to date, and providing the foundation for another half-century of Mandaic research. Mor Polycarpus Augin Aydin172 presents a report of a new recently-published Syriac-Syriac lexicon, authored by Dayroyo Yuyakim d’beth Yahkob, Abbot of St Augin Monastery, Mount Izlo, Tur Abdin, in southeast Anatolia, Turkey, and enti‫ܕ‬ /Qlido d-Leshono―Key of Language.173 The report discusses the lexitled con’s methodology and the sources and resources it employs, and compares it with Loopstra, “Reading the Bible with the Taḥtāyā ḏa-Ṯlāṯā.” Matthew Morgenstern, “A New Mandaic Dictionary,” in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries, PLAL 9, 139–71. 171 Ethel S. Drower and Rudolf Macuch, A Mandaic Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon, 1963). 172 Mor Polycarpus Augin Aydin, “Qlido d-Leshono―Key of Language: A Comprehensive Syriac Lexicon by Abbot Yuyakim of Tur Islo,” in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries, PLAL 9, 173–78. 173 Published by St Augin Monastery, P.K. No 25, Nosaybin, Turkey. Email [email protected]. 169 170

THE INTERNATIONAL SYRIAC LANGUAGE PROJECT (ISLP)

61

Audo’s Syriac-Syriac Lexicon of 1897. 174 The report explains why this new lexicon will likely supersede previous Syriac lexica produced within the Syriac tradition. Richard Taylor175 evaluates the Peshitta translation of Psalm 2 in terms of the alignment of its textual affinities and its translation techniques. While the Syriac text of the psalm essentially reflects a proto-Masoretic Vorlage, in several places it aligns with non-MT readings found also in the Septuagint. Hence, in these places either there is a shared exegetical tradition or the Septuagint has exercised influence on the Peshitta. Certain translation techniques in this Peshitta rendering suggest that in a few places the Syriac translator may not have chosen the best lexical equivalents to represent the meaning of the underlying Hebrew text. In this psalm, there is reason to think that the Peshitta translator at times followed textual variants known to him from the Old Greek version. The second section of the volume contains six articles on Biblical Hebrew and one on the early rise of Modern Hebrew. The topics include textual criticism, grammatical categorization, cognitive linguistics, language borrowing, the use of statistics in diachronic studies, and Hebrew lexicography. Cyrill von Buettner176 discusses the origins of the unique reading ‫ הסתרתי‬I turned in Isa 50:6 in the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa). After agreeing with earlier conclusions that the original version of the text is found in MT (‫ הסתרתי‬I hid), the author suggests that the Qumran version resulted from text editing by a scribe, and had an explanatory function. Possibly the main reason for such changes was that, whereas the verb ‫ הסתיר‬to hide with the noun ‫ פנים‬face usually form a set expression that has the meaning to ignore, they are used in Isa 50:6 with their literal meaning as a combination of a verb and a noun. That is, in this passage the hiding of the face meant to protect the character. Additionally, there may have been an attempt to avoid a contradiction with a similar expression in Isa 53:3. Marilyn Burton177 addresses the application of a cognitive approach to lexical semantics to the study of ancient languages, which, where suitable data are available, is widely acknowledged to be superior in many ways to more traditional structuralist and generativist methodologies. While acknowledging the challenges posed by dead languages, she examines previous attempts within biblical semantics and related fields to compensate for the lack of available native-speaker input and proposes some new avenues for exploration. She suggests that much of the information that 174

‫ܨܠ‬ 1985).

Audo’s Syriac-Syriac Lexicon: ‫ܐܘܕܘ‬ ‫ܬܐܘ‬ ‫ܪ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܕܐܘܪ‬, reprinted as Simta d-leshana suryaya (Mosul: 1897; reprinted 1978, 1979,

Richard A. Taylor, “Psalm 2 in Syriac: Issues of Text and Language,” in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries, PLAL 9, 179–97. 176 Cyrill von Buettner, “A Few Notes Concerning the Reading of ‫ הסתרתי‬in the Great Isaiah Scroll (Isa 50:6b),” in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries, PLAL 9, 201–12. 177 Marilyn E. Burton, “Cognitive Methodology in the Study of an Ancient Language: Impediments and Possibilities,” in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries, PLAL 9, 213–25. 175

62

TERRY FALLA AND BERYL TURNER

would normally be gleaned from a native speaker can be extracted from two types of clues found in the extant texts: those found in parallelism and word pairs, and those found in syntax and association. David Clines178 engages in a systematic study of the lexica of Classical Hebrew, including over six hundred Hebrew dictionaries in European languages from the sixteenth century onwards. First, certain formal features are compared, especially their inclusion or non-inclusion of Aramaic, their provision of indexes, their notation of cognates in other Semitic languages, and their treatment of homonyms. This is followed by the comparative examination of how four individual Hebrew words were treated by lexicographers through the centuries: ‫ חיל‬wall, ‫ לביא‬lion, ‫ גלה‬I reveal, II go into exile, and ‫ שׁקע‬I sink, II bind. Finally, some general conclusions are presented, which include, inter alia, the suggestion that scholars should not uncritically accept the definitions found in lexica, and the fact that new words and meanings are still being discovered. The article ends with a list of Hebrew lexica, mentioned in the paper, dating from the tenth to the twentieth century. Dean Forbes179 delves into the use and misuse of statistical methods in the dating of texts of the Hebrew Bible. He states at the outset that his article has a complex, controversy-laden goal: to prepare the way for statistical approaches designed to lead to either 1) an inference of the temporal relations holding among Hebrew Bible text portions, or 2) a conclusion that such inferences are not reliably possible using statistical methods. First, he examines the sources of statistical uncertainty in dating ancient Hebrew texts and discusses how to cope with them. Then, he delineates the options that must be considered in the study of temporal relations among the texts in the Hebrew Bible. Both sections also include considerations which are relevant to the diachronic study of Hebrew as a language. He concludes with a detailed and useful summary of his study and a brief statement of future tasks. Cynthia Miller-Naudé and Jacobus Naudé180 confront the question of grammatical categorization in Biblical Hebrew. They begin by alerting the reader to the reality that linguistic analysis is necessarily and unavoidably perspectival—how do we identify the data, how do we segment the data, how do we describe the data, and how do we categorize them as tokens of one linguistic phenomenon or another? They survey approaches to categorization in generative grammar, functional grammar, cognitive grammar, and in typological linguistics. They then attempt a grammatical categorization of ‫טוֹב‬, which includes both the adjective and the verbal homonyms. The analysis includes both morphosyntactic and distributional factors.

David J. A. Clines, “Towards a Science of Comparative Classical Hebrew Lexicography,” in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries, PLAL 9, 227–45. 179 A. Dean Forbes, “On Dating Biblical Hebrew Texts: Sources of Uncertainty / Analytical Options,” in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries, PLAL 9, 247–72. 180 Cynthia Miller-Naudé and Jacobus Naudé, “A Re-examination of Grammatical Categorization in Biblical Hebrew,” in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries, PLAL 9, 273–308. 178

THE INTERNATIONAL SYRIAC LANGUAGE PROJECT (ISLP)

63

Sonya Yampolskaya181 explores the development of the adaptation of international loanwords in Early Modern Hebrew based on Hebrew newspapers published in Russia during the period from the 1860’s to the 1910’s. The author shows that the basic patterns of adaptation of loanwords in what later became Modern Israeli Hebrew had been formed in East European and predominantly Russian Hebrew by the 1910’s. The image of language change that is reflected by the sources contradicts both traditional and revisionist general theories on the emergence of Israeli Hebrew. The final section of the volume consists of ten articles on Ancient Greek. These cover topics such as the philological evidence concerning ancient practices among both Christians and non-Christians such as prayer and wine drinking, various approaches to understanding the meaning of words and expressions, discussions of syntax and various aspects of discourse, along with lexicographical issues. Valeriy Alikin182 investigates the evidence for drunkenness and the admonitions to prevent drunkenness in early Christian gatherings and their parallels in GraecoRoman literature. Although wine was drunk diluted with water in the GraecoRoman world, this did not prevent participants from getting drunk. Admonitions against drunkenness in early Christian writings suggest that Christians also sometimes got drunk at their communal gatherings. Christians followed the advice presented by pagan sources on how to prevent drunkenness and also devised their own ways. Keith Dyer183 demonstrates that basileia terminology is very seldom used of Rome or its Caesars in the first century. Recent interpretations of first century Greek texts in the context of the Roman empire often assume that basileia language refers directly to the Roman imperium. The assertion is often made, for example, that the basileia tou Theou language in the New Testament means the Empire of God which then directly confronts the Empire of Rome. Exegetes need to pay more attention to lexicography on these matters, for basileia terminology is very seldom used of Rome or its Caesars in the first century. Dyer also explores the implications of this understanding for interpreting the critique of Rome in the Book of Revelation, with special attention to Rev 11:15. He concludes that the basileia of the kosmos of “our Lord and his Christ” is not an empire like Rome’s—nor any other human empire—which leaves us with the provocative question, “might not the problem (of interpreting basileia language) lie with we who interpret from positions of power— needing an imperial Christ to justify our own empires?”

Sonya Yampolskaya, “Internationalisms in the Hebrew Press 1860s–1910s as a Means of Language Modernization,” in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries, PLAL 9, 309– 27. 182 Valeriy Alikin, “Preventing Drunkenness in the Christian Gathering: Hints from The Graeco-Roman World and the New Testament,” in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries, PLAL 9, 331–45. 183 Keith Dyer, “Basileia or Imperium? Rome and the Rhetoric of Resistance in the Revelation to John,” in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries, PLAL 9, 346–64. 181

64

TERRY FALLA AND BERYL TURNER

Nikolay Grintser184 re-examines the contribution of the fifth-century BCE Sophists to linguistic theory, especially statements by Protagoras and Prodicus. He concludes that in their linguistic observations the Sophists anticipated both the general principles and technical distinctions of later scholarly linguistic research. Moreover, through them the study of language emerged from some sort of commentary on literary texts, just as happened two centuries later in Hellenistic Alexandria. Prodicus’ distinction of word meanings could be seen as an indispensable tool for Protagorean “directness” of word usage in a particular text, especially Homeric. So, Sophistic linguistic theory was deeply related to the “judgement on poems” (κρίσις ποιημάτων) that Dionysius Thrax in the first century BCE would claim to be the utmost goal of grammar in the first European linguistic textbook, Techne grammatike. And one of the links between this emerging literary theory and literary tradition was etymology, which, in spite of all scholarly doubts, seemed to have been practiced by Sophists, thus inspiring Plato to respond to their ideas with his Cratylus. Jordash Kiffiak185 analyses the semantic content of Greek terms that denote fear, amazement, and being troubled. The definition of words in these three subdomains within the semantic domain of “attitudes and emotions” in Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains are compared with the definitions of Frederick W. Danker et al.’s A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG). He concludes that the lexicographer can meaningfully distinguish categories of fear, amazement, and being troubled in the portions of text he considers, and that there is a greater semantic distance between amazement and the other two terms that there is between those two terms. Olga Levinskaja (Akhunova)186 explores the syntactic structure, meaning, and origin of an Ancient Greek proverbial expression about an ass and a lyre (ὄνος λύρας). The syntax of this proverbial expression seems to be very simple, but the lack of a verb or preposition makes its meaning uncertain. What is this proverbial ass doing with the musical instrument? Is he listening? Or playing? Or something else? An answer depends on the syntactic motivation of the genitive case λύρας. Since ancient poets and writers were not unanimous in their understanding of this proverb, Levinskaja suggests that the phrase ὄνος λύρας was not the result of a reduction of a full-fledged proverb, but originally appeared in the Greek language in precisely this form, and then, in the course of time, developed full proverbial contexts. This could have happened as a result of translation or calquing from another language, a possibility that is supported by the fact that the image of an ass with a Nikolay P. Grintser, “The Birth of European Linguistic Theory: The Idea of Language in the Sophists,” in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries, PLAL 9, 365–78. 185 Jordash Kiffiak, “Amazement, Fear and Being Troubled in Responses in Gospel Miracle Stories: Establishing the Semantic Contours of the Terms and their Interrelations,” in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries, PLAL 9, 379–411. 186 Olga Levinskaja, “The Ass and the Lyre: On a Greek Proverb,” in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries, PLAL 9, 413–21. 184

THE INTERNATIONAL SYRIAC LANGUAGE PROJECT (ISLP)

65

lyre is not a characteristic of Greek classical tradition, but is highly popular in the tradition of the Ancient Near East, where asses with strings are present in the iconography of Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Syria. Stephen Levinsohn187 discusses various combinations of εἰμί and a participle in the Gospels and Acts. Typically, εἰμί precedes the participial clause. On occasions there is a subject, with the default position of the subject being placed after εἰμί. The author examines the factors that may cause variations from this order. He also observes that Greek copular imperfects are less dynamic than their simple counterparts. In the few cases where a copular imperfect at the beginning of a pericope presents an event in progress, the effect is to background that event in relation to what follows. Steven Runge188 describes the discourse functions of semantically redundant nominative and vocative forms of direct address in the book of James. He studies the role they play in delimiting units within the text. He does not attempt to predict the usage of address forms, but rather to describe the apparent motivations for the usage and its effects. He gives particular attention to those instances where the usage is semantically redundant, where the addressees are already clearly identified. The study demonstrates that a “one-size-fits-all” explanation of direct address is unable to account adequately for the uses of nominative and vocative forms in the book of James. Although the semantic function of identifying the address is the most basic, it is not the most frequent, and therefore calls for an examination of the other possible functions. Margaret Sim189 considers the concept of metarepresentation, or representation to use the non-technical term. At the heart of representing the thoughts of others is the concept of the transfer of thought to utterance. The utterance will then be enriched by the recovery of inferences that should lead the hearer or reader to an understanding of the communicative intention of the speaker or writer. Sim presents the position that the concept of (meta) representation is foundational for the understanding of figures of speech such as metaphor and irony. This concept claims to give a more satisfactory account of these tropes than traditional literary analysis. This is based on the notion that a metaphor loosely resembles the speaker’s thought or that of someone else. The use of an undetermined or “loose” expression may give rise to a wider and richer range of inferences for the hearer than a carefully explicit sentence. Recognizing the crucial part that representation plays in communication, Sim deals with speech boundaries, representation marked by the article τό, repStephen H. Levinsohn, “Constituent Order in and Usages of εἰμί: Participle Combinations in the Synoptics and Acts,” in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries, PLAL 9, 423–41. 188 Steven E. Runge, “Redundancy, Discontinuity and Delimitation in the Epistle of James,” in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries, PLAL 9, 443–54. 189 Margaret G. Sim, “An Examination of Metarepresentation as an Essential Feature of Written and Oral Communication,” in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries, PLAL 9, 455–70. 187

66

TERRY FALLA AND BERYL TURNER

resentation not morphologically marked, echoic speech, and ironic utterance. The study draws examples from the Discourses of Epictetus and the New Testament, including the Corinthian correspondence. Michael Theophilos190 provides a comparative and structural analysis of Christian prayer at Oxyrhynchus, comparing his findings with an examination of the form and function of non-Christian prayers from the same period. He demonstrates a pervasive influence of similar non-Christian prayer formulae at the level of structure, syntax, and titular vocabulary. Finally, he refers to contemporaneous comparative Christian liturgical and individual prayers preserved on papyri from other locations, and suggests that the porous interchange of prayer formulations between Christian and non-Christian prayers at Oxyrhynchus is more broadly based and attested throughout Egypt and the Mediterranean world. More specifically, Theophilos’ comparison of a corpus of Christian prayers from Oxyrhynchus, including P. Oxy 407, 925, 1058, 1150, and 1926, to other non-Christian prayers, makes apparent that the former are effectively Christian counterparts to pagan petitions to the oracle. Such evidence is attested for other locales and this stylistic syncretism cannot, as such, be seen as a distinctive of Christian prayer at Oxyrhynchus. Finally, Anne Thompson191 discusses the need for consistency in the production of dictionaries of classical languages, but begins her abstract by saying that achieving consistency through all entries of a large lexicon is a daunting task. With several writers working over a period of many years, there is inevitably the risk that different approaches will emerge. Editors sometimes work without being able to describe with any precision the theory of what they are doing and, even when there is a stricter methodology in place, this has often been transmitted orally without a written manual of instructions for writers or explanation for readers. In the case of Ancient Greek, a tradition of copying from earlier lexicons introduces further complications. A lexicon should be a scientific linguistic study of the vocabulary of the language, not just an exercise in translation of words along with freely worded commentary. Senses need to be correctly identified and then presented according to a layout and wording that is rigorously governed by identical principles in every similar case. Proper semantic analysis, along with rigorously scientific methods of presentation will help readers to read ancient texts at a level that is nearer to that of the native speaker. The benefits to be gained are a heightened understanding and appreciation of the literature and documents of the language. Lexicography, because of its practical nature, is a test bed for theory, and the two things should be linked, that is, semantic and theoretical studies on the one hand, and lexical studies and dictionaries on the other.

Michael P. Theophilos, “Prayer and the Papyri at Oxyrhynchus,” in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries, PLAL 9, 471–80. 191 Anne Thompson, “The Lexicographic Editor and the Problem of Consistency,” in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries, PLAL 9, 481–507. 190

THE INTERNATIONAL SYRIAC LANGUAGE PROJECT (ISLP)

67

8. POSL AND PLAL ARTICLES ARRANGED ACCORDING TO SUBJECT A sentence uttered makes a world appear W.H. Auden192

This section complements the previous one (§7) by listing the authors and titles of all PoSL and PLAL articles and monographs according to subject. The subject matter of a few articles requires them to be listed in more than one category. Many others also involve two or more subjects, but for the sake of space are listed under only the primary one. The bibliography provides full details of the articles and monographs. 8.1 Concordances Juckel, Andreas. “Towards an Analytical Concordance of the Harklean New Testament.” ––—. Analytical Concordance to the Harklean Version. Dyk, Janet W. “A Synopsis-Based Translation Concordance as a Tool for Lexical and Text-Critical Exploration.” 8.2 Grammar and syntax (see also §8.4 Lexicography, and §8.12 Semantics) Blois, Reinier de. “Where Syntax and Semantics Intersect: The Story of ‫שׁלח‬.” Dyk, Janet W. “Form and Function in the Treatment of the Passive Participle.” ––—. “The Peshitta Rendering of Psalm 25: Spelling, Synonyms, and Syntax.” ––—. “The Hebrew and the Syriac Copula in Kings.” ––—. “The Cognate Verbs ‫ שים‬and ‫ܡ‬ in the Books of Kings: Similarities and Differences.” ––—. “How do Hebrew Verbs Differ? A Flow Chart of the Differences.” Eskhult, Mats. “The use of Syriac ‫ ܗ‬in rendering Hebrew ‫ ִהנֵה‬and Greek ἰδού or ἴδε in the Peshitta to Genesis and the Gospels.” ––—. “The elusive ‘again’: Hebrew two-verb constructions and the particle ‘ōḏ in Greek and Aramaic rendition.” Farina, Margherita. An Outline of Middle Voice in Syriac: Evidences of a Linguistic Category. Forbes, A. Dean. “A Tale of Two Sitters and a Crazy Blue Jay.” King, Daniel. A. Merx, Historia Artis Grammaticae apud Syros: English Translation. Kiraz, George A. “Lexica and Grammars in the Late Syriac Tradition: The Three Bishops: Audo, Manna, and David.” Knudsen, Ebbe E. Classical Syriac Phonology. W. H. Auden, from his poem “Words,” Collected Shorter Poems (London: Faber and Faber, 1966), 320. 192

68

TERRY FALLA AND BERYL TURNER

Levinskaja (Akhunova), Olga. “The Ass and the Lyre: On a Greek Proverb.” Levinsohn, Stephen H. “Therefore’ or ‘Wherefore’: What’s the Difference?” ––—. “Constituent Order in and Usages of Εἰμί—Participle Combinations in the Synoptics and Acts.” ––—. “Development Units in Ruth.” Li, Tarsee. Greek Indicative Verbs in the Christian Palestinian Aramaic Gospels: Translation Techniques and the Aramaic Verbal System. ––—. “Greek Imperatives and Corresponding Expressions in Christian Palestinian Aramaic.” Loopstra, Jonathan. “Exploring Patterns of Accentuation in BL Add. MS 12138 (the East-Syrian ‘Masora’): Perspectives and Possibilities.” ––—. “Reading the Bible with the Taḥtāyā ḏa-Ṯlāṯā.” ––—. “The Syriac Reading Dot in Transmission: Consistency and Confusion.” Meyer, Mark. A Comparative Dialectical Study of Genitive Constructions in Aramaic Translations of Exodus. Miller-Naudé, Cynthia L. and Jacobus A. Naudé. “A Re-examination of Grammatical Categorization in Biblical Hebrew.” Morrison, Craig E. “The hwā qātel and hwā qětīl Constructions in the Peshitta Old Testament.” ––—. “The Peshitta in Jacob of Serugh: The Particle and Other Citation Markers.” Pat-El, Na’ama. Studies in the Historical Syntax of Aramaic. ––—. “The Function and Etymology of the Aramaic Particle Lm: A Reexamination.” Peursen, Wido van. “Numerals and Nominal Inflection in Classical Syriac.” Runge, Steven E. “Now and Then: Clarifying the Role of Temporal Adverbs as Discourse Markers.” ––—. “Redundancy, Discontinuity and Delimitation in the Epistle of James.” Sim, Margaret G. “The Genitive Absolute in Discourse: More Than a Change of Subject.” 8.3 History Falla, Terry and Beryl Turner, “The History, Aims, and Ethos of the International Syriac Language Project.” 8.4 Lexicography 8.4.1 Lexicography: general (see also §8.2 Grammar and syntax, and §8.8 Semantics) Aitken, James K. “Context of Situation in Biblical Lexica.” Bakker, Dirk. “Lemma and Lexeme: The Case of Third-Alaph and Third-Yodh Verbs.”

THE INTERNATIONAL SYRIAC LANGUAGE PROJECT (ISLP)

69

Blois, Reinier de. “New Tools and Methodologies for Biblical Lexicography.” ––—. “Semantic Domains for Biblical Greek: Louw and Nida’s Framework Evaluated from a Cognitive Perspective.” ––—. “The Semantic Structure of Biblical Hebrew.” ––—. “Where Syntax and Semantics Intersect: The Story of ‫שׁלח‬.” Brock, Sebastian P. “Syriac Lexicography: Reflections on Sources and Resources.” Clines, David J. A. “How My (Lexicographical) Mind Has Changed, Or Else Remained the Same.” ––—. “Towards a Science of Comparative Classical Hebrew Lexicography.” Craig, Marie-Louise. “Pioneers and ‘No Through Roads’: The Story of the Early Hebrew-English Lexicons.” ––—. “Take One Hebrew Lexicon, Add Fresh Theology, and Mix Well: The Impact of Theology on Hebrew-English Lexicons.” Danker, Frederick William. “Moving Beyond Borders: Thoughts of A Greek Lexicographer.” ––—. “Lexical Problems: Synonymy and Metonymy and Related Issues.” ––—. “A Linguistic-Cultural Approach to Alleged Pauline and Lukan Christological Disparity.” Dyer, Keith. “Basileia or Imperium? Rome and the Rhetoric of Resistance in the Revelation to John.” Dyk, Janet W. “Desiderata for the Lexicon from a Syntactic Point of View.” Falla, Terry C. “A Conceptual Framework for a New Comprehensive Syriac-English Lexicon.” ––—. “Grammatical Classification in Syriac Lexica: A Syntactically Based Alternative.” ––—. “Metaphor, Lexicography and Modern Linguistics: Should Figurative Speech Figure in Future Ancient-Language Lexica?” ––—. “Reflections on Two Articles by Frederick W. Danker: Background and Appreciation.” ––—. “What to Do About Citing Ambiguity in a Corpus-Specific Lexicon.” Falla, Terry, and Beryl Turner. “The History, Aims, and Ethos of the International Syriac Language Project.” Forbes, A. Dean. “Squishes, Clines, and Fuzzy Signs: Mixed and Gradient Categories in the Biblical Hebrew Lexicon.” ––—. “How Syntactic Formalisms Can Advance the Lexicographer’s Art.” ––—. “Distributionally-Inferred Word and Form Classes in the Hebrew Lexicon: Known by the Company They Keep.” Juckel, Andreas. “Should the Harklean Version Be Included in a Future Lexicon of the Syriac New Testament?”

70

TERRY FALLA AND BERYL TURNER

Keulen, Percy S.F. van. “Feminine Nominal Endings in Hebrew, Aramaic and Syriac: Derivation or Inflection?” ––—. “Lexicographical Troubles with the Cardinal Numerals 1–20 in the Aramaic of the Targumim and in Classical Syriac.” King, Daniel. “Remarks on the Future of a Syriac Lexicon Based upon the Corpus of Philosophical Texts.” Kiraz, George A. “Computing the Syriac Lexicon: Historical Notes and Considerations for a Future Implementation.” Lewis, Timothy Martin. “Lexemes with High Risk of Infection: Methodology for Examining Low-Frequency Lexemes.” Loopstra, Jonathan. “The Patristic ‘Syriac Masora’ as a Resource for Modern Syriac Lexicography.” Mot, Laurentiou. “When Hapax Legomena are Exegetically Important.” Peursen, Wido van. “Inflectional Morpheme or Part of the Lexeme? Some Reflections on Verbs Beginning with ša- in Classical Syriac.” Peursen, Wido van and Dirk Bakker. “Lemmatization and Morphological Analysis: The Case of ‫ ܗ‬in Classical Syriac.” Peursen, Wido van and Terry C. Falla. “The Particles ܶ and ‫ ܷܕ‬in Classical Syriac: Syntactic and Semantic Aspects.” Salvesen, Alison. “The User versus the Lexicographer: Practical and Scientific Issues in Creating Entries.” ––—. “The Lexicon of the Tabernacle Accounts in the Syrohexapla Version of Exodus.” Sikkel, Constantijn J. “Lexeme Status of Pronominal Suffixes.” Taylor, David G.K. An Annotated Bibliography of Printed Syriac Lexica. Taylor, Richard A. “The Inclusion of Encyclopedic Information in Syriac Lexical Entries.” Thompson, Anne. “The Lexicographic Editor and the Problem of Consistency.” Turner, Beryl. “Lexicalizing the Syriac Preposition ‫ ܳ ܬ‬.” ––—. “Analysis of the Syriac Particle ܰ .” ––—. “Who Commits Adultery with Whom, and Why it Matters in a Lexicon.” Williams, Peter J. “On Matching Syriac Words with Their Greek Vorlage.” ––—. “Alpha Privatives in the New Testament Epistles.” 8.4.2 Specific lexica Aitken, James K. “Other Hebrew Lexica: Zorell and Alonso Schoekel.” Aydin, Mor Polycarpus Augin. “Introduction to Awgen Manna’s Lexicon.” ––—. “Qlido d-Leshono - Key of Language: A Comprehensive Syriac Lexicon.” Calabro, David. “The Word That Was from the Beginning: Syriac Etymology in a Digital Age.”

THE INTERNATIONAL SYRIAC LANGUAGE PROJECT (ISLP)

71

Clines, David J.A. “How My (Lexicographical) Mind Has Changed, Or Else Remained the Same.” Hackett, Jo Ann, and John Huehnergard. “On Revising and Updating BDB.” Hunziker-Rodewald, Regina. “The Gesenius/Brown-Driver-Briggs Family.” ––—. “KAHAL—The Shorter HALAT: A Hebrew Lexicon Project in Progress.” Kaltner, John. “The Koehler-Baumgartner Family.” King, Daniel. A Lexicon of Syriac Philosophical Terms. Kiraz, George A. “Lexica and Grammars in the Late Syriac Tradition: The Three Bishops: Audo, Manna, and David.” Morgenstern, Matthew. “A New Mandaic Dictionary: Challenges, Accomplishments, and Prospects.” Muraoka, T. “Brockelmann in English Guise.” Muraviev, Alexey. Syriac Nosological Lexicon: A Word-list of Diseases Occurring in Syriac Medical Texts with Greek and Arabic Parallels. Peláez, Jesús. “Contextual Factors in the Greek-Spanish Dictionary of the New Testament (DGENT).” Roig Lanzillotta, Lautaro. “The Greek-Spanish Dictionary of the New Testament (DGENT): Meaning and Translation of the Lexemes; Some Practical Examples.” Salvesen, Alison. “A User’s View of Michael Sokoloff, ed., A Syriac Lexicon: A Translation from the Latin: Correction, Expansion, and Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum (2009).” 8.5 Linguistics (see also §8.8 Semantics) Burton, Marilyn E. “Cognitive Methodology in the Study of an Ancient Language: Impediments and Possibilities.” Forbes, A. Dean. “On Dating Biblical Hebrew Texts: Sources of Uncertainty/Analytic Options.” Grintser, Nikolay P. “The Birth of European Linguistic Theory: The Idea of Language in the Sophists.” Mandala, Giuseppe and Inmaculada Pérez Martín, eds. Multilingual and Multigraphic Manuscripts of East and West. Price, Todd L. Structural Lexicology and the Greek New Testament: Applying Corpus Linguistics for Word Sense Possibility Delimitation Using Collocational Indicators. Sim, Margaret G. “An Examination of Metarepresentation as an Essential Feature of Written and Oral Communication.” 8.6 Literary analysis Goldstein, Binyamin Y. “The Jewish Recension of a Syriac Version of Aesop’s Fables.”

72

TERRY FALLA AND BERYL TURNER

8.7 Semantics, including valency (see also §8.2 Grammar and syntax, §8.4 Lexicography, and §8.5 Linguistics) Blois, Reinier de. “Semantic Domains for Biblical Greek: Louw and Nida’s Framework Evaluated from a Cognitive Perspective.” ––—. “The Semantic Structure of Biblical Hebrew.” ––—. “Where Syntax and Semantics Intersect: The Story of ‫שׁלח‬.” Cook, John A. “Valency: The Intersection of Syntax and Semantics.” Dyk, Janet W. “The Cognate Verbs ‫ שים‬and ‫ ܡ‬in the Books of Kings: Similarities and Differences.” ––—. “How do Hebrew Verbs Differ? A Flow Chart of the Differences.” Forbes, A. Dean. “The Proper Role of Valency in Biblical Hebrew Studies.” Irons, Charles Lee. “Is ‘Righteousness’ a Relational Concept in the Hebrew Bible?” Joosten, Jan. “Hebrew Thought and Greek Thought in the Septuagint: Fifty Years after Barr’s Semantics.” Kiffiak, Jordash. “Amazement, Fear and Being Troubled in Responses in Gospel Miracle Stories: Establishing the Semantic Contours of the Terms and their Interrelations.” Lund, Jerome A. “Soundings with regard to Verbal Valency in the Peshitta Old Testament.” Stevenson, Paul S. “The Semantics of Syriac Motion Verbs in Exodus Chapters 1– 19, Part II.” ––—. “The Semantics of Syriac Motion Verbs in Exodus Chapters 1–19.” Winther-Nielsen, Nicolai. “How to Classify Hebrew Verbs: Plotting Verb-Specific Roles.” 8.8 Socio-cultural analysis Alikin, Valery. “Preventing Drunkenness in the Christian Gathering: Hints from the Graeco-Roman World and the New Testament.” Childers, Jeff. “Embedded Oracles: Sortilege in a Syriac Gospel Codex.” Hunter, Erica C.D. “Syriac Manuscripts from Turfan: Public Worship and Private Devotion.” Theophilos, Michael P. “Prayer and the Papyri at Oxyrhynchus.” Yampolskaya, Sonya. “Internationalisms in the Hebrew Press 1860s–1910s as a Means of Language Modernization.” 8.9 Textual criticism Buettner, Cyrill von. “A Few Notes Concerning the Reading of ‫ הסתרתי‬in the Great Isaiah Scroll (Isa 50:6b).” Gardner, Anne E. “Shedding Light on the Introduction to Daniel’s Vision in Chapter 7 (Dan 7:1b–2a).”

THE INTERNATIONAL SYRIAC LANGUAGE PROJECT (ISLP)

73

Hofstra, Johan D. “Towards a New Critical Edition and Translation of Ishoʿdad of Merw’s Commentary on the Gospel of John with an Identification of his Sources.” Lund, Jerome A. “The Hebrew as a Text-Critical Tool in Restoring Genuine Peshitta Readings in Isaiah.” ––—. “Aphrahat’s Use of Ezekiel and its Value for the Textual Criticism of the Peshitta.” 8.10 Translation and translation technique Dyk, Janet. “The ‘Translation Enterprise’: Translation Universals in the Peshitta Rendering of Kings.” Hofstra, Johan D. “Towards a New Critical Edition and Translation of Ishoʿdad of Merw’s Commentary on the Gospel of John with an Identification of his Sources.” Liljeström, Marketta. “Observations on the Mode of Translation in the Syrohexapla.” Mushayabasa, Godwin. “Constructing a foundation for the study of the Old Testament quotes in the Old Syriac Gospels.” Taylor, Richard A. “Psalm 2 in Syriac: Issues of Text and Language.”

BIBLIOGRAPHY Aitken, James K. “Context of Situation in Biblical Lexica.” Pages 181–201 in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III. Edited by Janet Dyk and Wido van Peursen. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 4. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2008. ––—. “Other Hebrew Lexica: Zorell and Alonso Schoekel.” Pages 251–64 in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III. Edited by Janet Dyk and Wido van Peursen. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 4. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2008. Alikin, Valery. “Preventing Drunkenness in the Christian Gathering: Hints from the GraecoRoman World and the New Testament.” Pages 331–45 in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries: Select Studies in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek. Edited by Tarsee Li and Keith Dyer. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 9. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2017. Andersen, Francis I., and A. Dean Forbes. The Hebrew Bible: Andersen-Forbes Phrase Marker Analysis. Logos Bible Software, 2009. ––—. Biblical Hebrew Grammar Visualized. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2012. Auden, W.H. Collected Shorter Poems 1927–1957. London: Faber and Faber, 1966. Audo, Thoma. ‫ܨܠ‬ ‫ܕܐܘܪ‬ ‫ܐܘܕܘ‬ ‫ܬܐܘ‬ ‫ܪ‬ ‫ܕ‬ (Simta dleshana suryaya, Treasure of the Syriac Language). 2 vols. Mosul: Dominican Press, 1897; repr. as Assyrian Dictionary by Mar Touma Oddo Metropolitan of Urmia [Iran] by Assyrian Language and Culture Classes Inc. (Chicago: Ann Arbor, 1978); by émigré Syriac communities in Europe (Stockholm, 1979); repr. as Treasure of the Syriac Language by Thomas Audo, Metropolitan of Ourmy. Losser, Netherlands: Monastery of St. Ephrem the Syrian, Enschede, 1985; repr. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2008.

74

TERRY FALLA AND BERYL TURNER

Aydin, Mor Polycarpus Augin. “The Introduction to Awgen Manna’s Lexicon.” Pages 165– 71 in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography II. Edited by P.J. Williams. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 3. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2009. ––—. “Qlido d-Leshono—Key of Language: A Comprehensive Syriac Lexicon: A Comprehensive Syriac Lexicon by Abbot Yuyakim of Tur Islo.” Pages 173–78 in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries: Select Studies in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek. Edited by Tarsee Li and Keith Dyer. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 9. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2017. BAG, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature: A translation and adaptation of Walter Bauer’s Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur, fourth revised and augmented edition, 1952, by William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957. BAGD, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. A translation and adaptation of the fourth revised and augmented edition of Walter Bauer’s GriechischDeutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur, by William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich. 2nd ed. rev. and augmented by F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker from Walter Bauer’s fifth edition, 1958. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979. Bakker, Dirk. “Lemma and Lexeme: The Case of Third-Alaph and Third-Yodh Verbs.” Pages 11–25 in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III. Edited by Janet Dyk and Wido van Peursen. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 4. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2008. Barr, James. The Semantics of Biblical Language. London: Oxford University Press, 1961. BDAG, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd edition (BDAG). Revised and edited by Frederick William Danker, based on Walter Bauer’s Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur. 6th edition. Edited by Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, with Viktor Reichmann and on previous English editions by William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and F.W. Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Blois, Reinier de. “New Tools and Methodologies for Biblical Lexicography.” Pages 203–16 in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III. Edited by Janet Dyk and Wido van Peursen. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 4. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2008. ––—. “Semantic Domains for Biblical Greek: Louw and Nida’s Framework Evaluated from a Cognitive Perspective.” Pages 265–78 in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III. Edited by Janet Dyk and Wido van Peursen. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 4. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2008. ––—. “The Semantic Structure of Biblical Hebrew.” Pages 3–20 in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography V. Edited by Jonathan Loopstra and Michael Sokoloff. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 7. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2013. ––—. “Where Syntax and Semantics Intersect: The Story of ‫שׁלח‬.” Pages 115–24 in Reflections on Lexicography: Explorations in Ancient Syriac, Hebrew, and Greek Sources. Edited by Richard A. Taylor and Craig E. Morrison. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 4. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2014. ––—, ed. Semantic Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew. sdbh.org. British and Foreign Bible Society. The New Testament in Syriac. London: 1905–1920.

THE INTERNATIONAL SYRIAC LANGUAGE PROJECT (ISLP)

75

Brock, Sebastian P. “Syriac Lexicography: Reflections on Sources and Resources.” Pages 195–208 in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography I. Edited by A. Dean Forbes and David G.K. Taylor. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 1. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2005. Brockelmann, Carl. Lexicon Syriacum. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1895. 2nd ed. Halle: Niemeyer, 1928. Repr. Hildesheim, Zurich, New York: Georg Olms, 1982. Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament with an appendix containing the Biblical Aramaic, based on the lexicon of William Gesenius as translated by Edward Robinson, 1907. Corrected ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1955. Buettner, Cyrill von. “A Few Notes Concerning the Reading of ‫ הסתרתי‬in the Great Isaiah Scroll (Isa 50:6b).” Pages 201–12 in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries: Select Studies in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek. Edited by Tarsee Li and Keith Dyer. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 9. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2017. Burton, Marilyn E. “Cognitive Methodology in the Study of an Ancient Language: Impediments and Possibilities.” Pages 213–25 in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries: Select Studies in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek. Edited by Tarsee Li and Keith Dyer. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 9. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2017. Calabro, David. “The Word That Was from the Beginning: Syriac Etymology in a Digital Age.” Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, in this volume. Chadwick, John. Lexicographica Graeca: Contributions to the Lexicography of Ancient Greek. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. Childers, Jeff. “Embedded Oracles: Sortilege in a Syriac Gospel Codex.” Pages 167–85 in Contemporary Examinations of Classical Languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac and Greek): Valency, Lexicography, Grammar, and Manuscripts. Edited by Timothy Martin Lewis, Alison G. Salvesen, and Beryl Turner. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 8. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2016. Christopher, Leo. A Hebrew Lexicon to the Books of the Old Testament: Including the Geographical Names and Chaldaic Words in Daniel, Ezra, etc. by D. Wilhelm Gesenius. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, for Treuttel and Würtz, 1825–1828. Clines, David J.A., ed. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. 9 vols. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993–2011. ––—. “How My (Lexicographical) Mind Has Changed, Or Else Remained the Same.” Pages 233–40 in Reflections on Lexicography: Explorations in Ancient Syriac, Hebrew, and Greek Sources. Edited by Richard A. Taylor and Craig E. Morrison. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 4. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2014. ––—. “Towards a Science of Comparative Classical Hebrew Lexicography.” Pages 227–45 in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries: Select Studies in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek. Edited by Tarsee Li and Keith Dyer. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 9. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2017. Cook, John A. “Valency: The Intersection of Syntax and Semantics.” Pages 53–66 in Contemporary Examinations of Classical Languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac and Greek): Valency, Lexicography, Grammar, and Manuscripts. Edited by Timothy Martin Lewis, Alison G. Salvesen, and Beryl Turner. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 8. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2016.

76

TERRY FALLA AND BERYL TURNER

Craig, Marie-Louise. “Pioneers and ‘No Through Roads’: The Story of the Early HebrewEnglish Lexicons.” Pages 21–42 in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography V. Edited by Jonathan Loopstra and Michael Sokoloff. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 7. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2013. ––— . “Take One Hebrew Lexicon, Add Fresh Theology, and Mix Well: The Impact of Theology on Hebrew-English Lexicons.” Pages 147–210 in Reflections on Lexicography: Explorations in Ancient Syriac, Hebrew, and Greek Sources. Edited by Richard A. Taylor and Craig E. Morrison. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 4. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2014. Danker, Frederick William, ed. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Based on Walter Bauer’s Griechesch-deutsches Wörterbuch … Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. ––—. The Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2009 ––—. “Moving Beyond Borders: Thoughts of a Greek Lexicographer.” Pages 1–20 in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography IV. Edited by Kristian S. Heal and Alison G. Salvesen. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 5. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2014. ––—. “Lexical Problems: Synonymy and Metonymy and Related Issues.” Page 7–11 in Reflections on Lexicography: Explorations in Ancient Syriac, Hebrew, and Greek Sources. Edited by Richard A. Taylor and Craig E. Morrison. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 4. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2014. ––—. “A Linguistic-Cultural Approach to Alleged Pauline and Lukan Christological Disparity.” Pages 243–64 in Reflections on Lexicography: Explorations in Ancient Syriac, Hebrew, and Greek Sources. Edited by Richard A. Taylor and Craig E. Morrison. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 4. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2014. David, Clemens Joseph. Grammatica Aramaica seu Syriaca. 2nd rev. ed. Mosul: Fratrum Praedicatorum, 1896. Dickinson, Emily. The Poems of Emily Dickinson: Reading Edition. Edited by R.W. Franklin. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap, 1999. Drower, Ethel S., and Rudolf Macuch. A Mandaic Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon, 1963. Dyer, Keith. “Basileia or Imperium? Rome and the Rhetoric of Resistance in the Revelation to John.” Pages 346–64 in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries: Select Studies in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek. Edited by Tarsee Li and Keith Dyer. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 9. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2017. Dyk, Janet W. “Desiderata for the Lexicon from a Syntactic Point of View.” Pages 141–56 in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography I. Edited by A. Dean Forbes and David G.K. Taylor. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 1. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2005. ––—. “A Synopsis-Based Translation Concordance as a Tool for Lexical and Text-Critical Exploration.” Pages 161–79 in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III. Edited by Janet Dyk and Wido van Peursen. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 4. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2008. ––—. “Form and Function in the Treatment of the Passive Participle.” Pages 45–61 in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography II. Edited by P.J. Williams. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 3. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2009.

THE INTERNATIONAL SYRIAC LANGUAGE PROJECT (ISLP)

77

––—. “The Peshitta Rendering of Psalm 25: Spelling, Synonyms, and Syntax.” Pages 43–70 in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography V. Edited by Jonathan Loopstra and Michael Sokoloff. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 7. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2013. ––—. “The Hebrew and the Syriac Copula in Kings.” Pages 13–23 in Reflections on Lexicography: Explorations in Ancient Syriac, Hebrew, and Greek Sources. Edited by Richard A. Taylor and Craig E. Morrison. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 4. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2014. ––—. “The Cognate Verbs ‫ שים‬and ‫ ܡ‬in the Books of Kings: Similarities and Differences.” Pages 181–94 in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography IV. Edited by Kristian S. Heal and Alison G. Salvesen. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 5. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2014. ––—. “How do Hebrew Verbs Differ? A Flow Chart of the Differences.” Pages 33–51 in Contemporary Examinations of Classical Languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac and Greek): Valency, Lexicography, Grammar, and Manuscripts. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 8. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2016. ––—. “The ‘Translation Enterprise’: Translation Universals in the Peshitta Rendering of Kings.” Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, in this volume. Dyk, Janet, and Wido van Peursen, eds. Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 4. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2008. Eskhult, Mats. “The use of Syriac ‫ ܗ‬in rendering Hebrew ‫ ִהנֵ ה‬and Greek ἰδού or ἴδε in the Peshitta to Genesis and the Gospels.” Pages 113–19 in Contemporary Examinations of Classical Languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac and Greek): Valency, Lexicography, Grammar, and Manuscripts. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 8. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2016. ––—. “The elusive ‘again’: Hebrew two-verb constructions and the particle ‘ōḏ in Greek and Aramaic rendition.” Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, in this volume. Falla, Terry C. A Key to the Peshitta Gospels. Vol. 1 ʾĀlaph–Dālath; Vol. 2 Hē–Yōdh. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1991; 2000. ––—. “The Lexicon for Which We Long? Some Primary Issues Regarding the Future of Classical Syriac Lexicography.” The Harp 11–12 (Kerala: St Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute, 1998): 257–82. ––—. “A Conceptual Framework for a New Comprehensive Syriac-English Lexicon.” Pages 1–79 in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography I. Edited by A. Dean Forbes and David G.K. Taylor. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 1. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2005. ––—. “Grammatical Classification in Syriac Lexica: A Syntactically Based Alternative.” Pages 71–138 in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III. Edited by Janet Dyk and Wido van Peursen. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 4. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2008. ––—. “Looking for what’s not there.” Preface to Reflections on Lexicography: Explorations in Ancient Syriac, Hebrew, and Greek Sources. Edited by Richard A. Taylor and Craig E. Morrison. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 4. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2014. ––—. “Metaphor, Lexicography and Modern Linguistics: Should Figurative Speech Figure in Future Ancient-Language Lexica?.” Pages 21–57 in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography IV.

78

TERRY FALLA AND BERYL TURNER

Edited by Kristian S. Heal and Alison G. Salvesen. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 5. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2014. ––—. “Reflections on Two Articles by Frederick W. Danker: Background and Appreciation.” Pages 3–4 in Reflections on Lexicography: Explorations in Ancient Syriac, Hebrew, and Greek Sources. Edited by Richard A. Taylor and Craig E. Morrison. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 4. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2014. ––—. “What to Do About Citing Ambiguity in a Corpus-Specific Lexicon.” Pages 9–59 in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries: Select Studies in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek. Edited by Tarsee Li and Keith Dyer. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 9. Piscataway: Gorgias, 2017. Farina, Margherita. An Outline of Middle Voice in Syriac: Evidences of a Linguistic Category. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 6. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2011. Faulkner, William. Quotation from William Faulkner’s Nobel Prize acceptance speech at the Nobel Banquet at the City Hall in Stockholm, December 10, 1950. www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1949/faulkner-speech.html. Accessed 31/07/2018. Forbes, A. Dean. “Squishes, Clines, and Fuzzy Signs: Mixed and Gradient Categories in the Biblical Hebrew Lexicon.” Pages 105–139 in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography I. Edited by A. Dean Forbes and David G.K. Taylor. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 1. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2005. ––—. “How Syntactic Formalisms Can Advance the Lexicographer’s Art.” Pages 139–58 in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III. Edited by Janet Dyk and Wido van Peursen. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 4. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2008. ––—. “Distributionally-Inferred Word and Form Classes in the Hebrew Lexicon: Known by the Company They Keep.” Pages 1–34 in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography II. Edited by P.J. Williams. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 3. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2009. ––—. “A Tale of Two Sitters and a Crazy Blue Jay.” Pages 211–32 in Reflections on Lexicography: Explorations in Ancient Syriac, Hebrew, and Greek Sources. Edited by Richard A. Taylor and Craig E. Morrison. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 4. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2014. ––—. “The Proper Role of Valency in Biblical Hebrew Studies.” Pages 95–112 in Contemporary Examinations of Classical Languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac and Greek): Valency, Lexicography, Grammar, and Manuscripts. Edited by Timothy Martin Lewis, Alison G. Salvesen, and Beryl Turner. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 8. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2016. ––—. “On Dating Biblical Hebrew Texts: Sources of Uncertainty/Analytic Options.” Pages 247–72 in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries: Select Studies in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek. Edited by Tarsee Li and Keith Dyer. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 9. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2017. Forbes, A. Dean and David Taylor, eds. Foundations for Syriac Lexicography I. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 1. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2005. Gardner, Anne E. “Shedding Light on the Introduction to Daniel’s Vision in Chapter 7 (Dan 7:1b–2a).” Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, in this volume.

THE INTERNATIONAL SYRIAC LANGUAGE PROJECT (ISLP)

79

Gesenius, Wilhelm. Hebräisches und aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament, 17th ed. Berlin: Springer, 1921; 18th ed. Berlin: Springer, 1995. Goldstein, Binyamin Y. “The Jewish Recension of a Syriac Version of Aesop’s Fables.” Pages 61–76 in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries: Select Studies in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek. Edited by Tarsee Li and Keith Dyer. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 9. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2017. Grintser, Nikolay P. “The Birth of European Linguistic Theory: The Idea of Language in the Sophists.” Pages 365–78 in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries: Select Studies in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek. Edited by Tarsee Li and Keith Dyer. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 9. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2017. Gwynn, John. The Apocalypse of St. John, in a Syriac version hitherto unknown; edited, (from a ms. in the library of the Earl of Crawford and Balcarres), with critical notes on the Syriac text, and an annotated reconstruction of the underlying Greek text. Dublin: Hodges, Figgis, and Co. 1897; republished by the British and Foreign Bible Society in 1920. Hackett, Jo Ann, and John Huehnergard. “On Revising and Updating BDB.” Pages 227–34 in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III. Edited by Janet Dyk and Wido van Peursen. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 4. Piscataway: Gorgias, 2008. Heal, Kristian and Alison Salvesen, eds. Foundations for Syriac Lexicography IV. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 5. Piscataway: Gorgias, 2014. Hofstra, Johan D. “Towards a New Critical Edition and Translation of Ishoʿdad of Merw’s Commentary on the Gospel of John with an Identification of his Sources.” Pages 201– 38 in Contemporary Examinations of Classical Languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac and Greek): Valency, Lexicography, Grammar, and Manuscripts. Edited by Timothy Martin Lewis, Alison G. Salvesen, and Beryl Turner. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 8. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2016. Holladay, William L., ed. A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Based on the First, Second, and Third Editions of the Koehler-Baumgartner Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971. Hunter, Erica C.D. “Syriac Manuscripts from Turfan: Public Worship and Private Devotion.” Pages 77–96 in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries: Select Studies in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek. Edited by Tarsee Li and Keith Dyer. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 9. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2017. Hunziker-Rodewald, Regina. “The Gesenius/Brown-Driver-Briggs Family.” Pages 219–26 in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III. Edited by Janet Dyk and Wido van Peursen. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 4. Piscataway: Gorgias, 2008. ––—. “KAHAL—The Shorter HALAT: A Hebrew Lexicon Project in Progress.” Pages 243–49 in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III. Edited by Janet Dyk and Wido van Peursen. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 4. Piscataway: Gorgias, 2008. Irons, Charles Lee. “Is ‘Righteousness’ a Relational Concept in the Hebrew Bible?” Pages 135–45 in Reflections on Lexicography: Explorations in Ancient Syriac, Hebrew, and Greek Sources. Edited by Richard A. Taylor and Craig E. Morrison. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 4. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2014. James, Patrick. “Learners’ Lexica: the Approach of the Cambridge Greek Lexicon.” Pages 177–194 in Classical Dictionaries: Past, Present and Future. Edited by Christopher Stray. London: Duckworth, 2010.

80

TERRY FALLA AND BERYL TURNER

Johnson, George. Fire in the Mind: Science, Faith, and the Search for Order. New York: Knopf, 1995. Joosten, Jan. “Hebrew Thought and Greek Thought in the Septuagint: Fifty Years after Barr’s Semantics.” Pages 125–33 in Reflections on Lexicography: Explorations in Ancient Syriac, Hebrew, and Greek Sources. Edited by Richard A. Taylor and Craig E. Morrison. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 4. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2014. Juckel, Andreas. “Should the Harklean Version be Included in a Future Lexicon of the Syriac New Testament?” Pages 167–94 in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography I. Edited by A. Dean Forbes and David G.K. Taylor. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 1. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2005. ––—. “Towards an Analytical Concordance of the Harklean New Testament.” Pages 99–154 in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography II. Edited by P.J. Williams. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 3. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2009. ––—. Analytical Concordance to the Harklean Version. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, in preparation. Kaltner, John. “The Koehler-Baumgartner Family.” Pages 235–42 in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III. Edited by Janet Dyk and Wido van Peursen. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 4. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2008. Kazazis, J.N., ed. Η Λεξικογραφία της Αρχαίας, Μεσαιωνικής και Νέας Ελληνικής Γραμματείας: Παρούσα κατάσταση και προοπτικές των σύγχρονων λεξικογραφικών εγχειρημάτων. Κέντρο Ελληνικής Γλώσσας, Θεσσαλονίκη 2003; The Lexicography of Ancient, Medieval and Modern Greek Literatures: Present State and Prospects of Current Major Projects. Thessaloniki: Centre for the Greek Language, 2003. Keulen, Percy S. F. van. “Feminine Nominal Endings in Hebrew, Aramaic and Syriac: Derivation or Inflection?” Pages 27–39 in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III. Edited by Janet Dyk and Wido van Peursen. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 4. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2008. ––—. “Lexicographical Troubles with the Cardinal Numerals 1–20 in the Aramaic of the Targumim and in Classical Syriac.” Pages 169–80 in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography IV. Edited by Kristian S. Heal and Alison G. Salvesen. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 5. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2014. Kiffiak, Jordash. “Amazement, Fear and Being Troubled in Responses in Gospel Miracle Stories: Establishing the Semantic Contours of the Terms and their Interrelations.” Pages 379–411 in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries: Select Studies in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek. Edited by Tarsee Li and Keith Dyer. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 9. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2017. King, Daniel. “Remarks on the Future of a Syriac Lexicon Based upon the Corpus of Philosophical Texts.” Pages 63–81 in Reflections on Lexicography: Explorations in Ancient Syriac, Hebrew, and Greek Sources. Edited by Richard A. Taylor and Craig E. Morrison. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 4. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2014. ––—. A. Merx, Historia Artis Grammaticae apud Syros: English Translation. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, in preparation. ––—. A Lexicon of Syriac Philosophical Terms. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, in preparation.

THE INTERNATIONAL SYRIAC LANGUAGE PROJECT (ISLP)

81

King, Daniel, and J. Edward Walters, translators, and George A. Kiraz, text ed. The Syriac Peshiṭta Bible with English Translation: Hebrews and the General Catholic Epistles. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2016. Kiraz, George A. “Computing the Syriac Lexicon: Historical Notes and Considerations for a Future Implementation.” Pages 93–104 in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography I. Edited by A. Dean Forbes and David G.K. Taylor. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 1. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2005. ––—. “Lexica and Grammars in the Late Syriac Tradition: The Three Bishops: Audo, Manna, and David.” Pages 155–63 in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography II. Edited by P.J. Williams. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 3. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2009. ––—. Tūrrāṣ Mamllā: A Grammar of the Syriac Language. Vol. 1. Orthography. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2012. ––—. The Syriac Dot. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2015. Klein, Stefan. We are all stardust. Translated by Ross Benjamin. Melbourne and London.: Scribe, 2015. Knudsen, Ebbe E. Classical Syriac Phonology. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 7. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2015. Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner. Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros: Wörterbuch zum Hebräischen Alten Testament in Deutscher und Englischer Sprache. Leiden: Brill, 1953. 2nd corrected and augmented ed. 1958. Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner et al, eds. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited under the supervision of M.E.J. Richardson. 5 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994–2000. Koehler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann Jakob Stamm et al., eds. Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament. 5 vols. 3rd ed. Leiden: Brill, 1967–1996. Lee, John A.L. A History of New Testament Lexicography. Studies in Biblical Greek 8. New York: Peter Lang, 2003. Lee, Samuel. A Lexicon, Hebrew, Chaldee, and English: Compiled from the Most Approved Sources, Oriental and European, Jewish and Christian. London: Duncan and Malcolm, 1840 and 1844. Levi, David. Lingua sacra in Three Parts. 3 vols. [London]: W. Justins, 1785–1788. Levinskaja (Akhunova), Olga. “The Ass and the Lyre: On a Greek Proverb.” Pages 413–21 in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries: Select Studies in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek. Edited by Li, Tarsee and Keith Dyer. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 9. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2017. Levinsohn, Stephen H. ‘“Therefore’ or ‘Wherefore’: What’s the Difference?” Pages 325–43 in Reflections on Lexicography: Explorations in Ancient Syriac, Hebrew, and Greek Sources. Edited by Richard A. Taylor and Craig E. Morrison. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 4. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2014. ––—. “Constituent Order in and Usages of εἰμί: Participle Combinations in the Synoptics and Acts.” Pages 423–41 in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries: Select Studies in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek. Edited by Tarsee Li and Keith Dyer. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 9. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2017. ––—. “Development Units in Ruth.” Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, in this volume.

82

TERRY FALLA AND BERYL TURNER

Lewis, Timothy Martin. “Lexemes with High Risk of Infection: Methodology for Examining Low-Frequency Lexemes.” Pages 25–62 in Reflections on Lexicography: Explorations in Ancient Syriac, Hebrew, and Greek Sources. Edited by Richard A. Taylor and Craig E. Morrison. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 4. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2014. Lewis, Timothy Martin, Alison G. Salvesen, and Beryl Turner, eds. Contemporary Examinations of Classical Languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac and Greek): Valency, Lexicography, Grammar, and Manuscripts. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 8. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2016. Li, Tarsee. Greek Indicative Verbs in the Christian Palestinian Aramaic Gospels: Translation Techniques and the Aramaic Verbal System. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 3. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2013. ––—. “Greek Imperatives and Corresponding Expressions in Christian Palestinian Aramaic.” Pages 97–108 in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries: Select Studies in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek. Edited by Tarsee Li and Keith Dyer. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 9. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2017. Li, Tarsee, and Keith Dyer, eds. From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries: Select Studies in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 9. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2017. Liljeström, Marketta. “Observations on the Mode of Translation in the Syrohexapla.” Pages 71–82 in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography V. Edited by Jonathan Loopstra and Michael Sokoloff. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 7. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2013. Loopstra, Jonathan. “The Patristic ‘Syriac Masora’ as a Resource for Modern Syriac Lexicography.” Pages 59–72 in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography IV. Edited by Kristian S. Heal and Alison G. Salvesen. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 5. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2014. ––—. “Exploring Patterns of Accentuation in BL Add. MS 12138 (the East-Syrian ‘Masora’): Perspectives and Possibilities.” Pages 139–65 in Contemporary Examinations of Classical Languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac and Greek): Valency, Lexicography, Grammar, and Manuscripts. Edited by Timothy Martin Lewis, Alison G. Salvesen, and Beryl Turner. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 8. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2016. ––—. “Reading the Bible with the Taḥtāyā ḏa-Ṯlāṯā.” Pages 109–37 in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries: Select Studies in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek. Edited by Tarsee Li and Keith Dyer. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 9. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2017. ––—. “The Syriac Reading Dot in Transmission: Consistency and Confusion.” Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, in this volume. Loopstra, Jonathan, and Michael Sokoloff, eds. Foundations for Syriac Lexicography V. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 7. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2012. Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene A. Nida, eds., Rondal B. Smith, part-time ed., and Karen A. Munson, associate ed. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains. 2 vols. New York: United Bible Societies, 1988. Lund, Jerome A. “Soundings with regard to Verbal Valency in the Peshitta Old Testament.” Pages 19–32 in Contemporary Examinations of Classical Languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac and Greek): Valency, Lexicography, Grammar, and Manuscripts. Edited by Timothy Martin

THE INTERNATIONAL SYRIAC LANGUAGE PROJECT (ISLP)

83

Lewis, Alison G. Salvesen, and Beryl Turner. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 8. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2016. ––—. “The Hebrew as a Text-Critical Tool in Restoring Genuine Peshitta Readings in Isaiah.” Pages 239–49 in Contemporary Examinations of Classical Languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac and Greek): Valency, Lexicography, Grammar, and Manuscripts. Edited by Timothy Martin Lewis, Alison G. Salvesen, and Beryl Turner. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 8. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2016. ––—. “Aphrahat’s Use of Ezekiel and its Value for the Textual Criticism of the Peshitta.” Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, in this volume. Lund, Jerome A., translator, and George A. Kiraz, text ed. The Syriac Bible with English Translation: Revelation. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2014. Manna, Awgen. ƣƽƯDžǁ ƣƾLJ‫ ܐܪ‬ƣNjǢDŽ‫ܬ ܕ‬Ƣƽ‫ ܗܕ‬/ Vocabulaire chaldéen-arabe /‫دﻟﯿﻞ اﻟﺮاﻏﺒﯿﻦ ﻓﻲ ﻟﻐﺔ اﻵر اﻣﯿﯿﻦ‬. Mosul: Dominican Press, 1900. Repr. with new appendix as ƣƾƦ‫ܐܪ‬-ƣƽƯDžǁ ‫ܢ‬ƲǞƾǎǂDŽ / Chaldean-Arabic Dictionary / ‫ﻋﺮﺑﻲ‬-‫ﻗﺎﻣﻮس ﻛﻠﺪاﻧﻲ‬. Beirut: Babel Center Publications, 1975; repr. as Manna, Eugene. Chaldean-Arabic Dictionary. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2007. Mandala, Giuseppe, and Inmaculada Pérez Martín, eds. Multilingual and Multigraphic Manuscripts of East and West. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 5. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2018. Meyer, Mark. A Comparative Dialectical Study of Genitive Constructions in Aramaic Translations of Exodus. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 2. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2012. Miller-Naudé, Cynthia L., and Jacobus A. Naudé. “A Re-examination of Grammatical Categorization in Biblical Hebrew.” Pages 273–308 in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries: Select Studies in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek. Edited by Tarsee Li and Keith Dyer. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 9. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2017. Mitchell, Natasha. Review of Oliver Sacks, The River of Consciousness. The Age Spectrum, Saturday, December 16, 2017, 20. Monbiot, George. Untitled article. The Guardian Weekly (5–11 January 2018): 48. Morgenstern, Matthew. “A New Mandaic Dictionary: Challenges, Accomplishments, and Prospects.” Pages 139–71 in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries: Select Studies in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek. Edited by Tarsee Li and Keith Dyer. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 9. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2017. Morrison, Craig E. “The hwā qātel and hwā qĕtīl Constructions in the Peshitta Old Testament.” Pages 83–106 in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography V. Edited by Jonathan Loopstra and Michael Sokoloff. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 7. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2013. ––—. “The Peshitta in Jacob of Serugh: The Particle and Other Citation Markers.” Pages 125–42 in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography IV. Edited by Kristian S. Heal and Alison G. Salvesen. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 5. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2014. Mot, Laurentiou. “When Hapax Legomena are Exegetically Important.” Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, in this volume. Muraoka, T. “Brockelmann in English Guise.” Pages 107–12 in Reflections on Lexicography: Explorations in Ancient Syriac, Hebrew, and Greek Sources. Edited by Richard A. Taylor and

84

TERRY FALLA AND BERYL TURNER

Craig E. Morrison. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 4. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2014. Muraviev, Alexey. Syriac Nosological Lexicon: A Word-list of Diseases Occurring in Syriac Medical Texts with Greek and Arabic Parallels. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, in preparation. Mushayabasa, Godwin. “Constructing a foundation for the study of the Old Testament quotes in the Old Syriac Gospels.” Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, in this volume. O’Connor, M. “Semitic Lexicography: European Dictionaries of Biblical Hebrew in the Twentieth Century.” Pages 173–212 in Semitic Linguistics: The State of the Art at the Turn of the 21st Century. Edited by S. Izre’el. Israel Oriental Studies XX. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2002. Oliver, Mary. New and Selected Poems. Vol. 2. Boston: Beacon Press, 2005. Pankhurst, John. An Hebrew and English Lexicon, Without Points: to this work is prefixed a methodical Hebrew grammar, without points, London: Faben, 1762; seven further editions were published from 1778–1823. Pat-El, Na’ama. Studies in the Historical Syntax of Aramaic. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 1. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2012. ––—. “The Function and Etymology of the Aramaic Particle Lm: A Re-Examination.” Pages 121–38 in Contemporary Examinations of Classical Languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac and Greek): Valency, Lexicography, Grammar, and Manuscripts. Edited by Timothy Martin Lewis, Alison G. Salvesen, and Beryl Turner. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 8. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2016. Payne Smith, R., ed. Thesaurus Syriacus. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1879–1891. repr. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1981. Peláez, Jesús. Metodología del Diccionario griego-español del Nuevo Testamento. Estudios de filologia neo-testamentaria 6. Córdoba: El Almendro, 1996. ––—. “Contextual Factors in the Greek-Spanish Dictionary of the New Testament (DGENT).” Pages 265–75 in Reflections on Lexicography: Explorations in Ancient Syriac, Hebrew, and Greek Sources. Edited by Richard A. Taylor and Craig E. Morrison. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 4. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2014. Peláez, Jesús, and Juan Mateos, New Testament Lexicography. Introduction – Theory – Method. Edited by David S. du Toit. Translated by Andrew Bowden. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2018. Peláez, Jesús, et al. Diccionario griego-español del Nuevo Testamento I. Córdoba: El Almendro, 2000. Peursen, Wido van. “Inflectional Morpheme or Part of the Lexeme? Some Reflections on Verbs Beginning with ša- in Classical Syriac.” Pages 41–57 in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III. Edited by Janet Dyk and Wido van Peursen. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 4. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2008. ––—. “Numerals and Nominal Inflection in Classical Syriac.” Pages 155–67 in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography IV. Edited by Kristian S. Heal and Alison G. Salvesen. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 5. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2014. Peursen, Wido van, and Dirk Bakker. “Lemmatization and Morphological Analysis: The Case of ‫ ܗ‬in Classical Syriac.” Pages 73–80 in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography IV.

THE INTERNATIONAL SYRIAC LANGUAGE PROJECT (ISLP)

85

Edited by Kristian S. Heal and Alison G. Salvesen. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 5. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2014. Peursen, Wido van, and Terry C. Falla. “The Particles ܶ and ‫ ܷܕ‬in Classical Syriac: Syntactic and Semantic Aspects.” Pages 63–98 in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography II. Edited by P. J. Williams. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 3. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2009. Price, Todd L. Structural Lexicology and the Greek New Testament: Applying Corpus Linguistics for Word Sense Possibility Delimitation Using Collocational Indicators. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 6. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2015. Roig Lanzillotta, Lautaro. “The Greek-Spanish Dictionary of the New Testament (DGENT): Meaning and Translation of the Lexemes; Some Practical Examples.” Pages 277–88 in Reflections on Lexicography: Explorations in Ancient Syriac, Hebrew, and Greek Sources. Edited by Richard A. Taylor and Craig E. Morrison. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 4. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2014. Runge, Steven E. “Now and Then: Clarifying the Role of Temporal Adverbs as Discourse Markers.” Pages 303–23 in Reflections on Lexicography: Explorations in Ancient Syriac, Hebrew, and Greek Sources. Edited by Richard A. Taylor and Craig E. Morrison. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 4. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2014. ––—. “Redundancy, Discontinuity and Delimitation in the Epistle of James.” Pages 443–54 in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries: Select Studies in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek. Edited by Tarsee Li and Keith Dyer. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 9. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2017. Sacks, Oliver. The River of Consciousness. London: Picador, 2017. Salvesen, Alison. “The User versus the Lexicographer: Practical and Scientific Issues in Creating Entries.” Pages 81–92 in Foundations for Lexicography I. Edited by A. Dean Forbes and David G.K. Taylor. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 1. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2005. ––—. “A User’s View of Michael Sokoloff, ed., A Syriac Lexicon: A Translation from the Latin: Correction, Expansion, and Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum (2009).” Pages 101–5 in Reflections on Lexicography: Explorations in Ancient Syriac, Hebrew, and Greek Sources. Edited by Richard A. Taylor and Craig E. Morrison. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 4. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2014. ––—. “The Lexicon of the Tabernacle Accounts in the Syrohexapla Version of Exodus.” Pages 187–99 in Contemporary Examinations of Classical Languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac and Greek): Valency, Lexicography, Grammar, and Manuscripts. Edited by Timothy Martin Lewis, Alison G. Salvesen, and Beryl Turner. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 8. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2016. Salvesen, Alison, and Kristian Heal, eds. Foundations for Syriac Lexicography IV. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 5. Piscataway: Gorgias, 2014. Alonso Schökel, Luis. Diccionário bíblico hebraieo-português, Lisbon: Paulus, 1997. ––—. Diccionario bíblico hebreo-español, 3rd ed., Madrid: Trotta, 2008. Segal, J.B. The Diacritical Point and Accents in Syriac. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1953. Sikkel, Constantijn J. “Lexeme Status of Pronominal Suffixes.” Pages 59–67 in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III. Edited by Janet Dyk and Wido van Peursen. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 4. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2008.

86

TERRY FALLA AND BERYL TURNER

Sim, Margaret G. “The Genitive Absolute in Discourse: More Than a Change of Subject.” Pages 289–302 in Reflections on Lexicography: Explorations in Ancient Syriac, Hebrew, and Greek Sources. Edited by Richard A. Taylor and Craig E. Morrison. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 4. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2014. ––—. “An Examination of Metarepresentation as an Essential Feature of Written and Oral Communication.” Pages 455–70 in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries: Select Studies in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek. Edited by Tarsee Li and Keith Dyer. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 9. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2017. Sokoloff, Michael. A Syriac Lexicon: A Translation from the Latin: Correction, Expansion, and Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2009. Sprengling, Martin, and William Creighton Graham, eds. Barhebraeus’ Scholia on the Old Testament. Part I: Genesis–II Samuel. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1931. Stevenson, Paul S. “The Semantics of Syriac Motion Verbs in Exodus Chapters 1–19, Part II.” Pages 107–19 in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography V. Edited by Jonathan Loopstra and Michael Sokoloff. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 7. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2013. ––—. “The Semantics of Syriac Motion Verbs in Exodus Chapters 1–19.” Pages 119–54 in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography IV. Edited by Kristian S. Heal and Alison G. Salvesen. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 5. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2014. Taylor, David G.K. An Annotated Bibliography of Printed Syriac Lexica. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 2. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, in preparation. Taylor, Richard A. “The Inclusion of Encyclopedic Information in Syriac Lexical Entries.” Pages 83–99 in Reflections on Lexicography: Explorations in Ancient Syriac, Hebrew, and Greek Sources. Edited by Richard A. Taylor and Craig E. Morrison. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 4. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2014. ––—. “Psalm 2 in Syriac: Issues of Text and Language.” Pages 179–97 in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries: Select Studies in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek. Edited by Tarsee Li and Keith Dyer. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 9. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2017. Taylor, Richard A. and Craig Morrison, eds. Reflections on Lexicography: Explorations in Ancient Syriac, Hebrew, and Greek Sources. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 4. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2014. Theophilos, Michael P. “Prayer and the Papyri at Oxyrhynchus.” Pages 471–80 in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries: Select Studies in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek. Edited by Tarsee Li and Keith Dyer. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 9. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2017. Thompson, Anne. “New Intermediate Ancient Greek-English Lexicon: Problems and Perspectives.” Pages 165–76 in The Lexicography of Ancient, Medieval and Modern Greek Literatures: Present State and Prospects of Current Major Projects. Edited by J.N. Kazazis. Thessaloniki: Centre for the Greek Language, 2003; Η Λεξικογραφία της Αρχαίας, Μεσαιωνικής και Νέας Ελληνικής Γραμματείας: Παρούσα κατάσταση και προοπτικές των σύγχρονων λεξικογραφικών εγχειρημάτων. Κέντρο Ελληνικής Γλώσσας, Θεσσαλονίκη 2003; see also http://www.greek-language.gr/greekLang/files/ document/conference-1997/04-en-167-178.pdf.

THE INTERNATIONAL SYRIAC LANGUAGE PROJECT (ISLP)

87

––—. “The Lexicographic Editor and the Problem of Consistency.” Pages 481–507 in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries: Select Studies in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek. Edited by Tarsee Li and Keith Dyer. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 9. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2017. Turner, Beryl. “Lexicalizing the Syriac Preposition ‫ ܳ ܬ‬.” Pages 121–39 in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography V. Edited by Jonathan Loopstra and Michael Sokoloff. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 7. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2013. ––—. “Analysis of the Syriac Particle ܰ .” Pages 81–100 in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography IV. Edited by Kristian S. Heal and Alison G. Salvesen. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 5. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2014. ––—. “Who Commits Adultery with Whom, and Why it Matters in a Lexicon.” Pages 1–18 in Contemporary Examinations of Classical Languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac and Greek): Valency, Lexicography, Grammar, and Manuscripts. Edited by Timothy Martin Lewis, Alison G. Salvesen, and Beryl Turner. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 8. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2016. Vaillant, George. Spiritual Evolution: A Scientific Defense of Faith. New York: Broadway, 2009. Vanier, Jean. Community and Growth. Sydney: St Paul’s Publications, 1979. White, Patrick. “The Search for an Alternative to Futility.” La Trobe University Bulletin Vol. 15, No 15, 6th August, 1984; retitled “In this World of Hypocrisy and Cynicism.” Pages 151–58 in Patrick White Speaks. Edited by Christine Flynn and Paul Brennan. Primavera Press: Leichardt, NSW, Australia, 1989. Williams, Peter J. “On Matching Syriac Words with Their Greek Vorlage.” Pages 157–66 in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography I. Edited by A. Dean Forbes and David G.K. Taylor. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 1. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2005. ––—, ed. Foundations for Syriac Lexicography II. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 3. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2009. ––—. “Alpha Privatives in the New Testament Epistles.” Pages 35–43 in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography II. Edited by P.J. Williams. Perspectives on Syriac Linguistics 3. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2009. Winther-Nielsen, Nicolai. “How to Classify Hebrew Verbs: Plotting Verb-Specific Roles.” Pages 67–94 in Contemporary Examinations of Classical Languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac and Greek): Valency, Lexicography, Grammar, and Manuscripts. Edited by Timothy Martin Lewis, Alison G. Salvesen, and Beryl Turner. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 8. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2016. Yampolskaya, Sonya. “Internationalisms in the Hebrew Press 1860s–1910s as a Means of Language Modernization.” Pages 309–27 in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries: Select Studies in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek. Edited by Tarsee Li and Keith Dyer. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 9. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2017. Yuyakim, Dayroyo. ‫ܕ‬ /Qlido d-Leshono―Key of Language (comprehensive Syriac-Syriac lexicon). Nosaybin, Turkey: St Augin Monastery, P.K. No 25, Nosaybin, Turkey. Email [email protected]. Zorell, Franz. Lexicon Hebraicum et Aramaicum Veteris Testamenti. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1947–1954.

THE ELUSIVE ‘AGAIN’ HEBREW TWO-VERB CONSTRUCTIONS AND THE PARTICLE ʿŌḎ IN GREEK AND ARAMAIC RENDITION MATS ESKHULT UPPSALA

Biblical Hebrew exhibits several ways of expressing the idea of continued activity, a common device is the two-verb construction containing šūḇ or hōsīf as the “empty verb”. The Septuagint renders the Hebrew two-verb construction in three ways, viz., by πάλιν “again”, ἐπιστρέφω “turn back”, or προστίθημι “add”. The Septuagint translators were fully aware of the adverbial function of the corresponding Hebrew expression. The renderings found in the Peshitta and the Targums are based on the “empty verbs” ʾwsp, hpk, and twb, perhaps showing less awareness of the adverbial sense. In the Greek of the late Second Temple period the two-verb construction had obviously been replaced by πάλιν, which explains the common use of it in the New Testament. The Syriac translations always have tūḇ. The preponderance of tūḇ is also encountered in the later Targums.

INTRODUCTION As is commonly known, Biblical Hebrew verbs denoting the beginning, carrying on, or end of an activity may form a semantic unit with a following verb. Thus, the verb qūm, ‘stand up,’ often assumes the sense of ‘begin to do,’ whatever is featured by the following verb, be it a finite form or an infinitive.1 Similarly, the verb killā, ‘finish,’ may express the termination of an activity equalling a suitable adverb.2 In the same E.g. Gen 22:3 ‫וַ יָּ ָקם וַ יֵּ ֶל‬, ‘he arose and went;’ Gen 27:19 ‫“ קוּם־נָ א ְשׁ ָבה‬sit down”, and Jonah 1:3 ַ ֹ ‫“ וַ יָּ ָקם יוֹנָ ה ִל ְבר‬Jonah rose to flee”. 2 E.g. Gen 24:19 ‫שׁקֹתוֹ‬ ְ ‫“ וַ ְתּ ַכל ְל ַה‬she finished giving him to drink”, i.e., “she gave him enough to drink”. 1

89

90

MATS ESKULT

way, the verbs šūḇ, ‘turn back,’ and hōsīf, ‘add,’ may express a mere continuation of an activity and thus assume the sense of ‘do again’.3 In the latter case, the particle ʿōḏ, ‘still; yet; more; again,’ plays an important part, not only by laying stress on the two-verb construction but also by simply replacing it. This article elucidates Greek and Aramaic renditions of Biblical Hebrew expressions for continued activity, not only in renditions of pure two-verb constructions but also in the rendition of expressions of the same kind involving ʿōḏ; for like Hebrew ʿōḏ, Greek πάλιν and Aramaic tūḇ may not only corroborate a two-verb construction but also by itself express continued activity. In the course of time, both πάλιν and tūḇ increased in usage as can be gathered from the Apocrypha and the New Testament, as well as from the later Palestinian Targums.

HEBREW TWO-VERB CONSTRUCTIONS A two-verb construction with šūḇ is found in narration and direct speech, as in e.g., (1) Gen 26:18

‫וַ יָּ ָשׁב יִ ְצ ָחק וַ יַּ ְחפֹּר‬

(2) 2 Kgs 19:9

‫וַ יָּ ָשׁב וַ יִּ ְשׁ ַלח ַמ ְל ָא ִכים‬

again he sent messengers

(3) 2 Kgs 21:3

‫ת־ה ָבּמוֹת‬ ַ ‫וַ יָּ ָשׁב וַ ֶיִּבן ֶא‬

he built up again the high places

(4) 1 Kgs 13:33

˝‫וַ יָּ ָשׁב וַ יַּ ַﬠשׂ כּ ֲֹהנֵ י ָבמוֹת‬

and Isaac dug again

he made again priests…for the high places

(5) Judg 19:7

‫וַ יָּ ָשׁב וַ יָּ ֶלן ָשׁם‬

(6) Gen 30:31

ְ‫שׁוּבה ֶא ְר ֶﬠה צֹאנ‬ ָ ‫ָא‬

(7) Deut 30:3

‫וְ ָשׁב וְ ִק ֶבּ ְצ‬

he lodged there again I will again feed your flock he will gather you again

The two-verb construction suggests a continued activity featuring actions that were, or would be, repeated once, or on several occasions; but it should be borne in mind that comprehending šūḇ as an ‘empty verb’ presupposes a felicitous context. In (5), for instance, it cannot be ruled out that the man, after having taken leave, went a short distance before being persuaded to turn back. (cf. 42). If the continuation in question is limited to a single event, as in (7), the expression is equivalent to ‘once more.’ The corresponding two-verb construction with hōsīf exhibits a predilection for the infinitive—with or without le —at the cost of a finite verb, thus, (8) Ex 9:34 (9) Gen 8:10 (10) Gen 25:1

‫וַ יּ ֶֹסף ַל ֲחטֹא‬

he sinned yet again

‫ת־היּוֹנָ ה‬ ַ ‫וַ יּ ֶֹסף ַשׁ ַלּח ֶא‬

and again he sent forth the dove

‫וַ יּ ֶֹסף ַא ְב ָר ָהם וַ יִּ ַקּח ִא ָשּׁה‬

and Abraham took another wife

William L. Holladay, The Root šūḇ in the Old Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1958), 66–72, discusses this function of the verb šūḇ in the stem form qal. 3

THE ELUSIVE ‘AGAIN’ (11) Lev 26:18

‫וְ יָ ַס ְפ ִתּי ְליַ ְסּ ָרה ֶא ְת ֶכם‬

(12) Gen 4:12

‫לֹא־ת ֵֹסף ֵתּת־כּ ָֹחהּ ָל‬

91

I will chastise you again4 it shall no longer yield to you its strength

In such two-verb constructions, hosīf—but not šūḇ—is as often as not qualified by a somewhat redundant ʿōḏ, as in, (13) Gen 37:8

‫יּוֹספוּ עוֹד ְשׂנֹא אֹתוֹ‬ ִ ַ‫ו‬

and they hated him yet the more

(14) Gen 38:5

‫וַ תּ ֶֹסף עוֹד וַ ֵתּ ֶלד ֵבּן‬

yet again she bore a son5

(15) Gen 8:21

‫לֹא־א ִֹסף ְל ַק ֵלּל עוֹד‬

I will not again curse6

The rendition of two-verb constructions in the Septuagint At times, the Septuagint employs the adverb πάλιν to render a Hebrew two-verb construction of the kind under discussion. This shows that the Septuagint translators were very well aware of the function of this construction, as may be gathered from the following examples: (16) Gen 26:18

καὶ πάλιν Ισαακ ὤρυξεν

(17) Judg 19:7

καὶ πάλιν ηὐλίσθη ἐκεῖ

(18) Gen 30:31

πάλιν ποιμανῶ τὰ πρόβατά σου

(19) Deut 30:3

καὶ πάλιν συνάξει σε

(20) Gen 8:10

πάλιν ἐξαπέστειλεν τὴν περιστερὰν

‫וַ יָּ ָשׁב יִ ְצ ָחק וַ יַּ ְחפֹּר‬

(cf. 1)

‫וַ יָּ ָשׁב וַ יָּ ֶלן ָשׁם‬

(cf. 5)

ָ ‫ָא‬ ְ‫שׁוּבה ֶא ְר ֶﬠה צֹאנ‬

(cf. 6)

‫וְ ָשׁב וְ ִק ֶבּ ְצ‬

(cf. 7)

‫ת־היּוֹנָ ה‬ ַ ‫וַ יּ ֶֹסף ַשׁ ַלּח ֶא‬

(cf. 9).7

In some places, πάλιν itself expresses the idea of a return, as at Gen 42:24 πάλιν προσῆλθεν πρὸς αὐτοὺς, which renders ‫וַ יָּ ָשׁב ֲא ֵל ֶהם‬, ‘he returned to them.’8 Another possibility is more literal since it simply copies the Hebrew construction, preferably by the use of ἐπιστρέφω ‘turn back’,9 which with another verb assumes the sense of ‘do again’ (cf. 2, 3 and 4 above), as can be gathered from the Examples with the imperfect are rare, e.g., Prov 23:35, ‫אוֹסיף ֲא ַב ְק ֶשׁנּוּ עוֹד‬, ִ ‘I will seek it yet again.’ 5 See also Gen 18:29; Num 22:15; Judg 9:37; 11:14 et passim. 6 See also Ex 10:29, 14:13; Judg 2:11 et passim. 7 See also Lev 14:43, and otherwise in the narrative prose, Neh 9:28; 2 Chr 19:4 and 33:3. 8 The same correspondence is found in, e.g. Gen 43:2, 44:25; Exod 4:7; and Num 35:32. 9 Compounds of –στρέφω (ἐπι–, ἀπο–, and ἀνα–) account for about 70% of the renderings of šūḇ—irrespective of sense—see Holladay, The Root šûbh, 20. Holladay, 70–71, lists 36 instances in the Hebrew Bible where the two-verb construction with šūḇ clearly means ‘again’. In these instances, constructions with ἐπιστρέφω are preferred, rivalled only by the use of πάλιν. 4

92

MATS ESKULT

following examples, (21) 2 Kgs 19:9

καὶ ἐπέστρεψεν καὶ ἀπέστειλεν ἀγγέλους

‫וַ יָּ ָשׁב וַ יִּ ְשׁ ַלח ַמ ְל ָא ִכים‬

(22) 2 Kgs 21:3

καὶ ἐπέστρεψεν καὶ ᾠκοδόμησεν τὰ ὑψηλά

‫ת־ה ָבּמוֹת‬ ַ ‫וַ יָּ ָשׁב וַ ֶיִּבן ֶא‬

(23) 1 Kgs 13:3310 καὶ ἐπέστρεψεν καὶ ἐποίησεν […] ἱερεῖς ὑψηλῶν

‫וַ יָּ ָשׁב וַ יַּ ַﬠשׂ כּ ֲֹהנֵ י ָבמוֹת‬

However, in a passage like Judg 8:33, ‫וַ יָּ שׁוּבוּ ְבּנֵ י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל וַ יִּ זְ נוּ ַא ֲח ֵרי ַה ְבּ ָﬠ ִלים‬, Hebrew šūḇ is most likely a full verb, ‘the Israelites relapsed and went whoring with the Baals’; and this is plausibly also the sense of Greek καὶ ἀπεστράφησαν οἱ υἱοὶ Ισραηλ καὶ ἐξεπόρνευσαν ὀπίσω τῶν Βααλιμ. In this and a vast number of similar instances compounds of –στρέφω (ἐπι–, ἀπο–, and ἀνα–) correspond to šūḇ without any ‘empty verb’ construction being at hand.11 When Hebrew hōsīf functions as an ‘empty verb’ (cf. 8, 10, 11 and 12), the Septuagint employs the very literal προστίθημι ‘add’. In these places there are no instances of πάλιν. Some of the examples with their Hebrew correspondences read as follows, (24) Ex 9:34

προσέθετο τοῦ ἁμαρτάνειν

(25) Gen 25:1

προσθέμενος δὲ Αβρααμ ἔλαβεν γυναῖκα

(26) Lev 26:18

καὶ προσθήσω τοῦ παιδεῦσαι ὑμᾶς

(27) Gen 4:12

καὶ οὐ προσθήσει τὴν ἰσχὺν αὐτῆς δοῦναί σοι

‫וַ יּ ֶֹסף ַל ֲחטֹא‬ ‫וַ יּ ֶֹסף ַא ְב ָר ָהם וַ יִּ ַקּח ִא ָשּׁה‬ ‫וְ יָ ַס ְפ ִתּי ְליַ ְסּ ָרה ֶא ְת ֶכם‬ ‫לֹא־ת ֵֹסף ֵתּת־כּ ָֹחהּ ָל‬

When a two-verb construction of this type is corroborated by Hebrewʿōḏ, the Septuagint generally prefers to use ἔτι, as in ‫יּוֹספוּ עוֹד ְשׂנֹא אֹתוֹ‬ ִ ַ‫ו‬

(cf. 13)

(29) Gen 38:5 καὶ προσθεῖσα ἔτι ἔτεκεν υἱὸν

‫וַ תּ ֶֹסף עוֹד וַ ֵתּ ֶלד ֵבּן‬

(cf. 14)

(30) Gen 8:21 οὐ προσθήσω ἔτι τοῦ καταράσασθαι

‫לֹא־א ִֹסף ְל ַק ֵלּל עוֹד‬

(cf. 15)12

(28) Gen 37:8 καὶ προσέθεντο ἔτι μισεῖν αὐτὸν

As the particleʿōḏ itself expresses the idea of continuation, addition and repetition, it may be used in places where a two-verb construction would be possible; in such cases it is usually rendered by ἔτι, as in (31) Gen 24:20

‫ל־ה ְבּ ֵאר‬ ַ ‫וַ ָתּ ָרץ עוֹד ֶא‬

καὶ ἔδραμεν ἔτι ἐπὶ τὸ φρέαρ

and she ran again to the well

See also Deut 24:4, 30:8,9, and 1 Kgs 19:6. See note 9 above. At times, the Septuagint reads Hebrew yāšaḇ, ‘sit,’ rather than šūḇ, ‘turn back,’ e.g., Deut 1:45 καὶ καθίσαντες ἐκλαίετε for ‫וַ ָתּ ֻשׁבוּ‬, as well as in Num 11:4 and Josh 5:2. Incidentally, this (mis)reading applies even to the Peshitta; see Holladay, The Root šûbh, 158–160. 12 See also 2 Kgs 1:13 καὶ προσέθετο ὁ βασιλεὺς ἔτι ἀποστεῖλαι ἡγούμενον πεντηκόνταρχον, ‘again, the king sent a captain of a fifty’ (in v. 11 the same phrase occurs without ʿōḏ and ἔτι, respectively). 10 11

THE ELUSIVE ‘AGAIN’ (32) Deut 13:17

‫לֹא ִת ָבּנֶ ה עוֹד‬

93

οὐκ ἀνοικοδομηθήσεται ἔτι

it shall not be built again13

Perhaps the pleonastic expression ʿōḏ šēnīṯ, ‘again a second time,’ caused the Septuagint translator avoid ἔτι in, (33) 2 Sam 14:29 ‫ וַ יִּ ְשׁ ַלח עוֹד ֵשׁנִ ית‬καὶ ἀπέστειλεν ἐκ δευτέρου πρὸς αὐτόν

and he sent a second time

THE PESHITTA AND THE TARGUMS Save for some exceptions (cf. 38), the Peshitta is consistent in employing hefaḵ, ‘turn,’ for Hebrew šūḇ and ʾawsef, ‘add,’ for Hebrew hōsīf in order to convey the notion of continuation.14 The following examples illustrate the point, (34) Gen 26:18

wa-hpaḵ Isḥāq wa-ḥpar

‫וַ יָּ ָשׁב יִ ְצ ָחק וַ יַּ ְחפֹּר‬

(cf. 1, 16)

(35) 2 Kgs 19:9

wa-hpaḵ we-šaddar īzgaddǣ

‫וַ יָּ ָשׁב יִ ְצ ָחק וַ יַּ ְחפֹּר‬

(cf. 2, 21)

(36) 2 Kgs 21:3

wa-hpaḵ wa-ḇnā ʿelawwāṯā

‫ת־ה ָבּמוֹת‬ ַ ‫וַ יָּ ָשׁב וַ ֶיִּבן ֶא‬

(cf. 3, 22)

(37) Gen 30:31

ehpoḵ erʾǣ ʿānāḵ

(38) Gen 8:10

wa-hpaḵ we-šaddar yawnā

(39) Ex 9:34

w-awsef le-meḥṭā

ְ‫שׁוּבה ֶא ְר ֶﬠה צֹאנ‬ ָ ‫ָא‬

e

(40) Gen 25:1

w-awsef ʾA. wa-nsaḇ att ṯā

(41) Gen 4:12

lā tawsef tettel(y) lāḵ ḥaylāh

(cf. 6, 18)15

‫ת־היּוֹנָ ה‬ ַ ‫וַ יּ ֶֹסף ַשׁ ַלּח ֶא‬

(cf. 9, 20)

‫וַ יּ ֶֹסף ַל ֲחטֹא‬

(cf. 8, 24)

‫וַ יּ ֶֹסף ַא ְב ָר ָהם וַ יִּ ַקּח ִא ָשּׁה‬

(cf. 10, 25)

‫לֹא־ת ֵֹסף ֵתּת־כּ ָֹחהּ ָל‬

(cf. 12, 27)

Thus, the Peshitta translators prefer a literal rendering; but variations do occur as it happens that the two-verb construction is extended by the adverb tūḇ, or is even replaced by it—or not rendered at all. (42) 1 Kgs 13:33 wa-hpaḵ tūḇ wa-ʿbaḏ […] kumrǣ da-ʿlawwāṯā ‫( וַ יָּ ָשׁב וַ יַּ ַﬠשׂ כּ ֲֹהנֵ י ָבמוֹת‬cf. 4) (43) Gen 38:5 w-awsefaṯ we-yeldaṯ berā

‫( וַ תּ ֶֹסף עוֹד וַ ֵתּ ֶלד ֵבּן‬cf. 14, 29)

e

(44) 1 Sam 19:2116 w -šaddar tūḇ īzgaddǣ (ʾ)ḥrānǣ ‘he sent other messengers’ ‫וַ יּ ֶֹסף ָשׁאוּל וַ יִּ ְשׁ ַלח‬ ‫ַמ ְל ָא ִכים‬ e

(45) Judg 19:7 w -ḇāṯ leh

tammān17

‫וַ יָּ ָשׁב וַ יָּ ֶלן ָשׁם‬

(cf. 5, 17).

For a similar use of ʿōḏ, see, e.g., Gen 29:33, 35, ‫וַ ַתּ ַהר עו ֺד וַ ֵתּ ֶלד‬, ‘and she conceived again and bore,’ and 2 Sam 3:11, ‫דּ ָבר‬...‫יב‬ ָ ‫וְ לֹא־יָ כֹל עו ֺד ְל ָה ִשׁ‬, ‘he could not answer yet a word.’ See also Ex 2:3; Deut 31:12; Judg 2:14. 14 See Holladay, The Root šûbh, 39. 15 In Deut 30:3 the construction is probably understood literally, and hence the verb tūḇ is retained wa-ntūḇ we-neḵnešāḵ, ‘he will return and gather you’ (cf. 7, 19). 16 See also, e.g., Josh 7:12 we-ṯūḇ lā ehwǣ ʿamhōn (for Heb. ‫אוֹסיף ִל ְהיוֹת ִﬠ ָמּ ֶכם‬ ִ ‫לֹא‬, ‘I will be with you no more’ (and cf. 2, 21). 13

94

MATS ESKULT

When the Hebrew particle ʿōḏ occurs alone, outside a two-verb construction, the Peshitta employs tūḇ, ‘again’, as in, (46) Gen 24:20 we-rehṭaṯ tūḇ le-ḇē(ʾ)rā ‘and ran again to the well’ (47) Deut 13:17 we-ṯūḇ lā teṯbenǣ

‘it shall not be built again’

‫ל־ה ְבּ ֵאר‬ ַ ‫( וַ ָתּ ָרץ עוֹד ֶא‬cf. 31) ‫לֹא ִת ָבּנֶ ה עוֹד‬

(cf. 32)

There is a general agreement18 that the Targums of Onkelos to the Torah and of Jonathan to the Nebi’im were composed in Middle Aramaic before 200 AD, while the other Targums to the Pentateuch, viz., Pseudo-Jonathan and Neofiti, were composed in a later variety of Aramaic, commonly called Galilean Aramaic. It is probable that Pseudo-Jonathan—although in its final form not antedating the Arab conquest—traces its origin to the time before 500 AD, while Neofiti was likely composed in the span between Onkelos and Pseudo-Jonathan. The Targums to Chronicles, Psalms and Job give evidence of a considerably later origin. The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan are very literal in rendering the twoverb constructions under discussion, using the verb tūḇ for Hebrew šūḇ and ʾōsef for Hebrew hōsīf, as exemplified by, (48) Gen 26:18 ‫חפר‬ ַ ַ‫צחק ו‬ ָ ִ‫ וְ ָתב י‬/ ‫וַ יָּ ָשׁב יִ ְצ ָחק וַ יַּ ְחפֹּר‬ (49) Judg 19:7 ‫וּבת ַת ָמן‬ ָ ‫ וְ ָתב‬/

‫וַ יָּ ָשׁב וַ יָּ ֶלן ָשׁם‬

(cf. 1, 16, 34) (cf. 5, 17, 42);19

(50) Gen 8:10 ‫ וְ או ֵֺסיף ַשׁ ַלח יָ ת יו ֺנָ ה‬/ ‫ת־היּוֹנָ ה‬ ַ ‫וַ יּ ֶֹסף ַשׁ ַלּח ֶא‬

(cf. 9, 20, 38);

(51) Gen 4:12 ‫ ָלא תו ֵֺסיף ְל ִמ ַתן ֵה ַילה ָלך‬/ ‫לֹא־ת ֵֹסף ֵתּת־כּ ָֹחהּ ָלך‬

(cf. 12, 27, 41).20

When Hebrew ʿōḏ occurs alone, the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan employ the identical Aramaic adverb ʿōḏ.21 Remarkably, Targum Neofiti almost consistently has tūḇ for Hebrew ʿōḏ, and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan displays the same picture, only that due to the many surpluses the total number of instances with tūḇ is increased by some twenty per cent. Likewise, the Targums to Chronicles, Psalms, and to Job all have tūḇ for Hebrew ʿōḏ, in all likelihood mirroring a later style. Outside the Pentateuch, the adverb tūḇ occurs 29 times in the Targum to Chronicles and the Targum to Job, in all but one case rendering the Hebrew adverb ʿōḏ.22 The difference between the earlier and later Targums appears in the following example, Perhaps the dativus commodi here expresses the idea of reverting to the former state of affairs. I owe this comment to Ambjörn Sjörs, PhD. 18 Cf. the discussion in Paul V. M. Flesher and Bruce Chilton, The Targums. A Critical Introduction (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 155–66, 235–7, 254–9. 19 See also, e.g., 2 Kgs 19:9, 21:3; Gen 30:31; Deut 30:3. 20 See also, e.g., Exod 9:34; Gen 25:1; 1 Sam 19:21; Josh 7:12; Gen 38:5. 21 For the use of Aramaic ʿōḏ in the Qumran texts, see Edward M. Cook, Dictionary of Qumran Aramaic (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015), s.v. 22 The are 18 occurrences of tūḇ in the Targum of Chronicles and 11 in the Targum of Job (tūḇ in Job 19:26 is added). See Paul de Lagarde, Hagiographa Chaldaica (Lipsiae: Teubner, 17

THE ELUSIVE ‘AGAIN’ (52) 2 Sam 21:15 wa-hwā ʿōḏ qerāḇā

95

‘and there was again war’23

versus (53) 1 Chr 20:5 wa-hawāt tūḇ qerāḇā

‘and there was again war’24

NEW TESTAMENT ‘AGAIN’ The predominant use of πάλιν in New Testament Greek at the cost of two-verb constructions is illustrated by the fact that Matthew employs πάλιν 17 times, Mark 26 times, and John as many as 45 times. What is more, the particle πάλιν is used even in those cases where it corresponds to Hebrew two-verb constructions. In consequence, modern translations of the New Testament into Hebrew endeavour to restore the biblical construction.25 The following examples illustrate this technique, (54) Matt 22:4 wayyōsæf šeloaḥ ʿaḇāḏīm ’aḥērīm

πάλιν ἀπέστειλεν ἄλλους δούλους ‘again he sent other servants’

(55) Mark 10:24 wayyōsæf Yēšūaʿ wayyaʿan ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς πάλιν ἀποκριθεὶς λέγει ‘Jesus said to them again’ (56) John 16:22 ʾaḵ ʾāšūḇ ʾærʾǣ ʾæṯḵæm

πάλιν δὲ ὄψομαι ὑμᾶς ‘but I will see you again’26

Luke alone avoids πάλιν, making use of it three times only;27 in three other places he employs προστίθημι to represent the continuation of a situation,28 (57) Luke 19:11

προσθεὶς εἶπεν παραβολὴν ‘he went on and told a parable’29

(58) Luke 20:11–12 καὶ προσέθετο ἕτερον πέμψαι δοῦλον […] καὶ ‘and again he sent 1873); for Chronicles, see also Alexander Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic, vol. IVa: The Hagiographa (Leiden: Brill, 1992). 23 The Hebrew Masoretic text has ‫וַ ְתּ ִהי־עוֹד ִמ ְל ָח ָמה‬. 24 1 Chr 12:1 has Aramaic ʿōḏ since here it corresponds to ‘still, yet,’ viz., (these men came to David in Ziklag) ‫עוֹד ָﬠצוּר ִמ ְפּנֵ י ָשׁאוּל‬, ‘while (he was) still shut up because of Saul.’ 25 Franz Delitzsch, ha-berīṯ ha-ḥaḏāšā (12th ed. London: English and Foreign Bible Society, 1960). The translation technique is quite similar in Salkinson-Ginsburg’s rendering (2nd ed., Trinitarian Bible Society, Jerusalem, 1886). A recent translation published by the United Bible Societies varies between hōsīf plus verb (Matt 22:4, Mark 12:4), ḥāzar plus verb (Matt 26:43), and the adverbs šūḇ (Mark 4:1) and šēnīṯ (Mark 7:14). 26 Delitzsch renders John 8:8, καὶ πάλιν κατακύψας ἔγραφεν, ‘and once again he bent down and wrote,’ by wayyikkaf šēnīṯ lemaṭṭā waytaw, and John 19:4, καὶ ἐξῆλθεν πάλιν ἔξω ὁ Πιλᾶτος, by wayyēṣē(ʾ) Pilāṭos ʿōḏ haḥūṣā, perhaps because these actions refer to a single events. Salkinson-Ginsburg is at variance by rendering the latter passage by wayyāšoḇ Pilāṭos wayyēṣē(ʾ) haḥūṣā. But in Mark 8:25 εἶτα πάλιν ἐπέθηκεν τὰς χεῖρας ἐπὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτοῦ, ‘then again he put his hand upon his eyes,’ the case is the opposite: Salkinson-Ginsburg has wayyāśæm ʾæt-yāḏaw šēnīṯ ʿal-ʿēnāw, while Delitzsch has wayyōsæf lāśūm ʾæt-yāḏaw ʿal-ʿēnāw 27 Viz., Luke 6:43, 13:20, and 23:20. 28 In Acts 12:3 the expression represents a new stage in the persecution, προσέθετο συλλαβεῖν καὶ Πέτρον, ‘he went on and arrested Peter also.’ 29 Cf. Matt 22:1 where πάλιν is used, πάλιν εἶπεν ἐν παραβολαῖς.

96

MATS ESKULT προσέθετο τρίτον πέμψαι

another servant…and again he sent a third.’30

The Peshitta to the New Testament consistently employs tūḇ for Greek πάλιν; the same holds true for the Old Syriac version, only that Sinaiticus occasionally drops tūḇ (e.g., in Matt 5:33, 26:44, 27:50).31 Interestingly, this means that tūḇ is used in Syriac versions of the New Testament even in those cases where the Old Testament Peshitta definitely would have preferred a two-verb construction, either with hefaḵ or with ʾawsef. The contrast is illustrated by the following example: (59) Matt 22:4 tūḇ šaddar ʿaḇdǣ (ʾ)ḥrānǣ πάλιν ἀπέστειλεν ἄλλους δούλους ‘again he sent other servants’

versus (60) 2 Kgs 1:11 wa-hpaḵ we-šaddar ʿelaw(hy) rabbā de-ḥamšīn ‘again he sent to him a captain of fifty’32

TWO-VERB CONSTRUCTIONS OUTSIDE THE BIBLE As may be gathered from the Aramaic version of Tobit, the two-verb construction had not fallen in oblivion in the late Second Temple period: (61) Tobit 14:2 ‫והוסף למדחל לאלהא‬, i.e., wehawsef lemedḥal lē(ʾ)lāhā ‘he continued to fear the Lord God’ (4Q198, fr. 1, line 1), which in Greek is καὶ προσέθετο φοβεῖσθαι κύριον τὸν θεὸν.33

The Genesis Apocryphon, too, makes use of the two-verb construction in (62) ‫ותבת וברכת‬, tentatively to be read wetāḇæṯ webāreḵeṯ ‘again I blessed’ (1Q20 11:13).34

Contrariwise, the increased Greek use of πάλιν rendering a Hebrew two-verb construction is illustrated by some passages from Ben Sira and Tobit, (63) Ben Sira 33:1 ‫בניסוי ישוב ונמלט‬, i.e., benissūy yāšūb wenimlaṭ ‘in trouble he will again escape.’ The Greek version reads ἀλλ᾿ ἐν πειρασμῷ καὶ πάλιν ἐξελεῖται, whereas the Syriac translates the

The parallel places in Matt 21:36 and Mark 12:4 read πάλιν ἀπέστειλεν ἄλλους δούλους and καὶ πάλιν ἀπέστειλεν πρὸς αὐτοὺς ἄλλον δοῦλον, respectively. 31 See George A. Kiraz, Comparative Edition to the Syriac Gospels Aligning the Sinaiticus, Curetonianus, Peshîṭtâ and Ḥarklean Versions (Leiden: Brill, 1997). As stated in the introduction of this work, pp. xxff., the Old Syriac translation, composed sometime between the late 2nd and the early 4th century, has survived in two lacunose manuscripts, viz. the Sinaiticus palimpsest (Sin. Syr. 30) and the Cureton manuscript (Brit. Lib. Add. 14451). 32 In Hebrew, ‫שּׁים‬ ִ ‫ר־ח ִמ‬ ֲ ‫ ;וַ יָּ ָשׁב וַ יִּ ְשׁ ַלח ֵא ָליו ַשׂ‬the Septuagint says καὶ προσέθετο ὁ βασιλεὺς καὶ ἀπέστειλεν πρὸς αὐτὸν ἄλλον πεντηκόνταρχον. 33 Similarly, the Peshitta has ʾawsef for Greek προστίθημι in Luke 19:11, 20:11–12. 34 The corresponding Hebrew construction is met with in, e.g., the Damascus Document 9:19, ‫ושב והודיע למבקר‬, ‘again he makes it known to the Overseer.’ 30

THE ELUSIVE ‘AGAIN’

97

latter part by wnhpwk wntplṭ, i.e., we-nehpoḵ we-neṯpallaṭ.35 (64) In the recurrent phrase καὶ πάλιν ἐλεήσει ‘and he will again have mercy’ (Tobit 13:5, 10, 14:5) the Greek wording alludes to the two-verb construction in Hos 1:6 ‫אוֹסיף עוֹד ֲא ַר ֵחם‬ ִ ‫‘ לֹא‬I will no more have mercy’

In Syriac extra-biblical literature the two-verb construction is randomly found.36 In Bardaiṣan’s Laws of Countries, there are two instances of ʾawsef, but as can be gathered from the translation, the sense is ‘further’, not ‘again’, (65) awsef le-mēmar leḵōn ‘I will explain it further to you,’ and weʾīṯ demawsefīn we-nāsbīn āf lemmāhāṯhōn ‘some go even further and take their own mothers (as wives).’37

The interpretation of Roman Law, contained in Syrian-Roman Lawbook, originated in the late 5th century discussions in the schools of Beirut (or Antiochia). 38 The text was translated from Greek into Syriac, suggesting that the use of hefaḵ with a conjoined verb actually reflects Greek πάλιν. (66) In § 20 there is a discussion whether a gift given to some descendent can be reclaimed, i.e., de-nehpoḵ nesseḇāh menneh ‘so that he can again take it from him,’ and (67) in § 21there is a discussion whether a manumission can be revoked, de-nehpoḵ neša‘bdīw(hy) ‘so that he can again enslave him’

In earlier periods, Aramaic tūḇ (or tūḇā), ‘again; moreover, then,’39 was not frequently used, either in Imperial Aramaic40 or in Qumran Aramaic.41 This makes it less probPaul de Lagarde, Libri veteris testamenti apocryphi syriace (Leipzig: Brockhaus 1861) and Alfred Rahlfs, Septuaginta (Stuttgart: Würtembergische Bibelanstalt, 1935). See also Sir 14:5 17:1, 29:2, 33:1, 34:25f. 36 The only possible example in the Story of Aḥiqar would be wa-hpaḵ w-emar d-Aḥīqar āḇ(y) se(ʾ)ḇ leh, but the context indicates a physical movement rather than the continuation of a situation. See J. Rendel Harris, Frederick C. Conybeare and Agnes Smith Lewis, The Story of Aḥiḳar from the Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Greek and Slavonic Versions (London: C. J. Clay & Sons 1898), 48 (mḥ), l. 11–12. 37 Han J. W. Drijvers, The Book of the Laws of Countries (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1965), 22, l. 4–5; 44, l. 1. 38 See Walter Selb and Hubert Kaufhold, Das Syrisch-römische Rechtsbuch, I–III (Wien: Österr. Akad. d. Wissenschaften, 2004), vol. 1:46, 50, 51, and vol. 2:44–5. 39 In origin, the adverb tūḇ is plausibly a petrified imperative of tūḇ, ‘return,’ in the sense of, ‘do again.’ See Geoffrey R. Driver, Aramaic Documents of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1957), 84. 40 There are five occurrences in Egyptian Aramaic; see Dirk Schwiderski, Die alt- und reicharamäischen Inschriften I–II (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004–2008), vol. 1:828. 41 The adverb tūḇā occurs in the Apokryphon of Lewi 4Q540, fr. 1:1–2, ‫תובא תתה עקב‬ ‫ עלוהי‬tentatively to be read, wetūḇā(ʾ) tētē ʿāqā ʿalōhī, ‘again distress will come upon him,’ and ‫תובא יתה לה חסרון‬, tentatively to be read tūḇā(ʾ) yētē lāh ḥæsrōn, ‘again a loss will come to it;’ see further the glossaries in Klaus Beyer, Die Aramäischen Texte von Totem Meer samt den Inschriften aus Palästina etc. I–II (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1984–2004). 35

98

MATS ESKULT

able that the common use of πάλιν in the New Testament reflects Aramaic tūḇ; rather, the increased use of πάλιν seems to be due to an internal Greek development.42 In fact, an increased use of πάλιν in the late Second Temple period is evident from its distribution in the Septuagint, where the deuterocanonical writings provide no less than 36 of a total of 82 occurrences. It is worthy of notice that the originally Greek compositions take the lead: 2 Maccabees from about 100 BC counts ten instances of πάλιν, followed by the contemporary Wisdom of Solomon with five instances and 3 Maccabees with three.43

CONCLUSION Biblical Hebrew exhibits several ways of expressing the idea of continued activity, a common device is the two-verb construction containing šūḇ or hōsīf as the ‘empty verb.’ Used together with hōsīf, the adverb ʿōḏ often lays stress on the idea of continuation; but ʿōḏ alone may exercise the same function. The Septuagint renders the Hebrew two-verb construction in three ways, viz., by πάλιν, ἐπιστρέφω, ‘turn back,’ or προστίθημι, ‘add.’ The indiscriminate use of these three possibilities shows that the translators of the Septuagint were fully aware of the adverbial function of the corresponding Hebrew expression. Almost exclusively, the renderings found in the Peshitta and the Targums are based on the ‘empty verbs’ ʾwsp, hpk, and twb, perhaps showing less awareness of the adverbial sense. In the New Testament, the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John employ πάλιν solely for expressing continued activity, while Luke alone benefits from the twoverb construction. The biblical construction is nevertheless restored in modern translations of the gospels into Hebrew. In contrast, the Syriac translations always have tūḇ irrespective of the nuance of πάλιν. The preponderance of tūḇ is also encountered in the later Targums. However, Aramaic texts from the late Second Temple period make little use of tūḇ, whereas the two-verb construction is occasionally found. Contrariwise, in the Greek of the late Second Temple period the two-verb construction had obviously been replaced by πάλιν, which explains the common use of it in the New Testament.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Beyer, Klaus. Die Aramäischen Texte von Totem Meer samt den Inschriften aus Palästina. I-II. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1984–2004. Black, Matthew. An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts. Oxford: Clarendon, 1946. Charles, R. H. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1913. See Matthew Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Oxford: Clarendon, 1946), 81–2. 43 See R. H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, vol. 1 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1913). 42

THE ELUSIVE ‘AGAIN’

99

Cook, Edward M. Dictionary of Qumran Aramaic. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2015. Delitzsch, Franz. ha-berīṯ ha-ḥaḏāšā. 12th ed. London: English and Foreign Bible Society, 1960. Drijvers, Han J. W. The Book of the Laws of Countries. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1965. Driver, Geoffrey R. Aramaic Documents of the Fifth Century B.C. Oxford: Clarendon, 1957. Flesher, Paul V. M. and Bruce Chilton. The Targums. A Critical Introduction. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Holladay, William L. The Root šūḇ in the Old Testament. Leiden: Brill, 1958. Kiraz, George A. Comparative Edition to the Syriac Gospels Aligning the Sinaiticus, Curetonianus, Peshîṭtâ and Ḥarklean Versions. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Lagarde, Paul de. Libri veteris testamenti apocryphi syriace. Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1861. _____. Hagiographa Chaldaica. Lipsiae: Teubner, 1873. Rahlfs, Alfred. Septuaginta. Stuttgart: Würtembergische Bibelanstalt, 1935. Rendel Harris, J., Frederick C. Conybeare, and Agnes Smith Lewis. The Story of Aḥiḳar from the Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Greek and Slavonic Versions. London: C. J. Clay & Sons, 1898. Salkinson, I. E., and C. D. Ginsburg. ha-berit ha-ḥadashah. 2nd ed. Trinitarian Bible Society, Jerusalem, 1886. Schwiderski, Dirk. Die alt- und reicharamäischen Inschriften. I–II. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004–2008. Selb, Walter, and Hubert Kaufhold. Das Syrisch-römische Rechtsbuch. I–III. Wien: Österr. Akad. d. Wissenschaften, 2004. Sperber, Alexander. The Bible in Aramaic, vol. IVa: The Hagiographa. Leiden: Brill, 1992.

SHEDDING LIGHT ON THE INTRODUCTION TO DANIEL’S VISION IN CHAPTER 7 (DAN 7:1B–2A) ANNE E. GARDNER

YARRA THEOLOGICAL UNION AND UNIVERSITY OF DIVINITY, MELBOURNE The ancient versions of Dan 7:1b–2a have many similarities yet differ in a number of ways. 4QDanb appears to support the MT for the most part but that should not be viewed as decisive for the priority of the MT. The OG presents a simpler text and in a comparison with the MT is shown to contain an earlier version in 7:1b–c although there is likely to be a later elaboration in OG 7:2a. The difficulties apparent in the MT can be resolved through a recognition that it is building upon a Vorlage and through its inner-textual and intertextual links. The differences between the OG and MT of Dan 7:1b–2a and two key passages to which they allude may provide an indication of the time of composition of each version.

INTRODUCTION Daniel 7 is the final Aramaic chapter of the book named after its main character. It is also the first apocalyptic chapter and is famous because of the vision that Daniel relates in 7:2b–14.1 As the chapter stands, the vision is said to have taken place in the first year of the reign of Belshazzar (Dan 7:1a) who features as monarch in Daniel 5 but who, historically speaking, was acting as regent for his father Nabonidus, the last ruler of the Babylonian Empire. All aspects of the vision have been much studied and many theories advanced as to the import of the details in it. By contrast, comparatively little attention has been paid to the meaning of 7:1b–2a which forms part of the introduction to the vision although, as will be seen later, scholars have questioned whether at least some of it was a later addition to the work. Such questioning links with the divergent traditions preserved by the ancient versions about

The vision itself describes, in rather esoteric terms, the rising of four beasts from the sea with the final one being the worst of all; a judgement by the Ancient of Days; the burning of the fourth beast and the giving of the kingdom to one like a son of man. 1

101

102

ANNE E. GARDNER

which McLay comments that, ‘the text in Dan 7:1–2a is notoriously difficult.’2 All too often, however, commentators do not develop their insights into the textual problems of Dan 7:1b–2a—problems that impact on the way the verses are interpreted. This paper will present the evidence of the MT, the Old Greek, Theodotion and Dead Sea Scrolls, and will attempt to shed light on the variants. Further, it will indicate that the OG contains traces of an earlier version of 7:1b–c than the MT, although a glimpse of that earlier version is apparent in MT 7:2a. An analysis of the similarities and differences between Dan 7:1b–2a in the OG and MT may also provide an indication of when each of these headings to the vision was composed in its present form. Dan 7:1b–2a in MT, OG, Th and 4QDanb MT 7:1b

Old Greek (OG) Δανιηλ ὅραμα εἶδε παρὰ κεφαλὴν ἐπὶ τῆς κοίτης αὐτοῦ

Th

4QDanb

Δανιηλ ἐνύπνιον εἶδεν, καὶ αἱ ὁράσεις τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τῆς κοίτης αὐτοῦ

‫דנ[יאל חלם חזה‬

Daniel a dream he saw and visions of his head upon his bed

Daniel a vision he saw running past head upon his bed

Daniel a dream he saw and the visions of his head upon his bed

Daniel a dream he saw

‫באדין חלמא‬ ‫כתב ראשׁ מלין‬ ‫אמר‬

τότε Δανιηλ τὸ ὅραμα, ὃ εἶδεν, ἔγραψεν εἰς κεφάλαια λόγων

καὶ τὸ ἐνύπνιον ἔγραψεν

‫חלמ[א כתב‬

then the dream he wrote, sum of words he told

Then Daniel, the vision which he saw, he wrote into a sum (chief points) of words.

And the dream he wrote

the dream he wrote

‫דניאל חלם חזה‬ ‫וחזוי ראשׁה‬ ‫על־משׁכבה‬

7:1c

T. McLay, The OG and Th Versions of Daniel. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 43 (Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1996), 97. 2

SHEDDING LIGHT ON DANIEL’S VISION 7:2a

‫ענה דניאל‬ ‫ואמר חזה הוית‬ ‫בחזוי עם־ליליא‬

Answered Daniel and said, I saw in my vision by night

ἐπὶ τῆς κοίτης μου ἐθεώρουν καθʼ ὕπνον (ὕπνους in 88) νυκτός

ἐγὼ Δανιηλ ἐθεώρουν (ἐν ὁράματί μου τῆς νυκτός)

Upon my bed I was observing in the sleep of night…

I Daniel was observing (in my vision of the night)

103 ‫ב[חזוי ע]ם‬

in my vision by

In a comparison of the MT and the OG of Dan 7:1b–2a, the similarities are striking enough to suggest that they were drawing on a Vorlage that was close to what they themselves have preserved: 7:1b, both have ‘Daniel’, ‘he saw’, ‘vision/visions’, ‘head’, ‘upon his bed’ 7:1c, both have ‘Daniel’, ‘wrote’, ‘words’ 7:2a, both have ‘saw’, ‘vision’, ‘night’

Nevertheless, there are several differences between them 7:1b OG, when translated literally, reads ‘vision running past head,’ while the MT reads ‘dream and visions (pl) of his head’ 7:1c OG reads ‘the vision he wrote’ whereas the MT reads ‘the dream he wrote’ and each deals with ‘sum (chief points)/ sum of words’ in a different way. In the OG it is the vision which he writes into ‘a sum (chief points) of words’ while in the MT ‘sum of words he told’ 7:2a OG does not include MT’s ‘Daniel answered and said,’ but rather introduces 7:2a with ‘upon my bed’; the OG has ‘according to vision(s)’ and the MT has ‘in my vision’; the OG has ‘vision(s) of night’ whereas MT has ‘vision by/with night’.

Th Dan 7:1b–2a is closer to MT than to OG, 3 differing from MT only in the omission of certain phrases, the translator perhaps not understanding the reason behind their inclusion or thinking them redundant.4

This is the case even though Th is generally thought to post-date the OG. S. P. Jeansonne, The Old Greek Translation of Daniel 7–12. CBQ Monograph Series 19 (Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1988), 8, points out that the OG is ‘the oldest recoverable form of the first translation into Greek of the Hebrew/Aramaic text of Daniel,’ but it can only be reconstructed from a variety of sources, including manuscript 88 (the hexaplaric evidence), Syro-Hexapla (Syh), Papyrus 967 (pre-hexaplaric), Patristic quotations and readings of Theodotion where Th preserves the OG. For her discussion of the date of Theodotion and Proto-Theodotion, see p. 21–3; McLay, The OG and Th Versions, 6–16 provides a preliminary discussion of the textual witnesses. He stresses the importance and reliability of Papyrus 967 (pp. 6–8) and on p.12 introduces his thesis that Theodotion is not a recension of the OG but an independent witness. He demonstrates this throughout his work, although is aware that there are times when the two versions coincide. 3

104

ANNE E. GARDNER

7:1c Th does not have ‘and told a sum of words’ Th 7:2a omits ‘answered and said’ and not all manuscripts include ‘in my vision by night’5

In 4Q Danb, the only Daniel fragment among the DSS that includes Dan 7:1b–2a, the words or parts of words correspond to the MT. This proves that ‘dream’ as it appears in the MT of Dan 7:1bc had been incorporated into the text by the time that 4Q Danb was written. Likewise, it substantiates the presence of ‘in my vision by/with’ in MT Dan 7:2a. At first sight then the witness of 4Q Danb, which appeared in a preliminary edition in 1989,6 would seem to overturn the judgement of earlier scholars who, basing themselves on the texts of OG or Theodotion, asserted that parts of MT Dan 7:1b– 2a were added at a later time. However, it should not be assumed that 4Q Danb is a witness to the earliest version of the text. The consensus of present scholarship is that Daniel was completed in 164BCE but, according to Cross,7 who bases his conclusion on the style of writing, which he calls a ‘developed Herodian formal script’, 4Q Danb dates from 20–50 CE. Thus, it is not outside the bounds of possibility that the OG and/or Theodotion preserve an earlier version or at least traces of an earlier one. The relative dates and merits, not simply of these verses but of the OG and MT of Daniel as a whole, have been the subject of much discussion in the past. For example, Montgomery8 discusses the versions and claims the superiority of the MT but Charles9 claims that some parts of the OG provide an older and more lucid text than the MT. How to Proceed It is important to bear in mind the difficulties involved in translation and to be aware that conventions of style vary from one language to another and so not every apparent textual difference is necessarily evidence of a different Vorlage. Indeed, it is of crucial importance that McLay’s advice should be heeded that ‘each variant has to This statement points forward to what will become apparent below in terms of Dan 7:1b–2a. The phrases Th omits are the very ones whose meaning is uncertain in the context where they appear. 5 For details, see J. Ziegler and O. Munnich, Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum Vol XVI, pars 2. Susanna. Daniel. Bel et Draco (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999), 335. 6 E. Ulrich, “Daniel Manuscripts from Qumran. Part 2: Preliminary Editions of 4Q b Dan and 4Q Danc,” BASOR 274 (1989): 3–26. 7 F. M. Cross, “The Development of the Jewish Scripts,” in The Bible and the Ancient Near East (ed. F.M. Cross. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1961), 173–81. 8 J. A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Book of Daniel (Edinburgh: T &T Clark, 1927), 24–56. 9 R. H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1929), lvi–lvii, 79–82, 119–24. 4

SHEDDING LIGHT ON DANIEL’S VISION

105

be treated individually.’10 As the OG is simpler than the MT, it is taken as the starting point of the enquiry. When the OG has been considered, the divergences in the MT will be examined. References will be made to the Theodotionic version and to 4QDanb where appropriate. OG Dan 7:1b–c As noted already, OG Dan 7:1b has ‘vision’ while MT Dan 7:1b has ‘dream and visions (pl) of his head’. There are a number of pointers to ‘vision’ having been the earlier reading: 1. In every other instance, in all versions of Daniel, when the hero has an otherworldly experience he is said to have a ‘vision’ (2:19; 8:1, 2, 13, 15, 16, 17, 26; 9:21, 24; 10:14 where the Aramaic ‫ חזוא‬or Hebrew ‫ חזאן‬is used and 8:16, 26, 27; 9:23; 10:1, 7, 8, 16 where the Hebrew ‫ מראה‬appears), not a ‘dream’. It is only in MT Dan 7:1–2 (followed by 4QDanb and Th) that Daniel experiences a ‘dream.’ 2. ‘Vision’ (‫ )חזון‬in the Hebrew Bible often denotes prophetic vision (Mic 3:6; Ezek 1:1; 7:26; 12:24,27; 13:16; Ps 89:20 [19]; Lam 2:9; Isa 1:1; 29:7; Hos 12:11[10]; Obad 1; Nah 1:1; Hab 2:2).11 This is the case also with Daniel’s vision in 2:19 when God tells him the content of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and its interpretation. 3. OG 7:1c reads ‘vision’.12 It is noteworthy that in the Hebrew Bible the writing of a dream does not occur elsewhere although the writing of prophecies does (Isa 8:1,16; 30:8; Jer 30:2, 36:2, 51:60; Ezek 43:11). Further, in Hab 2:2, God instructs the prophet, ‘Write the vision’, thus providing a parallel for Daniel’s action in OG Dan 7:1c. ‘Write’ also occurs in Daniel 5 in the time of Belshazzar, the ruler in whose reign Daniel 7 is set. There the words on the wall13 indicate the future course of events, as does the vision in Dan 7:2b–14 that, according to OG Dan 7:1c, Dan-

McLay, The OG and Th Versions, 11. Indeed, ‘vision’, but not ‘dream’, appears as a heading and intimation of what is to follow in Isa 1:1; Obad 1; Nah 1:1. 12 C. L. Seow, Daniel (Louisville/London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), 101, and E. C. Lucas, Daniel. Apollos Old Testament Commentary 20 (Leicester, England/Downers Grove, Illinois: Apollos/ Inter-Varsity Press, 2002), 177, both point out that there are a number of references to the writing of divine revelations in the prophetic works as well as later apocalyptic ones so that it should not be seen as exceptional that writing was involved. Lucas, ibid., comments, however, that whereas in the former the revelation was usually oral to begin with, that was not the case with the apocalyptic works. 13 The words on the wall in Daniel 5, while not called a ‘vision’, are visual. Only Daniel is able to read and interpret them and thus in his ‘visioning’, he is relating a prophecy of coming events. 10 11

106

ANNE E. GARDNER

iel wrote into κεφάλαια λόγων, literally ‘chief points of words’, 14 thus providing another parallel to Daniel 5. According to Liddell and Scott, κεφάλαια λόγων was a stock Greek phrase meaning ‘sum’ or ‘gist of the matter.’15 While this is likely to be correct, such a translation obscures the importance of λόγων which reappears in relation to Daniel’s vision in 7:16. The use of ‘vision’ in OG Dan 7:1b–c accords well with passages elsewhere in Daniel in all versions and other holy books, so it is all the more remarkable that the MT deviates by citing Daniel’s other worldly experience as a ‘dream’ and ‘visions of his head,’ especially as it is Nebuchadnezzar, not Daniel, who has a ‘dream’ in the earlier chapters of the work (Dan 2:4, 5, 6[x2], 7, 9[x2], 26, 28, 36, 45; 4:5[2], 6[3], 7[4], 8[5], 9[6], 18[15], 19[16] [x2]). Further, there is a hint in the MT that ‘vision’ may have been an earlier reading, for in MT Dan 7:2a, where Daniel is speaking in the first person, he refers to ‘my vision’, not ‘my dream’. Why then would the MT have ‘dream’ and ‘visions of his head’ in Dan 7:1b–c? It is to MT Dan 7:1b–c that we now turn. MT Dan 7:1b–c ‘Dream’ is retained by the majority of scholars with little or no comment 16 although, as seen, the OG does not include it.17 Likewise ‘visions of his head’ occasions little comment, although it is deleted by Plöger,18 while Goldingay19 reduces ‘visions’ to

Cf. A. Rahlfs, Septuaginta (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgeseltschaft, 1979), LIX, emphasizes that κεφάλαια means ‘chief points’. Thus the phrase means ‘chief points of words’ and, as such, indicates the way the vision is formulated. That this is an accurate description of the creative process can be seen in, for example, MT Dan 7:4 where a ‘lion’ with an ‘eagle’s wings’ features. As agreed amongst commentators, this describes Babylon who is likened to a lion in Jer 50:17; 51:38; Nah 2:12[11], 13[12]. Babylon also features in the Hebrew Bible as an ‘eagle’ (Lam 4:19; Ezek 17:3, 7 cf. v.12; Hab 1:8. Jer 4:13; 48:20; 49:22 also likens the aggressor (probably Babylon) to an eagle. Notably in the Ezekiel verses, ‘a great eagle with great wings’ (17:7) is identified as the ‘King of Babylon’ (17:12). 15 LS, 944. 16 J. Baldwin, Daniel. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Leicester, England/ Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press, 1978), 138 cf. 132, thinks that the ‘and’ that links ‘dream’ and ‘visions of the head’ has the implication of ‘namely’. Thus, she sees the two as identical and so minimises the discrepancy between MT and OG. J. Goldingay, Daniel. WBC 30 (Dallas, Texas: Word Books, 1989) 142, 144, defends the retention of ‘dream’ and ‘vision of head upon his bed,’ as he claims the Danielic style is given to the doubling of imagery. J. E. Miller, ‘Dreams and Prophetic Visions,’ Biblica 71 (1990): 401–4, does recognise the adding of ‘dream’ in Dan 7:1. 17 Lucas, Daniel, 177, remarks however that the character of what Daniel experiences is more like a vision than a dream, for ‘Daniel “participates” in his vision by speaking with a member of the heavenly court’. 18 O. Plöger, Das Buch Daniel (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1965), 101, 103. 14

SHEDDING LIGHT ON DANIEL’S VISION

107

‘vision’, thus following the OG, without explicitly saying so. Here one should pause for thought. The OG’s ὅραμα παρὰ κεφαλὴν where παρὰ is followed by the accusative, indicates a ‘vision running past head’, rather as in a movie which moves from scene to scene. The MT’s ‘visions of his head’ has the same implication. Thus it is the grammatical structure of each language that has caused the OG to read ‘vision’ in the singular and the MT in the plural. It is ‘dream’ then in the MT that marks the difference between OG and MT. As such, MT is harking back to Nebuchadnezzar’s experiences, for it is only he who has dreams in the earlier chapters. In Daniel 4, Nebuchadnezzar dreams of judgement and banishment and MT Dan 4:2[5] is of significance for MT 7:1b.20 There Nebuchadnezzar speaks: MT Dan 4:2(5)

MT Dan 7:1b

MT Dan 7:28

I saw a dream which made me afraid and the thoughts upon my bed and the visions of my head troubled me (‫)יבהלנני‬

Daniel saw a dream and visions of his head upon his bed ‫דניאל חלם חזה וחזוי ראשׁה‬ ‫על־משׁכבה‬

‘As for me, Daniel, my thoughts much troubled me (‫’…)יבהלנני‬

OG Dan 4:2 (5)

OG Dan 7:1b

OG Dan 7:28

I saw a dream and I was wary and fear fell on me

Daniel saw a vision from head upon his bed

I Daniel was overcome with σφόδρα ἐκστάσει and my state changed within me and I kept the word in my heart

- the Ethiopic and Syrohexaplar add ‘on my bed’

Goldingay, Daniel, 143-44 n.1.b-b, refers back to his note on Dan 2:1 (p.32) where ‘dream’ appears in the plural. He says that it indicates Nebuchadnezzar’s one dream, which is discussed in vv. 2–49. He thinks that the plural there may have been a reference to the double dream of Genesis 41. 20 Goldingay, Daniel, 143–4, directs the reader’s attention to Dan 4:2[5] but does not inquire as to why there should be a link between it and MT Dan 7:1b–c. C. F. Keil, Biblische Commentar über Den Propheten Daniel. Biblische Commentar über Das Alte Testament 3:5 (Leipzig: Dorffling und Franke, 1969), 187, and J. Coppens, “Le Chapitre VII de Daniel Lecture et Commentaire,” ETL 54, (1978): 301–22, esp. 304, both mention Dan 2:28 as a possible background to Dan 7:1b. An extended discussion of Dan 2:28 in the MT and OG appears below in fn44. J. J. Collins, Daniel. Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 294, thinks ‘visions of head upon his bed’ recalls Dan 4:10[13], as well as 2:28, 4:2. As 4:10[13] does not include ‘dream’ it is not examined here. 19

108

ANNE E. GARDNER

Clearly, as highlighted in the table through the use of italics and bold words, there are links between MT Dan 4:2[5]; 7:1b and 7:28—the final verse of the chapter that acts as a counter weight to Dan 7:1b—for it says, ‘as for me, Daniel, my thoughts much troubled me (‫…)יבהלנני‬.’ In other words, there is a connection between the beginning of Daniel 7 and its end through their mutual link with the MT of Dan 4:2[5]. Dan 4:2[5] is part of the preamble to Nebuchadnezzar’s dream which also reads as though it was a summation of the chapter. Some scholars have posited that the preamble was a later addition to MT Daniel 4, but more likely it was glossed to tie the beginning and end of Daniel 7 to what had gone before. This may find some support in that Dan 4:2[5] occurs in the OG but in a much abbreviated form, for the OG does not contain ‘and the thoughts upon my bed and the visions of my head,’ which appears in the MT of Dan 4:2[5]. Therefore, unless the Ethiopic and Syrohexaplar are correct in adding ‘on my bed’, 21 this verse does not link in any way with the OG of Dan 7:1b. Moreover, there is no connection between Dan 4:2[5] in the OG and Dan 7:28 in the OG, as there is between the MT of Dan 4:2[5] and the MT of Dan 7:28. Further, it should be questioned whether MT and OG of Dan 7:28 have the same implication. In MT Daniel says ‘my thoughts much troubled me (‫)יבהלנני‬,’ while in the OG he is overcome with σφόδρα ἐκστάσει as a result of the vision that he has just seen.22 Hatch and Redpath claim that ἐκστάσις translates eleven different Hebrew/Aramaic words including ‫בהל‬.23 However, the only instance they cite in the case of ‫ בהל‬is the one under discussion here i.e. Dan 7:28, so Syh marks ‘on my bed’ with an asterisk cf. Ziegler and Munnich, Septuaginta, 31, 290. Nevertheless, the reading is adopted by Ziegler and Munnich who argue (p.31) that it is appropriate, given 1) that v15 has the corresponding ‘arose…from my bed’; 2) that ‘on my bed’ balances ‘on my throne’ in v1. Neither point is decisive. It may be that, in the case of the first point, Nebuchadnezzar fell asleep and had his dream while he was sitting on his throne. Indeed, as the dream indicates his great elevation (and subsequent downfall), the throne as the locus would have been more appropriate than his bed. Further, the full phrase in v15 reads, ‘arose early from my bed’, which suggests that it relates to the following day. In other words, it is not outside the bounds of possibility that the text simply neglected to mention that after he had had his dream while asleep on his throne, Nebuchadnezzar went to bed. As far as the second point is concerned, at first sight it seems a reasonable one, but it is quite possible that v2 was deliberately short, indeed staccato in nature, to draw attention to the alarming nature of the dream which was about to be related. 22 T. J. Meadowcroft, Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel. The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 198 (Sheffield Academic Press, 2009), 215, notes that while in the MT it is Daniel’s ‘thoughts’ that cause him to be ‘troubled’, it is the external source—his vision—that arouses the strong emotion in the OG. However, that is not accurate, for OG 7:28 shows Daniel’s reaction to the interpretation of the vision. It is OG 7:15, where Daniel is very distressed, that gives his reaction to the vision itself. 23 E. Hatch and H. A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint and the other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (including the Apocryphal Books) Vol. I. A-I (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1898), 441. 21

SHEDDING LIGHT ON DANIEL’S VISION

109

their view should not be taken as decisive. Meadowcroft, who considers the instances of ἐκστάσις in the LXX, appears to accept that ἐκστάσις is a reasonable rendition of ‫ בהל‬because it ‘is generally selected by the LXX in the context of fear or confusion or panic generated in response to the activity of the Lord.’24 While Meadowcroft is not entirely wrong in this assertion, he does not take into account that ἐκστάσις sometimes overcomes people so that they carry out God’s will or align themselves more closely with him. For example, in 2 Chr 14:9–15, Judah is threatened by the superior forces of an Ethiopian army. King Asa prays to God and he and his army are able to pursue the Ethiopians to Gedor and overcome them. It is in v14 that ἐκστάσις occurs: ‘And they (Asa and his army) destroyed their towns round about Gedor for an ἐκστάσις of the Lord was upon them’. Clearly ἐκστάσις here does not mean ‘panic’ or ‘confusion’ or ‘being afraid’. This links with what is indicated by Liddell & Scott when they define the word whose base meaning is displacement, hence change. When used in connection with the emotions they say that in some instances it means ‘distraction of mind, from terror, astonishment, anger etc.’ but elsewhere it can indicate ‘entrancement, astonishment’, ‘trance’, ‘ecstasy’ or even ‘drunken excitement’. In other words, the context in which ἐκστάσις appears is very important for its meaning in each case. To return to OG Dan 7:28, Daniel’s ἐκστάσις overcomes him as a result of the interpretation of his vision, the final stage of which is that ‘the holy people of the Most High’ will ‘rule all the kingdoms under heaven’ (7:27)—hardly cause for despondency, rather for strong emotion in a positive sense. This strongly suggests that the OG, including the OG of Dan 7:28, preserves an earlier tradition, one which comes from a situation prior to the High Priestly troubles and the prohibition of religion by Antiochus Epiphanes.25 As the MT Dan 7:1b stands then, it appears to be making a deliberate allusion to passages from earlier chapters that link with Daniel’s vision which is about to be related: i.e. it concerns judgement (cf. Dan 7:9–12) and it makes Daniel troubled (cf. 7:28). The MT of Dan.7:1c reads, ‘Then the dream he wrote, the ‫ ראשׁ‬of words he told’

but in the OG it is the vision that is written. As there is no other instance in the Hebrew Bible of a ‘dream’ having been written, it is likely that ‘dream’ in MT 7:1c replaced ‘vision’. This will have happened when ‘dream’ was added to MT Dan 7:1b, in order to draw attention to the imminence of troubling events.

Meadowcroft, Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel, 215. He does note though that he is uncertain of the exact meaning of ἐκστάσις. 25 For a summary of scholarly views from the nineteenth century onwards about a preMaccabean stratum for Daniel 7, see Collins, Daniel, 278–80. A relatively recent proponent of the view that there is an earlier layer is J. C. H. Lebram, Das Buch Daniel (Zurich: Theologische Verlag, 1984), 21, 84, who thinks it emerged first of all in the time of Antiochus III. 24

110

ANNE E. GARDNER

The second stanza of MT Dan 7:1c, ‘the ‫ ראשׁ‬of words he told’ has been questioned by scholars for a number of reasons. ‘He told’ (‫ )אמר‬is frequently rejected on a variety of grounds: it is not in the OG26 Daniel would not have written his dream and then told it27 It is likely to be a doublet with ‫ אמר‬in MT Dan 7:2a28 because Ulrich29 is of the opinion that 4QDanb does not have room for the three words in the phrase ‫ראשׁ מלין אמר‬. 30

None of these is decisive. ‘Told’ is not in the OG, but then neither is ‘dream’, to whose presence the majority of scholars do not object; the notion that ‘told’ is superfluous/ a doublet with ‫ אמר‬in MT Dan 7:2a does not take into account the balance of the two stanzas of MT Dan 7:1c in the present text; as far as Ulrich’s opinion is concerned, another look at what he actually says is warranted. Here I quote him: ‘In this manuscript the position of ‫ ב[חזוי‬relative to ‫ כתב‬and the gap above, suggests that it, in agreement with θ and probably with the OG, did not have space for the full ‫ראשׁ מלין אמר‬,’ i.e. of MT Dan 7:1c.31 Ulrich’s argument is hardly decisive, however, since the first five words of Dan 7:2a are also missing from 4QDanb, due to the same lacuna. As neither the OG nor Th include ‘Daniel answered and said,’ which is present in MT Dan 7:2a, it is invidious to single out ‫ אמר‬in MT Dan 7:1c for exclusion. As far as ‘head of words’ (‫ )ראשׁ מלין‬is concerned, scholarly doubts about it revolve around two main issues: How it fits into the text if ‫ אמר‬is dropped, thus leaving it isolated. Scholars usually resolve this problem by assuming it to be a gloss or a title.32 That is not likely to be the case, however, as the OG’s κεφάλαια λόγων is a sufficiently close expression and one which is part of the main body of the text. Further, the words are referred to in Dan 7:16 by the one who stands next to Daniel and tells him that he would make known to him ‘the interpretation of the words’ (‫)פשר מליא‬. By the use of ‘words’ in the plural, both MT and OG communicate the notion that it was not

Goldingay, Daniel, 144, regards it as doubtful for this reason. Plöger, Das Buch Daniel, 103; Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 164. 28 Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 284; A. Lacoque, Le Livre de Daniel. Commentaire de l’Ancien Testament XVb (Neuchatel–Paris: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1976), 104. 29 Cf. E. Ulrich, “4Q Danb” in Qumran Cave 4. XI Psalms to Chronicles (DJD XVI, ed. E. Ulrich et al. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000), 239–89, at p. 264. 30 Lucas, Daniel, 160. 31 Ulrich, “4Q Danb”, 264. 32 Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 283–4; Lucas, Daniel, 160; Coppens, “Le Chapitre VII de Daniel,” 304. 26 27

SHEDDING LIGHT ON DANIEL’S VISION

111

one single matter that needed to be interpreted, but rather the multiplicity of the words of the vision.33 The meaning of ‫ ראשׁ‬: some think it means ‘sum’,34 others ‘beginning,’ often pointing out that then it would be parallel to Dan 7:28a, ‫‘( עד־כה סופא די־מלתא‬up to here the end of the matter’).35 The notion that ‫ ראשׁ‬signifies ‘beginning’ receives support from the following points: ‫( עד־כה‬up to thus) strikes an odd note in the MT of Dan 7:28. It indicates that there are more revelations to come and, as such ‫ עד־כה‬is likely to have been inserted when further visions did follow.36 Without ‫ עד־כה‬the phrase ‘the end of the matter’ in the MT most naturally would belong to v27 and thus have a similar import to the one in the OG. OG has ‘end’ in a very different context. It relates it to the final part of Dan 7:27 and renders the phrase as ἔως καταστροφῆς τοῦ λόγου, making it refer to the obedience of all authorities to the ‘holy people of the Most High’ ‘up to the finale of the matter’.37 In other words, the implication is eschatological. It seems then that the changes from OG 7:27–28 to what appears in MT 7:28 are likely to have inspired the change in meaning of ‫ ראשׁ מלין‬in 7:1c from ‘sum of words’ (which equates to the OG’s κεφάλαια λόγων) to the ‘beginning of words’. As ‘beginning of words’ modifies ‘the dream he wrote’ it can carry an additional verb i.e. ‫‘ אמר‬told’. Further ‫ אמר‬provides balance to the two stanzas in MT 7:1c and so is likely to have been added when ‘vision’ was changed to ‘dream’. In sum, then, the differences between OG Dan 7:1b–c and MT Dan 7:1b–c, as well as between OG 7:27–28 and MT Dan 7:28, can be accounted for by the MT It seems that a deliberate parallel was being drawn by Dan 7:16 with Dan 5:26, in which ‘the interpretation of the matter’ (‫ )פשר מלה‬appears. The parallel between ‫ פשר מלה‬in Dan 5:26 and ‫ פשר מליא‬in Dan 7:16 is reinforced in that in both cases it is what is written that has to be interpreted—the writing on the wall in Dan 5:26 (cf. Dan 5:25), and in Dan 7:16 the vision that Daniel wrote down (cf. Dan 7:1c). 34 M. Delcor, Le Livre de Daniel. Sources bibliques (Paris: J. Gabalda et Cie., 1971), 142. 35 L. F. Hartman & A. A. DiLella, The Book of Daniel. Anchor Bible 23 (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co.Inc., 1978), 205; Goldingay, Daniel, 144; Ulrich, “4Q Danb”, 264; Lucas, Daniel, 158; Coppens, ‘Le Chapitre VII’, 304; Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 284. 36 The time of the writing of the visions and whether they all came from the same hand is a vexed one; see Collins, Daniel, 24–38, for a summary of scholarly views. However, even if it is believed that all of them were written by the same person, the (fictive) dating of the second vision as two years later than the time of the first vision means that it would have been illogical for the author who purports to be Daniel to have included ‘until then’ at the conclusion of Chapter 7. 37 Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 317, translates by the French dénouement and emphasizes that the Greek word has a dramatic overtone. 33

112

ANNE E. GARDNER

having adjusted its text to suit a later set of circumstances. Th’s omission of ‘sum/beginning’ of words was probably because the meaning of the phrase in the MT was not clear to him. It remains to consider Dan 7:2a. Dan 7:2a As seen earlier, the versions of Dan 7:2a have much in common for they all include ‘vision’, ‘night’ and a verb that has the meaning of ‘see’. However, there are important differences in all versions. OG alone begins the verse with ‘upon my bed,’ thus repeating a phrase from 7:1b, although in the first person. At first glance it appears intrusive as no other version has it, but it is the first step in Daniel’s written testimony for it follows on from 7:1c where ‘Daniel, the vision which he saw, he wrote into chief points of words’. As such, ‘upon my bed’ should be considered as part of a formal statement indicating the place of the vision while ‘observing’ (ἐθεώρουν) defines the basis for the trustworthiness of the vision that Daniel is about to write. What is surprising in OG Dan 7:2a, however, is that the word for ‘vision’ is ὕπνος, not ὅραμα as in OG 7:1b– c. This suggests that ὕπνος functions as a pointer to something else. MS 88 of OG Dan 7:2a supplies the clue as it has rendered καθʼ ὕπνον νυκτός as καθʼ ὕπνους νυκτός, the exact phrase that is present in B and L Isa 29:7. Isa 29:7 indicates that the wealth of the nations that fight against or distress Ariel will vanish ‘as visions of night’. This indeed happened during the reign of Seleucus, Antiochus IV’s predecessor, when Heliodorus, Seleucus’s treasurer, was sent to remove the money stored for the relief of orphans and widows from the Temple in Jerusalem but was prevented from doing so by what appeared to be supernatural means (cf. 2 Macc 3:7– 40). That manuscripts, other than MS 88, have the singular ὕπνον, rather than the plural ὕπνους, may indicate that the singular was the earlier reading. Certainly the singular makes better sense in the context of Dan 7:2a, which is part of the introduction to Daniel’s (one) vision that follows. Further, the allusion to Isa 29:7 would still be present, for nowhere else in the OG is ὕπνος prefaced by καθʼ. Accordingly the plural ὕπνους would have been an error, an easy one to make if a scribe recognised the allusion to Isa 29:7. MT alone opens with ‘answered Daniel and said.’ Charles38 and Collins39 both follow the OG and Th in omitting it, as does Lucas.40 Montgomery,41 on the other hand, thinks it may be original because it has a Semitic flavour. While the omission of the phrase in the OG and Th may indicate that it was not present in the manuscripts from which they made their translations, the reason for its inclusion in MT should be explored. At first sight there is an apparent difficulty in the use of ‫ ענה‬for there is no mention of anyone having spoken to Daniel necessitating a reply from A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 165. Daniel, 174, 294. 40 Daniel, 160. 41 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 284. 38 39

SHEDDING LIGHT ON DANIEL’S VISION

113

him. However, a perusal of the occurrences of ‫ ענה‬in the Hebrew Bible demonstrates that, although its meaning is usually ‘answer’, it can imply ‘command’ (e.g. Dan 3:19) or ‘testify’ (e.g. Deut 19:16, 18; 1 Sam 12:3; 28:15; Isa 59:12; Jer 14:7; Hos 5:5; 7:10). If ‘testify’ is the import of ‫ ענה‬in Dan 7:2a it follows that when 7:1c and 7:2a are considered together, it is possible to derive a coherent meaning from them: ‘Then the dream he wrote The beginning of the words he told Daniel testified (‫)ענה‬: ‘I saw in my vision by/with night’’

This now makes perfect sense and, as can be seen, ‘and he said’ is not necessary. Dropping it conforms with Ulrich’s concern that there is not enough room for the whole of 7:1c-2a.42 That ‫ ענה דניאל‬is likely to be correct, will receive support when ‘vision’ and ‘night’ are considered. ‘Vision’ and ‘night’ both occur in MT Dan 2:19 where ‘in a vision…of the night’ the secret of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream is revealed to Daniel. What follows in Daniel 2 is a doxology that is suspected to be a later insertion into the text.43 The narrative resumes in 2:26 and in 2:27 Daniel begins a preamble to his narration of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream which commences in 2:31. His preamble begins with ‫ענה‬ ‫דניאל‬.44 Thus MT 7:2a is patterned on MT 2:27 and 2:19, but with one exception. That the vision comes by/with (‫ )עם‬the night. An equivalent temporal marker does not appear in MT 2:19, nor in the OG or Th, so some explanation for its appearance in MT is required. The linguistic equivalent in Hebrew of the Aramaic ‫עם־‬ ‫ליליא‬, when used in the temporal sense, is ‫בלילה‬. This appears in a number of passages in the Hebrew Bible although, in all but one instance, it is as part of a longer phrase.45 The single occasion when ‫ בלילה‬is used without being further defined, thus Nevertheless ‫ ענה דניאל ואמר‬appears in Dan 2:20; 5:17 where Daniel himself is speaking and so a later scribe may have added ‫ואמר‬, particularly as ‫ ענה ואמר‬occurs some nineteen times in the book of Daniel overall. 43 Collins, Daniel, 160, and W. S. Towner, “The Poetic Passages in Daniel 1–6,” CBQ 31 (1969): 317–26, esp. 319. 44 Dan 2:27 where ‫ ענה דניאל‬is followed in the next verse by Daniel telling the king that God reveals secrets and makes known to Nebuchadnezzar what will be ‘in the latter days’. He then says, ‘Your dream and the visions of your head upon your bed are these’, thus matching the vocabulary of Dan 7:1b. The phrase ‘dream and visions of … head upon…bed’ occurs only at Dan 2:28; 4:2[5]; 7:1b. That 4:2[5] links with 7:1b was demonstrated earlier in the paper. It was also pointed out that the OG of 4:2 did not include the same phrase, referring only to Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. The OG of Dan 2:28 surprisingly does include the phrase—the only time it appears in the OG of Daniel. E. Ulrich, “4Q Dana,” 245, suspects that ‘visions of your head’ (MT Dan 2:28) is a gloss as there is not sufficient room for the phrase in 4QDana and Collins, Daniel, 50, points out that the singular pronoun ‫ דנה‬is a pointer in the same direction. Whatever the case with the OG, it is of no import here since the OG of Dan 7:2a does not allude to Dan 2:27. It is only the MT that does that. 45 ‘On that night’ (‫ )בלילה ההוא‬appears in Gen 26:24 and Jud 6:25 while ‘in one night’ (‫ )בלילה אחד‬occurs at Gen 40:5; 41:11. 1 Sam 15:16; Zech 1:8, which also involve a divine 42

114

ANNE E. GARDNER

paralleling the expression in Dan 7:2a, is in 2 Chr 7:12. There God communicates with Solomon ‘with/during the night (‫ ’)בלילה‬assuring him that he has chosen the place as a ‘house of sacrifice’ (i.e. the Temple in Jerusalem) for Himself but that if He sends some disaster upon the land or upon His people, then the only way for them to proceed is to ‘...humble themselves, and prostrate themselves and seek my face and return from their evil ways and I will hear from heaven and forgive their sin and heal their land’ (2 Chr 7:14)46

The message of this verse is reminiscent of what transpires in Daniel 9 when Daniel ‘set his face unto the Lord God, to seek by prayer and supplications with fasting and sackcloth and ashes’ (Dan 9:3) and, in what follows, confesses his own sins and those of all Israel wherever they are located (Dan 9:4–19). That such an allusion appears in MT Dan 7:2a is probably the result of continued reflection at a time of crisis on ‘God’s words’ as they appeared in the holy books. Indeed, the reference to 2 Chr 7:14 in MT Dan 7:2a relates to what was discovered about the insertion of ‘dream’ in MT Dan 7:1:b–c, i.e. that it contains an allusion to disturbing events and that seeking God is the only viable option if one wishes to overcome what is threatening. As far as Theodotion is concerned, ἐν ὁράματί μου τῆς νυκτός does not appear in all manuscripts and so may have been added to conform to MT. It is noteworthy, however, that the phrase ἐν ὁράματί μου τῆς νυκτός exactly parallels the one in Th Dan 2:19 where ‘in my vision of the night’ the secret of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream is revealed to Daniel by God.

SUMMARY OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN OG AND MT DAN 7:1B–2A OG 7:1b–2a contains a simpler text than the MT. It represents Daniel as having a ‘vision’ as he does elsewhere in the book of Daniel, rather than a ‘dream’. ‘Vision’ is likely to hark back to both Daniel 5, where the words on the wall were visual, and to Dan 2:19, the only instance of Daniel having a vision prior to Chapter 7. There Daniel’s vision comes from God and, by implication, so does the present one. Danrevelation at night, simply read, ‘the night’ (‫)הלילה‬. At Gen 20:3, where God appears to Abraham, it concerns ‘in a dream of the night’ (‫ )בהלום לילה‬and at Gen 46:2, ‘God spoke to Israel in visions of the night (‫’)במראת הלילה‬. 46Revelation as the purpose of a dream or of God’s appearance to an individual at night is clear also in other passages in the Hebrew Bible (Gen 20:3, 26:24, 40:5, 41:11, 46:2; 1 Sam 15:16; 2 Chr 7:12; Zech 1:18). The communication may concern future events as is the case with Jacob (Gen 46:2f.) and Pharaoh’s baker and butler (Gen 40:5, 41:11) but, sometimes, as with 2 Chr 7:12–22, it is a warning and advice as to how to right a wrong and avoid death (Gen 20:3–7). However, as stated above, it is only 2 Chr 7:12 that employs the expression ‫ בלילה‬without its being part of a longer phrase.

SHEDDING LIGHT ON DANIEL’S VISION

115

iel’s writing of the vision recalls Hab 2:2 where the prophet was told to ‘write the vision’ that came from God. In Dan 7:2a, the OG adds ‘upon my bed’ thus echoing Dan 7:1b and providing a formal statement concerning the ‘place’ where the vision happened while καθʼ ὕπνον / ὕπνους νυκτός hints at the outcome for Jerusalem by quoting from Isa 29:7 which advises that the wealth of the nations who fight against or distress Jerusalem will vanish ‘as night visions.’ MT Dan 7:1b–c, although it retains the notion of a vision, obscures the link with Habbakuk by twice labelling Daniel’s otherworldly experience as a ‘dream’ and particularly by specifying that it was the ‘dream’ that he wrote. As seen, the author of MT Dan 7:1b’s rationale for introducing the word ‘dream’ was to create a link with MT Dan 4:2[5] where Nebuchadnezzar had a dream that made him afraid. That the link was intentional can be discerned from Dan 7:28 which also recalls Dan 4:2[5], for Daniel is troubled (7:28) like Nebuchadnezzar in 4:2[5]. This was shown to constitute a change from OG 7:28 where Daniel experienced exultation as a result of what OG 7:27 indicated, i.e. that the kingdom would be ruled by the holy people of the Most High. In MT Dan 7:2a a link is made to Dan 2:27 through the repetition of the phrase ‫ענה דניאל‬. Further, by specifying that the vision comes ‘with/by’ (‫ )עם‬the night, it alludes to 2 Chr 7:12–14, a passage that provides advice on how to proceed if some disaster befalls Jerusalem. By doing so, it reinforces the element of fear and of being troubled that is brought to play in MT Dan 7:1b–c.

THE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE DATING OF OG AND MT DAN 7:1B–2A Both the OG and MT of Dan 7:1b–2a are prefaced by the notice in Dan 7:1a that Daniel’s vision takes place in the first year of the reign of Belshazzar. Belshazzar is usually understood to be a cipher for Antiochus IV (Epiphanes). If correct (and it probably is), it means that Dan 7:1b–2a, in both OG and MT, belong to a defined time period i.e. between 175 and 164 BCE. That the OG came into being earlier than the MT of the same verses is suggested by the differences between them that lead in the MT to passages that indicate a heightened level of fear. Unfortunately, more specific information regarding the time of their respective composition was not forthcoming. It is possible that the allusion to Hab 2:2 by the OG and to 2 Chr 7:12 by the MT have the potential to provide greater insight in this regard. As is well known, the Habbakuk Pesher interprets prophecies from the book of Habbakuk as being applicable to a later period. Thus, it is not unreasonable to suppose that in the mind of the author(s) of OG Dan 7:1b–2a a similar process was in train. Habbakuk 2, the chapter in which the prophet is told to write the vision, certainly includes elements that find a resonance with events during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, particularly during the time of Jason’s High Priesthood and the early days of Menelaus. It was Jason who was instrumental in registering citizens of Jerusalem as Antiochenes and in establishing a gymnasium (2 Macc 4:9,12) and who sent envoys (Antiochenes of Jerusalem) to the quinquennial games in Tyre (2 Macc 4:18). In the gymnasium and games, participants would exercise naked and 1 Macc

116

ANNE E. GARDNER

1:15 says they made themselves ‘uncircumcised’ (ἀκροβυστίας) implying that this refers to Jews in Jerusalem.47 ‘Nakedness’ features in Hab 2:15 and reference is made to the uncovering of the foreskin in the following verse.48 A second link between the events cited in the books of the Maccabees and Habbakuk 2 concerns idols. The games at Tyre honoured Herakles and there were sacrifices to him. Jason sent 300 drachmas of silver to contribute to the sacrifice although the bearers’ scruples would not allow them to give the money for such a purpose, directing it instead to the fitting out of galleys (2 Macc 4:18–20). Hab 2:18–19 pronounces woe to those who make or reverence idols. A third link between the books of the Maccabees and Habbakuk concerns lawlessness and violence. Disregard of the Jewish law, apparent during the High Priesthood of Jason and the violence that erupted because of the actions of Menelaus and Lysimachus (2 Macc 4:39–42), as well as Jason’s assault on the city and slaughter of its citizens when he thought Antiochus had been killed in Egypt (2 Macc 5:5–6), connects with the lawlessness/violence of the land and the city and those that dwell therein described in Hab 2:8, 17. It may be that the very last verse of Habbakuk 2 is of significance for the time of composition of OG 7:1b– 2a for Habbakuk says, ‘Yahweh is in his holy temple; Let all the earth keep silence before him’ (Hab 2:20)

Applied to the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, it indicates a time prior to the installation of Jupiter Olympius as lord of the Jerusalem Temple (2 Macc 6:2).49 That the MT of Dan 7:1b–2a is likely to have reached its present form later than the OG of the same verses was seen above. Further, the disruption of the link with Hab 2:2 appears to have been deliberate. Likewise, the introduction of an allusion to 2 Chr 7:12 must have been deliberate. There ‘Yahweh appeared to Solomon by night and said to him, I have heard your prayer and have chosen this place for myself for a place of sacrifice.’’

J.A. Goldstein, II Maccabees A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 14A (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1983), 230, thinks that it was only Jews who participated in international games that were naked and had undergone an operation to cover up their circumcision, while in Jerusalem itself Jews wore a loincloth when exercising. However, there is no evidence that that was the case. 48 In Hab 2:15 nakedness is associated with drunkenness and Hab 2:16 is a prophecy that the one who rendered others drunk will have the same thing done to him and his nakedness will be exposed. For an excellent commentary on Habbakuk that not only pays attention to linguistic matters, as well as the context of Habbakuk within the Ancient Near East, but also refers to the use made of it by later works such as the Habbakuk Pesher, the New Testament and Rabbinic works cf. F. I. Andersen, Habbakuk A New Translation with Commentary. Anchor Bible 25 (New York: Doubleday, 2001). 49 The quotation from Isa 29:7 in OG Dan 7:2a likewise strikes an optimistic note. 47

SHEDDING LIGHT ON DANIEL’S VISION

117

The Temple here is the focal point. The rest of the chapter promises that if God’s commandments are kept then the Kingdom of David will remain (2 Chr 7:18). If not, then the people will be plucked up out of the land and ‘this house which I have sanctified for my name, I will cast out of my sight And will make it a proverb and a byword among all nations’ (2 Chr 7:20)

When people question how this had come to pass, the answer is given that God brought this evil upon them because they had forsaken him by worshipping other gods (verses 21–22). Applied to MT Dan 7:2 it provides an answer to the question of why God allowed the Temple to be defiled at the time of the Maccabean Crisis. This indicates that MT Dan 7:1b–2a is likely to have received its final form after the prohibition of the practice of the Jewish religion when the Temple was no longer dedicated to Yahweh.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Andersen, F. I. Habbakuk A New Translation with Commentary. Anchor Bible 25. New York: Doubleday, 2001. Baldwin, J. Daniel. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. Leicester, UK/Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press, 1978. Charles, R. H. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1929. Collins, J. J. Daniel. Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993). Coppens, J. “Le Chapitre VII de Daniel Lecture et Commentaire,” ETL 54, (1978): 301–22. Cross, F. M. “The Development of the Jewish Scripts,” in The Bible and the Ancient Near East (ed. F.M. Cross. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1961), 173–81. Delcor, M. Le Livre de Daniel. Sources bibliques. Paris: J. Gabalda et Cie., 1971. Goldingay, J. Daniel. Word Biblical Commentary 30 (Dallas, Texas: Word Books, 1989). Goldstein, J. A. II Maccabees A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 14A. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1983. Hartman, L. F., & A. A. DiLella. The Book of Daniel. Anchor Bible 23. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co.Inc., 1978. Hatch, E., and H. A. Redpath. A Concordance to the Septuagint and the other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (including the Apocryphal Books) Vol. I. A-I. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1898. Jeansonne, S. P., The Old Greek Translation of Daniel 7–12. CBQ Monograph Series 19. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1988. Keil, C. F. Biblische Commentar über Den Propheten Daniel. Biblische Commentar über Das Alte Testament 3:5. Leipzig: Dorffling und Franke, 1969. Lacoque, A. Le Livre de Daniel. Commentaire de l’Ancien Testament XVb. Neuchatel–Paris: Delachaux et Niestlé, 1976. Lebram, J. C. H. Das Buch Daniel. Zürcher Bibelkommentare. Altes Testament, Band 23. Zurich: Theologische Verlag, 1984. Lucas, E. C. Daniel. Apollos Old Testament Commentary 20. Leicester, UK/Downers Grove, Illinois: Apollos/ Inter-Varsity Press, 2002.

118

ANNE E. GARDNER

McLay, T. The OG and Th Versions of Daniel. Septuagint and Cognate Studies 43. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1996. Meadowcroft, T. J. Aramaic Daniel and Greek Daniel. The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 198. Sheffield Academic Press, 2009. Miller, J. E. ‘Dreams and Prophetic Visions,’ Biblica 71 (1990): 401–4. Montgomery, J. A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Book of Daniel. Edinburgh: T &T Clark, 1927. Plöger, O. Das Buch Daniel. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1965. Rahlfs, A. Septuaginta. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgeseltschaft, 1979. Seow, C. L. Daniel. Louisville/London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003. Towner, W. S. “The Poetic Passages in Daniel 1–6,” CBQ 31 (1969): 317–26. Ulrich, E. “4Q Danb.” Pages 239–89 in Qumran Cave 4. XI Psalms to Chronicles. Edited by E. Ulrich et al. DJD XVI. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000. Ulrich, E. “Daniel Manuscripts from Qumran. Part 2: Preliminary Editions of 4Q Danb and 4Q Danc,” BASOR 274 (1989): 3–26. Ziegler, J., and O. Munnich. Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum Vol XVI, pars 2. Susanna. Daniel. Bel et Draco. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999.

DEVELOPMENT UNITS IN RUTH1 STEPHEN H. LEVINSOHN SIL INTERNATIONAL

Apparently redundant references to participants in a Hebrew narrative occur not only at the beginning of a new episode or to highlight the action or speech concerned, but also at the beginning of ‘development units’ (DUs). This paper contrasts the overt references to the participants in Ruth 2 with their absence in chapter 3. Much of chapter 2 is organised around a series of initiatives by Boaz, though the long reference to ‘the servant in charge of the reapers’ (JPS) in 2:6 highlights what he has to say about Ruth’s good character. The ensuing conversation between Ruth and Naomi is also presented as a series of DUs (2:19–22) but, after 3:1, the only overt reference to an active participant in the narrative (‘the man’) is at the beginning of an episode in 3:8. Chapter 3 is presented as a single DU because Naomi’s speech of 3:1–4 sets out the strategy that Ruth is to follow and ends with the statement, ‘And he will tell you what you are to do’. The rest of the chapter is basically an outworking of Naomi’s instructions, so is not treated as a new development in the story (which in turn suggests that Ruth did not deviate in any significant way from Naomi’s instructions). Furthermore, Naomi’s strategy fails because of the existence of a closer kinship-redeemer so, in that sense, following her instructions does not represent a new development, either, as far as the purpose of the story is concerned. It is only as Boaz starts to interact with the other potential kinship-redeemer in chapter 4 that further significant DUs occur.

INTRODUCTION A number of grammarians have discussed the significance of apparently redundant references to participants in Hebrew narratives. For example, Anderson writes, ‘a seemingly redundant unnecessarily repeated subject noun serves to highlight the

A shorter version of this paper was presented at the International Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature held in Helsinki, Finland in August 2018. 1

119

120

STEPHEN H. LEVINSOHN

distinctiveness of an event’.2 De Regt states that the references to David in 2 Sam 11:8, 10 ‘mark off distinct stages of his actions’,3 while Heimerdinger observes about the clauses of Gen 22 in which Abraham is named that ‘they start a new scene or open a new burst of closely related actions’.4 This has led me to propose that one of the motivations for the apparently redundant naming of subjects in Hebrew is to introduce new ‘development units’ (DUs);5 namely, packages of information that are distinct from the previous package because they present a new step or ‘development in the story or argument, as far as the author’s purpose is concerned’.6 At the August 2017 international meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Berlin, Marilyn E. Burton compared the structure of the ‘supplication narratives’ of Ruth 2 and 3.7 Although she was able to identify a number of elements that the two chapters had in common, what struck me about the Hebrew was how differently the information in the two chapters was packaged. The purpose of this paper is first to show how the overt references to the participants in chapter 2 divide the story into DUs, and then to discuss the significance of the virtual absence of overt references to the participants in chapter 3. Firstly I need to define what is meant by an ‘apparently redundant reference’ to a participant in a Hebrew narrative. It tends to be the case that, if a participant such as Naomi, Ruth or Boaz is active at a particular point in the story, then it is unnecessary to refer overtly to them when they are the subject of a Hebrew clause or sentence. Francis I. Andersen, “Salience, implicature, ambiguity, and redundancy in clauseclause relationships in Biblical Hebrew”, in Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics (ed. Robert D. Bergen. Dallas: SIL International, 1994), p. 106. 3 Lénart de Regt, Participants in Old Testament Texts and the Translator: Reference Devices and their Rhetorical Impact (Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1999), p. 20. However, de Regt goes on to explain the phenomenon in terms of highlighting; they ‘may show a crucial and climactic moment in the text, or indicate that what is about to be said is important or not expected’ (Ibid. p. 96). Since over-encoding of references to participants is used crosslinguistically to highlight, this fails to explain the frequency of over-encoding in Hebrew. 4 Jean-Marc Heimerdinger, Topic, Focus and Foreground in Ancient Hebrew Narratives. JSOT: Supplement Series 295 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), p. 124. 5 See Stephen H. Levinsohn, “NP references to active participants and story development in Ancient Hebrew”, Work Papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of North Dakota Session, vol. 44 (2000, online at http://www.und.edu/dept/linguistics/ wp/2000Levinsohn.PDF); and, “Towards a typology of story development marking (repeatedly naming the subject: The Hebrew equivalent of Greek Δέ)”, Journal of Translation 2.2 (2006, online at http://www.sil.org/siljot/2006/2/48006/siljot2006-2-04.pdf). 6 Robert A. Dooley and Stephen H. Levinsohn, Analyzing Discourse: A Manual of Basic Concepts (Dallas: SIL International, 2001), p. 93. 7 Marilyn E. Burton, Narrative Conventions on the Book of Ruth: An Alternative Look at TypeScenes. Paper presented at the International Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Berlin, August 2017. 2

DEVELOPMENT UNITS IN RUTH

121

In particular, if the subject remains the same between clauses, then there is no need to refer overtly to the subject. So, in 1:8–9 (& Naomi 3f.said8 to her two daughters-in-law, ‘Go back, each of you, to your mother’s home… May the LORD grant that each of you will find rest in the home of another husband.’ & Ø 3f.kissed them), once it is established in 1:8 that the subject is Naomi, there is no need to name Naomi again in 1:9. Similarly, if the addressee of one reported speech becomes the subject of the next, then there is no need to refer overtly to the new speaker (or, indeed, to the new addressee). So, in 2:2 (& Ruth the Moabitess 3f.said to Naomi, ‘Let me go to the fields and pick up the leftover grain behind anyone in whose eyes I find favour’. & Ø 3f.said to her, ‘Go ahead, my daughter’), once it is established that Ruth is the speaker and Naomi the addressee, there is no need to name them again when their roles are reversed, even when both participants are of the same gender. This is true even when the previous addressee acts in line with the contents of the previous reported speech, as the next sentence (2:3) shows: & Ø 3f.went out. Even in other circumstances in which there is a change of subject and the new subject is an active participant, there may well be no need to refer overtly to the new subject. This is illustrated from 2:14 (& Boaz 3m.said to her at mealtime, ‘Come over here. Have some bread and dip it in the wine vinegar.’ & Ø 3f.sat down with the harvesters, & Ø 3m.offered her some roasted grain. & Ø 3f.ate). Because the participants are male and female, there is no need to refer overtly to Boaz when he offers Ruth some toasted grain, even though he did not feature in the previous clause (she sat down with the harvesters). Nor is it necessary to identify Ruth as the person who ate the roasted grain that he offered her. It follows, then, that when an active participant becomes the subject of a new clause or sentence, an overt reference to that participant in Hebrew is usually ‘apparently redundant’.

DEVELOPMENT UNITS IN RUTH 2 Chapter 2 begins by introducing Boaz to the story in a sentence that does not describe an event, so is classified as background in narrative9 (& Naomi had a relative on her husband’s side, from the clan of Elimelech, a man of standing, & his name was Boaz). The storyline then resumes with Ruth asking Naomi for permission to go and glean. Naomi’s response and Ruth’s departure for the fields are both intro-

‘&’ represents Hebrew waw. ‘3f’, ‘3m’ and ‘3p’ refer to third person verb affixes that indicate that the subject is respectively feminine singular, masculine singular and plural. ‘Ø’ indicates the absence of any other form of reference to the subject. Reported speeches are not part of the narrative superstructure of the book. 9 Stephen H. Levinsohn, Self-Instruction Materials on Narrative Discourse Analysis (2015, online at https://www.sil.org/resources/archives/68643), §5.2.1. 8

122

STEPHEN H. LEVINSOHN

duced without further reference to either of them, even though both participants are third person singular feminine. So 2:2‒3 form a single DU.10 2&

Ruth the Moabitess 3f.said to Naomi, ‘Let me go to the fields and pick up the leftover grain behind anyone in whose eyes I find favour’. & Ø 3f.said to her, ‘Go ahead, my daughter’. 3& Ø 3f.went out & Ø 3f.came & Ø 3f.gleaned in the fields behind the harvesters &, as luck would have it, Ø 3m.was the piece of land belonging to Boaz, who was of Elimelech’s family.

In 2:4, Boaz’s arrival on the scene is introduced with wəhinnēh, which is ‘a device to call special attention to the following expression’.11 He greets the harvesters and they return the greeting. 4wəhinnēh

Boaz 3m.arrived from Bethlehem & Ø 3m.said to the harvesters, ‘The LORD be with you!’ & Ø 3p.said to him, ‘The LORD bless you!’

In spite of the fact that the change from third person plural to singular makes it perfectly clear that it is Boaz who speaks again in 2:5, he is named again, which marks this verse as the beginning of another DU. This pattern of naming Boaz when he speaks to someone, but not referring overtly to them when they reply, continues through 2:14, with one important exception, thereby indicating that this part of chapter 2 is organised around a series of initiatives by Boaz. The one exception to this pattern is the long reference to ‘the servant in charge of the reapers’ (JPS) in 2:6, which repeats the reference to him in 2:5 when he was the addressee of Boaz’s question. The effect of such a reference is to highlight what he has to say about Ruth’s good character. 5&

Boaz12 3m.said to his servant in charge of the reapers, ‘Whose young woman is that?’

6–7&

the servant in charge of the reapers 3m.answered & Ø 3m.said, ‘She is the Moabitess who came back from Moab with Naomi. & she said, “Please let me glean & gather among the sheaves behind the harvesters”. & she went into the field & has worked steadily from morning till now, except for a short rest in the shelter.’ Sentences that belong together to the same DU are grouped together. The translations into English are based on the New International Version (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1994) and/or the JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh (The Jewish Publication Society, 1999), adapted to more closely reflect the Hebrew. 11 Jan de Waard and Eugene A. Nida, A Translator’s Handbook on the Book of Ruth (New York: United Bible Societies, 1992), p. 26. 12 Bolding is used to indicate that references to participants are apparently redundant and so mark the beginning of a new DU. 10

DEVELOPMENT UNITS IN RUTH

123

8–9& Boaz 3m.said to Ruth, ‘Listen to me, my daughter. Don’t go to glean in another field and don’t go away from here. & stay here with my servant girls. Watch the field where the men are harvesting, & follow along after the girls. I have told the men not to touch you. & whenever you are thirsty, go & get a drink from the water jars the men have filled.’ 10& Ø 3f.bowed down with her face to the ground & Ø 3f.said to him, ‘Why have I found such favour in your eyes that you notice me—& I a foreigner?’ 11–12& Boaz 3s.replied, ‘I’ve been told all about what you have done for your mother-in-law since the death of your husband—how you left your father & mother & your homeland & came to live with a people you did not know before. May the LORD repay you for what you have done, & may you be richly rewarded by the LORD, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to take refuge.’ 13& Ø 3f.said, ‘May I continue to find favour in your eyes, my lord. You have given me comfort & have spoken kindly to your servant—& I do not have the standing of one of your servant girls.’ 14&

Boaz 3m.said to her at mealtime, ‘Come over here & have some bread & dip it in the wine vinegar’. & Ø 3f.sat down with the harvesters, & Ø 3m.offered her some roasted grain. & Ø 3f.ate & Ø 3f.was satisfied & Ø 3f.had some left over. 15& Ø 3f.got up to glean.

The story continues to be organised around Boaz (2:15b–16), with Ruth’s return home at the end of the day (2:17–18) not marked as a new development. (The reference to ‘her mother-in-law’ in 2:18 is not marked as ‘apparently redundant’ because Naomi last featured in the narrative [as distinct from the contents of reported speeches] in 2:2, so has to be reactivated.) 15b–16&

Boaz 3m.gave orders to his men, ‘Even if she gathers among the sheaves, don’t embarrass her. Rather, pull out some stalks for her from the bundles and leave them for her to pick up, and don’t rebuke her.’ 17& Ø 3f.gleaned in the field until evening, & Ø 3f.threshed the barley which Ø 3f.had gathered, & Ø 3m.amounted to about an ephah. 18& Ø 3f.lifted it up & Ø 3f.went to town, & her mother-in-law 3f.saw how much Ø 3f.had gathered. & Ø 3f.brought out & Ø 3f.gave her what Ø 3f.had left over after eating her fill.

The ensuing conversation between Ruth and Naomi (2:19–22) is also presented as a series of DUs. It is mainly organised around Naomi, although the information Ruth volunteers in 2:21 is also marked as a new DU. 19a& her mother-in-law 3f.said to her, ‘Where did you glean today & where did you work? Blessed be the man who took notice of you!’ 19b&

Ø 3f.told her mother-in-law about the one at whose place she had been working & said, ‘The name of the man I worked with today is Boaz’. 20a&

Naomi 3f.said to her daughter-in-law, ‘The LORD bless him! He has not stopped showing his kindness to the living & the dead.’

124

STEPHEN H. LEVINSOHN

20b&

Naomi 3f.said to her, ‘That man is our close relative; he is one of our kinsmanredeemers’. 21& Ruth the Moabitess 3f.said, ‘He even said to me, “Stay with my workers until they finish harvesting all my grain”.’ 22& Naomi 3f.said to Ruth her daughter-in-law, ‘It will be good for you, my daughter, to go with his girls & not be harmed in someone else’s field’. 23& Ø 3f.stayed close to the servant girls of Boaz to glean until the end of the barley & wheat harvests. & Ø 3f.lived with her mother-in-law.

DEVELOPMENT UNITS IN RUTH 3 Whereas chapter 2 is characterised by frequent references to the participants, as the story is divided into DUs which are mainly organised around Boaz or, later, Naomi, overt references to the participants in chapter 3 are very few. It begins with a new initiative by Naomi (3:1), but the next verses contain no ‘apparently redundant’ references to the participants (the overt reference to Boaz in 3:7 is necessary as he last featured in the narrative in 2:15–16, so has to be reactivated). 1–4& Naomi her mother-in-law 3f.said to her, ‘My daughter, should I not try to find a home for you, where you will be well provided for? & now, is not Boaz, with whose servant girls you have been, a kinsman of ours? Listen! Tonight he will be winnowing barley on the threshing floor. & you will wash & perfume yourself, & put on your best clothes, & go down to the threshing floor. Don’t let him know you are there until he has finished eating & drinking. Wîhî when he lies down, note the place where he is lying, & go & uncover his feet & lie down. & he will tell you what to do.’ 5& Ø 3f.said to her, ‘I will do whatever you say’. 6& Ø 3f.went down to the threshing floor & Ø 3f.did all that her mother-in-law 3f.told her to do. 7& Boaz 3s.ate & Ø 3m.drank & Ø 3m.was in good spirits, & Ø 3m.went to lie down at the far end of the grain pile. & Ø 3f.approached quietly, & Ø 3f.uncovered his feet & Ø 3f.lay down.

The first seven verses of chapter 3 are presented as a single DU because Naomi’s speech of 3:1–4 sets out the strategy that Ruth is to follow. Since 3:5–7 simply describe the outworking of Naomi’s instructions, they are not treated as a new development in the story. I will return to this point below, as her final comment, ‘And he will tell you what you are to do’, is still pending! The next apparently redundant reference to an active participant is in 3:8, where Boaz is now identified as ‘the man’ (hā’îš), since his role in the next scene is no longer that of a landowner relating to someone gleaning in his fields, but that of a man relating to an eligible woman. The DU is highlighted by being introduced

DEVELOPMENT UNITS IN RUTH

125

with wəhinnēh, which ‘marks the transition from less to more important events’.13 Wayəhî introduces what he discovers (‘a woman lying at his feet’). Thereafter, there is no overt reference to any of the subjects of the events of the rest of the chapter (Naomi is reactivated in 3:16 in a non-subject role). 8wəhinnēh In the middle of the night the man 3s.gave a start & Ø 3m.turned wayəhî a woman lying at his feet. 9& Ø 3m.said, ‘Who are you?’ & Ø 3f.said, ‘I am your servant Ruth. Spread the corner of your garment over me, since you are a kinsman-redeemer.’ 10–13& Ø 3m.said, ‘The LORD bless you, my daughter. This kindness is greater than that which you showed earlier: You have not run after the younger men, whether rich or poor. & now, my daughter, don’t be afraid. I will do for you all you ask, for all my fellow townsmen know that you are a woman of noble character. &, although it is true that I am near of kin, there is a kinsman-redeemer nearer than I. Stay here for the night, & in the morning if he wants to redeem, good; let him redeem. & if he is not willing, as surely as the LORD lives I will do it. Lie here until morning.’ 14& Ø 3f.lay at his feet until morning, & Ø 3f.got up before anyone could be recognized; & Ø 3m.said, ‘Don’t let it be known that a woman came to the threshing floor’. 15& Ø 3m.said, ‘Bring me the shawl you are wearing & hold it out’. & Ø 3f.held it, & Ø 3m.poured into it six measures of barley & Ø 3m.put it on her & Ø 3m.went back to town. 16& Ø 3f.came to her mother-in-law, & Ø 3f.said, ‘How did it go, my daughter?’ & Ø 3f.told her everything that the man 3s.had done for her 17& Ø 3f.said, ‘He gave me these six measures of barley, saying, “Don’t go back to your mother-in-law empty-handed”.’ 18& Ø 3f.said, ‘Wait, my daughter, until you find out what happens. For the man will not rest until the matter is settled today.’

As noted earlier, Naomi’s original instruction to Ruth ended with the words, ‘And he will tell you what you are to do’ (3:4). The above DU includes Boaz’s directions as to what Ruth is to do, together with her recounting these directions to Naomi. It is clear from Boaz’s comments about the existence of a closer kinship-redeemer (3:12–13) that the story will only develop further when he interacts with that person. Consequently, the interaction of 3:16–18 between Ruth and Naomi does not represent a new development, as far as the purpose of the story is concerned (contrast

Levinsohn, Narrative Discourse Analysis, §5.4.2. According to Wolfgang Schneider (Grammatik des Biblischen Hebräisch. Ein Lehrbuch [München: Claudius Verlag, 1982], pp. 251– 252), such expressions ‘provide the bridge between the introduction and the main section of narrative’ and ‘highlight the main event(s) of a narrative’ (see Christo H. J. van der Merwe, “The elusive Biblical Hebrew term wayyəhî: A perspective in terms of syntax, semantics and pragmatics in 1 Samuel”, Hebrew Studies 40 [1999], pp. 89, 90). 13

126

STEPHEN H. LEVINSOHN

the interaction between them in 2:18–22, which is spread over seven DUs, as each part of the interaction builds up to ‘Naomi’s Clever Plan’ for Ruth).14 So the events of chapter 3 are packaged into just two DUs: Naomi’s instructions to Ruth together with her carrying out of those instructions (3:1–7) and what happens after Boaz discovers Ruth lying at his feet (3:8–18). There is no suggestion that Ruth deviated in any significant way from Naomi’s instructions.15 It is also the case that Naomi’s original strategy fails because of the existence of a closer kinshipredeemer so, in that sense, following her instructions only marginally moves the story forward, as far as the author’s purpose is concerned. It is only as Boaz starts to interact with the other potential kinship-redeemer in chapter 4 that further significant DUs occur, as the following flow chart shows. Chapter 4 begins by reactivating Boaz (he was last active in 3:15). The first DU introduces the kinsman-redeemer to the scene and records the initial interactions between him and Boaz, with ten of the elders of the town present as witnesses. Subsequent DUs present the steps that lead to Boaz taking Ruth as his wife, the birth of David’s ancestor Obed, and the reversal of Naomi’s fortunes.16 1a&

Boaz 3m.went up to the town gate & Ø 3m.sat there.

1bwəhinnēh

the kinsman-redeemer passing by that Boaz 3s.mentioned. & Ø 3m. said, ‘Come over here, my friend; sit down’. & Ø 3m.went over & Ø 3m.sat down. 2& Ø 3m.took ten of the elders of the town & Ø 3m.said, ‘Sit here’. & Ø 3p.sat down. 3–4& Ø 3m.said to the kinsman-redeemer, ‘Naomi, who has come back from Moab, is selling the piece of land that belonged to our brother Elimelech. & I thought I should bring the matter to your attention, suggesting that you buy it in the presence of these seated here & in the presence of the elders of my people. If you will redeem it, do so. & if you will not, tell me, & I will know. For no one has the right to do it except you, & I am next in line.’ & Ø 3m.said, ‘I will redeem it’. Robert L. Hubbard, Jr., The Book of Ruth. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), p. 196. 15 Contrast Hubbard’s comment about 3:9, ‘Surprisingly, however, Ruth now departed from Naomi’s script’ as ‘she commanded Boaz: spread the corner of your garment over your maidservant’ (Hubbard, Ruth, p. 211). There is no reason to suppose that 3:1–4 report every detail of Naomi’s instructions to Ruth. Furthermore, if the author felt that Ruth had diverged in any significant way from Naomi’s instructions, it is reasonable to suppose that that would have been presented in a separate DU. 16 ‘Naomi enters the spotlight after a long absence (3:18). As noted earlier, her reappearance is only appropriate: as her personal tragedy launched the story (1:1–5), now her personal triumph climaxes it. Appropriately, the women who greeted her return to Bethlehem (1:19) also reappear. As they absorbed her cry of emptiness (1:20–21), now they announce her day of fullness (cf. v. 17).’ (Hubbard, Ruth, p. 263). 14

DEVELOPMENT UNITS IN RUTH

127

5&

Boaz 3m.said, ‘On the day you buy the land from Naomi & from Ruth the Moabitess, you acquire the dead man’s widow, in order to maintain the name of the dead with his property’. 6&

the kinsman-redeemer 3m.said, ‘I cannot redeem it lest I endanger my own estate. You redeem it yourself, for I cannot do it.’ 7(Now in earlier times in Israel, for the redemption & transfer of property to become final, one party took off his sandal & gave it to the other. This was the method of legalising transactions in Israel.) 8& the kinsman-redeemer 3m.said to Boaz,17 ‘Buy it yourself’ & Ø 3m.removed his sandal. 9–10& Boaz 3m.said to the elders and all the people, ‘Today you are witnesses that I have bought from Naomi all the property of Elimelech, Kilion & Mahlon. & I have also acquired Ruth the Moabitess, Mahlon’s widow, as my wife, in order to maintain the name of the dead with his property, & his name will not disappear from among his family & from the town records. Today you are witnesses!’ 11–12& all the people who were at the gate and the elders 3p.said, ‘We are witnesses. May the LORD make the woman who is coming into your home like Rachel & Leah, who together built up the house of Israel. & may you have standing in Ephrathah & be famous in Bethlehem. & through the offspring the LORD gives you by this young woman, may your family be like that of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah.’ 13& Boaz 3m.took Ruth & Ø 3f.became his wife. & Ø 3m.went to her, & the LORD 3m.enabled her to conceive, & Ø 3f.gave birth to a son. 14–15& the women 3p.said to Naomi: ‘Praise be to the LORD, who this day has not left you without a kinsman-redeemer. & may he become famous throughout Israel! & he will renew your life & sustain you in your old age. For your daughter-in-law, who loves you, who is better to you than seven sons, has given him birth.’ 16&

Naomi 3f.took the child & Ø 3f.laid him in her lap & Ø 3f.cared for him. the women neighbours 3p.gave him a name, saying, ‘Naomi has a son’ & Ø 3p.named him Obed. He was the father of Jesse, the father of David. 17&

CONCLUSION This paper has shown that the packaging of the events of Ruth 3 is significantly different from that of chapter 2. Whereas the events of 2:2–23 are divided into fourteen DUs, mostly representing successive initiatives by Boaz, those of 3:1–18 are presented in only two DUs, as Ruth follows Naomi’s instructions and then as Boaz The references to Boaz and the kinship-redeemer reactivate them after the explanatory comment of 4:6. 17

128

STEPHEN H. LEVINSOHN

reveals an obstacle to the realisation of Naomi’s ‘cunning plan’. The packaging of chapter 4 also contrasts with that of chapter 3 in that the events of 4:1–17 are divided into eight DUs.18

BIBLIOGRAPHY Andersen, Francis I. “Salience, implicature, ambiguity, and redundancy in clause-clause relationships in Biblical Hebrew”. Pages 99–116 in Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics. Edited by Robert D. Bergen. Dallas: SIL International, 1994. Burton, Marilyn E. Burton. Narrative Conventions on the Book of Ruth: An Alternative Look at Type-Scenes. Paper presented at the International Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Berlin, August 2017. Dooley, Robert A., and Stephen H. Levinsohn. Analyzing Discourse: A Manual of Basic Concepts. Dallas: SIL International, 2001. Heimerdinger, Jean-Marc. Topic, Focus and Foreground in Ancient Hebrew Narratives. JSOT: Supplement Series 295. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Hubbard, Jr., Robert L. The Book of Ruth. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. JPS = JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1999. Levinsohn, Stephen H. “NP references to active participants and story development in Ancient Hebrew”. Work Papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of North Dakota Session, vol. 44, 2000. Online at http://www.und.edu/dept/linguistics/wp/ 2000Levinsohn.PDF. ———. “Towards a typology of story development marking (repeatedly naming the subject: The Hebrew equivalent of Greek Δέ)”. Journal of Translation 2.2:31–42, 2006. Online at http://www.sil.org/siljot/2006/2/48006/siljot2006-2-04.pdf. ———. Self-Instruction Materials on Narrative Discourse Analysis. 2015. Online at https://www.sil.org/resources/archives/68643. van der Merwe, Christo H. J. “The elusive Biblical Hebrew term wayyəhî: A perspective in terms of syntax, semantics and pragmatics in 1 Samuel”. Hebrew Studies 40:83–114, 1999. New International Version. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1994. de Regt, Lénart. Participants in Old Testament Texts and the Translator: Reference Devices and their Rhetorical Impact. Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1999. Chapter 1 contains only three references to participants that can be classified as ‘apparently redundant’: the reference to Naomi (the addressee of the reported speech of 1:10) in 1:11, to Ruth (the addressee of the reported speech of 1:15) in 1:16, and to Naomi (the reported speaker in 1:20–21) at the beginning of the ‘summary-report’ (Hubbard, Ruth, p. 131) of 1:22. ‘Development markers’ such as apparently redundant references to participants ‘are typically NOT used in a narrative until the scene has been set for the theme-line events’ (Levinsohn, Narrative Discourse Analysis, §6.5—caps and bolding reproduced from the original). 18

DEVELOPMENT UNITS IN RUTH

129

Schneider, Wolfgang. Grammatik des Biblischen Hebräisch. Ein Lehrbuch. München: Claudius Verlag, 1982. de Waard, Jan, and Eugene A. Nida. A Translator’s Handbook on the Book of Ruth. New York: United Bible Societies, 1992.

THE WORD THAT WAS FROM THE BEGINNING: SYRIAC ETYMOLOGY IN A DIGITAL AGE DAVID CALABRO HILL MUSEUM AND MANUSCRIPT LIBRARY, ST. JOHN’S UNIVERSITY, COLLEGEVILLE, MINNESOTA This essay lays out a theoretical basis for the creation of a digital etymological lexicon of Syriac that is oriented to issues of cultural history. The proposed lexicon would enable researchers to systematically study semantic shifts, the interaction between templatic patterns and semantic domains, and the effect of language contact on specific geographical, semantic, generic, and chronological segments of the lexicon. This focus on cultural history justifies the inclusion of extensive etymologies, contrary to a recent trend in the lexicography of EgyptoSemitic languages, in which lexicons employ only pared-down etymologies or no etymologies at all. At the same time, the digital nature of the proposed lexicon renders extensive etymologies feasible. Keys to an optimal culture-focused digital etymological lexicon include (1) a clear division between the core entry, linear etymology, and comparative data; (2) interlinking of text citations to a digital text corpus; (3) interlinking of comparative data to other etymological lexicons, (4) referencing and critical use of secondary sources; and (5) extensive tagging, especially for semantic categories. I argue that Jessie Payne Smith’s Compendious Syriac Dictionary is the best starting-point for the proposed digital lexicon due to its alphabetical arrangement, its inclusion of idiomatic phrases, and its lack of preexistent etymologies and text citations.

1. INTRODUCTION The resources available to scholars interested in the etymology of Syriac words are currently plentiful but scattered. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum and Payne Smith’s Thesaurus Syriacus, although outdated in many respects, are quite informative, especially when used together. There is also profit in consulting the lexicons of cognate languages that include Syriac in their etymological analyses, such as BDB, HALOT, Leslau, and von Soden. Specialized studies such as Ciancaglini’s book Iranian Loanwords in Syriac shed more light on specific parts of the Syriac lexicon. There are also more overarching etymological studies, including most recently Kogan’s SED and Orel and Stolbova’s HSED (see below for further discussion of these works and 131

132

DAVID CALABRO

references). Each of these resources has its advantages, but not one of them is sufficient on its own; they have to be used in concert in order to obtain a properly nuanced picture of a given word’s etymology. Electronic resources such as the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon, Dukhrana Lexicon Search, and Sedra are mainly aimed at assembling the data available in the existing print resources and making the information accessible through electronic searching.1 As Syriac lexicography moves into a digital era, there is an opportunity to create a new kind of etymological resource, one that combines the advantages of the existing tools and moves beyond them. My purpose in the present essay is to provide a theoretical basis for the creation of a digital etymological dictionary of Syriac that is oriented to issues of cultural history. There are at least two facets to the novelty of what I am proposing here: (1) that the lexicon takes advantage of the opportunities offered by digital technology to expand, connect, and sort data; and (2) that it is focused on the relationship between etymology and cultural history, rather than etymology purely for historical linguistic reconstruction. In the second section of this essay, I will unpack this concept of etymology as a correlate of cultural history. The double-faceted contribution I envision, taking advantage of the organizational power of digital technology and focusing on the relationship with cultural history, is important from a theoretical standpoint, since it overcomes the rationale of some who have disparaged the inclusion of extensive etymological data in single-language lexicons. The third section of this essay will explain how this is so. I will then present, in the fourth section, what I understand to be the optimal characteristics of a culture-focused digital etymological lexicon of Syriac. Finally, I will argue for the adoption of Payne Smith’s Compendious Syriac Dictionary as the best basis for the digital etymological lexicon. This essay will not attempt a technical proof of concept for the proposed digital lexicon, which is the topic of an in-progress article that I am coauthoring with Kristian Heal and John Meyerhofer.

2. ETYMOLOGY AND CULTURAL HISTORY A large body of literature, including fundamental studies by Benjamin Lee Whorf, Mikhail Bakhtin, and Anna Wierzbicka, shows that the diachrony of a word’s semantics is far from inconsequential for the study of culture.2 The synchronic use of Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon: http://cal.huc.edu/ Dukhrana Lexicon Search: http://www.dukhrana.com/lexicon/search.php Sedra: https://sedra.bethmardutho.org 2 Whorf’s notion of the overlaying of cultural categories in language is essentially diachronic. This is made explicit in Benjamin Lee Whorf, Language, Thought, and Reality (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1956), 156–59. Bakhtin’s concept of dialogic voicing depends on the interplay over time among contexts in which words and phrases occur. Note, for example, the diachronic aspects described in Mikhail M. Bakhtin, The Dialogic Imagination. Translated by Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981), 292–94, 356–57. Wierzbicka’s concept of fine-tuned word meaning relies heavily on 1

SYRIAC ETYMOLOGY IN A DIGITAL AGE

133

a word presupposes a long history of usage that has shaped the word’s meaning over time; etymology illuminates key nodes of this history, thereby contributing to a more deeply situated description of the word’s meaning. Cultural insights from historical semantics are especially powerful when considerations of frequency and quantity come into play, showing large-scale patterns that shed light on distinct cultural features. The myriad examples of linguistic anthropological studies that ultimately depend on etymological data include Slobin’s work on verbs of motion and the famous controversy on colour terms originating in the studies of Berlin and Kay.3 Semantic shifts visible in an individual word’s etymology can be part of larger trends that invoke culturally significant overlaps of conceptual domains. For instance, a number of body part terms undergo semantic widening to include features of the physical environment (‘lip’, for example, becomes also ‘brink, shore’), showing a culturally informed tendency to view the physical world in terms of the human body. The overlapping of categories implied in shifts like this are important in a thick description of Syriac culture. When semantic information in lexical entries is tagged, digital technology allows a researcher to study such shifts typologically and with a level of accuracy that is not otherwise possible. Another opportunity for the study of etymology as a tool of cultural history comes with the Semitic derivation of nouns and adjectives from verbal roots according to templatic patterns. Certain patterns correspond to semantic categories, like colours, maladies, and conditions of human disability. Attention to which nouns belong to a given pattern, and which do not, yields important cultural-historical information. For instance, an especially salient category is that of professional nouns: physician, baker, sailor, merchant, etc. The most widespread pattern used for this type of noun is the *qattāl pattern, attested in Akkadian, Ge‘ez, Arabic, Syriac, and Hebrew.4 Examples in Syriac include dayyɔnɔ ‘judge’, ḥayyɔṭɔ ‘tailor’, and sappɔnɔ ‘mariner, sailor’.5 The pattern is also used for nouns that we might associate more with habitual behaviour or lifestyle than with professional occupation, such as gannɔḇɔ semantic associations that build up over time as words are used in contexts that live in historical memory. See Anna Wierzbicka, Understanding Cultures through Their Key Words (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 35–55, 136–44. 3 Dan I. Slobin, “Two Ways to Travel: Verbs of Motion in English and Spanish,” in Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning (ed. Shibatani Masayoshi. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 195–220. On color terms, the classic work is B. Berlin and P. Kay, Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1969). A summary of the relativist critique of Berlin and Kay is found in William A. Foley, Anthropological Linguistics: An Introduction (Malden: Blackwell, 1997), 150–65. For application to Biblical Hebrew, see Athalya Brenner, Colour Terms in the Old Testament (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1982); Maria Bulakh, “Basic Color Terms of Biblical Hebrew in Diachronic Aspect,” in Babel und Bibel 3 (ed. Leonid Cogan. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 181–216. 4 Joshua Fox, Semitic Noun Patterns (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 253–61. 5 CSD, 90, 140, 386.

134

DAVID CALABRO

‘thief’ and rawwɔyɔ ‘drunkard’.6 Whether we conclude that thievery and drunkenness were considered professions or that professions in general were considered habitual behaviours, it is clear that the range of the use of this pattern involves a significant conflation of social categories. This categorization becomes even more interesting when we consider the rich array of additional patterns used for professional nouns in Syriac. Some of these nouns occur in the *qatl and *qātil patterns, which are ubiquitous in the Semitic languages—and indeed, these forms, such as ʿabdɔ ‘servant’ and kɔhnɔ ‘priest’, have a plentiful array of cognates sharing the same pattern elsewhere in Semitic. Many forms are derived by means of the gentilic suffix -ɔy from nouns with which the professions are associated, such as šuqɔyɔ ‘peddler’ (from šuqɔ ‘market’), rɛḡlɔyɔ ‘footsoldier’ (from rɛḡlɔ ‘foot’), dayrɔyɔ ‘monk’ (from dayrɔ ‘monastery’), and qaynɔyɔ ‘blacksmith’ (perhaps connected with Tubal-Cain, the father of blacksmiths, in Genesis 4:22).7 There are also many participial forms bearing the noun suffix -ɔn, such as mḏaršɔnɔ ‘schoolmaster, teacher’, malṕɔnɔ (*muʾallipānaʾ) ‘teacher, master, schoolmaster’, and mšamšɔnɔ ‘servant, deacon’.8 A number of professional nouns are from the innovative Aramaic agent noun pattern *qātōl, for example ʾɔšuṕɔ ‘user of charms and incantations, snake-charmer’, zɔḵurɔ ‘diviner, necromancer’, ṭɔʿunɔ ‘porter’, and ʿɔmurtɔ ‘housekeeper, concubine’.9 Finally, many professional nouns have entered Syriac as loanwords, such as ʾɛsṭraṭiyuṭɔ ‘soldier’ and palaqi ‘concubine’.10 The abundance of patterns, both productive and frozen, allows for numerous near-synonyms with various ranges of use, a fertile ground for cultural-historical research. With digital technology, the semantic and chronological relationships between nominal patterns can be charted comprehensively. The combination of etymological data and semantic categorization also contributes to questions of language contact. Examples in which etymology has been put to use in this way include Siegmund Fraenkel’s book Die aramäischen Fremdwörter im Arabischen (Leiden, 1886), which grouped Aramaic loanwords by cultural domain, CSD, 74, 534. CSD, 91, 504, 528–29, 568. Aspects of the etymology of qaynɔyɔ, including the relationship to the biblical proper names, to Ar qaynun ‘blacksmith’, and to Eth kenəyā ‘artisan, craftsman, fashioner’, are problematic. See BDB, 883; Brockelmann, 664; Fraenkel, 253–54; CDG, 286. Note that the putative Akk qīnai and Ug qyn, adduced in some of these sources, do not appear in more recent lexicons of these languages. This means that all of the comparative evidence is relatively late, the earliest being the biblical proper names. 8 CSD, 254, 278, 308. 9 CSD, 30, 115, 178, 417; Theodor Nöldeke, Compendious Syriac Grammar (London: Williams and Norgate, 1904), 69 (§107); M. M. Bravmann, “The Aramaic Nomen Agentis qātōl and Some Similar Phenomena of Arabic,” BASOR 34/1 (1971): 1–4. Bravmann’s explanation of the origin of the form is unsatisfactory, although he is undoubtedly correct that the *qātōl form is “autochthonous” in Aramaic. Of course, it is not necessarily the case that Aramaic lacked terms for these professions before the development of the pattern. 10 CSD, 23, 449. 6 7

SYRIAC ETYMOLOGY IN A DIGITAL AGE

135

showing different modes of contact between Aramaic and Arabic language communities: “Kriegswesen,” “Schreibkunst,” “Handwerker und Künste,” “Christlicher Kultus,” etc. Another German book on loanwords, Heinrich Zimmern’s Akkadische Fremdwörter als Beweis für babylonischen Einfluss (Leipzig, 1917), follows the same kind of organization. A more recent work in a similar vein, although the semantic categories do not govern the overall organization of the book, is Martin Zammit’s A Comparative Lexical Study of Qur’ānic Arabic (Leiden, 2002).11 A different but comparable approach is seen in Oliver Kahl’s book Sābūr ibn Sahl’s Dispensatory in the Recension of the ʿAḍudī Hospital (Leiden, 2009), which gives a list of languages from which Arabic terms for materia medica derive, which is very telling for the cultural background of mediaeval Arabic medical practice: native Arabic (41.3%), Persian (25.8%), Greek (14.7%), etc.12 These latter two works show a very fine-tuned analysis of cultural contact, probably due to the advantages of digital technology. As with semantic shifts, this kind of fine-tuned analysis is possible when a lexical database tagged for semantic categories is in a searchable digital form.

3. RATIONALE FOR EXTENSIVE ETYMOLOGY IN A DIGITAL LEXICON OF SYRIAC Between 1955 and 1965, English-speaking scholarship on Egypto-Semitic languages13 witnessed the emergence of a new lexicographic trend whose influence has remained strong until the present. Essentially, this trend was a prioritization of context over etymology in the construction of entries, leading to entries in which etymologies were minimal or even entirely covert, with maximum space being devoted to textual citations. This was a departure from the full-blown comparative etymological approach to lexicography, which was gaining momentum in some circles at that time. One spokesman for the newer trend, whose critique against the excesses of comparative etymology has had an impact beyond its original scope, was James Barr. Although his critique was originally limited to Hebrew lexicography and oriented to the concerns of biblical studies, his work has been consciously taken up as a more general standard, even if his arguments are often simplified. Thus Falla, in his 2005 proposal of a conceptual framework for Syriac lexicography, cites primarily Barr in support of a pared-down approach to etymology, whereby etymological data are either omitted entirely or employed only where the translation value is not evident from context.14 See in particular Zammit, Comparative Lexical Study, 47–51, 564–67. Kahl, Sābūr ibn Sahl’s Dispensatory, 13. 13 I use the term Egypto–Semitic to refer to the antique Semitic languages plus Egyptian—that is, to the Afroasiatic languages whose lexicography depends to a large extent on the study of ancient written texts. 14 According to Falla, explicitly citing Barr, etymology should be used only for rare words, to arrive at the meaning when information from context is lacking. Barr did once suggest this as a viable use of etymology; however, in his later work, he argues that this is 11 12

136

DAVID CALABRO

The essence of Barr’s critique is summed up in a statement from his 1961 book, The Semantics of Biblical Language: The main point is that the etymology of a word is not a statement about its meaning but about its history; it is only as a historical statement that it can be responsibly asserted, and it is quite wrong to suppose that the etymology of a word is necessarily a guide either to its ‘proper’ meaning in a later period or to its actual meaning in that period.15

For Barr, the word meaning relates directly to the tasks of translation and exegesis; thus the meaning of the word is independent of its history. According to him, the meaning of a word is to be ascertained primarily from its use in context, where ‘context’ is strictly viewed synchronically, and the extensive comparative data in such Hebrew lexicons as HALOT only distracted from this meaning.16 This core argument, despite its original limitation to Hebrew lexicography, can be understood as representative of the general trend toward context-driven lexicography. Barr’s critique effectively articulates the rationale behind the trend as a whole. Here I wish to argue that a digital lexicon which embraces the advantages of digital technology and which focuses on the contribution of etymology to cultural research, as explained in §2 above, overcomes the problems which motivated the anti-etymological trend in Semitic lexicography and which were the focus of Barr’s critique. Thus, pace Falla, I maintain that the minimalist approach to etymology as articulated by Barr is not the preferred approach for the future of Syriac lexicography; rather, lexicons with etymologies even more extensive than those of HALOT (which Barr singled out as being particularly excessive) are an appropriate standard. To begin with, we must examine more closely the two major modern trends in Egypto-Semitic lexicography —the one trend favouring extensive etymologies within each entry and the other favouring minimal or no etymologies—and the nature of Barr’s critique in support of the second trend. A review of some of the major 20 th century lexicons of Egypto-Semitic languages may serve to illustrate the two trends (see table 1).17 when etymology can be most misleading, for the practical reason that proposed cognates in these cases often diverge semantically to a degree that their status as real cognates is in question. See Terry Falla, “A Conceptual Framework for a New Comprehensive Syriac-English Lexicon,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography I. PoSL 1 (ed. A. Dean Forbes and David G. K. Taylor. Piscataway, New Jersey: Gorgias, 2005), 1–79, pp. 29–30; James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (London: Oxford University Press, 1961), 158; idem, “Etymology and the Old Testament,” Oudtestamentische Studien 19 (1974): 1–28, p. 2; idem, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1987), 420–9. 15 Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language, 109. 16 Barr, Comparative Philology, 412–13. 17 Key to etymology ratings: 0 = no etymologies (although sporadic information relevant to etymology may be included); 1 = very sparse etymological data are included inconsistently, primarily for loanwords; 2 = etymological data are included, but the range of com-

SYRIAC ETYMOLOGY IN A DIGITAL AGE

137

Table 1: Features of Some Egypto-Semitic Dictionaries Lexicon

Date

Elaboration of Date

Etymology

Context

Syriac TS (Payne Smith)

1879, 1901, 1927

2 vols. and supplement

3

3

Brockelmann

1895, 1928

2 eds.

3

1

CSD

1902

---

1

2

BSLex

2009

---

2

3

Hebrew BDB

1906

---

3

3

KB

1953, 1958

2 eds.

2

3

HALAT

1967–1996

5 vols. and supplement

3

3

DCH

1993–2011

8 vols.

0

4

HALOT

1994

---

3

3

Arabic Freytag

1830–1837

4 vols.

1

0

Kazimirsky

1860

---

0

0

Lane

1863–1893

8 vols.

0

3

Dozy

1881

---

1

1

Wehr

1960–1979

4 eds.

1

0

Akkadian CAD

1956–2010

21 vols.

0

4

AHw

1965, 1972, 1974

3 vols.

3

3

BGP

2000

---

1

0

Ancient Egyptian WÄS

1926–1931, 1950, 1940–1955

5 vols., German-Eng. vol., 5 Belegstellen vols.

1

3

Faulkner

1962

---

0

1

EDE

1999–2007

3 vols.

4

0

parison is limited; 3 = etymological data set the word in a wider Semitic context; 4 = indepth etymological discussion is included. Key to context ratings: 0 = only definitions with no references or citations (although source of definition may be mentioned); 1 = references, little or no citations; 2 = idioms cited, but without references; 3 = extensive citations with references; 4 = exhaustive citations quoted within the entry.

138

DAVID CALABRO

Table 1: Features of Some Egypto-Semitic Dictionaries Lexicon

Date

Elaboration of Date

Etymology

Context

Coptic Spiegelberg

1921

---

2

0

Crum

1939

---

0

3

SpiegelbergWestendorf

1965, 1977

2 eds.

2

0

Černý

1976

---

2

0

Vycichl

1983

---

4

0

The more well-known Semitic lexicons available in Barr’s time include Payne Smith’s Thesaurus Syriacus (1879–1927), Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum (1895, 1928), the Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Brown, Driver, and Briggs (1906), and von Soden’s Akkadisches Handwörterbuch (1965–1974). All of these standard lexicons treat etymological data in the same way, by including a relatively short list of Semitic cognates, or a loanword source, immediately after each headword or very close to it. The grammatical forms of the word, the breakdown of the word’s senses, and examples of usage follow the etymological data. During the same time in which Barr was writing, the first volumes of the third edition of Koehler and Baumgartner’s Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament (HALAT) were being published. This lexicon included more etymological data than its predecessors, seeking to update the information in light of advances such as the decipherment of Ugaritic texts and new research in Akkadian. The opposing trend was seen in the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary, whose first volumes appeared in 1956. The CAD included extensive text citations but almost no etymological data or discussion, although this seems to have been a tacit and almost an incidental decision.18 Later, David Clines’s Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (1993– 2011) followed in the same vein, with explicit allegiance to the idea that “data about the meaning of cognate words...are strictly irrelevant to the Hebrew language,” while the meaning of the word is to be ascertained primarily by a “complex set of evi-

According to I. J. Gelb’s original vision of the CAD as laid out in Standard Operating Procedure for the Assyrian Dictionary (Chicago, July 1954), 6, 22, 29, 34, 47, each entry was to contain an etymological section. Later, Benno Landsberger, in his “Remarks on SOP” (a memorandum circulated among the CAD staff in spring 1954), suggested that the main dictionary be strictly “empirical,” with an etymological dictionary included as an appendix. Neither of these early visions came to fruition. See Erica Reiner, An Adventure of Great Dimension: The Launching of the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 2002), 23–24. 18

SYRIAC ETYMOLOGY IN A DIGITAL AGE

139

dences” including “internal consistency within the Hebrew texts,” “the testimony of ancient versions,” and “Jewish lexicographical and exegetical tradition.”19 The influence of this trend is also apparent in lexicons which have not dispensed with etymology completely, such as Michael Sokoloff’s revision of Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum. The introduction to this work presents an ambitious plan for the “complete revision” of Brockelmann’s etymologies.20 however, one statement of his reveals an approach that is actually quite different: For Syriac, a member of the eastern branch of Middle Aramaic, the user should be informed first and foremost of whether a given word exists in the closely related dialects of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic and Mandaic. If not, comparative material should then be sought in other Aramaic dialects starting with those which are closest to it both geographically and temporally, and moving further away as need be. Only then, should one turn to other Semitic languages for help.21

Essentially, Sokoloff’s revision is a drastic paring-down of the comparative scope of Brockelmann’s etymologies, which were originally intended to make the lexicon “a partial comparative Semitic dictionary.”22 In line with other Semitic lexicons of recent decades, Sokoloff devotes more space to textual citations and less space to etymology. Sokoloff does not cite a specific source for the rationale behind this approach, but the indirect influence of Barr and of the anti-etymological trend is evident in the assumption that one has recourse to comparison primarily “for help” (i.e., presumably, to support the meaning or translation value of the word). A careful reading of Barr’s contributions shows that he was not at all opposed to etymology in Semitic lexicography (at least not explicitly so). It was the apparent excesses of etymology, which distracted from the meaning of the word as ascertained from context, that were the focus of his critique. Among these excesses were the placement of the etymological data at the beginning of the entry, the corresponding “danger...of allowing the semantic analysis of the [word] to be biased by the comparative information already given,” and the “compilation concept of scholarship” whereby long lists of comparanda with exactly the same meaning were included.23 As examples of the latter, he cited the entries for ʾkl ‘eat’ and ʾzn ‘ear’ in

Clines, DCH, 1 (1993): 17–18. A certain degree of circularity is inherent in this approach, since the interpreters who have translated, glossed, and expounded the Hebrew text may themselves have been influenced by what seems internally consistent in the text, as well as by their native Aramaic or Arabic language. Moreover, this approach fails to give weight to the many instances in which comparative research in Akkadian, Ugaritic, and Aramaic has superseded the meanings of words inherited by the inner–community exegetical tradition. 20 Brockelmann–Sokoloff, xvi–xx. 21 Brockelmann–Sokoloff, xvii–xviii. 22 Brockelmann–Sokoloff, xvi. 23 Barr, Comparative Philology, 412–20. 19

140

DAVID CALABRO

HALAT, which include long lists of cognates, all of which have exactly the same meaning as the Hebrew word and thus do not contribute at all to the meaning. In these criticisms, Barr was oriented to the visual presentation of the lexicon entry on the printed page. In this respect, the criticisms are perfectly valid. They are obviated, however, when the publication is in digital form. The criticism of placement at the beginning of an entry is easily solved, even in print, by placing the etymological information at the end of the entry.24 But placement ceases to be an issue, no matter how long the list of etymological data, in digital lexicons like the Oxford English Dictionary Online, in which the etymological section is collapsed and expandable at the click of a mouse.25 The tendency to bias the semantic analysis toward the “comparative information already given” is also a relic of an age in which manuscripts were composed sequentially in handwriting or on a typewriter. Of course, modern word processors allow an etymology section to be composed after the analysis according to context, but still inserted before the body of the entry. Finally, the “compilation concept of scholarship” was problematic in view of space limitations and publication deadlines of a print volume. This concept takes on new purpose when each comparandum is hyperlinked to another digital lexicon. This can allow new etymological dictionaries to be generated by rearranging the data. For example, in a Syriac etymological lexicon, all of the Arabic comparanda could be gathered with a single search, instantly generating a partial Arabic etymological dictionary. Eventually, all of this compiled data could be mapped in different ways to reveal quantitative patterns. Space limitations are obviously not an issue when the medium is digital. If a digital lexicon project can be maintained for an indefinite period, the project can also expand continually, so the perceived temporal problems of the “compilation concept of scholarship” are no longer compelling.26 The second way in which the digital lexicon project I am proposing overcomes Barr’s critique relates to the purpose of the etymological data. For some who have taken up Barr’s work as a standard for lexicographic projects, the critique against the Cf. James K. Aitken, “Other Hebrew Lexica: Zorell and Alonso Schoekel” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III. PoSL 4 (ed. Janet Dyk and Wido van Peursen. Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias, 2008), 251–64, p. 256. 25 It is worth noting that in Brockelmann and BDB, the etymological information in each entry is set in parentheses, indicating that this information is intended to be parenthetical, as in many English dictionaries in which etymologies are included. The graphic device of the parentheses may be likened, from a functional standpoint, to a collapsible etymology section. HALAT and HALOT, while maintaining the placement of this information at the beginning of the entry, do not enclose the information in parentheses. 26 In a 1992 article, Barr reflected on the potential of digital technology, anticipating many of the thoughts expressed above. However, in that article, he quickly returned to an explicit focus on the traditional print volume. See James Barr, “Hebrew Lexicography: Informal Thoughts” in Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew (ed. Walter R. Bodine. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 137–51, pp. 138–9. 24

SYRIAC ETYMOLOGY IN A DIGITAL AGE

141

unbridled use of etymology to disclose word meanings has been subverted into an assumption that the disclosing of word meanings is actually the purpose of etymology. For those like Clines who believe that etymology can only obscure the evidence from context, the resulting conclusion is that etymology has no place in lexicography at all. However, there are clear cases in which the basic meaning of a word is known primarily through Semitic comparison. Barr himself notes, for example, the case of Hebrew ʿny ‘sing, raise a song or shout’, cognate with Arabic ǵanā ‘sing’ and thus unrelated to the Aramaic and Hebrew homonymous root ʿny ‘answer’. If it were not for the comparative evidence, says Barr, we would still be struggling with meanings related to ‘answer’, trying to make the word with this meaning fit in its various contexts.27 This case is particularly relevant to Syriac, in which the strong presence of antiphony in the traditional Christian liturgy results in the notional merging of ‘singing’ and ‘answering’ and thus in confusion of the two roots, both for native speakers and in the older lexicons.28 In addition, there are many more cases in which etymology adds a valuable second witness to the evidence from context. Nevertheless, the purpose of etymology is not only to disclose the meaning of the word, if “meaning” is taken to mean “translation value.” Etymology also helps to reveal the deep meaning or cultural-historical narrative of a word, the background accumulated in and presupposed by the word in the specific contexts in which native speakers heard it. In other words, etymology contributes to the “thick description” of the cultures we study. An auxiliary purpose, arising from the ultimate goal of revealing the meaning in this way, is to foster dialogue across disciplinary boundaries. It is true that Barr also levelled criticism against those who would use etymology to argue for distinctive cultural nuances of a word or, worse, would find theological truths hidden in the cultural background of the word. However, it is here that Barr’s argumentation is at its weakest. He consistently argues against such methods by appealing to etymology itself, showing that the conclusions of those who use these methods are wrong because they have a patchy understanding of the etymological data, as in his criticisms of theological arguments based on the English word holy.29 His arguments actually amount to an endorsement of good, careful etymology, which is far removed from pared-down etymology, and even further removed from no etymology at all. In his arguments against the use of etymology to reveal ancient Israelite cultural concepts, such as the consubstantial concept of spirit/breath/wind in the Hebrew word ruaḥ, Barr makes the mistake of appealing to Barr, “Hebrew Lexicography,” 142. TS 2:2924–27; CSD, 419; Brockelmann, 533–34. 29 Barr, Semantics of Biblical Language, 111–14. Barr shows that the etymological meaning of the English word is ‘to be kept whole, not to be touched, inviolable,’ and thus in the religious sense ‘inviolable because belonging to the gods.’ This meaning does, in fact, shed light on the modern meaning of the word in its various contexts; further, despite Barr’s general polemic against sermonizing based on (bad) etymology, it seems to me that the correct etymology of the word holy could lend itself to several good sermons. 27 28

142

DAVID CALABRO

similar etymologies in Greek, apparently not realizing that these two languages may bear witness to a shared Mediterranean cultural concept.30 In the case of ruaḥ, the semantic range is certainly not universal—it is not found, for example, in the Germanic ghost/geist, which goes back to an original sense having to do with ‘fury, anger’.31 Thus the Israelite concept is distinctive compared, at least, to Germanic culture. Also, Barr does not differentiate here between common words and rare ones, nor does he take into account the number of times in which a given semantic change appears in a language’s lexicon. These are rather important oversights, since the frequency with which semantic associations are invoked in a language has a direct bearing on the way in which the language perpetuates cultural concepts. The purpose of contributing to cultural-historical knowledge justifies an etymological project that is extensive in scope. Even entries like ʾɛḵal ‘eat’ and ʾɛḏnɔ ‘ear’ require etymologies, despite the repetitiveness of the data. These words belong to the basic vocabulary of Syriac; their etymologies are useful for comparison and contrast with the Egypto-Semitic stock as a whole. As Kogan has recently shown, the comparative data for these two words show solidarity with the Semitic languages, except for the Ethiopic branch (which shows the root blʿ and, for Amharic, the possible loanword žoro respectively).32 In addition, the etymological data include semantic extensions that show the overlay of domains. The word ʾɛḏnɔ, for example, shows the extension of a body part term to analogous animal anatomy (attested in both Syr and JPAram ‘a fish’s gill’), to material objects (Syr and JPAram ‘handle’), and to physical geography (Syr ‘promontory, bay’).33

4. KEYS TO CULTURE-FOCUSED ETYMOLOGY There are five keys that will allow a digital etymological lexicon of Syriac to contribute successfully to cultural research: (1) division into three sections: core entry with semantic breakdown and contexts/citations, linear etymology, and comparative data; (2) interlinking of contexts/citations to a digital text corpus; (3) interlinking of comparative data to other etymological lexicons; (4) registering and critical use of secondary sources; and (5) extensive tagging, especially for semantic categories. I will discuss each of these in turn. Barr, Semantics of Biblical Language, 117–18. Oxford English Dictionary online, sub ‘ghost’. The OED further notes that ‘outside Germanic the derivatives seem to point to a primary sense “to wound, tear, pull to pieces”.’ Despite the similarity in sound between ghost and gust, the two words are unrelated, the latter apparently deriving from an Old Norse word meaning ‘gush’ or ‘pour’. See OED online, sub ‘gust’. In Arabic, the words for ‘spirit’ (rūḥun) and ‘wind’ (riyāḥun) share the same root but are different lexemes, unlike Hebrew (and Greek), in which a single word means both ‘wind’ and ‘spirit’. 32 Leonid Kogan, Genealogical Classification of Semitic: The Lexical Isoglosses (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015), 30–1. 33 CSD, 4; DJPA, 36. 30 31

SYRIAC ETYMOLOGY IN A DIGITAL AGE

143

(1) Division into three sections. Each lexicon entry should begin with a core which includes a headword or lemma, morphological information, and a semantic breakdown of definitions with corresponding contextual uses. The etymological portion should follow the core and should consist of two sections. First, a linear etymological section traces the phonetic and semantic development of the word from a hypothetical proto-language (in the case of a native word), or from a foreign language (in the case of a loanword), through various stages and ultimately to the headword. Second, a comparative section gives the cognates and semantic parallels in various other Semitic languages. This threefold division is important because it allows cultural research to access both the depth of a word’s past and the breadth of its cross-Semitic (or crossAfroasiatic) relationships. On the one hand, taking into account the possibility of gathering examples through electronic searches, this allows one to explore the typology of semantic shifts. On the other hand, it allows a view of how culturallinguistic data are situated in the wider field of the language family. Ultimately, the comparative section should be as exhaustive as available sources allow. But given that this kind of project capitalizes on its potential for growth, a desire for completeness should not be allowed to bog down the work in the initial stages. The comparative agenda at the beginning can proceed from greater complexity in the nearer dialects to lesser complexity in the more distant languages. Thus, as far as common Semitic words are concerned, the various Aramaic stages and dialects included in the online Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon (CAL) can be included, plus Ugaritic, Phoenician, Biblical, Tannaitic, and Mediaeval Hebrew, and Classical and Middle Arabic. Beyond that, one would want to include Epigraphic South Arabian, Ethiopic, Akkadian, and ancient Egyptian, but the dialectal variation within these more distant languages could be summed up rather than detailed in extenso. With loanwords, the comparison needs to be as complex as necessary to trace the loan from the correct stage and dialect of the donor language to the correct stage and dialect of Aramaic; however, beyond this, it is not necessary to provide lengthy data on the development and forms of the word in the donor language.34 The comparative section should include references to lexical works where the word as cited is found. In addition, sources that explicitly mention the connections as presented should be referenced at the end of the comparative section, set off as a separate paragraph to avoid unnecessary clutter. An example of a three-part entry is the one for ʾɛḏnɔ ‘ear’, with the entry from CSD as the core, and two additional sections for the word’s etymology: On the problem of pinpointing the correct stage and dialect both of the donor language and of the borrowing language, see Claudia A. Ciancaglini, Iranian Loanwords in Syriac (Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 2008), 25–8 (on Old Persian loanwords in Syriac and the intermediary role of Imperial Aramaic); Aaron Butts, Language Change in the Wake of Empire: Syriac in Its Greco–Roman Context (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2016), 56–60 (on Greek loanwords in Syriac); Mushegh Asatrian, “Iranian Elements in Arabic: The State of Research,” Iran and the Caucasus 10 (2006): 87–106 (on Persian loanwords in Arabic). 34

144

DAVID CALABRO

ܳ ‫ ܶܐܕ‬pl. ܺ ‫ܐ ̈ܕ‬,ܶ ܶ ‫ܐ ̈ܕ‬,ܶ rarely ܳ ܴ̈ ‫ ܶܐܕ‬and ‫ ܶܐܕ ܳ ܴ̈ ܳܬ‬f. the ear; a fish’s gills; anything which stands out, as a handle, a promontory, a bay of the sea. PSem *ʾuḏn- ‘ear’ → PAram *ʾuḏn- → PSyr *ʾidnaʾ → Syr ʾɛḏnɔ. JBAram ʾuḏnɔ (Jastrow 22; DJBA 85). JPAram ʾɛḏnɔ ‘ear, handle of a jar, fish’s gill’ (DJPA 36). | Heb ʾozɛn (*ʾuzn) ‘ear’ (BDB 23–24; HALOT 1:27–28). | Ug ʾudn- ‘ear’ (DULAT 1:20). || Ar ʾuḏn‘ear’. || Ge ʾəzn ‘ear’ (CDG 52). || Akk uzn- ‘ear; wisdom, understanding’ (BGP 431). ||| AEg idn (Gardiner, Grammar [1996], 463; Takacs, EDE 1:83–84). Lit: Brockelmann 6 (Syr, JBAram, Heb, Ar, Ge, Akk, AEg); SED 6–7 (all); CDG 52 (Ge, others). (2) Interlinking to a digital text corpus. As mentioned above, much has been said about the importance of text citations in showing the semantic range of a word. Text citations also contribute to etymology, since they allow one to pinpoint the geographical regions, dialects, linguistic registers, and literary genres in which words are transmitted. For example, I have so far come across two plant names, ʾɔḇhɔl ‘juniper’ and ʾaḡdɔnɔʾ ‘asafetida’, which are described in Brockelmann-Sokoloff as being loanwords from Middle Persian (Brockelmann-Sokoloff 2, 6). This seems to come from a misreading of Ciancaglini (97, 99). However, by following up on the text citations given in Brockelmann-Sokoloff and in the Thesaurus, it is easy to tell that all of the examples in Syriac are late and come from people that were in close contact with Middle Arabic (Bar Bahlul and Bar Hebraeus). One can then investigate the Arabic sources to discover that the corresponding words are not attested in Classical Arabic, only Middle Arabic. This helps to establish the chain of transmission for both of these words from Middle Persian to Neo-Persian, then into Middle Arabic, and finally from Middle Arabic into Syriac. Linking lexicon entries to an electronic text corpus is an efficient way of achieving exhaustive coverage of textual examples. The potential of the linking is maximized when the texts in the corpus are tagged for author, geographical region, date, and genre. (3) Interlinking to other etymological lexicons. The usefulness of the Syriac etymological lexicon would expand exponentially by being linked to other digital etymological lexicons. The well-attested Semitic languages closest to Aramaic, namely Hebrew and Arabic, would be especially important to include. This would make available the range of in-depth etymological research across the variety of disciplines, breaking down the old problem of myopia due to overspecialization. Currently, in addition to the Syriac lexicon project, I am working on an etymological dictionary of Arabic, which I am planning to link to the Syriac dictionary. My research assistant, Jessica Steele, has produced a digital table of the Arabic comparanda in BDB, as well as a digital version of the index to Fraenkel’s Die aramäischen Fremdwörter im Arabischen. These two tools will be incorporated into both digital dictionary projects.

SYRIAC ETYMOLOGY IN A DIGITAL AGE

145

(4) Registering and critical use of secondary sources. Since etymology, like other subfields of philology, always involves a measure of subjectivity, etymological entries should reference secondary sources and the arguments employed in them. This should be done critically, making visible the thought processes behind the choices of presentation that are implemented in the lexicon. However, the critical approach does not obviate the need to include the various etymological options, even those which are less likely. Registering these incorrect options, and why they are incorrect, is important in reducing future time spent researching things that have already been covered. Sources should always be cited, especially sources in which argumentation is provided. This is the method employed by Gabor Takacs in EDE, which is an outstanding example of etymological lexicography.35 (5) Extensive tagging. Perhaps the greatest key to an etymological lexicon that is effective for cultural research is thorough tagging. This is important because it allows culturally-defined areas of the lexicon to be isolated and studied in terms of their linguistic history, along the lines of what Fraenkel, Zimmern, Zammit, and Kahl have done. Utilization of this potential requires tagging of semantic information. Some lexical tools actually sort the words into semantic groups, simulating the function of a computer search. A highly-regarded example of this is Louw and Nida’s two-volume Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains.36 The first volume presents the Greek words of the New Testament sorted into 93 numbered “semantic domains,” most of which have subdomains that are ordered by letter (A to Z).37 The second volume contains an alphabetical index that allows one to find a given word under the right category. A similar work for Modern Standard Arabic is Daniel Newman’s Arabic-English Thematic Lexicon. In a digital lexicon, the organization into categories is accomplished not by sorting the words into categories a priori, but by assigning semantic tags that allow the entries to be sorted through search commands. Multiple layers of tags can be I maintain this viewpoint in spite of the fact that EDE has been discontinued by Brill, a fact perhaps due in part to the negative review of the third volume by Leo Depuydt in Journal of the American Oriental Society 129 (2009): 679–82. Unfortunately, Depuydt’s review is not a fair assessment of the dictionary’s value to etymological research. 36 This book is mentioned with approval by Falla, “Conceptual Framework.” 37 The first ten domains are straightforward, each describing a narrowly–defined group of nouns: Geographical Objects and Features; Natural Substances; Plants; Animals; Foods and Condiments; Artifacts; Constructions; Body, Body Parts, and Body Products; People; Kinship Terms. There are also categories for Festivals (no. 51), Relations (this should be “Prepositions”) (no. 89), etc. But some categories seem forced (“Activities Involving Liquids or Masses,” no. 47). Others seem more like sets of synonymous lexemes (“Learn”; “Know”; “Think”; “Hold a View, Believe, Trust”; “Help, Care For”: see nos. 27–42). And some seem more like cultural domains (“Religious Activities,” no. 53). For the distinction between semantic categories and cultural domains, see below. 35

146

DAVID CALABRO

assigned, allowing multiple kinds of searches, including combined searches. In addition, not all entries have to be tagged, which avoids the need for forced categories. Many print lexicons mark semantic information in order to define what area of the lexicon a given word belongs to. A good example of this among the Semitic languages is Hans Wehr’s Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic.38 Wehr uses the following abbreviations for semantic categories, which he applies throughout the dictionary: anat. arch. archeol. arith. astron. athlet. biol. bot. chem. Chr. com. constr.-eng. cosm. dipl. econ. el. ethnol. fin. geogr. geol. geom. gram. hort. Intern.Law Isl. journ. Jud. jur. lex. magn.

Anatomy Architecture Archeology Arithmetic Astronomy Athletics Biology botany Chemistry Christian Commerce construction engineering Cosmetics Diplomacy Economy Electricity Ethnology Finance Geography Geology Geometry Grammar Horticulture International Law Islam, Islamic Journalism Judaism Jurisprudence Lexicography magnetism

math. med. meteor. mil. min. mus. naut. opt. parl. path. pharm. philos. phon. phot. phys. physiol. poet. pol. psych. relig. rhet. styl. surg. techn. tel. theat. theol. typ. zool.

mathematics medicine meteorology military mineralogy music nautics optics parliamentary language pathology pharmacy philosophy phonetics photography physics physiology poetry politics psychology religion rhetoric stylistics surgery technology telephone theatrical art theology typography Zoology

A close look at this list shows that there is some inconsistency. Aside from over particular observations such as the fact that some pairs of categories are synonymous,39 one notes that two very different levels of semantic information are being marked. For example, the categories of anatomy and botany include only nouns belonging to a certain naturally-defined “corpus” (the body and the plant kingdom), while the category of medicine may include both nouns and verbs, and may also entirely subCSD also employs semantic marking of entries, but the application is very sporadic compared to Wehr. 39 Arithmetic and mathematics, for example. Botany and horticulture could also have been merged into one category. 38

SYRIAC ETYMOLOGY IN A DIGITAL AGE

147

sume the category of anatomy. These two levels of marking correspond to what I call “semantic categories” and “cultural domains” respectively. The former includes relatively narrow groups of words, while the latter is oriented to broader walks of life. The two levels overlap, and this can be utilized in combined searches. For example, the semantic category architectural terms plus the cultural domain religion yields religious architecture. The fact that different definitions of the same word may be assigned different sets of tags can also be utilized in searches. One can find out, for example, all the cases in which an anatomical term is also applied to a kind of geographical feature, as shown in table 2. Table 2. Syriac Words Semantically Related to Anatomy and Physical Geography Word ܳ ‫ܶܐܕ‬ ܳ ‫ܳ ܽ ܪܬ‬ ܳ ‫ܻ ܽܬ‬

Physical Geographical Sense

‘ear’

‘promontory, bay’ of the sea

‘hump’ of a camel

‘mound, hill’

*‘hollow’ of the bosom

‘cavity’ in the earth

ܳܰ

‘loin, back’

‘surface’ of the water, of the sea

ܳ ‫ܻܐ‬

‘hand’

‘side, bank, shore’

‘leg, shank, shin’ of animals

‘shore, inlet, arm’ of the sea

‘lip’

‘edge’ of a valley; ‘brink, shore’ of the sea, of a river

ܳ ܰ

‘eye’; ‘socket’ of the knee

‘surface’ of the earth; ‘spring, fount, fountain, source’

ܳ ܽ

‘mouth’

‘opening’ of a well, of a cave; ‘entering in, entrance’ of a path, valley, desert; ‘surface’ of the ground

ܰ ܰ

‘head’

‘head, summit’ of a mountain

ܳ ‫ܺܪ‬

‘head’; ‘orifice’ of the stomach; ‘nipple’ of the breast; ‘uvula’ of the throat

‘summit, top’ of a mountain; ‘source, head’ of a spring, of a stream

ܳܶ

‘tooth, tusk’

‘steep rock, jutting crag, mountain peak’; ‘crag’ of a rock

‘joint; nerve, membrane; artery, vein, pulse’

‘vein in the rocks, fissure’

ܳ ܳ ܳ

ܳ

Anatomical Sense

ܶ

ܳܳ ܶ

Note: an asterisk (*) marks a word in which the anatomical sense is not primary.

The data shown in table 2 is based on the Oxford-Brigham Young University digital version of CSD, which was completed in 2015 under the direction of David Taylor and Kristian Heal, with semantic tags added by myself (in a separate version) in the summer of 2015. In all, this dictionary contains 264 anatomical terms and 101 physical geography terms. As shown in the table, the two semantic categories merge in only 13 instances, although some of the terms (‘ear’, ‘hand’, ‘mouth’, ‘head’) are among the most common in the language. Further research could investigate the quantities involved and compare them to other Semitic languages and then to other language families. One could also exam-

148

DAVID CALABRO

ine the typology of different parts of the body and what topographical features they tend to be aligned with, and in what genres and registers of the language. One could even compare how often body parts are aligned with geographical terms versus architectural terms, and so on. All of these things would help to illuminate our understanding of how ancient Syriac speakers perceived their bodies and the world around them. To collect the data in table 2, I simply did a search in the Microsoft Word version of the dictionary, which had been fully tagged for the semantic categories of anatomy and physical geography. Since this was a Microsoft Word “find” search and not a more advanced search (since we have not yet finished developing the search interface), I had to check all of the anatomy terms one by one to see which ones also had a physical geography tag. The whole process of gathering, revising, recording, and arranging the data took far less time than it would take to search through an untagged dictionary to discover how many anatomical and physical geography terms occur and where they overlap (a project that would normally take several days). A combined search in a fully developed interface would take only seconds. The XML attributes utilized so far in the semantic tags of my Syriac etymological dictionary are listed below.40 Semantic categories: anatomy of humans and animals architecture astronomy/astrology botanical and mycological names cardinal directions cardinal numerals colors costume (including armor) delocutives diseases fauna food and drink gestures institutions instruments/tools kinship meals minerals month names musical instruments cardinal numerals physical geography postures

















40 During my work on the Oxford-Brigham Young University digital version of CSD, which occasioned the research for this article, I was thinking in terms of XML tagging. A database in which the tags are values in discrete fields could work just as well. Likewise, the text of the lexicon could be allocated to database fields.

SYRIAC ETYMOLOGY IN A DIGITAL AGE professions speech verbs verbs of motion vessels weapons





Cultural domains: administration/government/law agriculture animal husbandry craftsmanship domestic life food ways linguistics/philology medicine philosophy religion ritual science warfare









149

The three sections of each entry should have different tags. The overlapping tags for semantic category and cultural domain belong in the core entry, where the definitions are separated out. The linear etymological section should be provided with tags that show types of historical change, such as the following tags I have employed so far:41 Semantic Changes: semantic widening semantic narrowing figurative or metaphoric extension metonymy synecdoche degeneration elevation





For the terms used in these tag descriptions, see Lyle Campbell, Historical Linguistics: An Introduction (2nd edition; Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2004), 27–46, 254–65. These tags are added, where applicable, to the word that results from the change. Each word in the linear sequence (except for the first) is tagged with a “prec” attribute that ties it to the preceding word in the sequence. This establishes a “singly–linked list,” in which any two (or more) parts of the sequence can be isolated in a search command, including, for example, any intermediate stage together with the first (the word of origin) and/or the last (the headword). Note that these tags are not included in the guidelines developed for module P5 of the Text Encoding Initiative. TEI P5 presents a very impoverished tag set for etymology; see TEI Consortium, TEI P5: Guidelines for Electronic Encoding and Interchange (April 6, 2015), 288– 89 (par. 9.3.4); Gerhard Budin, Stefan Majewski, and Karlheinz Mörth, “Creating Lexical Resources in TEI P5: A Schema for Multi–Purpose Digital Dictionaries,” Journal of the Text Encoding Initiative 3 (2012): 10. 41

150

DAVID CALABRO

Sound Changes: assimilation elision metathesis



Finally, the comparanda in the third section should be tagged for relationship to the headword and for language. The following are the tags I have used: Relationship attributes (with “akk” as dummy value): Loanword

Cognate

Sister from same loanword

Semantic parallel

Languages (with “lw” as dummy attribute): Akkadian

Ancient Egyptian

Arabic

Greek

Hebrew

Persian

5. WHY CSD IS THE BEST BASIS FOR A SYRIAC ETYMOLOGICAL DICTIONARY It is far better to build a thorough etymological lexicon on the basis of a lexicon that is already complete with core entries than to start from nothing. What lexicon, then, is the best basis for a Syriac etymological dictionary? The major Syriac dictionaries are tabulated, with some of their characteristics, in table 3.

SYRIAC ETYMOLOGY IN A DIGITAL AGE

151

Table 3. Syriac Dictionaries (in Chronological Order) and their characteristics Dictionary

Language

Organization

Context Indicators

Homonymous Roots

Etymological Data

Audo

SyriacSyriac

by root

limited citations

generally not separated

none

Manna

SyriacArabic

by root

none

generally not separated

none

CSD

SyriacEnglish

alphabetical

idioms, no references

separated sporadically

sporadic and sparse

Costaz

SyriacFrenchEnglishArabic

by root

none

separated

none

Brockelmann

Syriac-Latin

by root

references, very brief citations

systematically separated

extensive comparative data

BrockelmannSokoloff

SyriacEnglish

by root

text citations with references

systematically separated

restricted mostly to Aramaic words, loanwords

Thesaurus

Syriac-Latin

by root

references, brief citations

separated sporadically

fairly extensive comparative data

There are a few reasons why a revision of Jessie Payne Smith’s Compendious Syriac Dictionary is a good starting-place, and perhaps the best one, for a thorough etymological dictionary. First, unlike most dictionaries of Syriac (including Brockelmann and the Thesaurus), the Compendious Syriac Dictionary is ordered alphabetically, not by root. Jessie Payne Smith chose the alphabetical arrangement primarily for ease of use by beginners. However, this is also the most suitable arrangement for an etymological dictionary, even a digital one, which should allow for browsing and may have a print counterpart. Many arguments have been presented for arrangement by root; indeed, there seems to be a near-consensus on the virtues of arrangement by root in the literature on Syriac lexicography.42 However, in the specific case of an etymological dictionary, there is one very good reason for alphabetical arrangement. This reason has not, as T. Muraoka, “Response to Barr,” Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 7 (1994): 44–50; Wido van Peursen, “Inflectional Morpheme or Part of the Lexeme? Some Reflections on Verbs Beginning with ša- in Classical Syriac,” in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III. PoSL 4 (ed. Janet Dyk and Wido van Peursen. Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias, 2008), 41–57, p. 41; Falla, “Conceptual Framework,” 22–9. For the contrary view, see Brockelmann–Sokoloff, xx–xxi. Barr espoused the idea of an alphabetical arrangement, although he considered this a problematic choice; see Barr, “Hebrew Lexicography,” 147–8. 42

152

DAVID CALABRO

far as I am aware, been addressed in the literature. It is this: alphabetical arrangement allows issues of root assignment (which are pervasive in Syriac due to the phonetic levelling of many roots and the high frequency of loanwords) to be explicitly problematized rather than making them part of the covert choices by which the entries are ordered. Problems caused by differences in spelling can be easily solved by including signpost entries, the same solution that some have suggested for the problems caused by root arrangement. Moreover, some have suggested that arrangement by root is useful because it allows people to see at a glance the words derived from a given root, but CSD has a ready solution for this. At the ends of entries for verbs, a list of forms derived from the verbal root is given. And at the beginnings of entries for derived forms, after the headword, the root is given. This manner of presentation is ideal for a digital lexicon, because each of the derived forms at the end of a verb entry, and each of the roots given at the beginnings of the entries for the derived forms, can be hyperlinked to the corresponding entry in the lexicon. Alphabetical arrangement allows one to problematize not only root assignment but also the directionality of relationship between nouns, verbs, cognate forms in other languages, and roots. With arrangement by root, dictionaries traditionally provide etymological information only in the block of text pertaining to the root, except in the case of loanwords. Denominative verbs, although they are usually noted as such, are usually gathered with other words under the root. For the most part, this organization leaves unclarified the relationship between individual lexemes within the language and among other languages of the same family. It suggests (whether intentionally or not) that practically all of the language’s native lexicon is formed ex novo within the language, and what is held in common between cognate languages is only a set of abstract consonantal roots. In reality, the situation is more complex. In addition to a Common Semitic stock of verbal roots from which nouns may be newly formed within the language, there are Common Semitic primary nouns, inherited deverbal nouns, inherited loanwords, and denominative verbs derived from each of these types.43 A lexicographer will not likely be able to trace every word’s derivation with certainty; however, a lexicon arranged alphabetically can present the possibilities with more accuracy than typically obtains with root arrangement. Indeed, alphabetical arrangement allows the relationships to be constructed case by case, ultimately providing an empirical basis for the theoretical discussion. For instance, the word šʿɔlɔ ‘cough’ (PSem *suʿāl) belongs to a typical West Semitic nominal pattern for illnesses; but the Akkadian cognate, suʾālu, is of the same pattern,

See Leonid Kogan, “On Proto–Semitic Deverbal Derivation,” Aula Orientalis 26 (2008): 91–115. For similar observations with respect to Egyptian etymology (in response to the problematic Wurzelprinzip), see Gábor Takács, “On ‘Modern’ Popular Etymology in Egyptology,” in Babel und Bibel 2: Memoriae Igor M. Diakonoff (ed. Leonid Kogan, N. Koslova, S. Loesov, and S. Tishchenko. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 623–85. 43

SYRIAC ETYMOLOGY IN A DIGITAL AGE

153

even though this does not seem to be a regular pattern for illnesses in Akkadian.44 In this case, providing the comparative data for this noun reveals an etymological path that might differ from what a root arrangement would suggest. For nouns like malkɔ ‘king’ (versus Arabic malik), the different possibilities would be noted: syncope of the second vowel in the Northwest Semitic forms, epenthesis in the Arabic form, or independent formations from the root within each language. Meanwhile, the ordering of entries does not presuppose any one decision on directionality, but is based on the objective criterion of the word’s consonantal shape. Second, CSD includes idiomatic phrases, yet it is not cluttered with text citations and references. The listing of idiomatic phrases gives adequate contextualization for the purposes of semantic analysis for etymology. Idioms are better than text citations, since the text citations are covered by the linking of the digital lexicon to an extensive electronic text corpus. Third, etymological information is included in CSD, but only inconsistently. CSD includes very limited attributions of loanword sources. For some languages, abbreviations such as Zend (for Avestan), Pers (for Persian), and Ar(ab) (for Arabic) are used, but the source word is not given. In the case of Greek loanwords, however, the source word is spelled out. CSD also includes very limited divisions of homonymous roots, as shown in table 4. This table is not exhaustive, but it shows how sporadic the handling of homonymous roots is in CSD. Table 4. Homonymous Roots Separated in CSD Root

Meanings

Separate Text Blocks

Derived Stems Sorted

Pages

ḥmm

(I) ‘be hot’; (II) ‘sweep’

no

no

145

ḥry

(I) ‘gainsay, resist, contend’, etc.; (II) ‘to mute’ as birds

yes

yes

155

kwn

(I) ‘be, exist, begin to be’; (II) ‘be upright’

yes

yes

209–10

kpr

(I) ‘wipe, wipe clean, scour’; (II) ‘compel to apostatize, force to deny’

no

some

223

mšḥ

(I) ‘besmear, rub over; anoint’; (II) ‘measure, extend, stretch out’

yes

no

305

CSD, 589; BGP, 326; CAD, 15:340; Joshua Fox, Semitic Noun Patterns (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 230; Kogan, “On Proto–Semitic Deverbal Derivation,” 107, 109. The /s/ of suʾālu is unexpected, as the comparative data suggest that the consonant should be /š/. Fox makes the suggestion that suʾālu is a loanword in Akkadian. Against this, however, argues the fact that this is basic vocabulary, which is less frequently borrowed. Also, as Fox points out, there is one analogous Akkadian noun, namely ṣumāmu ‘thirst’. The noun suʾālu in Akkadian is attested in Middle and Standard Babylonian, and it corresponds to the verb saʾālu ‘cough’ (CAD 15:1). Perhaps the unexpected consonant /s/ is due to dissimilation from the more common verb šaʾālu/šâlu ‘ask’ (CAD, 17:274–82). 44

154

DAVID CALABRO

Table 4. Homonymous Roots Separated in CSD Root

Meanings

Separate Text Blocks

Derived Stems Sorted

Pages

ʿwd

(I) ‘uproot, tear up, disbud’; (II) ‘accustom, habituate, use, exercise’

yes

yes

403

ʿwr

(I) ‘put out eye(s), blind’; (II) ‘wake, watch’; (III) ‘descend into an enclosed valley, into the ground’

yes

yes

407

rʿy

(I) ‘feed, tend, herd, keep’; (II) ‘be contented, pleased, willing’

no

no

545

šlḥ

(I) ‘send’; (II) ‘doff, take off, strip off’

no

no

578–79

Homonymous roots which are not separated out in CSD, but which would certainly be separated out in an improved etymological dictionary based on CSD, include the following:45 bdq: (I) ‘search out, spy, explore; show, point out, declare’; (II) ‘repair, restore, remake’. blṭ: (I) ‘spring up, be prominent, protrude, project’; (II) ‘shut, bolt’; (III) ‘decay, be worm-eaten, moth-eaten’. zwn/zyn: (I) ‘feed; support, supply, sustain’; (II) ‘supply with arms’ (Pael, denominative).46 ʿny: (I) ‘answer, respond’; (II) ‘sing’; (III) ‘humble’.47 The very fact that this information is provided very inconsistently is a reason why a revision of CSD is a good place to begin a large-scale etymology project: making it consistent requires doing the research and adding the correct information. By contrast, Brockelmann’s lexicon, with its somewhat extensive etymologies at the beginnings of entries and its arrangement by root, is like the proverbial glass that is already full and thus difficult to add to.

The first three of these (bdq, blṭ, and zwn/zyn) were already recognized and revised by David Taylor in an early version of the digital CSD. 46 R. and J. Payne Smith understand the verb zayyen ‘to supply with arms’ (D–stem) to be derived from the root zwn ‘feed; support, supply, sustain’, and the noun zaynā ‘arms, armour, weapons’ to be a simple nominal derivative of the same root. Brockelmann (starting with the first edition of his lexicon in 1895), however, argues that zaynā is a Persian loanword, and he considers zayyen to be a denominative verb from zaynā. 47 Brockelmann does not recognize ‘sing’ as a separate root, but he separates out yet another root, with meanings ‘operam dedit; idoneus fuit; collocutus est; usus est’ (Brockelmann 533–5). 45

SYRIAC ETYMOLOGY IN A DIGITAL AGE

155

6. CONCLUSION What I have presented here establishes a theoretical framework for a digital etymological dictionary oriented to the concerns of cultural studies. I have suggested that the trend toward minimal etymology in Semitic lexicography, and the rationale behind it as articulated by Barr, are understandable in the context of the print culture in which they emerged but do not pose a serious challenge to the kind of lexicon proposed here. This is due in part to the flexibility inherent in digital technology, and in part to the proposed lexicon’s orientation to cultural history, which orientation requires an etymological database of extensive comparative and diachronic scope. The purpose of the proposed digital lexicon is to reveal the cultural narratives of words, thereby providing a resource for culture-focused research. I have outlined five keys to etymological lexicography; these keys, it is hoped, may serve as a guide for a digital etymological dictionary that can meet the culturefocused purpose that has been propounded here. And finally, I have argued that a revision of Jessie Payne Smith’s CSD is a good basis for this project, due to the alphabetical arrangement of the entries and the sparse nature of the etymological and contextual information provided. These features contribute to the skeletal character of the lexicon, which thus lends itself to “fleshing out” as a culture-focused etymological dictionary.

BIBLIOGRAPHY AHw = Von Soden, Wolfram. Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. 3 vols. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1965–1985. Aitken, James K. “Context of Situation in Biblical Lexica.” Pages 181–201 in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III. Edited by Janet Dyk and Wido van Peursen. PoSL 4. Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias, 2008. Asatrian, Mushegh. “Iranian Elements in Arabic: The State of Research.” Iran and the Caucasus 10 (2006): 87–106. Bakhtin, Mikhail M. The Dialogic Imagination. Translated by Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981. Barr, James. “Hebrew Lexicography: Informal Thoughts.” Pages 137–51 in Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew. Edited by Walter R. Bodine. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1992. _____. “Etymology and the Old Testament.” Oudtestamentische Studien 19 (1974): 1–28. _____. Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1987. _____. The Semantics of Biblical Language. London: Oxford University Press, 1961. BDB = Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1959. Berlin, B., and P. Kay. Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1969. BGP = Black, Jeremy, Andrew George, and Nicholas Postgate. A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2000. Bravmann, M. M. “The Aramaic Nomen Agentis qātōl and Some Similar Phenomena of Arabic.” BASOR 34/1 (1971): 1–4.

156

DAVID CALABRO

Brenner, Athalya. Colour Terms in the Old Testament. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1982. Brockelmann = Brockelmann, Karl. Lexicon Syriacum. Second edition. Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1928. Brockelmann-Sokoloff = Sokoloff, Michael. A Syriac Lexicon: A Translation from the Latin, Correction, Expansion, and Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum. Winona Lake and Piscataway: Eisenbrauns and Gorgias Press, 2009. Budin, Gerhard, Stefan Majewski, and Karlheinz Mörth. “Creating Lexical Resources in TEI P5: A Schema for Multi-Purpose Digital Dictionaries.” Journal of the Text Encoding Initiative, Issue 3, November 2012. http://journals.openedition.org/jtei/522; DOI: 10.4000/jtei.522 Bulakh, Maria. “Basic Color Terms of Biblical Hebrew in Diachronic Aspect.” Pages 181– 216 in Babel und Bibel 3. Edited by Leonid Cogan. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006. Butts, Aaron. Language Change in the Wake of Empire: Syriac in Its Greco-Roman Context. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2016. CAD = Biggs, Robert D., John A. Brinkman, Miguel Civil, Walter Farber, Ignace J. Gelb, Benno Landsberger, A. Leo Oppenheim, Erica Reiner, Martha T. Roth, and Matthew W. Stolper, eds. The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. 21 vols. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1956–2010. Campbell, Lyle. Historical Linguistics: An Introduction. 2nd edition. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2004. CDG = Leslau, Wolf. Comparative Dictionary of Geʿez. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1987. Černý = Černý, Jaroslav. Coptic Etymological Dictionary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976. Ciancaglini, Claudia A. Iranian Loanwords in Syriac. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 2008. Crum = Crum, W. E. A Coptic Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1939. CSD = Payne Smith, Jessie. A Compendious Syriac Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1902. DCH = Clines, David J. A., ed. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. 8 vols. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993–2011. Depuydt, Leo. “Review of EDE 3.” JAOS 129 (2009): 679–82. DJBA = Sokoloff, Michael. A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods. Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 2002. DJPA = Sokoloff, Michael. A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period. Ramat-Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 1990. Dozy = Dozy, Reinhart. Supplément aux dictionnaires arabes. 2 vols. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1881. DULAT = Del Olmo Lete, Gregorio, and J. Sanmartin. A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition. Second Revised Edition. 2 vols. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2004. EDE = Takács, Gabor. Etymological Dictionary of Egyptian. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1999–2008. Falla, Terry. “A Conceptual Framework for a New Comprehensive Syriac-English Lexicon.” Pages 1–79 in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography I. Edited by A. Dean Forbes and David G.K. Taylor. PoSL 1. Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias, 2005. Faulkner = Faulkner, Raymond O. A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian. Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1962.

SYRIAC ETYMOLOGY IN A DIGITAL AGE

157

Foley, William A. Anthropological Linguistics: An Introduction. Malden: Blackwell, 1997. Fox, Joshua. Semitic Noun Patterns. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003. Fraenkel, Siegmund. Die aramäischen Fremdwörter im Arabischen. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1886. Freytag = Freytag, Georg Wilhelm. Lexicon Arabico-Latinum. 4 vols. Halle: C. A. Schwetschke, 1830–1837. Gardiner, Alan. Egyptian Grammar. 3rd Edition. Oxford: Griffith Institute, 1957. Gelb, I. J. Standard Operating Procedure for the Assyrian Dictionary. Chicago, July 1954. HALAT = Baumgartner, Walter. Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament. 5 vols. and supplement. Leiden: Brill, 1967–1996. HALOT = Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. 4 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994. HSED = Orel, Vladimir E., and Olga V. Stolbova. Hamito-Semitic Etymological Dictionary: Materials for a Reconstruction. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Jastrow = Jastrow, Marcus. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. 2 vols. London: Luzac, 1903. Kahl, Oliver. Sābūr ibn Sahl’s Dispensatory in the Recension of the ʿAḍudī Hospital. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Kazimirsky = Kazimirski, A. de Biberstein. Dictionnaire Arabe-Français. 2 vols. Paris: Maisonneuve, 1860. KB = Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner. Lexicon in veteris testamenti libros. Leiden: Brill, 1958. Kogan, Leonid. Genealogical Classification of Semitic: The Lexical Isoglosses. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015. ———. “On Proto-Semitic Deverbal Derivation,” Aula Orientalis 26 (2008): 91–115. Landsberger, Benno. “Remarks on SOP.” Unpublished memorandum, Chicago, spring 1954. Lane = Lane, Edward William. An Arabic-English Lexicon. 8 vols. London: Williams and Norgate, 1863–1893. Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene A. Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains. 2 vols. New York: United Bible Societies, 1989. Muraoka, T. “Response to J. Barr.” Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 7 (1994): 44–50. Newman, Daniel. Arabic-English Thematic Lexicon. New York: Routledge, 2007. Nöldeke, Theodor. Compendious Syriac Grammar. London: Williams and Norgate, 1904. Peursen, Wido van. “Inflectional Morpheme or Part of the Lexeme? Some Reflections on Verbs Beginning with ša- in Classical Syriac.” Pages 41–57 in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography III. Edited by Janet Dyk and Wido van Peursen. PoSL 4. Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias, 2008. Reiner, Erica. An Adventure of Great Dimension: The Launching of the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 2002. SED = Militarev, Alexander, and Leonid Kogan. Semitic Etymological Dictionary, Volume 1: Anatomy of Man and Animals. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2000.

158

DAVID CALABRO

Slobin, Dan I. “Two Ways to Travel: Verbs of Motion in English and Spanish.” Pages 195– 220 in Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning. Edited by Shibatani Masayoshi. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. Spiegelberg = Spiegelberg, Wilhelm. Koptisches Handwörterbuch. Heidelberg: Carl Winters, 1921. Spiegelberg-Westendorf = Westendorf, Wolfhart. Koptisches Handwörterbuch. Bearbeitet auf Grund des Koptischen Handwörterbuchs von Wilhelm Spiegelberg. Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1977. Takács, Gábor. “On ‘Modern’ Popular Etymology in Egyptology.” Pages 623–85 in Babel und Bibel 2: Memoriae Igor M. Diakonoff. Edited by Leonid Kogan, N. Koslova, S. Loesov, and S. Tishchenko. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005. TEI Consortium. TEI P5: Guidelines for Electronic Encoding and Interchange. April 6, 2015. Thesaurus = Payne Smith, Robert. Thesaurus Syriacus. 2 vols. and supplement. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1879–1927. Vycichl = Vycichl, Werner. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue copte. Leuven: Peeters, 1983. WÄS = Erman, Adolf, and Hermann Grapow. Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache. 5 vols. Berlin: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1926–1931. Wehr = Wehr, Hans. A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1979. Whorf, Benjamin Lee. Language, Thought, and Reality. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1956. Wierzbicka, Anna. Understanding Cultures through Their Key Words. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. Zammit, Martin. A Comparative Lexical Study of Qur’ānic Arabic. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Zimmern, Heinrich. Akkadische Fremdwörter als Beweis für babylonischen Kultureinfluss. Second edition. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1917.

Online Sources Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon: http://cal.huc.edu/ Dukhrana Lexicon Search: http://www.dukhrana.com/lexicon/search.php Sedra: https://sedra.bethmardutho.org

THE SYRIAC READING DOT IN TRANSMISSION: CONSISTENCY AND CONFUSION JONATHAN LOOPSTRA UNIVERSITY OF NORTHWESTERN-ST. PAUL, MN Readers of printed Syriac Bibles are often unaware that biblical manuscripts include a variety of punctuation and ‘reading’ dots not present in modern published editions. Rather than being haphazard, as has sometimes been suggested, there is some evidence that East-Syrian scribes were cognisant of this system of ‘dottology,’ and they even struggled to pass on this often-confusing arrangement. This paper will provide an overview of the present state of research into the reception these dots in East-Syrian Syriac biblical manuscripts. In so doing, we will look at attempts by Syriac scribes to correct or clarify potentially ambiguous dots. We will also examine ways that the presence of these reading dots in Syriac biblical texts may have influenced the interpretation of these texts.

1. INTRODUCTION In her 2013 book, The Art of Listening in the Early Church, Carol Harrison reminds us that most “early Christian texts which we now read were originally spoken, rather than written, and were intended for hearers, rather than readers. They sounded, resonated, and impressed themselves upon the mind and memory through the ear rather than the eye.”1 She exhorts her readers: “We need to stop thinking about early Christianity in mute mode, allow it to sound and speak, and then listen to its echoes and resonances in those who heard it.”2 East Syrian Peshitta manuscripts include a menagerie of dots used to guide the reader in the punctuation and recitation of the Bible. Yet printed Syriac Bibles,

Carol Harrison, The Art of Listening in the Early Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 1. 2 Harrison, Art, 12. 1

159

160

JONATHAN LOOPSTRA

grammars, and chrestomathies today omit the vast majority of these dotted marks.3 Of course, these marks were not omitted malevolently. Sometimes, the Syriac edition was based on manuscripts that may predate the fully developed system.4 In other instances, editors seem to have been constrained by the technological limitations of available Syriac fonts, as well as the need for clarity and legibility to avoid burdening readers with too many dots on a printed page. 5 A good argument can also be made that Syriac-heritage scribes, especially after the tenth or eleventh centuries, misunderstood many of these traditional dotted marks, even reinterpreting them as their circumstances required.6 All the same, if we are honest with ourselves, we might admit that our printed editions of the Syriac Bible, which are devoid of the majority of these dots, might look a little foreign to those who would have read and interpreted the East Syrian Peshitta throughout most of its history. In his recent book, The Syriac Dot, George Kiraz reminds us of the importance of studying these dots, what he has called “Dottology,” for earlier generations of Syriac-speaking scribes. But he also makes it clear that there is much we still do not know about these dotted marks, especially those he labels “reading dots.” As Kiraz puts it: “Today: Dots are alive (apart from most reading dots)!”7 In other words, it is true that today’s students of the Syriac language are familiar with only a very limited number of Syriac dotted marks, mostly those used for punctuation, such as the pāsūqā (._) or full stop, the taḥtāyā ( ‫ )_܆‬or a pause after the first half of the verse, and the elāyā (‫ )_܇‬or a minor pause that subdivides a verse.8 Yet, for all intents and purposes, today’s student could spend years working with the Syriac language and never encounter the vast majority of traditional Syriac dotted marks, namely those used not so much for punctuation but for scriptural

See, e.g., The Gospels in Syriac, Printed in Nestorian Character (ed. T.P. Platt. London: British and Foreign Bible Society, 1829) and the more well-known The New Testament in Syriac (London: British and Foreign Bible Society, 1905–1920). 4 On the other hand, the Leiden Old Testament Peshitta is based on the Old Testament manuscript 7a1, which, although fairly early, does not reflect the East Syrian system of reading dots; see Leiden Peshitta Institute, The Old Testament in Syriac According to the Peshiṭta Version, 36 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1972–2013). For an introduction, see Antonio Ceriani (ed.), Translatio Syra Pescitto Veteris Testamenti ex codice Ambrosiano sec. fere VI photolithographice edita (Mediolani: J.B. Pogliani, 1876), 7–8, 77. 5 Edward Pusey and George Gwilliam, Tetraeuangelium sanctum (Oxford: Clarendon, 1901), xv (‘On Interpunctuation’), for example, made an attempt to express more of these dots than were available in previous publications, yet they still included only a select number of the East Syrian reading dots from the large number in the biblical manuscripts. Their foremost concern was to publish the Peshitta of the undivided Syriac church. 6 On this, see Judah Segal, The Diacritical Point and the Accents in Syriac (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2004), ch. 9. 7 George Kiraz, The Syriac Dot (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2015), 157. 8 Segal, Diacritical Point, 75. 3

THE SYRIAC READING DOT IN TRANSMISSION

161

recitation–marking stress, intonation, conjunction, etc.9 In truth, most scholars agree that these reading dots that would have guided the oral recitation of scripture–are practically ‘dead’. After all, without trained “teachers of reading” (maqryānē)10 it is difficult to recreate with any precision how Syriac-speaking readers would have used these dotted marks as guides to Syriac scriptural recitation. On the other hand, although the living memory behind these dots may be essentially dead, it does not necessarily follow that the inked remnants of these reading dots have disappeared entirely from the Syriac biblical text. These remnants still permeate the scriptural manuscripts. But have these dots been copied haphazardly? And, if so, does this inconsistency make any attempt to decipher these reading dots null and void? Or, on the other hand, is there enough consistency in the placement of these dotted biblical marks to allow us to interpret them? As it stands today, unfortunately, the transmission and reception of these marks across manuscripts of the Peshitta Bible remains largely unknown. This article will make two suggestions. First, patterns in the transmission of these reading dots in distinctly East Syrian Peshitta manuscripts are far more uniform than has often been assumed. But this is true only if we compare manuscripts written after what I will call the “sixth-century shift.” Second, although East Syrian scribes have by and large succeeded in transmitting the main features of their traditional system, there is evidence that they did not always fully understand, and sometimes even questioned, the very system they were so diligently handing down. It is with some irony, therefore, that although East Syrian copyists managed to pass down successfully what may be our oldest continuous witness to the recitation of the Christian scriptures, they were at the same time transmitting what might have been the main cause of this system’s ultimate demise: the ambiguity of the simple, round dot.

2. THE SIXTH-CENTURY SHIFT It has sometimes been assumed that dots in Syriac biblical manuscripts occur haphazardly and, as a result, vary greatly from manuscript to manuscript.11 But is this necessarily true? If one were to group Peshitta manuscripts together without taking into account denominational or chronological distinctions, this assumption would certainly be correct. Patterns of dots in West Syrian manuscripts differ from those in East Syrian manuscripts; likewise, patterns in early manuscripts differ from those in later ones. If we do not take these distinctions into account, we do find variation. We should be careful even with this generalization. Some have suggested that these punctuation dots were tonal, although we cannot today know for sure; see Segal, Diacritical Point, ch. 6. 10 The maqryānē were trained ‘teachers of reading’ in the East Syrian schools. 11 Regarding interpunctuation, at least, Theodor Nöldeke, Compendious Syriac Grammar, trans. James Crichton (London: Williams and Norgate, 1904), §18 writes: “The tests of the usage are not clear, and the practice is very fluctuating, at least on the part of copyists.” 9

162

JONATHAN LOOPSTRA

Yet, as Judah Segal already hinted in 1953, there are signs that a sharp distinction had occurred already by the late sixth century between East and West Syrian systems of dottology.12 This assertion tends to be backed up by the manuscript resources that are now freely and widely available thanks to recent advances in digital technology. In fact, when we confine our examination of these dots to distinctly East Syrian Peshitta manuscripts written after the sixth century, we find a surprising amount of consistency. We see an example of this sixth-century shift in passages that Coakley has puzzled over in his excellent article, “An Early Syriac Question Mark.” 13 He finds evidence that the zawgā ʿelāyā–a supralinear, double-dotted mark (‫–) _܃‬was used to introduce yes-or-no questions in early, fifth- and sixth-century manuscripts. Yet he is justifiably puzzled by (what appears to be) the use of this same mark (‫ ) _܃‬in an abbreviated guide to East Syriac dots, a tract found towards the back of the wellknown ninth-century East Syrian ‘Masora’ manuscript, BL Add. MS 12138 (899 CE).14 According to the rubricated title, this section of the Tract is supposed to provide examples of three dotted marks, the second of which should be the zawgā ʿelāyā. [mzīʿānā, zawgā ʿelāyā, and pāsūqā] ‫̈ ܂‬ ‫܃ܘ‬ ‫܁ܘ‬ to eat, and to be satisfied, and to cover her old (clothing).15 ̈ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫̈ ܗܝ܂‬ ‫܁ܕ ܃‬ ‫܁‬ until the day that he died every day of his life. ‫ܗ܂‬ ‫܃ܘ‬ ‫ܘܗ ܁‬ and they believed in the Lord and in Moses, his servant. ̈ ‫ܗܘܘ܂‬ ‫ܘ ܁ ̈ ܘܢ܃ ܬܘܬ ܕ‬ [And our Lord helped them,] confirming their words by the signs they were doing. ‫܃ ܘ ܘ ܕܐ ܢ܂‬ ‫ܕ ܢ܁ ܕ ܥ܁‬ in the name of our Lord Jesus the Messiah and in our God’s Spirit. ‫ܘ‬

‫ܙܘ‬

Isa 23:18 Jer 52:34 Exod 14:31 Mark 16:20 1 Cor 6:11

In his analysis, Coakley writes that16 these five passages are strange to see. None of them is pointed with z.e. [zawgā ʿelāyā] in any early manuscript that I have seen, and they must have acquired this

Segal, Diacritical Point, ch. 11. J. F. Coakley, “An Early Syriac Question Mark,” Aramaic Studies 10 (2012): 193–213, esp. 208. 14 Jonathan Loopstra, An East Syrian Manuscript of the Syriac ‘Masora’, 2 vols. (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2015), 2:399 (#37 in Tract). 15 These and following English translations are taken from the recently released series The Antioch Bible, ed. George Kiraz and Andreas Juckel (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2012– 2017), unless otherwise noted. 16 Coakley, “ Early Syriac Question Mark,” 208. 12 13

THE SYRIAC READING DOT IN TRANSMISSION

163

punctuation later and accidentally. How, if at all, our compiler understood their use of z.e. it is impossible to say, since they are neither questions nor even reproachful.

In other words, if one takes the title at face value, these passages should illustrate the use of the supralinear zawgā ʿelāyā to mark yes-or-no questions. But Coakley correctly notes some problems: 1) this supralinear mark does not appear in earlier, presixth-century manuscripts; and 2) none of these examples pose questions, as one might expect if this were a zawgā ʿelāyā. Coakley concludes that this mark was included “later and accidentally,” perhaps indicating that the copyist had by the ninth century already forgotten how the zawgā ʿelāyā was to be used. This passage in the ninth-century ‘Masora’ is certainly a puzzle. But it is a puzzle that we can solve if we take into consideration this sixth-century shift in Syriac dottology. First, as it turns out, we find remarkable continuity when we trace the examples in this Tract diachronically, across dated East Syrian manuscripts written before this manuscript was composed in 899 CE. That is, by focusing on just those manuscripts identified by Sebastian Brock as distinctively East Syrian,17 it would appear that from the early seventh century onward many scribes were deliberate about passing down this supralinear, double-dotted mark. Consequently, rather than being an accidental addition to this tract, these double dots appear to have been part of a tradition that can be dated as early as 600 CE, at least in the Gospel passage from Mark 16:20. Mark 16:20, ‫“( ܘ ܁ ̈ ܘܢ܃‬confirming ‫ ܁‬the word ‫ )” ܃‬across six manuscripts.18 600 CE

BL Add. MS 14460 (46r) (from Beth Nuhadra) ©British Library Board(Add. MS 14460)

I have included images from six of these distinctively East Syrian New Testament manuscripts mentioned by Sebastian P. Brock, “Early Dated MSS of the Church of the East, 7th to 13th century,” Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies 21,2 (2007): 8–34. 18 All reproductions are copyrighted, all rights reserved. Information about these manuscripts can be found in the following catalogues: W. Wright, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2002. Originally published by the Trustees of the British Museum and Longmans, 1872); H. Zotenberg, Manuscrits orientaux: Catalogues des manuscrits syriaques et sabéens (mandaïtes) de la Bibliothèque nationale (Paris: National Printer, 1874); and M. 236, Pierpont Morgan Library, New York, The Morgan Library and Museum, http://corsair.themorgan.org/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?BBID=214337. I would like to thank these libraries for permission to reproduce these images here. 17

164

JONATHAN LOOPSTRA

615 CE

BL Add. MS 14471 (52r) (from Nisibis) ©British Library Board(Add. MS 14471)

c. 749–759 CE Morgan Libr. MS M.236 (37r) (from Beth Nuhadra) ©Morgan Library (MS M.236) 768 CE

BL Add. MS 7157 (47r) (from Beth Qoqe) ©British Library Board(Add. MS 7157)

894 CE

Par. Syr. MS 342 (57v) (from Balad) ©Bibliothèque nationale de France(MS 342)

899 CE

BL Add. MS 12138 (247r) (from Harran) ©British Library Board(Add. MS 12138)

Far from being haphazard, therefore, this mark appears to have been transmitted consistently across at least a three-hundred-year span. While there is a slight chance that later readers may have added some of these dots, it seems unlikely that one user would have altered all of these manuscripts.19 If this mark was transmitted with such consistency between 600 to 899 CE, does it necessarily follow that this is truly a zawgā ʿelāyā, a marker of yes-or-no questions? After all, if these verses have one thing in common, as Coakley points out, they are not questions.20 But they do have something else in common: every one of these verses occurs immediately before the end of a unit of reading in the East Syrian system. This means that the above examples from Jeremiah and Mark are the final verses in these biblical books. The other three examples are all followed, in these manuscripts, by rubricated diamonds (‫)܀‬, often used to indicate a break in the designated reading.21 One difficulty in studying these dots is the question of whether they are original or were added by later hands. The answer is not always clear, as some dots were erased, and some were added throughout the course of a manuscript’s life. In this paper I will assume that later editors have not amended every dated East Syrian manuscript available to us. When we find consistency across every available manuscript, therefore, we may assume that this was a dot added as part of the sixth-century shift. 20 Coakley, “Early Syriac Question Mark,” 208. 21 Although these diamond text dividers often indicate the end of a reading, we should note that this is not always the case; there are exceptions, of course, depending on the preferences of the scribe. 19

THE SYRIAC READING DOT IN TRANSMISSION

165

In short, every single passage in the examples above appears to precede a major stop or pause in the scriptural reading. Instead of marking questions, therefore, all these verses appear to mark the end of a reading of scripture. This is true even in the 1 Corinthians passage, where Western European translations do not generally include a chapter break as they do for the above examples for Isa 23:18 and Exod 14:31. But we have one more clue: a later user of this ‘Masora’ manuscript has scribbled the name “zawgā ʿeṣyānā” in a margin next to the first time the passage from Exod 14:31 appears, toward the beginning of this ‘masoretic’ manuscript.22 ‫ܗ܂‬ ‫܃ܘ‬ ‫ܘܗ ܁‬ and they believed in the Lord and in Moses, his servant. marg. ‫ܐ ܙܘ‬ [read] as a zawgā ʿeṣyānā

© British Library Board (Add. MS 12138)

This zawgā ḏāmē ʿeṣyānā (literally, the ‘zawgā that is like ʿeṣyānā’) is thought to have marked a pause or helped to clarify pronunciation, usually towards the end of a unit of reading–exactly what we find in the examples above.23 More to the point, this mark appears to have been otherwise indistinguishable from the zawgā ʿelāyā; both reading marks include two dots, and both are supralinear. In fact, Segal lists both the zawgā ḏāmē ʿeṣyānā and the zawgā ʿelāyā on the same page in his work.24 In other words, only context, and possibly intonation, would have helped the reader to distinguish between these two reading marks. It would appear that the late ninth-century copyist of this Tract in the East Syrian ‘Masora’ made an error. He likely mistook the zawgā ʿelāyā (the marker of yes-orno questions) for the visually identical zawgā ḏāmē ʿeṣyānā (a marker of stops)–an easy mistake to make, especially without context. And as he would have been copying only short, abbreviated examples, the copyist would have lacked the wider context necessary to disambiguate this mark. This mistake is not an isolated event, for he makes similar errors elsewhere in this same tract.25 In fact, only a few lines later, he mistakenly labels this mark as zawgā ʿelāyā, when providing examples of the zawgā ḏāmē ʿeṣyāne.26

See BL Add. MS 12138, fol. 29v, 12. For more details on how this might have worked, see Loopstra, East Syrian Manuscript, 1:§8.4.1.2. 23 E.g., this mark occurs at the end of almost every book in the New Testament in BL Add. MS 12138 (the East-Syrian ‘Masora’), fols. 283v, 288r, 291r, 292v, 293v, 294v, 295v, 296r, 296v, 297v, 298v, 299v, and 303v. See Loopstra, East Syrian Manuscript, vol. 1. 24 Segal, Diacritical Point, 92. 25 See, e.g., #83 in the tract. BL Add. MS 12138, fol. 306v and Loopstra, East Syrian Manuscript, 2:402. 26 Loopstra, East Syrian Manuscript, 2:400 (#51 in Tract). 22

166

JONATHAN LOOPSTRA

Rather than being an anomaly, this supralinear double-dotted mark appears to have been copied and recopied in East Syrian manuscripts for hundreds of years. Our earliest example of the zawgā ḏāmē ʿeṣyāne in Mark 16:20 first appears in BL Add. MS 14460, dated to 600 CE. This is notable because some scholars have suggested that the Peshitta Gospel manuscripts BL Add. MS 14460 (600 CE) and BL Add. MS 14471 (615 CE) are early exemplars of a distinctive East Syrian system of reading and punctuation. As George Henry Gwilliam puts it, these two manuscripts are some of the first to demonstrate “a divergence of writing [that] had arisen between Eastern and Western Syrians.”27 Likewise, Brock has noted that these same two manuscripts contain “the two earliest examples” of East Syrian chapter divisions.28 From this, Brock suggests that the distinctive East Syrian system of chapter numeration may have been developed at the school of Nisibis, near where these two manuscripts were written. Both this place of origin and the date around the late sixth century would make sense if the famed “teacher of reading” Joseph Hūzāyā (c. 500 CE) was somehow involved in these changes as the later tradition suggests.29 Overall, the puzzling mistake discussed above highlights at least two notable features regarding how these reading dots were passed down. First, it appears that East Syrian scribes attempted, with some–though not perfect–success, to pass down a complex system of dotted marks that had been developed as early as the late sixth century. Second, later manuscript copyists and their readers do not always appear to fully understand what they are passing down. It was one thing to pass down, dot by dot, this traditional system of East Syrian dottology but quite another to be able to interpret aspects of the system with fluency and accuracy.

3. DOT ANXIETY When passed down from trained scribe to trained scribe, the dot is a simple and ingenious system; that is, when you know what you are looking for the dots make sense. The problem, of course, is that once the oral transmission is interrupted, forgotten, or questioned, a system built on simple dots of various sizes can become excessively obtuse. Faced with the unenviable task of passing down or interpreting the dots they encountered in their master copies, there is some evidence that Syriac copyists and their readers genuinely puzzled over elements of this system. For obvious reasons, this dot anxiety appears to be true particularly for singledotted reading marks (‫ )܁‬as opposed to reading marks consisting of multiple dots (i.e., ‫ ܄‬or ‫)܀‬. In this intricate system, a single dot (‫)܁‬, while substantially identical to any other dot (‫)܁‬, could function differently–with entirely different names– G. H. Gwilliam, “Syriac Forms of the Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons,” in Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica (Oxford: Clarendon, 1890), 2:241–72, p. 252. 28 Sebastian P. Brock, The Bible in the Syriac Tradition (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2006), 118. 29 L. Van Rompay, “Yawsep Hūzāyā” in Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage (ed. Sebastian Brock et al. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2012), 437–8. 27

THE SYRIAC READING DOT IN TRANSMISSION

167

depending on where it fell within a sentence, on what syllable it was placed, or whether it was put above, on, or below the line. We might assume that such confusion would lead scribes eventually to change this ambiguous system of dots, but there is evidence that copyists remained quite rigid in their attempts to transmit these marks even while they thought up ways to communicate their agreement or disagreement with specific dots. 3.1 The Supralinear Line One way in which copyists and their readers appear to have communicated their preferences regarding these traditional marks was by means of a supralinear line above the dot ( ). Many biblical manuscripts include these rubricated and nonrubricated lines, which apparently allowed scribes to transmit these traditional dots while also providing some measure of up-to-date commentary. Unfortunately, it is not always possible to determine which lines are original because sometimes these lines were added later in the life of the manuscript. Perhaps because it was explicitly designed for use by teachers and students, the East Syrian ‘Masora’, BL Add. MS 12138, includes one of our only detailed descriptions of how these lines would have functioned.30 The compiler tells us that he is incorporating a system of rubricated and non-rubricated lines above these dots, and this combination of lines allows him to communicate to the reader which traditional marks he prefers and which he believes should not be read.31 Most often, these lines in BL Add. MS 12138 are found over reading dots that can be traced back for centuries in other manuscripts, indicating that they have, in fact, a strong genealogy. For example, in this ‘Masora’ manuscript, a black line has been placed above a supralinear dot on the word Marān, ‘Our Lord’ in Mark 16:20 (one of the passages discussed above). Mark 16:20 ‫ܪ‬

‫ܘ ܢ܁‬, ‘and our Lord helped them’

899 CE

BL Add. MS 12138 (247r) ©British Library Board(Add. MS 12138)

894 CE

Par. Syr. MS 342 (57v) ©Bibliothèque nationale de France(MS 342)

BL Add. MS 12138, fols. 309v–310r. According to the copyist in this particular manuscript, many of these alternative marks were meant to reflect the preferences of a popular teacher Rabban Rāmīšoʿ; see Loopstra, East Syrian Manuscript, 2:viii. 30 31

168

JONATHAN LOOPSTRA

768 CE

BL Add. MS 7157 (47v) ©British Library Board(Add. MS 7157)

749–759 CE

Morgan Lib. MS M.236 (37r) ©Morgan Library (MS M.236)

615 CE

BL Add. MS 14471 (52r) ©British Library Board(Add. MS 14471)

600 CE

BL Add. MS 14460 (46r) ©British Library Board(Add. MS 14460)

As we can see, this single dot appears in manuscripts as early as the seventh century, although without a line, long before this ‘Masora’ manuscript was written. By placing a black line over this dot, the copyist of this ‘Masora’ is communicating that, although traditional and found in the “books of the maqryānē,” “if you pass over them in your reading, it is your decision.”32 In other words, perhaps hesitant to omit a traditional dot with which they disagreed or which was no longer read, copyists appear to have used these lines to indicate scribal preferences that were already later diverging from the received tradition. These lines appear above reading dots not just in the ‘Masora’ but in many other dated East Syrian Peshitta manuscripts, such as BL Add. MS 7157 (768 CE), an early manuscript of the full New Testament. In this manuscript Luke 1:2 includes four reading dots with lines placed above them,33 although both in earlier and later manuscripts these same dots all appear without lines.34 In this specific case, it may be that these lines were added for clarity by one of the later users, who noted in the margin that these marks are retme (‫) _܁‬, reading dots thought to have marked stress. 768 CE BL Add. MS 7157 ‫܁ ܗܘܘ܁ ̈ ܁‬ ‫ܗ ܢ܁ ܕ‬ ‫ܡ ܕܐ‬ marg. ‫ܬ‬ [just as they were handed down to us] by those who from the first were eyewitnesses …

Loopstra, East Syrian Manuscript, 2:409. BL Add. MS 7157, fol. 47v. 34 BL Add. MS 14460, fol., 46v; BL Add. MS 14471 fol., 52r; and Par. syr. MS 342, fol. 32 33

57v.

THE SYRIAC READING DOT IN TRANSMISSION 600 CE 615 CE 894 CE

̇ ̇ BL Add. MS 14460 ‫ܗܘܘ‬ ̇ ̇ BL Add. MS 14471 ‫ܗܘܘ‬ ̇ ̇ Par. Syr. MS 342 ‫ܗܘܘ‬

169

‫ܗ ̇ܢ ܕ‬ ‫ܗ ̇ܢ ܕ‬ ‫ܗ ̇ܢ ܕ‬

Thus, we see here a combination of the supralinear line and marginal notes, both used to clarify an ambiguous dot. Without such clarification, this dot could easily be mistaken for the ‘mzīʿānā’, a short pause. 3.2 Clarifying Ambiguities Most of the notes concerning these reading dots in dated East Syrian manuscripts are attempts to clarify ambiguities about the name or position of a dot. In many cases, the debate centers on a slight variation in how these dots were placed on a word: whether a dot should be placed above one syllable/letter or the next. This may seem trivial to us; after all, most of the reading dots debated in these manuscripts do not even appear in published Syriac Bibles today. But these variations were significant because ancient readers rightly understood that a different location for the dot, even on the same word, would change its name and function. We find such an example in Eph 3:20 in BL Add. MS 7157. Here, a later user questions the presence of a reading dot over the first syllable of the word ̇ , ‘we ask’, above the šin. The user makes a note of this, as was typical, by crossing a line through the dot that was considered incorrect.35 ‫ܘ‬ ̇‫ܕ‬ marg. ‘not truly pāqūḏā’ even more than what we ask ‘truly nīšā’ © British Library Board (Add. MS 7157) The reader has reinforced this opinion by indicating that the dot above the second syllable was to be read instead. His remarks in the margin indicate that he well understood that moving the reading dot to the šin would change the identification of the dot from a pāqūḏā to a nīšā. In the case of this particular verse, other manuscripts show us why this later reader was concerned.36 The dot above the first syllable, the šin, appears in other manuscripts as a much smaller vocalization dot, used to indicate a ptāḥā (an ‘a’ sound). Apparently, the copyist of BL Add. MS 7157 had simply enlarged the vowel

35 36

BL Add. MS 7157, fol. 170r. See, e.g., Par. syr. MS 342, fol. 216r.

170

JONATHAN LOOPSTRA

dot a little too much, with the result that this vowel mark might be misunderstood as a reading dot, the pāqūḏā ( _‫)܁‬, a mark that would make no sense in context. The later manuscript, Mingana Syr. MS 148 (seventeenth century) includes an especially high number of similar attempts to protect these traditional reading dots from possible misinterpretation.37 In Matt 2, for instance, the copyist was concerned with what appears to have been ongoing confusion over whether the reading dot on the name “Herod” should be placed over the first letter, the he (‫)ܗ‬, or over the second letter, the rīš (‫)ܪ‬. The copyist reiterates at multiple locations in this chapter that this reading dot is to be “truly upon the rīš, not upon the he.”38 Aiming for even more clarity, he names the dot in Matt 2:22 as a pāqūdā ( _‫)܁‬, a mark usually found over the first letter of a word. Mingana MS 148 ‫ܗ ̇ܪܘܕܣ‬ marg.: ‫ܕ ܪ‬ ‫ܗ‬ ‫ܪ‬ ‘pāqūdā rīš’ ‘not truly over the he’

‘truly over the rīš’

Some of our earliest manuscripts place this dot over the rīš. 39 But some copyists might have been tempted to move this reading dot to the first letter in order to avoid having it alongside the dot of the rīš, a potentially confusing situation with two dots over a single letter. Once again, we see that copyists were not necessarily far off the mark; they were, in fact, transmitting these reading dots with some degree of accuracy, usually within one or two letters of each other. Yet, despite such a small amount of variation, attentive readers were still looking out for these minute changes. This is far from the hit-or-miss system one might expect for such a complex system of dots. 3.3 Disagreement While surveying the transmission of the reading dot in these East Syrian manuscripts, only rarely do we find that Syriac scribes write out their disapproval of these traditional reading marks. More often than not, disagreement is expressed by placing a line above or through the reading dot. So, for example, in BL Add. MS 7157, Acts 23:19 and , ‘he was asking’.40 The line above the reading dot on ‫ܠ܁‬ may 34 read: ◯ ‫ܠ܁ ܗܘ‬ indicate that the mark is traditional but not necessarily to be read,41 while the other Alphonse Mingana, Catalogue of the Mingana Collection of Manuscripts, 3 vols. (Cambridge: W. Heffer and Sons, 1933), 1:340–5. 38 Ming. Syr. MS 148, fol. 15r; also in fols. 14r–14v. 39 This dot does occur over the rīš in earlier manuscripts, such as BL Add. MS 14460, fol. 2r and BL Add. MS 14471, fols. 2r–v. 40 BL Add. MS 7157, fol. 124. 41 See the explanations in BL Add. MS 12138, fols 309v-310r. Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing how much this explanation applies to these other East-Syrian manuscripts. Loopstra, East Syrian Manuscript, 2:XXXIV. 37

THE SYRIAC READING DOT IN TRANSMISSION

171

reading dot on ‫ ܗܘ‬likely indicated the copyist’s preference for this dot as opposed to the earlier, traditional one under the line. A later user, however, has crossed out the dot above the ‫ܗܘ‬, possibly in order to mark it as incorrect.42 Acts 23:24 in BL Add. MS 7157:

©British Library Board(Add. MS 7157) The above passage is also exemplary of one type of Syriac grammatical construction (participles with ‫ )ܗܘ‬in which scribes appear to have deliberated where, exactly, to place the reading dot. Should the dot be placed above the main verb, ‫ ܠ‬, or over the ‫ ?ܗܘ‬As a result, some manuscripts will have a single dot, a mzīʿānā, over the last letter of the root verb ( ‫) ܠ◯ ܗܘ‬,43 while others will have dots over both, but with a line through the dot above the ‫) ܠ◯ ܗܘ ( ܗܘ‬.44 Although, in these cases, the reading dot is technically on the same word, there appears to have been controversy over whether the dot should appear over the first or the second part of this participle. This combination of dots and lines appears on this same construction, although with different root verbs, in a number of Syriac manuscripts. In only a very few cases does a reader conclude openly that the received reading from the maqryānē, ‘teachers of reading’ is incorrect. So in Phlm 1:20, one of the readers of BL Add. MS 7157 has warned in the margin that the single, sublinear dot placed under the ‫ ܐ ܂‬, ‘Indeed’ “is present in [the books of ]the maqryānē, but is not true”.45

©British Library Board(Add. MS 7157) [.‫ܢ‬ ‫ܐ ̇ ܂ ܐ ݅ ]ܐ ܐܬܬ‬ Indeed my brother, [let me be refreshed by you in our Lord,]

marg. ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ “[it is] present in the maqryānē, but is not true”

A nearly identical warning for this same passage occurs in the margins of the seventeenth-century New Testament manuscript Mingana MS 148, the difference being that in this late manuscript the questionable reading dot is written by the copyist in red with a red line through it.46 The copyist of this manuscript warns that the reading 42

BL Add. MS 7157, fol. 124r b 26. But see also Matt 2:4 in BL Add. MS 12138, fol.

232v. Such as we find for Acts 23:19 (the passages above) in Paris Syr. MS 342, 157v and BL Add. MS 12138, fol. 274r. 44 For Acts 23:34 in BL Add. MS 12138, fol. 274r. 45 BL Add. MS 7157, fol. 186r. 46 Ming. Syr. MS 148, fol. 313v. 43

172

JONATHAN LOOPSTRA

dot is “present in the maqryānē, [but] not true,” and he names this offending dot as a mnaḥḥtā , which is thought to indicate declining intonation. Although this copyist apparently disagrees with this mark, he still continued the tradition of passing it down, albeit here as a rubricated dot. Rarely do scribes erase these traditional dots from a manuscript.47 When they do, however, it is not always clear why certain reading dots are erased and not others. Of course, it is not without some irony that debates over the relatively minute placement of these reading dots, as in the examples given above, concern marks that rarely appear in modern printed Syriac Bibles today. Although we have looked at only a handful of examples, we can glimpse the consideration copyists and later readers gave to these more ambiguous reading dots. By and large, these readers were giving their opinion on reading dots that, as we know from manuscripts, had been passed down for centuries. Yet, despite some confusion and ambiguity, copyists still attempted to transmit this complex system of dots, even those with which they evidently disagreed. This is a far cry from seeing these dots as random or haphazard collections, passed down without much care or concern.

4. RESUSCITATION OF THE READING DOT? If it is true that East Syrian copyists paid such close attention to a system of reading dots that was transmitted fairly continuously since the sixth-century shift, what might be the implications for the punctuation, interpretation, and translation of the Syriac Peshitta today? 4.1 Clarify Sentence Punctuation One reason to more carefully examine these reading dots in East Syrian manuscripts would be to allow us to better understand how sentence punctuation in these manuscripts differs from West Syrian and European ways of dividing and punctuating the text of scripture. Presently, in many passages where printed editions of the Syriac Bible include common punctuation marks such as pāsūqā, taḥtāyā, or ʿelāyā, East Syrian manuscripts have specialized reading dots, marks that may have had meanings beyond simple punctuation. For instance, in the story of the prodigal son in Luke 15, there are two verses where the manuscripts include complex reading dots instead of the common punctuation marks we find for these passages in most printed editions. Hence, when the prodigal son begs his father to accept him in verses 18 and 21 of the narrative, the printed British and Foreign Bible Society (1920) punctuates with a basic taḥtāyā (‫) ܆܆‬, used to mark a short pause: “My Father ‫)ܐ ܆( ”܆‬. On the other hand, at this location in all of the dated East Syrian manuscripts examined above, the copyists have included both a pāsūqā (full stop) and the metkaššpānā (‫)‐܄‬, a reading mark that possibly As in Acts 9:10: ‫ܗܘ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܪ ܩܬ‬ ‫ܐ ܗܘ ܕ‬. In this passage, the dot above the dalaṯ, above the word , has been erased in Paris Syr. 342, fol. 150v; although in BL Add. MS 7157, fol. 122v, a later reader has simply crossed a line through the dot. 47

THE SYRIAC READING DOT IN TRANSMISSION

173

indicated an attitude of beseeching (see below).48 The result, “My Father‫)ܐ ܄܂( ”܂܄܄‬, likely communicated to its East Syrian reader far more than a short pause, as the taḥtāyā, would have done. Even this, however, is lost on modern readers with no access to the manuscripts. As such, a close examination of these reading dots would also provide a better understanding of how verse punctuation in these manuscripts differs from Western ways of dividing the text. 4.2 Clarifying Patterns and Functions of East Syrian Reading Dots Closer attention to these reading dots would also allow us better to establish how individual dots, or combinations of these dotted marks, were used. Although most of these reading dots are indeed dead, and it is no longer possible to know how or whether they were intoned by ancient Syriac-speaking readers, the longevity of their transmission allows scholars to study their patterns of use in the Eastern Peshitta. Although at first glance, the number of these reading dots may appear overwhelming, many actually occur with relative infrequency in the East Syrian scriptures. This makes it possible to easily identify these marks when they recur. This limited repetition also allows scholars to see how these marks were used in context and to speculate as to whether there might be additional meanings for these marks beyond simple punctuation. One such study has already suggested that the more identifiable reading dot, the three-dotted taḥtāyā da-talāṯa ( _ ), was transmitted with some consistency throughout the New Testament.49 Moreover, by examining passages containing the taḥtāyā da-talāṯa, it is possible to narrow down ways this reading mark was used, mainly in passages of direct address. Similarly recognizable is the metkaššpānā (‫)‐܄‬, a two-pointed sublinear reading mark. We find that this mark occurs only twenty-two times in the Gospels, and it is placed with a high degree of regularity across most East Syrian manuscripts. Moreover, all of the passages in which it occurs include some sense of beseeching or pleading, much as the name metkaššpānā suggests.50 Of course, this tells us nothing about how this reading dot would have sounded when these passages were recited aloud by ancient readers. Yet, despite this, it is possible for us to determine that copyists used this mark consistently, not haphazardly, and on passages that lend themselves to petition or request. Matt 6:9 Matt 8:2

“Our Father‫ ܄܄‬in heaven, your name be holy.” “Sir‫ ܄܄‬if you wish, you are able to cleanse me.”

Although later grammarians discuss briefly these reading dots, most are writing after 1000, centuries removed from the earliest use of these marks. Bar ʿEbrāyā, e.g., discusses the metkaššpānā much later, in the thirteenth century; see George Phillips, A Letter by Mār Jacob, Bishop of Edessa, on Syriac Orthography (London: Williams and Norgate, 1869), 46–65. 49 Jonathan Loopstra, “Reading the Bible with the Taḥtāyā ḏa-Ṯlāṯa,” in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries (ed. Tarsee Li and Keith Dyer. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2017), 109–37. 50 Kiraz, Syriac Dot, 117. 48

174

JONATHAN LOOPSTRA

Matt 8:6 Matt 8:25 Matt 20:31 Matt 26:39 Mark 14:36 Luke 7:6 Luke 8:24 Luke 11:12 Luke 13:25 Luke 15:18 Luke 15:21 Luke 17:13 Luke 18:13 Luke 18:41 Luke 22:42 Luke 23:46 John 4:49 John 11:34 John 11:41 John 21:17

“Sir‫ ܄܄‬my son is lying at home, paralyzed and suffering terribly.” “Our Lord‫ ܄܄‬save us! We are perishing.” “Our Lord, son of David‫ ܄܄‬have mercy on us!”51 “My Father‫ ܄܄‬if it is possible, may this cup pass from me” “Abba my Father‫”܄܄‬ “Sir‫ ܄܄‬do not trouble yourself . . .” “Master, Master‫ ! ܄܄‬We are perishing!” “Our Father‫” ܄܄‬ “Our Lord, our Lord‫ ! ܄܄‬Open for us!” “My father‫ ܄܄‬I have sinned against heaven and before you.” “My father‫ ܄܄‬I have sinned against heaven and before you.” “Master, Jesus‫ ܄܄‬have mercy on us!” “God‫ ܄܄‬have mercy on me, a sinner.” “My master‫ ܄܄‬I want to see” “Father‫ ܄܄‬if you are willing, may this cup pass from me.” “My Father‫ ܄܄‬into your hand I place my spirit.” “Master‫ ܄܄‬come down before the child dies.” “Master‫ ܄܄‬come and see” “Father‫ ܄܄‬I thank you that you have heard me.” “My Lord‫ ܄܄‬you understand everything; you know that I love you.”

If, as seems true for the examples above, the metkaššpānā indicated more a sense of beseeching than a simple pause (taḥtāyā), then these older manuscripts would seem to communicate more than can be implied by the biblical punctuation that we presently find in printed Syriac Bibles. There are occasional hints that East Syrian scribes carefully distinguished between a reading mark such as the metkaššpānā (‫ )‐܄‬and punctuation such as the taḥtāyā. Keeping to the same story of the prodigal son in Luke 15, we find an example of this discrimination when the address “My Father” ( ‫ )ܐ‬is repeated three times in the narrative. Modern editions are indifferent: most include only taḥtāyā (pause) in these three passages. But East Syrian manuscripts are different. v. 12 ‫ ܐ ܆‬, ‘my father‫( ’܆‬give me the portion of your estate coming to me) v. 18 ‫ ܐ ܄‬, ‘my father‫( ’܄‬I have sinned against heaven and before you) v. 21 ‫ ܐ ܄‬, ‘my father‫( ’܄‬I have sinned against heaven and before you) As we can see, these copyists only include the taḥtāyā once, in verse 12, the first instance, when the prodigal son is demanding—not beseeching—the inheritance from his father. On the other hand, the metkaššpānā appears only in the two later instances (in verses 18 and 21), both cases when the prodigal son is pleading, desperately, for acceptance by his father. It is noteworthy that the metkaššpānā does not appear in the first instance because this first address is not an example of beseeching. We can only For the sake of clarity, I have changed this translation from the Antioch Bible, which reads, “Our Lord, have mercy on us, Son of David!” 51

THE SYRIAC READING DOT IN TRANSMISSION

175

speculate, but it might be possible that the original creator of this system, whether Joseph Hūzāyā or someone else, knew as much. 4.3 Intertextuality If these reading dots did help the ancient East Syrian reader to interpret and make connections across the Syriac Bible, this raises interesting questions about intertexuality.52 Could these reading dots, these paratextual marks, have allowed the ancient reader to draw connections between different biblical passages that would not otherwise be clear in a dot-less text? This is certainly a possibility, although pursuing it would require a more thorough study of these reading dots. So, for example, because the metkaššpānā appears only twenty-two times in the Gospels, might it be possible that the proximity of these rarer reading dots influenced the reader’s interpretation of these passages? The ancient reader of Luke, to take one example, would have encountered “father‫ ”܄‬with a metkaššpānā, both in the Lord’s prayer in Luke 11:22 and shortly afterward in the petitions of the prodigal son in Luke 15. Luke 11:12 Luke 15:18

“father‫ ܄܄‬your name be holy.” “father‫ ܄܄‬I have sinned against heaven and before you.”

Unfortunately, further studies of intertextuality must await additional work in these reading dots and the passages on which they occur in the East Syrian Bible.

5. CONCLUSIONS It is doubtful that we will ever be able to recover how, exactly, these reading dots were used in the oral recitation of the East Syrian biblical text. Even if these sounds could be recovered, we would not have the cultural matrix within which to interpret their meaning. Yet we can still trace patterns in how these dots were placed. Looking specifically at dated East Syrian biblical manuscripts, it appears that scribes after the sixth-century shift attempted to pass down a fairly standardized system of reading marks. To be sure, this ambiguous system was not perfectly transmitted; there is evidence that, as the centuries passed, copyists and their readers struggled to recall the specifics of this intricate system. Yet, overall, it could be suggested that these scribes did succeed in handing down much of this system of East Syrian dottology, especially the more complex, multi-dotted reading marks. Rather than ignoring these reading dots altogether, as is current practice, it might be worth considering the implications of this fairly stable, millennium-old dotting system for the punctuation, interpretation, and translation of the East Syrian Peshitta. Then, as Harrison has suggested, it may be possible to trace, albeit to a limited degree, the “echoes and resonances” of ancient East Syrian scriptural reading across the centuries.

Steve Moyise, “Intertextuality and Biblical Studies: A Review,” Verbum et Ecclesia JRG 23, no. 2 (2002): 418–31. 52

176

JONATHAN LOOPSTRA

BIBLIOGRAPHY Brock, Sebastian P. The Bible in the Syriac Tradition. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2006. _____. “Early Dated MSS of the Church of the East, 7th to 13th century,” Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies 21, no. 2 (2007): 8–34. Ceriani Antonio, ed. Translatio Syra Pescitto Veteris Testamenti ex codice Ambrosiano sec. fere VI photolithographice edita. Mediolani: J.B. Pogliani, 1876. Coakley, J. F. “An Early Syriac Question Mark,” Aramaic Studies 10 (2012): 193–213. Gwilliam, G. H., “Syriac Forms of the Ammonian Sections and Eusebian Canons.” Pages 241–72 in Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, volume 2. Oxford: Clarendon, 1890. Harrison, Carol. The Art of Listening in the Early Church. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Kiraz, George. The Syriac Dot. Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias, 2015. Loopstra, Jonathan. An East Syrian Manuscript of the Syriac ‘Masora’. 2 vols. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2015. _____. “How to Read the Bible with the Tahtāyā da-tlāta.” Pages 109–37 in From Ancient Manuscripts to Modern Dictionaries: Select Studies in Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek. Edited by Tarsee Li and Keith Dyer. PLAL 9. Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias, 2017. Mingana, Alphonse. Catalogue of the Mingana Collection of Manuscripts. 3 vols. Cambridge: W. Heffer and Sons, 1933. Moyise, Steve. “Intertextuality and Biblical Studies: A Review.” Verbum et Ecclesia 23:2 (2002): 418–31. Nöldeke, Theodor. Compendious Syriac Grammar. Trans. James Crichton. London: Williams and Norgate, 1904. Phillips, George. A Letter by Mār Jacob, Bishop of Edessa, on Syriac Orthography. London: Williams and Norgate, 1869. Pusey, Edward, and George Gwilliam. Tetraeuangelium sanctum. Oxford: Clarendon, 1901. Rompay, Lucas van, “Yawsep Hūzāyā.” Pages 437–8 in Gorgias Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Syriac Heritage. Ed. Sebastian P. Brock et al. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2012. Segal, Judah. The Diacritical Point and the Accents in Syriac. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2004. Originally published Oxford University Press, 1953.

THE “TRANSLATION ENTERPRISE”: TRANSLATION UNIVERSALS IN THE PESHITTA RENDERING OF KINGS JANET DYK EEP TALSTRA CENTRE FOR BIBLE AND COMPUTER VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT, AMSTERDAM Much of what we have observed while comparing the Hebrew books of Kings with the Syriac rendering reflects universal tendencies of translations. One could conclude that the tendencies articulated in the so-called translation universals possibly result from general strategies of the human brain when dealing simultaneously with different encoding systems. Due to the absence of the original source text, variations in ancient versions of the Bible have led to postulations concerning an alternative source text. When the majority of ancient translations agree in a deviation from the Hebrew text available to us, one could propose an alternative source text. Yet even here a word of caution: due to the universal tendencies of translations mentioned above, the ancient versions may have chosen a similar solution to a difficulty in the source text. Surprisingly, the effect of the formal characteristics of the source text, particularly the sound of the words involved, played a larger role than has been documented before, particularly in unusual renderings for which there is no other logical motivation

1. THE SYRIAC TRANSLATION In a project funded by the Netherlands Scientific Organisation,1 the Syriac translation of the books of Kings was compared to the Hebrew Masoretic text.2

The research presented in this article was carried out within the project “Computer Assisted Linguistic Analysis of the Peshitta,” which resulted in the volume Janet W. Dyk and Percy S. F. van Keulen, Language System, Translation Technique, and Textual Tradition in the Peshit1

177

178

JANET DYK

The languages involved are both Northwest Semitic, related in vocabulary and in language typology, yet the languages are distinct enough to have warranted a translation. Neither the original source text nor the original translation has been preserved; the available manuscripts date from a much later time and bear signs of a long history of transmission.

2. METHODOLOGY Using the principles developed at the Vrije Universiteit by the Eep Talstra Centre for Bible and Computer in its work with the Hebrew Masoretic text, an electronic version of the Syriac text was created. In this approach, graphic elements of the running text combine to form the smallest components of a language which carry meaning (morphemes), morphemes are isolated by boundary markers, patterns of morphemes are recognized as words, patterns of words as phrases, patterns of phrases as clauses, and patterns of clauses as textual hierarchy. At each level, the formal characteristics of the linguistic units involved are annotated. Once both texts were analysed in this fashion up through clause level, corresponding clauses within the two versions could be matched. A computer program developed at the Eep Talstra Centre made an initial proposal for a match between clauses on the basis of formal characteristics present in the clauses involved. Within the matched clauses, corresponding phrases were matched on the basis of their syntactic function with the clause. Within the matched phrases, corresponding words were matched on the basis of their part of speech. From the matched words, an electronic translation concordance of corresponding words in the two texts was produced.3 At each of these levels, it is necessary that the researcher approve of or adjust the proposal made by the computer program. Text-critical scholars have developed an arsenal of characterizations of the differences found between versions of ancient texts – these include harmonization, exegetical adaptation, accommodation to context, explicitation and clarification, simplification, contemporization, changes in epithets and designations, and, when all else fails, a divergent source text. Those working in this field are by and large theologians trained in ancient languages, and there is a tendency to explain phenomena mainly in relation to ancient religious texts. ta of Kings (MPI 19. Leiden: Brill, 2013). The volume contains a more extensive treatment of this and other topics. 2 The Peshitta has been transmitted in multiple manuscripts. The text of the earliest manuscripts more or less accords with what has later come to be known as the textus receptus. The Basic Textus Receptus published by Leiden University follows a manuscript from the seventh century emended in places where this text stands alone in its deviance from other manuscripts up to the twelfth century. This text served as the basis for the research project within which context the present analysis was performed. 3 The electronic translation concordance is described further below under section 3.2 Word Level.

TRANSLATION UNIVERSALS IN THE PESHITTA OF KINGS

179

During the course of the project, we were exposed to the study of general tendencies observed within translations, the so-called translation universals.4 Many of the differences we had noted between the Masoretic text and the Peshitta rendering of Kings fit into what is true of translations in general. In what follows, observations and illustrations from our research will be related to these translation universals.

3. OBSERVATIONS ON CORRESPONDING UNITS 3.1 Below Word Level — Sound Correspondences In these two related languages, a source-text word and its rendering are not merely either identical or non-identical: they can be related by systematic sound shift and sound variation, such as Systematic Phonological Shift from Sibilant to Plosive sibilant in Hebrew ‫[ז‬z] (voiced coronal alveolar)

plosive in Syriac ‫[ ܕ‬d] (voiced coronal alveolar)

‫[צ‬ts´] (voiceless emphatic alveolar) ‫[ ܛ‬t´] (voiceless emphatic alveolar) ‫[שׁ‬š] (voiceless [palato-] alveolar) ‫[ ܬ‬t] (voiceless [coronal] alveolar) 5 Using proper names as a guide to tracing sound variation between corresponding words, we found differences in the voicing of plosives, fluidity in the recording of sibilants (of which Hebrew has five and Syriac four), overlap in the recording of sounds in the velar or glottal area of the articulatory tract, and frequent exchange of [r] and [d]. To capture this throughout the entire corpus, a computer program was developed with rules for recognizing similarities and differences, and this program was run on the translation concordance. While the reader easily matches the Hebrew and Syriac names for “Israel”, their spellings are quite different: ‫ ישראל‬and ‫ܐ‬. To ensure a consistent treatment of the data, the rules behind the different spellings of Cf. K. Malmkjaer and K. Windle, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies (Oxford, 2011), especially in that volume the paper by R. Bames, “Translating the Sacred,” and that by K. Malmkjaer, “Linguistic Approaches to Translation.” Note also A. Mauranen and P. Kujamäki, eds., Translation Universals: Do they exist? (Benjamin Translation Library 48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2004). 5 An exception to the rule is exhibited in the minimal pair ‫ܫ‬ [kuš] for ‫[ כושּׁ‬kuš], ‘Cush’ (2 Kgs 19:9), and ‫[ ܬ‬kut] for ‫[ כות‬kut], ‘Cuth’, or ‘Cuthah’ (2 Kgs 17:24, 30). 4

180

JANET DYK

matched words in the two languages were formalized and applied to the entire translation concordance.6 The correspondences between phonemes encountered in the two versions of Kings are presented below, with Hebrew given on the left side of the paired columns and Syriac on the right: Systematic Variation in Spelling front Hebrew — Syriac

mid Hebrew — Syriac ‫[ר‬r] ——— ‫[ ܪ‬r]

back Hebrew — Syriac

‫[ב‬b] ——— ‫[ ܒ‬b]

‫[ד‬d] ——— ‫[ ܕ‬d]

‫[ג‬g] ——— ‫[ ܓ‬g]

‫[פ‬p] ——— ‫[ ܦ‬p]

‫[ת‬t] ——— ‫[ ܬ‬t]

‫[כ‬k] ———

‫[ט‬t´] ——— ‫[ ܛ‬t´]

‫[ק‬q] ——— ‫[ ܩ‬q]

‫[ז‬z] ——— ‫[ ܙ‬z]

‫[ ע‬ʡ] ——— ‫[ ܥ‬ʡ]

‫[צ‬ts´] ——‫[ ܨ‬ts´]

‫[ ח‬ħ] ——— ‫[ ܚ‬ħ]

‫[ ס‬s] ——— ‫[ ܣ‬s]

‫[ א‬ʔ] ——— ‫[ ܐ‬ʔ]

[k]

‫[ שׁ‬š] ——— ‫[ ܫ‬š] ‫[ שׂ‬ś] The phonetic characteristics of sound correspondences between cognate words have been implemented in a computer program applied to all forms in the electronic translation concordance. These correspondences in phonetic or graphic characteristics play a role in a number of unusual renderings, as we will illustrate. 3.2 Word Level The electronic translation concordance provides the part of speech of the item involved,7 the frequencies of occurrences of a word in each of the languages, where these

Special thanks is due to Constantijn Sikkel for the development of this program. In the database, the following parts of speech are distinguished (in alphabetical order): adjective, adverb, conjunction, interjection, negation, non-pronominal interrogative, noun, 6 7

TRANSLATION UNIVERSALS IN THE PESHITTA OF KINGS

181

occurrences are to be found, and which words correspond to one another at that point. From this we can see which synonyms were used to render a particular word, whether there is a preferred rendering of an item, cases where a form has no corresponding element in the other version, and unexpected renderings which fall outside of the usual semantic field. The most fascinating cases are those where the translation deviates from the source text. Sometimes a different Hebrew homograph is chosen for the rendering, as in 1 Kgs 20:38, where the translator read “dust, ashes” (‫—א ֶפר‬ʔefɛr), ֵ a more fă fer]). The miliar word, instead of the more unusual “headdress, scarf” (‫[—א ֵפר‬ʔɐ ֲ surrounding sentence was adjusted to fit with this choice (“his eyes” becomes “his face” maybe because one would hardly put dust in one’s eyes): 1 Kgs 20:38 ‫בא ֵפר על־עיניו‬ ֲ ‫ויתחפש‬ “and he disguised himself with a scarf over his eyes” ̈ ‫ܐ ܗܝ‬ ‫ܘ‬ “and he covered his face with ashes / dust” Of particular interest are the cases where the sound of the source text is preserved while the rendering is not a direct translation of the source text. The Hebrew text of 1 Kgs 4:7–19 presents a list of officers containing a discrepancy in numbers: v7 states that there are twelve officers over Israel; however, in the following verses, thirteen are mentioned. Twelve of these are mentioned by name with the region for which they were responsible. In v19 a thirteenth officer is mentioned without giving his name and his region. 1 Kgs 4:19 ‫וניצב אחד אשר בארץ‬ “and one officer, who [was] in the land” ̈ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܐ ܘ ܪ‬ “and the officers had control in the land” The Syriac version of v19 smooths out the difficulty of the difference in numbers and provides a fitting conclusion to the list. It could be that the translator recognized the difficulty in the Hebrew text and solved this by reading the Hebrew letters differently, thus reading the Hebrew number “one” as the verb “grasp, have control”. This might seem farfetched, but the two words have the same sound: [ɛħad]. This choice led to a few adjustments, such as skipping the relative pronoun ‫ אשׁר‬so that the preposition in ‫ בארץ‬came to be directly connected to the word before it, the verb “grasp, have control”. The translator successfully preserved the sound of the preposition, pronoun (distinguishing between personal, demonstrative, and interrogative pronouns), proper noun, and verb.

182

JANET DYK

source text and rendered a sentence meaningful in the context, solving at the same time the discrepancy in the counting of the officers. However, it could also be that this felicitous result was accidental, that is, that the translator read or heard the Hebrew word “one” as the Syriac verb, and then made the best of it. 3.3 Above Word Level As this example illustrates, small shifts at word or phrase level can have far-reaching effects at sentence level. We will consider more examples below when a survey of universal tendencies in translations is given.

4. TRANSLATION UNIVERSALS In scientific research we search for general patterns, attempting to rise above the knowledge concerning single occurrences and discover universally valid principles. In this way, bridges can be built between diverse fields of scientific disciplines and insights from one field can enrich another. 4.1 Tendencies of Translations in General Studies on the universal nature of translations provide a broader context in which observations of particular translations can be placed. In one Finnish study, texts translated from two different languages—Russian and English—were compared both with non-translated texts and with each other. The findings indicated that translated texts deviated clearly from untranslated texts, and that, on the whole, translations bore a closer affinity to other translations than to untranslated texts or to the source texts, although the different source languages showed individual profiles of deviation.8 We came to the conclusion that the fact that translated texts tend to resemble each other can be attributed to general tendencies of the human brain when simultaneously dealing with two encoding systems. In comparison to the source text, translations exhibit the following tendencies:9 translations tend to be longer translations contain explicitation translations have a lower lexical density translations exhibit simplification and levelling texts deemed to be holy writ are treated more conservatively These tendencies will be explained below and illustrated by examples from the books of Kings.10 A. Mauranen, “Corpora, universals and interference,” in Mauranen and Kujamäki, Translation Universals, 65–82, at p. 79. 9 See S. Lind, “Translation Universals?” TIC TALK 63 (2007): 1–10, pp. 2–4. 8

TRANSLATION UNIVERSALS IN THE PESHITTA OF KINGS

183

4.2 Examples of Translation Universals in Peshitta Kings 4.2.1 Overall Length Translated texts are customarily longer than their source texts due to the tendency towards explicitation (see section 4.2.2). The Peshitta of Kings is 1.5% longer than the Masoretic text. If we were to disregard the statistics on the definite article (which in Hebrew counts as a separate lexeme, but is not a separate lexeme in Syriac), the difference in overall length in words is more than 9%. In particular, adjectives, prepositions, and pronouns occur significantly more frequently in the Peshitta rendering than in the Masoretic text. In the following example, the Syriac makes clear that which is assumed to be the intention of the Hebrew text: 2 Kgs 8:12 ‫ויאמר‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬

“and he said” “and Elijah said to him”

4.2.2 Explicitation Explicitation involves adding material that is taken to be implicit in the source text. The effect is that the translation at times appears to be more logical or to run more smoothly than the source text: ambiguous cases are disambiguated, the progression of the narrative is clarified, and information is provided to fill in gaps in the information in the source text. For example, the story of the fall of Jerusalem in the Hebrew text is given in a telegraphic style: 2 Kgs 25:4 ‫וכל־אנשי המלחמה הלילה דרך שער בין החמיתם‬ “and all the men of war [at] night [by] way of the gate between the walls” ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܘ ܘܢ‬ ‫ܪ ܕ‬ “and all the men of war fled and went out from the city in the night in the gate that [is] in the wall” It will be noted that the English translation of the Hebrew text required a few additional prepositions to make it more readable, thus illustrating the principle of explicitation at work in translations. The Syriac rendering fills in the gaps and runs more smoothly. As a result of this tendency, translations tend to have a lower lexical density than the original.

For more examples of many of the features outlined below, see Dyk and van Keulen, Language System. 10

184

JANET DYK

4.2.3 Lexical Density Languages are built up roughly of two types of words: content words, like nouns, proper nouns, adjectives, and verbs, and function words, such as conjunctions, prepositions, and pronouns. Lexical density is the proportion of content words to function words. In Peshitta Kings the proportion of content words to function words is lower than in the source text: when translations disambiguate or make explicit, much of this is done by adding function words. 4.2.4 Simplification and Levelling In simplification more general terms may replace specific ones (for example, in English, “red” as a translation for terms such as “scarlet”, “crimson”, “ruddy”, and “rubicund”), various short sentences can replace a long one, modifying phrases and words can be omitted, and repetition and variation can be reduced. These all are related to the tendency in translated texts “to gravitate toward the centre of the continuum.”11 There is a “relatively higher level of homogeneity of translated texts,” in contrast to non-translated texts which tend to be more idiosyncratic and to contain a higher level of variance.12 In Peshitta Kings there are about 10% fewer unique lexical items than in the Hebrew text. Furthermore, the Peshitta reduces the amount of variation in the spelling of Hebrew names and even renders different names by a single item. The avoidance of repetition—even when the repetition has a special function in the source text—can involve single words, but also phrases or clauses, and in one case a whole verse. This tendency can be illustrated by the following cases. In narratives, Hebrew often uses a series of different verbs to convey a single movement. The Syriac rendering frequently reduces the number of verbs without the loss of significant information: 2 Kgs 1:13 ‫ויעל ויבא‬ ‫ܘ‬

“and he went up and came” “and he went up”

Other examples with verbs of movement include:

M. Baker, “Corpus-based Translation Studies: The Challenges That Lie Ahead,” in Terminology, LSP and Translation. Studies in language engineering in honour of Juan C. Sager, ed. H. I. Somers (Benjamins Translation Library 18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1996), 175–86, p. 184. 12 S. Laviosa, Corpus-based Translation Studies: Theory, Findings, Applications (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2002), 73; see also D. Williams, Recurrent Features of Translation in Canada: A CorpusBases Study (Ottowa: Phd dissertation, 2005), 8: “Specifically, we will find fewer examples of unattested words and phrases in translated corpora.” 11

TRANSLATION UNIVERSALS IN THE PESHITTA OF KINGS

185

Reduction in the Rendering of the Verbs of Movement 1 Kgs 10:29 1 Kgs

13:1713

1 Kgs 13:29 1 Kgs 19:4 2 Kgs 1:13 2 Kgs 1:13 2 Kgs

3:714

2 Kgs 4:25 2 Kgs 4:37 2 Kgs 9:19

Hebrew ‫עלה… יצא‬ “ascend...go out” ‫שוב … הלך … הלך‬ “return...go...go” ‫ שוב … בוא‬Hiphil “cause to return...come” ‫הלך … בוא … ישב‬ “go...come...sit” ‫שוב … שלח‬ “return...send” ‫עלה … בוא‬ “ascend...come” ‫הלך … שלח‬ “go...send” ‫הלך … בוא‬ “go...come” ‫בוא … נפל‬ “come...fall” ‫שלח … בוא‬ “send...come”

Syriac “ascend” ‫ܗ … ܐܬ‬ “return...come” ‫ ܐܬ‬Aphel “cause to come” ‫ܒ‬

… ‫ܗ‬ “go...sit” ‫ܪ‬ “send” “ascend” ‫ܪ‬ “send” ‫ܐܙܠ‬ “go” “fall” ‫ܪ‬ “send”

In each case, the translation omits one of the verbs in the source text. In the noted reduction, it is not the order in which the verbs occur that affects which verb gets skipped; rather, it is the verb with the least specific type of movement that is omitted, so that ‫ בוא‬loses out in all cases and ‫ הלך‬is skipped in all combinations except when occurring with ‫בוא‬. In at least one case, this general tendency of reduction of verbs of movement led to a loss of information, because the two Hebrew verbs involved refer to two different directions of movement:

13 14

Only BTR. MS 9a1 agrees with MT. Only BTR. MS 9a1 agrees with MT.

186

JANET DYK 2 Kgs 4:22 ‫וארוצה עד־איש האלהים ואשובה‬ “I will hasten to the man of God and I shall return” ‫ܕܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ “I shall come to the prophet of God”

In the Hebrew text, the woman was reassuring her husband that he need not worry about her return, but due to the tendency to reduce a series of verbs of movement, this has been lost in translation. The longest passage in Kings that is omitted in the Peshitta is 1 Kgs 3:23. In the classic story of King Solomon’s wisdom, two women come before the king, quarrelling about to whom the living child belonged. In the Hebrew text, in verse 23 Solomon repeats the case as it was presented to him. The Syriac rendering skips the entire verse.15 Although no new information is conveyed in this verse, within the setting of a court case, it is not unusual to repeat the facts of the case at hand. By skipping this verse, the Peshitta treats its contents merely as redundant narrative information, thereby neglecting to transmit the function of repetition within a court setting. This concurs with a study in translation universals in which it was found that there is a strong tendency to avoid repetition in translation, even when the source text uses repetition as a stylistic device.16 Nonetheless, it cannot be entirely ruled out that the translator or transmitter skipped from verse 22 to verse 24 due to the similarity in the opening of these verses. 4.2.5 Preservation of Formal Characteristics of the Source Text Some correspondences between the Hebrew and Syriac versions of Kings can only be explained as an attempt to preserve formal characteristics of the source text in the translation. We have looked at the case where [ɛħad], meaning “one” in Hebrew is rendered as the verb “grasp” in Syriac, which sounds the same. Here another universal principle is at work in the translation. It has been observed that particularly in translations of texts deemed to be holy, attempts may be made to retain formal aspects of the source text. The church father Jerome once stated that translations in general must give the sense of the passage in a freer manner because a word-for-word translation would often sound absurd, “except, of course, in the case of Holy Scripture, where even the syntax contains a mystery.”17 To this we could add that sometimes a text is exThe numbering of the verses in the Peshitta continues to follow the Hebrew text, so that verse 22 is immediately followed by verse 24. 16 Cf. R. Jääskeläinen, “The fate of ‘The Families of Medellín’: Tampering with a potential translation universal in the translation class,” in Mauranen and Kujamäki, Translation Universals, 205–14. 17 Cf. Jerome, De optimo genere interpretandi, 395: “Translations of sacred texts must be literal, word for word (because even the word order of the original is a holy mystery and the 15

TRANSLATION UNIVERSALS IN THE PESHITTA OF KINGS

187

purgated, tidied up theologically to conform to a more acceptable portrayal of the Biblical narrative. The rendering of 2 Kgs 2:14 preserves many of the formal characteristics of the source text while presenting a smoothed out, less idiosyncratic, and altogether more acceptable portrayal of the prophet Elisha: 2 Kgs 2:14 ‫איה יהוה אלהי אליהו אף־הוא ויכה את־המים‬ ‘“Where is YHWH, the God of Elijah, even He?” And he smote the waters’ ̈ ‫ܘܐܦ ܗܘ‬ ‫ܐܘܢ ܐ ܗ ܕ ܝ ܐ‬ ‘“Oh, Lord God of my master Elijah!”. And also he smote the waters’ The Hebrew quote begins with an anguished outcry: “Where ...?” This is smoothed over in the Syriac to the sigh: “Oh....” These two words both begin with the same letter, and the Syriac, “Oh...,” brings this first address of Elisha to God into conformity to how Elijah began his prayers. The next word, the Hebrew four-letter name for the deity (YHWH) which is not pronounced but read as “Adonai,” “my Lord,” is translated in Syriac as “my lord.” While the Hebrew reads: “Where is the LORD, the God of Elijah?” the Syriac rendering transposes this into the more innocuous: “Oh, God of my master Elijah.” The question in Hebrew ends with the challenge: “even He” or “He himself.” The Syriac avoids this direct challenge to God by shifting the position of the conjunction, thus connecting “even he” to the next sentence, so that it is Elisha who— he, too—smites the waters, as Elijah had done previously in the story. The two words “even he” are thus duly transmitted, but the whole has been adapted and tidied up theologically.18 4.3 Tendencies found in the Peshitta of Kings but not mentioned elsewhere as a Translation Universal Within the project we were able to propose two translations universals which, though perhaps obvious in themselves, are not found in the literature. translator cannot risk heresy).” See also S. Lind, “Translation Universals?” 5: “... translators ... will allow the interference of the source text (through literal translation, for example) when that is where the rewards lie (in the case of a high status source text such as the Bible...);” see further D. Robinson, ed., Western Translation Theory from Herodotus to Nietzsche (Manchester, UK: St. Jerome Publishing, 1997; 2nd ed. 2002), 25. 18 See also X. Yun, Normalization in Translation: Corpus-based Diachronic Research into Twentieth-century English–Chinese Fictional Translation (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2014), 5: “at points where source text collocations evoke difficult-to-read, controversial, ironic, or unpleasant (semantic) associations, their corresponding target texts may tend to switch toward more palatable imagery and metaphor,” with reference to D. Kenny, “Creatures of Habit? What Translators Usually Do with Words,” Meta 434 (1998): 515–23.

188

JANET DYK

In comparing the ratio of tokens and types per part of speech it became obvious that proper nouns and verbs have the highest rate of being rendered, that is, of not being skipped, in the translation. Though we have not encountered this in the literature as yet, it would seem logical that this tendency might be found to be generally true in translations, since the actor and the action are essential to how the plot progresses. Although again it might seem too obvious to mention, proper nouns have the highest chance of being transliterated or transcribed, and not translated. This, too, would seem to be true of translations in general—one is reminded of all the impossibly complicated Russian names preserved in transcription in the translations of Russian novels.

5. CONCLUSIONS Much of what we have observed while comparing the Hebrew books of Kings with the Syriac rendering reflects universal tendencies of translations. Our conclusion is that the tendencies articulated in the so-called translation universals possibly result from general strategies of the human brain when dealing simultaneously with different encoding systems. Due to the absence of the original source text, variations in ancient versions of the Bible have led to postulations concerning an alternative source text. When the majority of ancient translations agree in a deviation from the Hebrew text available to us, one could propose an alternative source text. Yet even here a word of caution is in place: due to the universal tendencies of translations mentioned above, the ancient versions may have chosen a similar solution to a difficulty in the source text. Finally, the effect of the formal characteristics of the source text, particularly the sound of the words involved, played a larger role than has been documented before, particularly in unusual renderings for which there is no other logical motivation.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Baker, M. “Corpus-based Translation Studies: The Challenges That Lie Ahead.” Pages 175– 86 in Terminology, LSP and Translation. Studies in language engineering in honour of Juan C. Sager. Edited by H. I. Somers. Benjamins Translation Library 18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1996. Chesterman, A. “Beyond the particular.” Pages 33–50 in Mauranen and Kujamäki, Translation Universals. Dyk, J. W., and P. S. F. van Keulen, Language Ssytem, Translation Technique, and Textual Tradition in the Peshitta of Kings. MPI 19. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Jääskeläinen, R., “The fate of ‘The Families of Medellín’: Tampering with a potential translation universal in the translation class.” Pages 205–14 in Mauranen and Kujamäki, Translation Universals. Kenny, D. “Creatures of Habit? What Translators Usually Do with Words.” Meta 434 (1998): 515–23.

TRANSLATION UNIVERSALS IN THE PESHITTA OF KINGS

189

Laviosa, S. Corpus-based Translation Studies: Theory, Findings, Applications. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2002. Lind, S. “Translation Universals (or laws, or tendencies, or probabilities, or ...?).” TIC TALK 63 (2007): 1–10. Malmkjaer, K., and K. Windle, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies. Oxford, 2011 (DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199239306.013.0007). Mauranen, A. “Corpora, universals and interference.” Pages 65–82 in Mauranen and Kujamäki, Translation Universals. Mauranen, A., and P. Kujamäki, eds. Translation Universals: Do they exist? Benjamin Translation Library 48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2004. Robinson, D., ed. Western Translation Theory: From Herodotus to Nietzsche. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 1997. Williams, D., Recurrent Features of Translation in Canada: A Corpus-Bases Study. Ottowa: Phd Dissertation, 2005. Yun, X., Normalization in Translation: Corpus-based Diachronic Research into Twentieth-century English–Chinese Fictional Translation. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2014.

APHRAHAT’S USE OF EZEKIEL AND ITS VALUE FOR THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE PESHITTA JEROME A. LUND INDEPENDENT SCHOLAR The fourth century father Aphrahat, writing some two centuries after the translation of the Old Testament Peshitta, consciously integrated the text of Ezekiel into the fabric of his argument rather than being concerned with rigid citation. He employed various strategies in citing the text of Ezekiel: the combining of elements from similar verses together, condensing the text, substituting synonyms, replacing a rhetorical question with a statement, changing the word order, adjusting the person to fit his context (for example, changing the third person of the verb to second person), and paraphrase. As a result, the text of Ezekiel cited by Aphrahat should not be used independently to restore Peshitta readings. Further, the text of Ezek 16:55 underwent textual corruption within the transmission of the Demonstrations, not within the transmission of the Bible. Moreover, for homiletical purposes, Aphrahat plays on the root of the verb in Ezek 13:10 to give it a different meaning than found in the Bible.

INTRODUCTION In the study of the text of the Peshitta OT, the question arises of the value of the citations found in the Syriac fathers. Prominent among the early fathers was Aphrahat who wrote twenty-three demonstrations on various theological themes.1 William Wright, The Homilies of Aphraates, the Persian Sage, Edited from Syriac Manuscripts of the Fifth and Sixth Centuries, in the British Museum, with an English Translation, Vol. 1: The Syriac Text (London: Williams and Norgate, 1869). Wright lists the “quotations” of Ezekiel on pp. 55–7. Wright collated three manuscripts, which he designated A containing all 23 demonstrations (6th century), B containing demonstrations 1–10 (dated AD 474), and B containing demonstrations 11–23 (dated AD 512). Wright usually follows B and B in his edition, rarely A. MSS B and B are bound together to form BL Add 17,182. MS A carries the siglum BL Add 14,619. For a description of these MSS, see Wright, The Homilies of Aphraates, pp. 10–16. Though Wright intended to make an English translation of the text, he never succeeded in 1

191

192

JEROME A. LUND

He composed these demonstrations in the early fourth century, some 150–200 years after the translation of the Peshitta OT.2 Robert J. Owens has studied the citations of Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus in Aphrahat’s Demonstrations,3 concluding that “inexactness” characterizes Aphrahat’s citations because he cited from memory, 4 focusing on the meaning of a given text rather than on its precise wording. Sometimes, according to Owens, Aphrahat deliberately paraphrased the biblical text. With regard to textual criticism, then, Owens concludes that the citations of Aphrahat should be used to corroborate readings found in biblical manuscripts, not to establish readings independently. With regard to the book of Daniel, Craig Morrison has argued that Aphrahat consciously adapted the biblical text to suit his homiletical needs and that changes were not due to his faulty memory but rather to his genius.5 In a broader essay on Aphrahat’s treatment of the Bible, Morrison observes that “his language and rhetoric is so thoroughly biblical that the lines between citation, doing so. For an accessible English translation see: Adam Lehto, The Demonstrations of Aphrahat, the Persian Sage (Gorgias Eastern Christian Studies 27. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2010). Earlier Ioannes Parisot made a translation to Latin in Aphraatis Sapientis Persae Demonstrationes 1–XXII (Patrologia Syriaca 1.1. Paris, 1894) and Aphraatis Sapientis Persae Demonstratio XXIII de Acino (cols. 1–150 of Patrologia Syriaca 1.2. Paris, 1907). Parisot made a list of Scripture references to Ezekiel texts incorporated by Aphrahat as well (Patrologia Syriaca 1.2, 484). Contrary to Wright, his list includes allusions. For example, Aphrahat borrows language from Ezek 22:30 when he writes “if one who would stand in the breach and repair the wall had been found” (Dem. 14.15) and “these are they who stand in the breach and repair the wall” (Dem. 14.32). Allusions are not citations and are excluded from this study. 2 For the dating of the Peshitta Old Testament see Michael P. Weitzman, The Syriac Version of the Old Testament (University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 258. 3 R. J. Owens, The Genesis and Exodus Citations of Aphrahat the Persian Sage (MPI 3. Leiden: Brill, 1984), and “Aphrahat as a Witness to the Early Syriac Text of Leviticus,” in The Peshitta: Its Early Text and History (MPI 4, ed. P.B. Dirksen and M.J. Mulder. Leiden: Brill, 1988), 1–48. 4 This was Wright’s impression (The Homilies of Aphraates, 16). One might add the negative impressionistic remarks of Theodor Nöldeke about the possibility of reconstructing the Old Testament Peshitta from extant sources, who bemoaned the sloppy treatment of the biblical text represented in citations found in Aphrahat and Ephrem: “Beobachten wir die Corruptionen, welche schon Aphraates und St. Ephraim in ihrer Peschitta hatten, so wird sich der Schluss nicht abweisen lassen, dass gerade in der allerfrühesten Zeiten, bis in welche keine Handschrift reicht, das syrische Alte Testament am nachlässigsten und willkürlichsten behandelt ist.” [If we observe the corruptions which Aphraates and St. Ephraim already had in their Peshitta, the conclusion cannot be denied that the Syriac Old Testament was dealt with most carelessly and arbitrarily in the very earliest times, for which no manuscript suffices.] (Th. Nöldeke, “Review of A.M. Ceriani, Le edizioni e i manoscritti delle versioni siriache del Vecchio Testamento [Milan, 1869],” Literarisches Centralblatt für Deutschland 41 [2. October 1869]). 5 Craig E. Morrison, “The Reception of the Book of Daniel in Aphrahat’s Fifth Demonstration, On Wars,” Hugoye 7 (2004): 55–82, esp. p. 58 and 79.

APHRAHAT’S USE OF EZEKIEL

193

allusion, and Aphrahat’s own argumentation become utterly blurred.”6 From his sampling of the citations in the Demonstrations, Morrison concludes that “when Aphrahat deviates from the Peshitta, he offers his disciples his interpretation of the biblical passage in question,”7 not an alternative biblical text. This study, undertaken within the framework of the Bible of Edessa project, will treat the text of Ezekiel as cited by Aphrahat.8 Aphrahat indicates a citation overtly by mentioning the name Ezekiel, either as the book name (for example, “as it is written in the prophet Ezekiel”9) or as the prophet’s name (for instance, “as Ezekiel said,” and, “And God also said to Ezekiel”10), in the introductory words or in the preceding context. Typically, the citation is marked with conjunctive dalath. Twice, Aphrahat mistakenly ascribes his citation of Ezekiel to Jeremiah: “and Jeremiah said” (‫ ܕ‬. ‫ܐ‬ ‫)ܘܐܪ‬.11 Allusions and indirect references to Ezekiel will be excluded. For example, the statement ‫“ ܘܐ ܗܘܢ ܐ ܪ ܘܐ ܘܢ‬and their father was an Amorite and their mother a Hittite” (Dem. 11.1) derives from the content of Ezekiel, found both in Ezek 16:3 ‫ܐ ܪ ܘܐ‬ ‫“ ܐ‬your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite,” and Ezek 16:45 ‫ܐ ܪ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬ ‫“ ܐ‬your mother was a Hittite and your father an Amorite”; it does not purport to be a direct citation. As a further example, Aphrahat uses vocabulary from Ezekiel 23 in Demonstration 16.2 but does not introduce it as a citation: ‫ܘܢ‬ ܿ ̈ ‫ܕܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܬܬ‬ ‫ܗܘܢ‬ ‫ ܘ ܬ‬. ‫ܘ ܗ‬ ‫ܗ‬ ‫ܬܘܒ‬ ܸ ‫“ ܪ‬For Ezekiel designated them by ‘Ahla’ and ‘Ahliba’ and called their two congregations two branches of the vine that the fire had consumed.” Such material will be excluded from the discussion. While this study corroborates the findings of Owens for Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus to a great extent, it also contributes both to a better reading of the text of the Demonstrations and to the strategies of exegesis applied to the biblical text in late antiquity. The view of Craig Morrison seems to be accurate. The present study reveals that Aphrahat cited Ezekiel in its substance, utilizing key phrases of the Ezekiel text, but did not attempt to quote the text verbatim. Rather, Aphrahat worked the Ezekiel text into the fabric of his argument by means of various techniques. Techniques of incorporation of biblical texts include condensing, substitution of synoCraig E. Morrison, “The Bible in the hands of Aphrahat the Persian Sage,” in Syriac and Antiochan Exegesis and Biblical Theology for the 3rd Millennium (ed. Robert D. Miller. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2008), 1–25, esp. p. 11. 7 Morrison, “The Bible in the hands of Aphrahat,” 23. 8 The sigla used throughout this essay in citation of the Peshitta will be those found in the Leiden edition: Ezekiel, Part III.3 of The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshiṭta Version (ed. M. J. Mulder. Leiden: Brill, 1993). 9 Dem. 1.6 (‫ ܕ‬. ‫)ܐ ܕ‬. 10 Dem. 20.17 (‫ ܕ‬. ‫ )ܐ ܕܐ‬and Dem. 23.5 ( . ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܐܦ‬ ‫ )ܕ‬respectively. 11 Dem. 14.2 and 14.5. 6

194

JEROME A. LUND

nyms, substituting a statement for a rhetorical question, rephrasing of word order, changing the person of the verb to fit the argument, and paraphrase. Aphrahat brought out the meaning of the text and was not concerned with exact quotation. Since multiple techniques of incorporation can be observed for a single citation and some verses are cited more than once and in different locations, the presentation will follow the order of the biblical text rather than a typological sorting or a sorting according to demonstration. When more than one text is involved, the order follows the first text in the entry. Thus, Ezek 9:8 and 11:13 appears sequentially as 9:8. In addition, a pseudo-biblical variant will be discussed separately and a case of possible substitution of meaning of a verbal root will be brought by itself for scholarly consideration. Various techniques of citation incorporation will be observed.

1. INTEGRATION OF BIBLICAL TEXTS 1.1 Summary of Ezek 3:17–21 and 33:7–9 (Dem. 7.10) . ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܐܦ‬.‫ܝ‬ .‫ ܘ ܙܗܪܬ ܝ‬.‫ܬ ܬ‬ ‫ܕ‬ . ‫ ܘܐܢ ܬܙܗܪ‬.‫ܕ ܙܗܪܬ ܝ‬ . ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ ܘ ܬܐ‬. ‫ܐ‬ .‫ܕ ܕܗܪ‬ ‫ ܘܗܘ‬. ‫ܪ ܘ‬ ‫ܕ‬

‫ܗܪܘ ܙܗܪ‬ ‫ܕܐ ܐ‬ . ‫ܐܬ‬

‫ܐ‬. ‫ܐ ܕ‬ .‫ܗܝ ܕ ܕܗܪ‬ ̈‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܕ‬.‫ܬ‬ ‫ ܘܐ‬.‫ܕܙܗܪܬ ܝ‬ ‫ܕܬܙܗܪ ܗܝ‬ ‫ܿܘ‬ . ‫ܗܕ‬ ‫ܓ‬. ‫ܐ‬

‫ܗ‬

‫ܕ‬

‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܗܘ‬ ‫ܘ ܬ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬

Even if I cut off the hope of the wicked, you should in fact warn him. Also when I indeed encourage the righteous, put fear before him that he might beware. When I say to the sinner, “You shall surely die,” and you do not warn him, the sinner shall die in his wickedness, but his blood I will require from your hands, because you did not warn him. But if you warn the sinner, that sinner shall live because you warned him, and you shall save yourself. And when you say to the righteous, “You shall surely live,” and he trusts in himself because of this, it is incumbent upon you to warn him, lest he become proud and sin. So he who has been warned shall live, and you shall save yourself.

Aphrahat introduces this biblical material with ‫ܕ‬ ܼ ‫“ ܬܘܒ ܐ‬Again he said to Ezekiel,” as though it were a citation. But in reality Aphrahat is summarizing the message of Ezekiel based on Ezek 3:17–21 and 33:7–9. Aphrahat conveys the substance of what is written in the Bible, but does not quote it verbatim. 1.2 Ezek 3:25–26 (Dem. 14.45)

ܿ ‫ ܘܐ‬. ̈ ܿ‫ܗ ܪ‬ Pesh: ‫ܐܕ‬ ‫ ܘ‬.‫ܗܘܢ‬ ‫ܕ ܬ ܩ‬. ‫ܓ‬. ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܘܬ ܫ ܘ ܬܗܘ‬. Look! they are putting chains on you and binding you with them so that you cannot go out among them. And I will make your tongue stick to the roof of your palate, and you will be mute and you will not be a rebuker for them.

APHRAHAT’S USE OF EZEKIEL

195

̈ Aphr:12 ‫ܬ ܫܘ‬ ‫ܗ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܘ‬. ‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܗ ܪ‬ ‫ܓ‬. ‫ܕ‬ . ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܬܗܘ‬ Look! they are putting chains on you and binding you with them, and when they have done so to you, you will be silent and will not be a rebuker for them, for your tongue will stick to the roof of your palate.

Aphrahat encourages the brothers to be at peace in the face of false accusations like Moses and the prophets faced. The wicked opposed Ezekiel among others and God directed him with these words. Aphrahat condenses the sentence (he cuts out ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܗܘܢ‬ ‫ ܬ ܩ‬and the noun before the noun ), rearranges the sentence, placing the phrase ‫ܕ‬ last, while changing the active ‫ ܐܕ‬into the passive , and adds the explanatory phrase ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܗ‬. Aphrahat captures the essence of what God told to Ezekiel, but changes the wording. This is not a direct citation of a biblical text in the modern sense. 1.3 Ezek 4:13 (Dem. 12.3)

̈ Pesh: ‫ܕܐܕ ܩ ܐ ܢ‬ . ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܢ ̈ ܐ‬ ‫ܗ‬ ‫ܓ‬. Thus shall the children of Israel eat their food in defilement among the nations whither I drive them. . ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܢ ̈ ܐ‬ ‫ ܗ‬. ‫ܗܕ ܐܬ ܬܗܘ‬ Aphr:13 ̈ ‫ܓ‬. ‫ܕܐ ܪ ܐ ܢ‬ This shall be the sign. Thus shall the children of Israel eat their food in impurity among the nations whither I scatter them.

The initial phrase, “this shall be the sign,” derives from verse 3, which reads, “this is a sign for those of the house of Israel” ( ‫ܐ‬ ‫)ܗܕ ܐܬ ܗܝ‬. Instead of “whither I drive them,” Aphrahat reads “whither I scatter them,” substituting the synonym ‫ ܐ ܪ‬for ‫ܐܕ ܩ‬, which synonymy is evident in the parallelism of Ezek ̈ 11:16 ‫ܘܐ ܪ ܐ ܢ‬ ‫“ ܐܕ ܩ ܐ ܢ‬I will drive them out among the nations and I will scatter them among the lands.” 1.4 Ezek 4:14 (Dem. 12.3)

ܿ Pesh: ‫ܘܕܬ‬ ‫ ܘܕ‬. ‫ܗܘܬ‬ . ‫ܘܬ‬ ‫ ܐ‬.‫ܘܐ ܬ‬ ܿ ‫ܓ‬. ‫ܘ‬. ‫ܬܝ ܘ‬ . ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܬ‬ Then I said, “God, Lord of lords, my soul has never been defiled. Further I have never eaten that which is sickly or that which was torn by an animal from my youth and until today. Moreover, defiled meat has never entered into my mouth.” ‫ܘ‬. ‫ܗܘܬ‬ ‫ܘܬ‬ ‫ܐܘ‬ Aphr:14 ‫ܓ‬.

The words ‫ ܕ‬. ‫ܗ ܗ ܘܐ‬ ‫ܘܐܦ‬ ‫“ ܘ‬And once, too, his Lord commanded Ezekiel and said to him” introduce the citation. 13 The citation is introduced by ‫ ܕ‬. ܼ ‫“ ܘܐ‬And he said to Ezekiel.” 14 Aphrahat introduces the citation with ‫ܐܬ‬ . ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܕܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ܿ ‫ܘܬ ܘ‬ ‫ܠ‬ ‫“ ܕ‬as Ezekiel said about them when he (God) showed ܼ ‫ܘܐ‬ him the sign that he should eat his food in impurity, and he petitioned and said.” 12

196

JEROME A. LUND “O Lord of lords, my soul has never been defiled, nor has impure meat ever entered into my mouth.”

In the citation, Aphrahat substitutes the vocative particle ‫“ ܐܘ‬O” for the vocative ‫“ ܐ‬God.” Moreover, he condenses the verse, omitting: “Further I have never eaten that which is sickly or that which was torn by an animal from my youth and until today.” 1.5 Ezek 8:18 (Dem. 14.2)

Pesh: ‫ܐ ܢ‬ ‫ܘ ܐ‬ ‫ܪ‬ ‫ܘ ܘܢ ̈ ܕ‬ And they shall cry in my ears with a loud voice, but I will not hear them. ‫ܘ ܐ‬ ‫ܪ‬ ‫̈ܕ‬ ‫ܘܬ ܘܢ‬ Aphr:15 ‫ܢ‬ And you shall cry in my ears with a loud voice, but I will not hear you.

Aphrahat adapts the citation of Ezek 8:18 to the context by changing the third person of the verb and direct object (“they shall cry ... but I will not hear them”) to the second person (“you shall cry ... but I will not hear you”). He links words from Jer 7:13 with Ezek 8:18 as though it were one continual citation. Jer 7:13 is in the second person plural: ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܢ ܘ‬ ‫“ ܘ‬I called you, but you did not respond.” Continuing in the second person plural, Aphrahat expresses the meaning of the text of Ezekiel to his readers. 1.6 Ezek 9:8 and 11:13 (Dem. 14.5)

ܿ Pesh Ezek 9:8 ‫ܓ‬. ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܬ‬ ‫ܐܘܗ‬ Oh Lord of lords, are you destroying everyone who has survived from Israel? ܿ Pesh Ezek 11:13 ‫ܓ‬. ‫ܕܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܿ ܐ‬ . ‫ܘܬ‬ ‫ܐܘܗ‬ Oh Lord of lords, are you making an end to the remnant of Israel? Aphr:16 ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ Why are you bringing destruction to everyone who has survived from Israel?

Questioning the severity of the divine judgment on Jerusalem, Ezekiel began upbraiding God. Aphrahat first adds the interrogative adverb ‘why’ to the sentence, indicating clearly that what follows is a question. He then combines elements of two similar verses in citing the prophet Ezekiel, taking the element ‫ܐ‬ “are you making an end” from Ezek 11:13 and the element ‫ܕܐ‬ ‫“ ܐ‬to17 everyone who has survived from Israel” from Ezek 9:8. In doing so, Aphrahat captures the essence of what Ezekiel says. The words ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܢܘ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫“ ܘܬܘܒ ܐ‬And again it says in the prophet (Jeremiah), ‘I called you, but you did not respond’ ”— MS 7a1 of the Peshitta of Jer 7:13 reads ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܢ ܘ‬ ‫ — ܘ‬immediately precede the citation from Ezekiel. Aphrahat records Jer 7:13 as ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܢܘ‬ ‫ܘ‬, the equivalent of ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܢܘ‬ ‫ܘ‬. 16 The sentence ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܠ‬ ‫“ ܘ ܝ ܗܘ‬And the prophet (Ezekiel, who was just mentioned) had begun to upbraid him (God)” orients the reader as to the speaker. 17 In contrast to Aphrahat, the lamadh of Ezek 9:8 functions as the marker of the direct object. 15

APHRAHAT’S USE OF EZEKIEL

197

1.7 Ezek 9:9 (and 8:12) (Dem. 16.5)

ܿ ܿ Pesh 9:9: ‫ܘ‬. ‫ܪ‬ ‫ܘܐ ܘ‬ And they said, “The Lord has abandoned the land” and “the Lord does not see us.” ܿ ܿ ‫ܘܐ‬ ܿ Pesh 8:12: ‫ܪ‬ ‫ܕ‬ . and say, “The Lord does not see us because the Lord has abandoned the land.” ܿ ‫ܘܬܘܒ‬ ‫ܪ‬ Aphr:18 “The Lord has abandoned the land” and further “the Lord does not see us.”

Aphrahat cites two phrases from Ezekiel, seemingly taken from Ezek 9:9. The addition of ‫‘ ܬܘܒ‬further’ appears to be an editorial addition by Aphrahat who takes these as two separate utterances.19 1.8 Ezek 12:27–28 (Dem. 2.10)

̈ ̈ ‫ܗܘ‬ ܿ‫ ܘ ܕ‬. ܿ‫ܐ‬ Pesh: . ‫ܗ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܗ ܕ‬. ܿ ̈ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ ܬܘܒ‬. ‫ܘܬ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܗ‬.‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܗ ܐ‬ . ܿ ܿ ܿ ̈ ‫ܘ‬.‫ܘܬ ܀܀‬ ‫ܐ‬. ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕܐ ܐ‬ . ‫ܘ‬ Human, look! those of the house of Israel say, “The vision that this one sees is for many days from now, and he prophecies for distant times.” Therefore say to them, “Thus says the Lord of lords, There will be no delay for my words again; the word that I speak I will perform.” Aphr: ‫ܗܘܘ‬ . ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܐܬ ܪܘ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܕܙ‬.‫ܗܘܘ‬ ‫ܘ‬ . ‫ܗ‬ . ‫ܗܘ ܪ‬ . ̈ ‫ ܕ ܡ ܕܐ‬. ‫ܗܝ ܘܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܗ‬ ‫ ܕ ܡ ܕ‬. ‫ ܘܐ‬. ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܗܕ‬ ܿ ܿ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ ܕܬܘܒ‬. ‫ܘܬ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ‬ . ‫ܪ‬ ܼ ‫ ܐ‬. ‫ܗܘ‬ ܿ ‫ܒ‬. ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕܐ ܐ‬ . ̈ ‫ܪܫ‬ And when they would hear that there was a long time before the promised wrath would come, they would brazenly sin before him and say, “That which the prophets say is for a distant time.” Because of this, when this thought rose upon them in the days of Ezekiel the prophet and they said: “That which this one prophesies is for a distant time,” he said to Ezekiel: “As I live, says the Lord of lords, there will be no delay for my words again, for the word which I speak I will perform quickly.”

Aphrahat paraphrases v. 27 (“The vision that this one sees is for many days from now, and he prophecies for distant times”) by having the people say: “That which this one prophesies is for a distant time,” a saying he also attributes to doubters living in earlier times. Further, he substitutes “as I live” ( ‫ ) ܐ‬for “thus” ( ‫)ܗ‬, adds the conjunction ‫ ܕ‬to introduce direct speech, supplements the conjunction “for” ( ) for clarity, and adds the adverbial phrase “quickly” ( ). In no way ̈ The citation is introduced by ‫ܕ‬ ‫“ ܐ ܕܐ ܘ‬As they said in the days of Ezekiel.” 19 Lehto, The Demonstrations, 380, translates differently: “Thus, in the days of Ezekiel they said, ‘The Lord has abandoned the land, and the Lord will not see us again.’ ” 18

198

JEROME A. LUND

do these adjustments change the meaning of Ezekiel. 1.9 Use of Ezek 14:12–20 1.9.1 Dem. 23.5a ‫ ܘܐ ܬ‬. ‫ܐܪ‬ ‫ ܕܐܢ ܐ ܪ‬. ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܐܦ‬ ܿ ‫ܐ‬ .‫ܿܗܝ‬ ‫ܪ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ ܚ ܘܐ ܒ ܘܕ‬. ‫ܬ‬ ‫ ܐܘ‬. ‫ܪ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܐ ܗ ܢ ܕ ܬܗܘܢ‬.‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܬ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ ܕ‬. ‫ܘܬ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܓ‬. ‫ܬܗܘ‬ ‫ ܘܐܪ‬.‫ܘܢ‬ Moreover, God said to Ezekiel: “If I send the sword upon the land and say, ‘Let the sword pass through the land, or the evil beast’, and Noah, and Job, and Daniel are in that same land, as I live, says the Lord of lords, they shall save neither son nor daughter, but they shall save themselves by their righteousness and the land shall become a desolation.”

In this text introduced by, “Moreover, God said to Ezekiel,” ostensibly a quotation from the Bible, Aphrahat instead summarizes the biblical text, condensing the information. Aphrahat uses the verb ‫“ ܐ ܪ‬I will send” with “the sword” as its object. In Ezek 14:17, the verb ‫“ ܐ‬I will bring” goes with “the sword.” In Ezekiel, four judgements appear (famine, the evil beast, the sword, plague), but Aphrahat uses only two of them and in reverse order (the sword, the evil beast). “The sword” comes first as a link to the foregoing reference to the four judgments of Jer 15:2–3 just cited. The phrase “Let the sword pass through the land” comes from Ezek 14:17. Aphrahat cleverly corrects the biblical text in listing the three righteous men in chronological order as he perceived them to appear historically. Aphrahat reads the sequence “Noah, Job, and Daniel” against the biblical sequence “Noah, Daniel, and Job” (Ezek 14:14, 20). The wording “as I live, says the Lord of lords, they shall save neither son nor daughter, but they shall save themselves by their righteousness” follows Ezek 14:20, with the addition of lamadh as an object marker before the words “son” ( ) and “daughter” ( ‫ ) ܬ‬as in Ezek 14:16 and 18. The final phrase “and the land shall become a desolation” derives from Ezek 14:16. 1.9.2 Dem. 23.5b ‫ܬ‬ ‫ ܕܗ‬. ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܬܗ ܐ‬ ‫ܪܘ‬ ‫ܐܬܪ‬ ‫ܗ‬ ܿ ‫ܘܢ ܪܗ‬ . ‫ܙ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ ܐܢ‬.‫ܐ ܢ‬ ‫ ܕ‬. ̈ ‫ܙܕ‬ ̈ ‫ ܐ ܗ ܢ‬.‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܘ ܬ‬ ‫ ܐ ܐ‬.‫ܐ ܢ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫܀‬... ܿ ‫ܬܗܘ‬ ‫ ܘܐܪ‬.‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܕ ܬܗܘܢ‬ As the prophet pondered these things, the Good Spirit went forth to him in his sweetness as was customary: “These three righteous men, I heard each of them in his generation. If they should stand before me at this time, not only would I not hear them concerning the wicked, but also they would not save either son or daughter, but they would save themselves by their righteousness and the land would become a desolation.”

In this same section of Dem. 23, Aphrahat uses Ezek 14:12–20 again. The introductory statement (“As the prophet pondered these things, the Good Spirit went forth to him in his sweetness as was customary”) leads one to believe that he is citing the biblical text. Instead, he again rewrites the biblical text, recounting the story pastorally. Aphrahat offers a midrash on the text. The phraseology “they would not save

APHRAHAT’S USE OF EZEKIEL

199

either son or daughter, but they would save themselves by their righteousness” comes from Ezek 14:20 with minor changes, while the phraseology “and the land would become a desolation” derives from Ezek 14:16 verbatim. 1.10 Ezek 15:4–5

Pesh: .‫ܿܗ ܒ‬ ‫ ܘ‬. ‫ܪ‬ ‫̈ ܿ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘܬ ܬ‬. ‫ܪ‬ ‫ܐ ܐܬ‬ ܿ ܿ ‫ܕܐ ܗ ܪ‬ ‫ܗ‬. ‫ܐܙ ܗܘܬ‬ ‫ܡ ܗܘܬ‬ ‫ ܘ ܕܕ‬. ܿ ‫ܐܙ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܓ‬. ܿ ‫ܐܙ‬ ‫ ܐ‬. ‫ܘ‬ ... but it has been given as fuel for the fire. And the fire has consumed its two branches, and its midst has been ruined. Can it go into a product? And when it was without defect it was not going into a product, now that the fire has consumed it and it has been ruined, how can it go into a product?

Three times Aphrahat refers to these verses, two of which refer only to verse 4. In the first instance, he does not introduce it as a citation but incorporates many of its expressions into his text. He does introduce the second and third instances as citations of Ezekiel. 1.10.1 Dem. 5.22

‫ܿܗ ܪ‬ ‫ܕܐ‬ ‫ ܗ‬. ‫ܗܘܬ‬ ‫ܐܙ‬ . ‫ܡ ܗܘܬ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ ܬ ܬ‬.‫ܿܗ ܒ‬ ‫ ܘ‬. ‫ܪ‬ ‫̈ ܿ ܐ‬ ‫ ܬܬ‬. ‫ܐܙ‬ ‫ ܐ‬. ‫ܘ‬ ̈ ‫̈ ܿ ܬܬ‬ ‫ܓ‬. ‫ܿ ܐܘܪ‬ ‫ܿܗ ܕ ܒ ܐ‬ ‫ܘ‬. ‫ܬ‬ When the vine was without defect, it was not going into a product. Now that the fire has consumed it and it has been ruined, how can is go into a product? The fire has consumed its two branches, and its midst has been ruined. For its two branches are two kingdoms, and its midst which has been ruined is Jerusalem.

Aphr:

While Aphrahat does not introduce the text as a citation here, he nevertheless brings much of these verses verbatim, with verse 5 preceding verse 4. In verse 5, he adds the expressed subject “the vine” ( ). Otherwise, his text follows the Peshitta of verse 5 without deviation. The part of verse 4 that he uses (“the fire has consumed its two branches, and its midst is ruined”) corresponds exactly to the Peshitta. 1.10.2 Dem. 11.1

̈ Aphr:20 ‫ܓ‬. ‫ܐܙ‬ ‫ ܘܬܘܒ‬.‫ܿܗ ܘܒ‬ ‫ܘ‬. ‫ܪ‬ ‫ܿ ܐ‬ 21 Fire has consumed its branches, its midst is deserted, and it is no longer going into a product.

̈ ), omitting the quantifier “two” Aphrahat starts his citation at “its branches” ( ܿ ( ‫)ܬ ܬ‬. Then, he replaces the verb “has been ruined” (‫ ) ܒ‬with the adjective “deserted” (‫) ܘܒ‬. This may have been intentional or the result of a transmission error, internal to the Demonstrations. Furthermore, he converts the rhetorical question of Aphrahat introduces the citation with ‫ ܕ‬. el testified concerning the vine.” 21 So Sokoloff, BSLex, 487. 20

‫ܕ‬

‫“ ܘ‬Moreover Ezeki-

200

JEROME A. LUND

the Peshitta into a negative statement in reading ܿ no longer going into a product” against uct?” Remarkably, Aphrahat uses the quotative only.

‫ܐܙ‬ ‫“ ܘܬܘܒ‬and it is ‫ܐܙ‬ ‫“ ܕ‬Can it go into a prodfor the last phrase of the citation

1.10.3 Dem. 19.5

̈ Aphr:22 ‫ܐܙ‬ ‫ܡ ܗܘܬ‬ ‫ ܕ ܕܕ‬.‫ܿܗ ܒ‬ ‫ܪ ܘ‬ ‫ܿ ܐ‬ ܿ ܿ ‫ܓ‬. ‫ܐܙ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕܐ ܗ ܪ ܘ‬ ‫ ܘܗ‬. ‫ܗܘܬ‬ The fire has consumed its branches and its midst has been ruined, for when the vine was without defect it was not going into a product, and now that the fire has consumed it and it has been ruined, how can it go into a product?

Aphrahat identifies this as a citation of Ezekiel. He cites the relevant part of verse 4 (“the fire has consumed its branches and its midst has been ruined”) and then proceeds to verse 5. He replaces the connective waw “and” at the beginning of v. 5 with a dalath “for” to make a logical connection with the preceding. He adds the expressed subject “the vine” to the sentence “when the vine was without defect” for clarity. He also adds the conjunctive waw to the adverb “now” ( ‫ )ܗ‬making “and now” ( ‫)ܘܗ‬. 1.11 Ezek 16:48 (Dem. 21.3)

ܿ‫ܐ ܐ‬ Pesh: ‫ ܐ ܕ ܬܝ‬.‫ܗܝ ܘ ̈ ܿܗ‬ ‫ܬ ܘܡ‬ ‫ ܕ‬. ‫ܘܬ‬ ̈ ‫ܓ‬. ‫ܐ ܝܘ‬ As I live, says the Lord of lords, Sodom your sister and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. ‫ ܐ‬.‫ܬ ܘܡ ܘ ̈ ܿܗ‬ ‫ܕ‬. ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ‬ Aphr:23 ‫ܡ ܕ ܬܝ ܐ ܝ‬ ̈ ‫ܓ‬. ‫ܘ‬ As I live, says the Lord God, Sodom and her daughters have not done as what you and your daughters have done.

Aphrahat substitutes the idiom ‫ܐ‬ “Lord God” for ‫ܘܬ‬ “Lord of lords,” condenses the text by omitting ‫ܗܝ‬ “(Sodom) your sister, she (and her daughters),” and adds the prop word ‫“ ܡ‬what” with ‫ܕ‬ ‫“ ܐ‬as.” What Ezekiel says comes through clearly, though the words are not copied verbatim from the biblical text. 1.12 Ezek 16:49–50 Pesh: ‫ ܗܝ‬. ‫ ܘ‬. ̈ ܿ ‫ܗ‬ ‫ܓ‬. ‫ܐ‬

ܿ ‫ܘ‬ ܿ ‫ ܕ‬. ‫ܗܘܬ‬ ‫ ܐ ܐܬܬܪ ܘ‬. ‫ܐ‬ ܿ ‫ܗ‬

̈ ‫ܘܕ‬

̈

‫ܕ ܘܡ‬ ‫ܗ‬ ܼ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ ܘ‬.‫ܘ ̈ ܿܗ‬

Aphrahat uses ‫ ܕ‬. ‫ܐ‬ ‫“ ܘ‬And Ezekiel said about the vine” to introduce the citation. 23 The earlier mention of Ezekiel in this section makes the reference of the introductoܿ ry phrase ‫ ܕ‬. ‫ܘܪ‬ ‫“ ܐ‬for he said to Jerusalem” clear. That is to say, the text comes from Ezekiel. 22

APHRAHAT’S USE OF EZEKIEL

201

This is the wickedness of Sodom your proud sister, who was enjoying bread to the full and sitting comfortably, she and her daughters. And they did not grasp the hand of the poor and of the wretched. Rather, they exalted themselves and did evil before me. And when I saw these in them, I overthrew them.

1.12.1 Dem. 20.17

ܿ ̈ ‫̈ ܘܕ‬ Aphr:24 ‫ ܘ‬. ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ ܕ‬.‫ܬܗ‬ ‫ܕ ܘܡ ܘ‬ ‫ܗ‬ ܼ ‫ܗܘ ܕ‬ ܼ ‫ܒ‬. ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܗ‬ ‫ܗ‬ This was the wickedness of Sodom and her neighbors, that they did not grasp the hand of the wretched and of the poor, and when I saw these in them, I overthrew them.

Aphrahat cites what is salient to his argument from the text, condensing (omitting ܿ material irrelevant to his argument),25 substituting an equivalent for clarity (‫ܬܗ‬ ̈ ܿ “her neighbours” for ‫ܗ‬ “her daughters”), and transposing a word pair, putting ̈‫ܕ‬ the word from the title of this demonstration ( ‫ܪ‬ “concerning ̈ ̈ support of the wretched”) as the A-word ( ‫ܘܕ‬ ‫ܕ‬ “the hand of the ̈ ‫ܕ ̈ ܘܕ‬ wretched and of the poor” instead of “the hand of the poor and of the wretched”). He captures the essence of what Ezekiel said about support of the needy, while modifying the text. 1.12.2 Dem. 21.4

̈ ‫ܘܕ‬ ̈ ‫ܕ‬ Aphr:26 ‫ܘ ܗ‬. ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ‬.‫ܿ ܕ ܘܡ ܘ ̈ ܿܗ‬ ‫ܗ‬ ̈ ‫ ܘܓ‬. ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܗ‬ This is the wickedness of Sodom and her daughters, and they did not aid the poor and the wretched, and when I saw these things in them, I overthrew them.

Aphrahat condenses the biblical text, extracting what is prominent in his discourse. ܿ ‫ܘ‬ ܿ ‫ ܕ‬. He eliminates the clauses ‫ ܗܝ‬. ‫ܗܘܬ‬ “(Sodom) your proud sister that she was satisfied with bread and dwelt in ease, she (and her daughters)” and ‫“ ܐ ܐܬܬܪ ܘ‬Rather they were haughty and committed evil before me” from the biblical text. The minor difference between ‫ܿ ܕ ܘܡ‬ and ‫ܕ ܘܡ‬ ܼ makes no difference semantically, as they both mean “the wickedness of Sodom.” 1.13 Ezek 16:52 (Dem. 21.3)

̈ Pesh: . ‫ܝ‬ ‫ܘܐܬ‬ ‫ܬܬ ܕܙ ܝ ̈ ܬ‬ ‫ܘܐܦ ܐ ܝ‬ ̈ ̈ ‫ܓ‬. ‫ ܕܐܙܕܕܩ ܐ ܬ‬. ‫ ܘܐܦ ܐ ܝ ܬܝ ܘ‬. ‫ܘܗ ܐܙܕܕܩ‬ And yes you, bear your shame, because you surpassed your sisters in your sins and you defiled yourself more than they, and they were judged more righteous

Aphrahat introduces the citation with ‫ ܕ‬. ‫“ ܐ ܕܐ‬... as Ezekiel said.” ܿ ‫ܘ‬ ܿ ‫ ܕ‬. Aphrahat hops over ‫ ܗܝ‬. ‫ܗܘܬ‬ “(Sodom) your proud sister who was sated with bread and dwelt in peace, she (and her daughters)” and ‫“ ܐ ܐܬܬܪ ܘ‬but they grew proud and did evil before me.” 26 Aphrahat introduces this citation with ‫“ ܘܐ‬and Ezekiel said.” 24 25

202

JEROME A. LUND than you; and yes you, be ashamed and bear your reproach because your sisters have been judged more righteous than you. ‫ ܘܗ ܐܙܕܕܩ‬. ̈ ‫̈ܬ‬ ‫ ܕܙ ܝ‬. ‫ܬܝ ܘ‬ Aphr:27 ‫ܓ‬. Be ashamed and bear your reproach because you surpassed your sisters in your sins, and they were judged more righteous than you.

Aphrahat rearranges the clause structure of the biblical text, placing ‫ܬܝ ܘ‬ ̈ “be ashamed and bear your reproach” ahead of ‫̈ܬ‬ ‫“ ܕܙ ܝ‬because you surpassed your sisters in your sins.” This allows him to shorten the clause ̈ ‫“ ܐܙܕܕܩ‬your sisters have been judged more righteous than you” ‫ܐ ܬ‬ ̈ “your sisters” and conjoin it with conby cutting out the now redundant ‫ܐ ܬ‬ junctive waw in place of conjunctive dalath. Further, he condenses the biblical text by omitting ‫ܝ‬ ‫“ ܘܐܬ‬and you defiled yourself more than they.” 1.14 Ezek 17:19 (Dem. 23.65)

ܿ‫ܐ‬ ݁‫̈ ܝ ܘ‬ Pesh: . ‫ܕ‬ . ‫ܐ‬ . ‫ܘܬ‬ ‫ܗ ܗ‬ ܿ . ‫ܐ‬ Because of these, thus says the Lord of lords, As I live, because he despised my oaths and abrogated my covenant, I will bring it upon his head. ̈ Aphr: ‫ܕܐ‬ ‫ܕܐ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ ܕ ܬܕ‬. ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܘܐܦ‬ ‫ܘܬ‬ ‫ܐ ܐ‬ .‫ܬܗ‬ ‫ܗܝ ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ‬.‫ܗܝ‬ ‫ ܘ‬.‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ܿ . ‫ܐ‬. ‫ ܘ‬.‫̈ ܝ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܕܐ‬ ‫ܕ ܒ‬ ‫ܕܨܕ‬ And Ezekiel, too, sent to them from Babylon: “Do not disavow the oaths of the God of Israel that you have sworn!” But they did not listen to him. And when they did not listen to him, he said to them in his prophecy: “As I live, says the Lord of lords, as for Zedekiah, who forsook the God of Israel and despised my oaths and abrogated my covenant, I will bring it upon his head.”

This is not a true citation, but a retelling of the story found in Ezekiel, Aphrahat injecting and integrating elements to make the storyline clear. The sentence introduced by, “And Ezekiel, too, sent to them from Babylon,” with the conjunctive dalath, does not appear in Ezekiel, but sets the stage for what follows. That is to say, the sentence “Do not disavow the oaths of the God of Israel that you have sworn!” was put into the mouth of Ezekiel by Aphrahat in didactic style. Aphrahat continues by introducing actual biblical material by the phrase “he said to them in his prophecy.” Aphrahat identifies the subject of the verbs “forsook ... despised ... abrogated” as Zedekiah, implicit in the text of Ezekiel. Together with this, he changes the causal construction of the biblical text (‫ܕ‬ “because”) into a relative clause (‫“ ܕ‬who”) to fit the flow of his argument. Further, he adds the commentary like phrase “forsook the God of Israel” to underscore the biblical “he despised my oaths and abrogated my covenant.” In sum, Aphrahat explicates the text of Ezekiel by adding elements to it.

The context makes it clear that the introductory phrase ‫ ܕ‬. ܿ her (to Jerusalem)” refers to Ezekiel. 27

‫“ ܘܐ‬and he said to

APHRAHAT’S USE OF EZEKIEL

203

1.15 Paraphrase of Text Based on Ezek 18 and 33 (Dem. 7.10)

Aphr: . ‫̈ ܗ‬ ‫ ܘܐ‬. ‫ܘܙܕ ܬ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫̈ ܗ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܐܢ‬ ̈ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ ܘ ܘܒ ܘ‬.‫ܗ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܘܐܢ‬.‫ܬ‬ ‫ܓ‬. . ‫ܘܙܕ ܬ‬ If all his days a man does what is just and what is right and his last days he does wickedness, in that very wickedness he shall die. And if a man does wickedness all his days and repents and does what is just and what is right, he shall save himself.

Aphrahat introduces this material with the following words: ‫ܙܘܗܪ ܕܕ‬ ܿ‫ ܐ‬. ‫ܕ‬. “For he placed a fearful warning in Ezekiel the prophet, saying to him,” the conjunctive dalath ostensibly introducing direct speech. After the quotation, Aphrahat states: ‫ܙܗܪ ܕ‬ ‫“ ܕ‬By this one word he warned the righteous,” using the term ‘word’ to describe what was said in Ezekiel. While this is an accurate summation of what the prophet said, it is not a direct quotation. Rather, Aphrahat paraphrases Ezekiel, bringing out the salient message of the text to his readers. The expressions ‫̈ ܗ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ “all his days,” ̈ 28 ‫ܗ‬ ‫“ ܐ‬his last days,” and “man” in this context do not appear in Ezekiel. The use of the verb ‫ ܘܒ‬in place of its synonym ‫ܟ‬ is conditioned by ̈ ‫“ ܕܬ‬Of the Penitent,” both the verb and the title of the demonstration, to wit, the noun deriving from the root ‫ܬܘܒ‬. In contexts of repentance, the verb form ‫ܟ‬ appears a number of times in the biblical text of Ezek 18 and 33: ‫ܐܢ‬ ‫ܘܢ ̈ ܘܗܝ ܕ‬ ‫ܟ‬ “if he should turn from all his sins which he committed” (Ezek 18:21; similarly v. 28); ‫ܐܘܪ‬ ‫ܟ‬ ‫“ ܐ ܕ‬but rather that he should turn from his evil way” (Ezek 18:23); ‫ܬܗ‬ ‫ܟ‬ ‫ܘܐܢ‬ “and if the wicked will turn from his wickedness” (Ezek 18:27; 33:19); ‫ܟ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫“ ܐܘܪ‬that he (the wicked) should turn from his way” (Ezek 33:9); ‫ܟ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫“ ̈ ܘܗܝ‬and he turn from his sins” (Ezek 33:14). By contrast, the verb ‫ ܘܒ‬appears once: ‫ܘ‬ ‫“ ܐ ܕ ܘܒ‬but rather that he should turn from his wickedness and live” (Ezek 33:11).The expression ‫ܘܙܕ ܬ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫“ ܘ‬and he does what is just and what is right” appears a number of times in Ezek 18 and 33 (Ezek 18:5, 21, 27; 33:14, 19). 1.16 Ezek 18:8 (Dem. 14.3) Pesh: ‫ ܘܕܢ ܕ‬.‫ܐ ܗ‬ ‫ܐܗ‬ ‫ ܘ‬.‫ܒ‬ ‫ܨ‬ ‫ ܘ‬.‫ܐܘܙܦ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ܼ ‫ܗ‬ ‫ܕ‬ And has not lent with interest and has not given with usury, and has turned away his hand from wickedness, and has given a truthful judgment between a man and his fellow. ‫ܗ‬. ܿ ‫̈ ܬ‬ ‫ܙܦ ܘ‬ ‫ܨ‬ ‫ܘ‬. ܿ ‫ܿ ܕܪ‬ Aphr:29 ܿ ܿ ‫ܨ ܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬ 28

The term

“human” is a regular term to describe Ezekiel when God addresses

him. Aphrahat introduces the citation with the words ‫ܕ‬ Scripture) says.” 29

ܼ ‫“ ܘܬܘܒ ܐ‬And again it (the

204

JEROME A. LUND Whoever does not take interest, nor loans with usury,30 nor commits one of the abominations that Ezekiel enumerates, God is pleased with him.

Aphrahat paraphrases the text, so that the expression “the Scripture says” in this context actually means “the Scripture teaches.” Aphrahat uses participles instead of suffix conjugations and uses verbs that are different than those found in the biblical text of Ezek 18:8. In Ezek 18:13, the verb ‘take’ goes with the noun phrase ‫ܨ‬ ‘with usury’ ( ‫ܨ‬ ‫ܙܦ ܘ‬ ‫)ܘ‬. 1.17 Ezek 18:23, 32 and 33:11 The wording of these verses in the Peshitta have much in common with each other. ܿ‫ ܐ‬. Pesh 18:23: ‫ܟ‬ ‫ ܐ ܕ‬. ‫ܘܬ‬ ‫ܬܗ ܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܿܨ‬ ‫ܔ‬. ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܐܘܪ‬ I do not take pleasure31 in the death of the sinner, says the Lord of lords, rather, that he turn from his wicked32 way and live. ܿ‫ܐ‬ Pesh 18:32 ‫ ܐ ܬܘ‬. ‫ܘܬ‬ ‫ܬܗ ܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܿܨ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܘ ܀‬ Because I do not take pleasure in the death of the dead,33 says the Lord of lords. Rather repent and live! ̇ ‫ ܐ ܐ‬.‫ܘܢ‬ Pesh 33:11: . ܿ ‫ܬܗ ܕ‬ ‫ܿܨ ܐ‬ ‫ ܕ‬. ‫ܘܬ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ܿ ‫ܕ ܘܒ‬ ̈ ‫ ܘ‬. ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܐܘ‬ ‫ ܬܘ ܘܐܬ‬. ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ̣ ‫ܓ‬. ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܬ ܬܘܢ ܕ‬ Say to them: As I live, says the Lord of lords, I do not take pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked should turn from his iniquity and live. Repent and turn from your evil ways, and you will not die, O you of the house of Israel.

1.17.1 Dem. 7.2

Aphr:34 ‫ܐܘܪ‬ ‫ܕ ܘܒ‬ ‫ ܐ‬. ‫ܬܗ ܕ‬ ‫ܨܿ ܐ‬ ‫ܔ‬. ‫ܘ‬ I do not take pleasure in the death of the dead sinner, rather that he should repent from his evil way and live.

Aphrahat reflects the developed Peshitta text of Ezek 18:23 by reading “from his evil way” (as in 7a1) against merely “from his way” (as in 9a1fam ~ MT). Aphrahat Read the singular with MS A, that is, ‫ܨ‬ ‫ܘ‬. The Peshitta turns the Hebrew rhetorical question (“Do I take pleasure in the death of the wicked ...?”) into a statement. On this technique, see Jerome A. Lund, “Converse Translation in Peshitta Ezekiel,” TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism 6 (2001). 32 Peshitta 9a1fam omits the adjective “wicked.” Since this omission corresponds to the Hebrew, it seems to be the primitive Peshitta reading. The addition of “wicked” reflects a developed text. 33 9l1 reads the variant ‫“ ܕ‬of the sinner” as in v. 23, while 11l1 conflates the readings, offering ‫“ ܕ‬of the dead sinner.” 34 The phrase ‫ ܕ‬. ‫“ ܐ‬For Ezekiel the prophet said” introduces the citation. 30 31

APHRAHAT’S USE OF EZEKIEL

205

adds the word “dead” from Ezek 18:32 to form the expression “dead sinner” over against the Peshitta of Ezek 18:23 “sinner.” His choice of the synonym ‫“ ܘܒ‬he should repent” for ‫ܟ‬ “he should turn” seems to be drawn from Ezek 33:11 and is a contextualized reading fitting the subject of the demonstration, namely repentance. Aphrahat crafts his citation to give us the essence of what Ezekiel said in these three verses. The verses speak with one voice, so to combine their ideas together is merely to expound the meaning of the text. 1.17.2 Dem. 8.17

ܿ‫ܐ ܐ‬ Aphr:35 ‫ܓ‬. ‫ܬܗ ܕ‬ ‫ ܕ ܨ ܿ ܐ‬. ‫ܘܬ‬ As I live says the Lord of lords, I do not take pleasure in the death of the dead sinner.

Aphrahat argues that a sinner can be dead while yet physically alive, as in the case of Adam after he sinned. As support, he cites Ezekiel. The introductory phrase ‫ܐ‬ ܿ ‫“ ܐ‬as I live says the Lord of lords” derives from Ezek 33:11. But the ‫ܘܬ‬ reading “dead sinner” conflates words taken from Ezek 18:23 and Ezek 18:32. In ܿ “wicked.” By Aphrahat’s understanding, “dead sinner” explains the 11th century, this reading entered public reading of Ezek 18:32 as attested to by 11l1. 1.17.3 In a clever way Aphrahat combines elements of these three verses with each other, due to their common theme. What Aphrahat means by “Ezekiel said” or by “it is written in Ezekiel” is that this is the sum of what Ezekiel said about the given subject. He adapted the text to clarify its meaning. He in no wise attempted to replicate the biblical verses verbatim. 1.18 Ezek 20:11 (Dem. 15.7)

ܿ ‫ ܕܐܢ‬.‫ܐ ܢ‬ ܿ ‫ܘ‬ ܿ Pesh: ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ ܘܕ ̈ ܐܘܕ‬. ̈ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܓ‬.‫ܘܢ‬ I gave them my commandments, and I made them know my judgments, that if a person should do them, he should live by them. ܿ ‫ ܕܐܢ‬.‫ܐܘܕ ܿ ܐ ܢ‬ ܿ ̈ ̈ ‫ܘܕ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ Aphr:36 ‫ܘ‬.‫ܘܢ‬ I gave them the commandments, and I made them know the judgments, that if a person should do them, he should live by them.

Aphrahat picks up the citation after the initial conjunctive waw. Further, he drops ̈ the first person singular suffixes to the nouns “commandments” and ̈ ‫ܕ‬ “judgments” as irrelevant to his argument. Apart from these minor differences, he cites the Peshitta word for word in this citation. The clause ‫ ܕ‬. ‫“ ܗ‬For thus it is written in Ezekiel the prophet” introduces the citation. 36 Aphrahat has just mentioned the prophet Ezekiel and then proceeds to introduce the citation with ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫“ ܐ‬He said to them above.” 35

206

JEROME A. LUND

1.19 Ezek 20:25–26 (Dem. 15.7)

ܿ ̈ Pesh: ‫ ܘ ܿ ܐ ܢ‬.‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ ܘܕ ̈ ܕ‬. ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܓ‬. ‫ ܘ ܢ ܕܐ ܐ‬.‫ ܘܐܘ ܐ ܢ‬. ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܗ ܗܘܢ‬ And I gave them commandments that were not pleasing and judgments by which they would not live. And I defiled them with their gifts when they offered the firstborn, and I will destroy them. And they shall know that I am Lord. ܿ ‫ ܘ‬.‫ܘܢ‬ ܿ ̈ ̈ ‫ ܘܕ‬. ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ Aphr:37 ‫ܐ ܢ‬ ̈ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܗ ܗܘܢ‬ I gave them commandments that were not pleasing and judgments by which they would not live. And I defiled them with their gifts when they offered the offerings.

The main feature of this citation is that Aphrahat replaces the term “firstborn” ܽ )38 of the Peshitta with the general term “offerings” ( ). This keeps him ( ܷ from digressing onto a topic not germane to his subject, namely the interpretation of “firstborn” in this context. 1.20 Ezek 20:36 (Dem. 14.5)

ܿ ‫ܐ ܕܕ‬ ̈‫ܐ‬ Pesh: ܿ ‫ܢ ܐ‬ ‫ܐܕܘܢ‬ ‫ܗ‬. ‫ܕ ܪ‬ ‫ܕܐܪ‬ ‫ܢ‬ ‫ܓ‬. ‫ܘܬ‬ As I entered into judgment with your forefathers in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, so I will enter into judgment with you, says the Lord of lords. ܿ ‫ܢܐ‬ ‫ ܐ ܕܕ‬. ‫ܐܕܘܢ‬ Aphr:39 ‫ܐ ̈ ܢ‬ I will enter into judgment with you, says the Lord, as I entered into judgment with your forefathers.

Aphrahat incorrectly ascribes this citation of Ezekiel to Jeremiah. He rearranges the word order of the verse by eliminating the particle ‫“ ܗ‬so” to bring into focus the phrase ‫ܢ‬ ‫“ ܐܕܘܢ‬I will enter into judgment with you.” Then, too, he substitutes “the Lord” ( ) for “the Lord of lords” ( ‫ܘܬ‬ ). Further, he condenses the verse by omitting the phrase “in the wilderness of the land of Egypt” ̈ ‫)ܐ‬. Clearly, Aphrahat ( ‫ܕ ܪ‬ ‫ܕܐܪ‬ ) after “your forefathers” (‫ܢ‬ does not cite the biblical text verbatim, but brings out its meaning by introducing it by “Jeremiah (Ezekiel) said.” 1.21 Ezek 22:30

̈ ܿ ‫ܘ‬ Pesh: ܿ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܪ‬ ‫ ܘ ܿܡ‬. ‫ܕ ܿܓ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ܿ ܿ ‫ܓ‬. ‫ܘ ܐ‬ ‫ܕ ܐ‬ ‫ܕܐܪ‬ And I sought among them a man who would repair the wall and would stand in

The immediate context makes it clear that Ezekiel is the one speaking. The words ‫“ ܘܬܘܒ ܐ‬And again he said” introduce the citation. 38 The word “firstfruits” is ܷ ܳ ܰ (Lev 2:14; 23:17, 20; Num 28:26; 2 Kgs 4:42). 39 Aphrahat introduces the citation incorrectly with ‫ ܕ‬. ‫ܐ‬ ‫“ ܘܐܪ‬And Jeremiah said.” 37

APHRAHAT’S USE OF EZEKIEL

207

the breach before me for the sake of the land that I might not destroy it, but I did not find (such a one).

Aphrahat cites Ezek 22:30 three times, once in Dem. 1.6, once in Dem. 14.2, and once in Dem. 23.3. 1.21.1 Dem. 1.6

ܿ ̈ ܿ Aphr:40 ‫ܐ ܿ ܕܐܪ‬ ‫ܘܪ‬ ‫ ܘ ܡ‬. ‫ܕ ܓ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ܿ ܿ ‫ܓ‬. ‫ܼ ܘ ܐ‬ ‫ܕ ܐ‬ I sought among them a man who would repair the wall and would stand in the breach for the sake of the land that I might not destroy it, but I did not find (such a one).

This citation follows another citation ascribed correctly to Ezekiel. It condenses the Peshitta by eliminating the words “before me” that appear immediately after ‫“ ܘܪ‬in the breach.” 1.21.2 Dem. 14.2

̈ Aphr:41 ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܐ ܿ ܕܐܪ‬ ‫ܘ ܡ ܘܪ‬ ‫ܕܿ ܓ‬ ܿ ‫ܐ‬ I sought among my people a man who would repair the wall and would stand in the breach for the sake of the land, but I did not find (such a one).

Aphrahat wrongly ascribes this citation to Jeremiah. Within the citation, Aphrahat substitutes the noun phrase “among my people” for the pronoun phrase ‫ܘܢ‬ “among them.” As in the preceding citation, he omits the words “before me” that appear immediately after ‫ܘܪ‬ “in the breach.” Further, he omits the phrase ܿ ‫“ ܕ ܐ‬that I might not destroy it.” Aphrahat condenses the citation, highlighting what was relevant to his argument. 1.21.3 Dem. 23.3

̈ Aphr:42 ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܐ ܿ ܕܐܪ‬ ‫ܘ ܡ ܘܪ‬ ‫ܕ ܓ‬ ܿ ܿ ‫ܓ‬. ‫ܘ ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ I sought among my people a man who would repair the wall and would stand in the breach for the sake of the land that I might not destroy it, but I did not find (such a one).

Again as in Dem. 14.2, Aphrahat substitutes the noun phrase “among my people” for the pronoun phrase ‫“ ܘܢ‬among them.” Further, as in the other two citations, he omits the phrase “before me” that appears immediately after The phrase ‫ ܕ‬. ‫“ ܘܬܘܒ‬And again it is written” introduces the citation. Aphrahat introduces this citation with ‫ ܕ‬. ‫ܐ‬ ‫“ ܘܐܪ‬And Jeremiah said.” ̈ 42 The citation is introduced by . ̈ ‫ܘܙܕ‬ ‫ܒ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ̈ ‫“ ܕ ܐ ܪܗ ܙܕ‬And when the ‫ ܕ‬.‫ܙ‬ ‫ܕܐ‬ ‫ ܐ‬. ‫ܘܪ ܗ ܕ‬ sword is commanded to slay, it will destroy the sinners and the righteous, because the righteous did not hurry to stand in the breach of the wall, as the prophet said, heralding.” 40 41

208

JEROME A. LUND ‫ܘܪ‬

“in the breach.”

1.21.4 While one could argue that his wrong ascription of this citation to Jeremiah in Dem. 14.2 indicates that Aphrahat cited from memory, it is not necessarily the case. He could have had a citation collection on a separate sheet or just substituted one prophet for the other due to a lapse in attention to detail while he was writing. He does condense the citation and substitutes a noun for a pronoun in two of the three instances, making the referent clear to his readers and making it appropriate for pastoral application to his flock. 1.22 Ezek 28:2–3 (Dem. 5.7)

̈ ‫ ܐܘ‬. Pesh 28:3: ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ݂ Are you wiser than Daniel, or have you seen mysteries? ̈ Aphrahat: ‫ܐܘ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬ Are you wiser than Daniel, or have you seen mysteries? ܿ ̈ ‫ܕ‬ Pesh 28:2a: ‫܁ ܘ ܬ ܕܐ‬. ‫ܐ ݂ ܐ‬ I am God, and I sit (as) the seat of God in the heart of the seas. ̈ ‫ܕ‬ Aphrahat: ‫ܬ ܕܐ‬ ‫ܘ‬. ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܐ‬ I am God, and I sit on the seat of God in the heart of the seas. Pesh 28:2b: ‫ܐ ܘ ܗܘ ܐ‬ ‫ܘ‬ Yet you are a human and you are not God. ‫ ܘ ܗܘ ܐ‬. ‫ܐ‬ Aphrahat: You are a human and you are not God.

In the same section of Demonstration 5, Aphrahat uses phrases from Ezek 28:2–3 three times. The first time, he cites v. 3 exactly as in the Peshitta. The second time, Aphrahat cites v. 2a, with the addition of the preposition beth “on” before the noun “seat.” By doing so, he merely makes clear what is implicit in the biblical text. The third time, he quotes v. 2b, omitting the conjunctive waw of the biblical text, as unnecessary to the flow of his argument. 1.23 Ezek 33:22 (Dem. 14.45) Pesh: ‫ܐܬܬ‬ ‫ܬܘܒ‬ ‫ܘ ܐܬ ݂ ܚ‬ And when my mouth is opened, it will not again be shut. Aphr: ‫ܓ‬. ‫ܐܬܬ‬ ‫ܘܬܘܒ‬ ‫ܐ ܼ ܕܐܬ ܚ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘ‬ And at another time he said, “My mouth has been opened and it will not again be shut.”

In working this verse into his text, Aphrahat makes subtle modifications, changing the relationship of the clauses to each other. In the Peshitta, the first clause is a temporal clause, subordinate to the clause that follows, namely, to “it will not again be shut.” Aphrahat makes the clauses coordinated by removing the particle ‘when’ and adding the conjunction ‫‘ ܘ‬and’. In effect, there is no difference in meaning between what the Bible says and how Aphrahat formulates it. 1.24 Ezek 37:3–4, 9 (Dem. 8.12) Pesh Ezek 37:3–4: . ̈

‫ ܐ ܗܘ ݁ܥ‬.‫ ܘܐ ܿ ܬ‬. ‫ܗ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܗ‬

ܿ ‫ ܐܬ‬.

.

. ‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ ܘܐ‬. ‫ܘܬ‬

APHRAHAT’S USE OF EZEKIEL

209

‫ܓ‬. ‫ܕ‬ And he (God) said to me (Ezekiel): “Human, can these bones live?” And I said: “It is you who knows, O Lord of lords.” Then he said to me: “Prophesy over these bones and say to them: ‘Dry bones, hear the word of the Lord.’ ” ̈ . Aphr: ‫ ܐ ܗܘ ݁ܥ‬. ‫ܗ‬ ܼ ‫ ܘܐ‬. ܼ ‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ ܐܬ‬. ‫ܗ‬ ‫ ܐܬ‬. ܼ ‫ ܘܐ‬. ‫ܘܬ‬ ‫ܘ‬. ‫ܘܬ‬ ‫ܕ‬ . ̈ And he (God) said to him (Ezekiel), “Can these bones live, human?” And Ezekiel said to him, “It is you who knows, O Lord of lords.” Then the Lord said to him, “Prophesy over these bones, human, prophesy and say to the dry bones, ‘Hear the word of the Lord of lords.’ ” ݁ ݁ ‫ ܗ‬. ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ ܐܬ‬. ‫ܪܘ‬ Pesh Ezek 37:9: ‫ ܐܬ‬. ‫ܘܐ‬ ݁‫ܐ‬ ̈ ‫ ܓ‬.‫ܘ ܢ‬ ‫ܘ‬. ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܬܝ ܪܘ‬. ‫ܘܬ‬ And he said to me: “Prophesy concerning the breath, prophesy, human, and say to the breath: ‘Thus says the Lord of lords, Come, O breath, from the four winds and blow into these dead and they shall live.’ ” ̈ Aphr: ‫ ܘ‬. ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܬܝ ܪܘ‬. ܿ ‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ܪܘ‬ ‫ܐܬ‬ ‫ܘ ܢ‬ “Prophesy concerning the breath and say to it, ‘Come, O breath, from the four winds and breathe into these dead and they shall live.’ ”

In his discussion about the resurrection of the dead on the basis of the valley of the dry bones coming to life, Aphrahat integrates Ezek 37:3–4 and 9 into his argument. In citing vv. 3–4, he changes the word order, placing the vocative “human” after the question “can these bones live?” Moreover, he casts the narrative in the third person, adding the explicit subjects “Ezekiel” and “the Lord” for clarity (“and he said to him ... and Ezekiel said to him ... and the Lord said to him ...”) against first person of the Peshitta (“and he said to me ... and I said ... and he said to me ...”). Further, Aphrahat reshapes and expands the biblical “Prophesy over these bones and say to them, ‘Dry bones, hear ...’” into “Prophesy, human, over these bones, prophesy and say to the dry bones, ‘Hear ....’” Then, too, he substitutes the equivalent “the Lord of lords” for “the Lord.” In citing v. 9, Aphrahat condenses the biblical text, reading “Prophesy concerning the breath and say to it” in place of “Prophesy concerning the breath, prophesy, human, and say to the breath” and removing the phrase “thus says the Lord of lords” as nonessential to his argument.

2. A PSEUDO BIBLICAL VARIANT — THE CASE OF EZEK 16:55

Pesh: ‫ܕ‬ ‫̈ ܐ‬ ‫ܘ ̈ ̈ܗ‬ ‫ ܘ‬. ‫ܕ‬ ‫̈ ܐ‬ ‫ܘܡ ܘ ̈ ܗ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ̈ ‫ܒ‬. ‫ܬܗܘ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ ܘܐ ܝ ܘ‬. And your sister Sodom and her daughters shall be restored as in ancient times, and Samaria and her daughters shall be restored as in ancient times, and you and your daughters shall be as in ancient times.

2.1.1 Aphr Dem. 21.343 43

The words ‫ ܕ‬.

‫ܘܪ‬

ܿ

‫ ܕܐ‬.

‫ܕ‬

‫ܐ ܬ‬

‫“ ܘܬܘܒ‬Fur-

210

JEROME A. LUND ̈ ‫ ܘܐ ܝ ܘ‬. ‫ܘ‬. ‫ܬܗܘ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܐ ܕ‬. ‫ܘ ̈ ܿܗ‬ ‫ܘܡ‬ Sodom and her daughters shall be rebuilt as in ancient times, and you and your daughters shall be as in ancient times.44

2.1.2 Aphr Dem. 21.345

̈ ‫ ܘܐ ܝ ܘ‬. ‫ܒ‬. ‫ܬܗܘ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܐ ܕ‬. ‫ܘܡ ܘ ̈ ܿܗ‬ Sodom and her daughters shall be rebuilt as in ancient times, and you and your daughters shall be as in ancient times.46

2.1.3 Aphr Dem. 21.3

‫ܘ‬. ‫ܐ ܕ‬. . ‫ܐܘܪ‬ ‫ܘ ܘܡ ܘ ̈ ܿܗ ܕܐܙܕܕܩ‬ Sodom and her daughters, because they were more righteous than Jerusalem, shall be rebuilt as in ancient times.47

This is not a citation, but uses the same wording as the two citations earlier in the section. 2.2 Aphr Dem. 21.5

‫ ܕܐ ܝ‬. ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܘ ܘܪ‬. ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ ܕ ܘܡ ܘ ̈ ܗ‬. ‫ܡ ܕ ܗܕ ܕܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܒ‬. ‫ܬܗܘ ܐ ܕ‬ ‫ܘ‬ Indeed this is what he said: “Sodom and her daughters shall be restored as in ancient times.” And to Jerusalem he said: “You and your daughters shall be as in ancient times.”

Wright uses MS B to record the text of both Dem. 21.3, where the verb “shall be rebuilt” appears instead of the Peshitta’s “shall be restored.” At first blush, this smacks of a variant Peshitta reading preserved by Aphrahat. Wright does note that MS A reads ‘they (feminine) shall be restored’ (from the root ‫ )ܬ‬instead of ‘they (feminine) shall be rebuilt’ (from the root ) in all three instances. So one wonders if he considered it an actual reading found in Peshitta manuscripts. 48 Now, it is clear that the letters ‫ ܒ‬and ‫ ܩ‬resemble each other, so that the reading

ther I queried about another saying that is written in Ezekiel, which he said to Jerusalem” introduce the citation. 44 MS A reads “shall be restored” instead of “shall be rebuilt.” 45 Continuing the argument, Aphrahat introduces the second citation of this verse with . ‫ܘܪ‬ ‫ܿ ܐ‬ ‫ ܕܗ ܕܐ‬. ‫ܘܐ‬ ‫ ܘ ܝ ܿ ܘ‬. ‫ܗܕ‬ ‫“ ܕ‬Explain this saying to me. So he began to respond and said to me, ‘This is what God said through the prophet.’ ” 46 MS A reads “shall be restored” instead of “shall be rebuilt.” 47 MS A reads “shall be restored” instead of ̈ “shall be rebuilt.” 48 In Wright’s day it was fashionable to view the early Peshitta as a Jewish targum that was later revised toward the Masoretic Text. This view is no longer in vogue. Today, in cases of multiply readings in Peshitta manuscripts, the reading closest the Masoretic Text is viewed as the original Peshitta reading.

APHRAHAT’S USE OF EZEKIEL

211

derived from the reading .49 But the variant reading, unattested in any extant biblical manuscript, is better explained as an error that occurred within the transmission of the Demonstrations and not that of the Bible. Such a notion is strengthened by the fact that this same saying appears later in this same demonstration (Dem. 21.5), howbeit not recorded as a citation of Ezekiel by Wright, with the same reading in both MSS, to wit “they shall be restored.” So, what smacks like a variant in the biblical text is in reality an error occurring in the transmission of the text of Aphrahat.

3. EXEGESIS OF A BIBLICAL TEXT BY SUBSTITUTION OF MEANING — THE CASE OF EZEK 13:10 Pesh: ‫ܿ ܕܬ‬ ‫ܘܗ ܢ‬ ‫ܘܗܘ ܿ ܗܘ ܐ‬ And he (my people) was building the wall, but they (the false prophets) were plastering it that it might fall.

In Demonstration 1.6 Aphrahat plays on the root ‫‘ ܝ‬to whitewash/plaster’, using the biblical text to mean ‘to strike’, derived from a homographic root.50 In the Bible, the phrase ‫ܿ ܕܬ‬ ‫ܘܗ ܢ‬ ‫ ܘܗܘ ܿ ܗܘ ܐ‬means “And he (my people) was building the wall, but they (the false prophets) were whitewashing/plastering it that it might fall.”51 But within his argumentation, Aphrahat uses it with the meaning ‘to strike’52: “And he (my people) was building the wall, but they (the false prophets) were striking it that it might fall.” Aphrahat poses the question “Who were the builders?” who rejected the stone of Ps 118:22. He replies: “They were none other than the priests and the Pharisees who have not constructed a sturdy building, but incredibly they were destroying (‫ܪ ܗܘܘ‬ ‫ܪ‬ ) what he was building, as it is written in the prophet Ezekiel, ‘He was building a wall, but they were striking it so that it would fall.’ ” In other words, Aphrahat brings a derash on the peshat by substituting a homographic root.

CONCLUSION The present study shows that Aphrahat cited the biblical text of Ezekiel in its substance, utilizing key phrases of the Ezekiel text, but did not attempt to quote the text verbatim. Aphrahat consciously worked the Ezekiel text into the fabric of his argument by means of various techniques that include combining elements from similar That the reading “they shall be restored” is original is apparent from the Hebrew verb ‫‘ שׁוב‬return (to a former state)’ (BDB, Qal, meaning 5d). 50 He introduces this citation with the words ‫ ܕ‬. ‫ܕ‬ ‫“ ܐ‬as it is written in the prophet Ezekiel.” 51 BSLex, 551, 1# ‫ ܝ‬. 52 BSLex, 551, 2# ‫ ܝ‬. Lehto, The Demonstrations, 72, translates correctly, in my opinion, “they were hitting it.” By contrast, Ioannes Parisot, Aphraatis Sapientis Persae Demonstrationes 1–XXII (Patrologia Syriaca 1.1; Paris, 1894), col. 15, rendered it as illinebant ‘they were besmearing’, like the Peshitta. 49

212

JEROME A. LUND

verses together, condensing, substitution of synonyms, substituting a statement for a rhetorical question, rephrasing of word order, adjusting of person, and paraphrase. In citing Ezekiel, Aphrahat brought out the meaning of the text as he saw it and was not concerned with exact quotation. Therefore, the editors of the Leiden scientific edition were right in omitting citations from Aphrahat as a text witness to the Old Testament Peshitta.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Lehto, Adam. The Demonstrations of Aphrahat, the Persian Sage. Gorgias Eastern Christian Studies 27. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2010. Lund, Jerome A. “Converse Translation in Peshitta Ezekiel.” TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism 6 (2001). Morrison, Craig E. “The Bible in the hands of Aphrahat the Persian Sage.” Pages 1–25 in Syriac and Antiochan Exegesis and Biblical Theology for the 3rd Millennium. Edited by Robert D. Miller. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2008, 1–25. _____. “The Reception of the Book of Daniel in Aphrahat’s Fifth Demonstration, On Wars,” Hugoye 7 (2004): 55–82. Mulder, M. J., ed. Ezekiel, Part III.3 of The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshiṭta Version. Leiden: Brill, 1993. Nöldeke Th. “Review of A.M. Ceriani, Le edizioni e i manoscritti delle versioni siriache del Vecchio Testamento [Milan, 1869],” Literarisches Centralblatt für Deutschland 41 [2. October 1869]. Owens, R. J. The Genesis and Exodus Citations of Aphrahat the Persian Sage. MPI 3. Leiden: Brill, 1984. _____. “Aphrahat as a Witness to the Early Syriac Text of Leviticus.” Pages 1–48 in The Peshitta: Its Early Text and History. Edited by P. B. Dirksen and M. J. Mulder. MPI 4. Leiden: Brill, 1988. Parisot, Ioannes, ed. Aphraatis Sapientis Persae Demonstrationes 1–XXII. Patrologia Syriaca 1.1. Paris, 1894. _____. Aphraatis Sapientis Persae Demonstratio XXIII de Acino. Patrologia Syriaca 1.2. Paris, 1907. Weitzman, Michael P., The Syriac Version of the Old Testament. University of Cambridge Oriental Publications 56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Wright, W. The Homilies of Aphraates, the Persian Sage, Edited from Syriac Manuscripts of the Fifth and Sixth Centuries, in the British Museum, with an English Translation. London: Williams and Norgate, 1869.

CONSTRUCTING A FOUNDATION FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS IN THE OLD SYRIAC GOSPELS GODWIN MUSHAYABASA NORTH WEST UNIVERSITY, SOUTH AFRICA Recent studies on Old Testament quotations in the Old Syriac Gospels have indicated that they were influenced by the Old Testament Peshitta, either directly or indirectly through the Diatessaron. The theory at present is mainly based on the identification of cases where a part of an Old Testament quotation in OSG has similarities with the parallel text in the Old Testament Peshitta rather than the quoted text in the Greek New Testament. However, the evidence for OTP influence on OSG is still flimsy and is liable to collapse under scrutiny. Hence the present paper is designed to provide a more solid basis upon which further study of OTP influence on OSG can rest. In doing so I investigate two aspects related to the OSG and GNT, which could help in assessing the nature of OT quoted texts in them: The first aspect will be to establish the general translation technique used by OSG translators. Knowledge of the OSG translation techniques will enable researchers to easily distinguish deviations in the translator’s text that are a function of the general translation technique of the whole text from those deviations that were caused by influence from secondary texts such as OTP or the Diatessaron. The second aspect will be to establish the nature of the philosophy of quoting scriptural sources among the gospel writers and translators of the first three centuries. From the results of that study, one will be able to have a general idea of how both the original author quoted scripture and how any subsequent translator would treat such quotations. In this study, the focus will lie mainly upon Matthew’s Gospel.

213

214

GODWIN MUSHAYABASA

INTRODUCTION The OT quotations in the Old Syriac Gospel (OSG,1 otherwise the Vetus Syra) are currently believed to have been influenced by the Old Testament Peshitta (OTP), mostly via the Diatessaron.2 The text of the OSG was apparently translated from a Greek New Testament (GNT) Vorlage.3 For one to have a better picture of how OTP could have influenced OSG and how such texts were handled, it is necessary to understand, among other things, the translation techniques that were employed in OSG in general. The period ranging from the first to the fifth century AD is an extremely active period in terms of the production, transmission and translation of biblical sacred texts. In this period, which we will henceforth call the early church period, the MT is being transmitted, the LXX is being transmitted and revised,4 the Peshitta OT is being produced and transmitted, the first of the Targums are being translated, the New Testament is being produced, transmitted and translated 5 and finally, we have various institutions using all these texts vigorously, leading to the production of commentaries, sermons, apologies, disputations, catechisms, testimonies and lectionaries.6 Within this plethora of textual cross-currents, it is a daunting task to go about identifying the sources of all textual abnormalities in any one text type emerging from this period with any certainty. Hence in this kind of environment, the most important initial question to answer is, ‘how the translators of this particular text handled their main source and other sources besides it?’ The following study is only a preliminary step towards answering this question as far as OSG is concerned. It will be carried out by focusing on two aspects crucial to the study of an ancient translation such as the OSG: that of the translation techniques used, and that of the prevailing literary and ideological framework of handling Scripture texts in the period concerned.

I will use the singular for the Old Syriac Gospel (OSG), since it may be agreed that both the Curetonian (C) and the Sinaitic (S) manuscripts descend from a single original Syriac Gospel manuscript. See Jan Joosten, Language and Textual History of the Syriac Bible: Collected Studies (Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias, 2013), 227, 241, and George Howard, “Harmonistic readings in the Old Syriac gospels,” Harvard Theological Review 73 (1980): 473–91, esp. p. 473. 2 Jan Joosten, The Syriac language of the Peshitta and Old Syriac versions of Matthew : syntactic structure, inner-Syriac developments and translation technique (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 5–17, and Sebastian P. Brock, The Bible in the Syriac tradition (2nd ed. Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias, 2006), 33. 3 Joosten, The Syriac Language, 5. As pointed out earlier, the individual manuscripts of the OSG could be understood to be revisions of earlier translations of GNT. 4 The well-known revisions being those of Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, Origen (the Hexapla) and Lucian. 5 Examples of versions in production include the Diatessaron, OSG, Peshitta NT, the Latin versions, and the Coptic versions. 6 A typical example of the type of intense biblical scholarship including text production that thrives in this period is the evidence presented by the finds of the Dead Sea Scrolls. 1

OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS IN THE OLD SYRIAC GOSPELS

215

TRANSLATION TECHNIQUES As far as the study of translation technique is concerned, I have made use of a sample study in the book of Matthew, focusing specifically on the eighth chapter. Some research has already been carried out on the characteristics of OSG text in general such as the one by Burkitt,7 and in at least one case, with specific reference to the Gospel of Matthew.8 Joosten has noted that “C (Curetonius) and S (Sinaiticus) of Matthew are revised and corrected editions of one and the same Old Syriac text of Matthew.”9 Further Joosten observes that OSG is characterised by a number of what he calls harmonising readings,10 harmonistic readings and parallel variants,11 besides noting that the translator(s) had a poor understanding of the Greek language. He concludes that most of these characteristics point to the fact that OSG was heavily influenced by the Diatessaron. While these observations may be true, I will observe, following a study of the translation techniques in OSG Matthew, that some modification of these conclusions could be possible.12 In the following section, the translation techniques in OSG mainly with reference to Matthew 8 are discussed.

WORD ORDER AND GENERAL STYLE OF TRANSLATION It is widely acknowledged that OSG was translated from a Greek text that was close to the various manuscript traditions of which the Byzantine and the Western texts form part.13 The translator of OSG Matthew 8 attempted as much as possible to follow the word order in his source text, yet not at the cost of idiomatic Syriac. This can be observed, in the way the sentence thought-flow in the OSG more or less mirrors that of its source text. The translator was committed to following closely the 7

F. Crawford Burkitt, Evangelion Da Mepharreshe: The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, with the reading of the Sinai Palimpsest and the early Syriac Patristic evidence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1904), ix. 8 Joosten, The Syriac Language of the Peshitta. 9 Joosten, The Syriac Language of the Peshitta, 6. 10 Joosten, The Syriac Language of the Peshitta, 10–16. A text reading that results from combining elements from several parallel passages. In that way, the text reading does not reflect any one specific reading. In this context, Joosten, The Syriac Language, 13, provides a distinction between such readings and the more familiar tendency of harmonistic readings, where text from a parallel passage or verse is introduced into a specific text, either instead of the original reading or in addition to it. 11 That is, variants that only appear in C and S and in the Gospel parallel texts of C and/or S (but not in any Greek text). 12 With respect to translation technique studies of OSG, the caveats spelled out by Joosten, The Syriac Language, 6, are also in order here. For example, in some cases, what one may judge as a free rendering could be explained otherwise as the result of influence from a parallel passage or from the Diatessaron. See for example 8:22 below. 13 Joosten, Language and Textual History, 219.

216

GODWIN MUSHAYABASA

phrase structure of his source text. In this regard, witness the sentence-final subject in C at 8:1, which mirrors the Greek word order but breaks with the regular discourse structure of contemporary Syriac prose. Following such observations, Burkitt characterised the translation as having been made in vernacular idiomatic Syriac. 14 Phrase deviations were sometimes caused by poor perception of the Greek (8:28); or the need to present idiomatic Syriac (8:31) or at other times the text could have been influenced by a parallel text (8:22). Alternatively, the causes were a combination of two or more of the above (e.g. 4:23–24). The example sentence below demonstrates some of the issues raised here. Matt 8:28 GNT: ὑπήντησαν αὐτῷ δύο δαιμονιζόμενοι ἐκ τῶν μνημείων ἐξερχόμενοι, χαλεποὶ λίαν, ὥστε μὴ ἰσχύειν τινὰ παρελθεῖν διὰ τῆς ὁδοῦ ἐκείνης // Two demonpossessed men met him, who were coming from the tombs, so fierce that no one was able to pass through that way. OSG (S): ‫ܗܘܘ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܗܘܘ‬ ‫ܘܢ ܕ ܘ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܕܐ‬ ‫ܬܪ‬ ‫ܝ ܐܘܪ‬ ‫ܗܘ ܂‬ ‫ܕ ܐ‬ // Two men met him, who were demon-possessed, and they were extremely bad, and they were coming from the grave so that no one was able to pass on that way. In the above example, the translator shifted the position of the adjectival χαλεποὶ λίαν so that it came immediately after δύο δαιμονιζόμενοι. He thus reasoned that χαλεποὶ λίαν was to be used attributively with the nominative, δύο δαιμονιζόμενοι. The adjective should rather be used predicatively (the copula is omitted) and is modified further by the ὥστε phrase.15 There is no trace of Diatessaric influence in this case. Possible Influences From The Diatessaron The apparent traces in OSG Matthew have been addressed at length and stressed by Joosten,16 and the example given below serves as one possible instance of the occurrence of the phenomenon. The Syriac text below is probably influenced by the Diatessaron, as witnessed by the Arabic Harmony. In Luke 9:60, the GNT initial phrasing is similar to that of the first part of OSG here. However, an argument that the reading in OSG Matt 8:22 was influenced from a parallel text in Luke 9:60 can still be raised against it.

Burkitt, The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, ix. It appears, in fact, that the translator struggles in rendering final clauses introduced by the conjunction ὥστε, at least in the rest of Matthew. The OSG translator usually treats this conjunction as equivalent to καί and hence uses the Syriac conjunction equivalent. 16 Joosten, The Syriac Language of the Peshitta. 14 15

OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS IN THE OLD SYRIAC GOSPELS

217

Matt 8:22 GNT: ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς λέγει αὐτῷ, Ἀκολούθει μοι καὶ ἄφες τοὺς νεκροὺς θάψαι τοὺς ἑαυτῶν νεκρούς. ̈ ̈ ‫ܩ‬ OSG (C): ‫ܪܝ‬ ‫ܘܢ ܘܐ ܬ‬ ‫ܥ‬ ‫ܐ‬ Arabic Harmony: Dixit ei Iesus: Sine, ut mortui sepeliant mortuos suos: tu autem sequere me, et annuntia regnum Dei. While the OSG Matthew had been following GNT closely, in Matt 8:22 OSG suddenly departs from the textual form of Matthew and reflects the text form of Luke 9:60a, which is also the form of text that appears in the Diatessaric Arabic Harmony. But in the last part of the verse, OSG departs from the form of the text of Luke 9:60 (= Diatessaron) and reverts back to GNT Matthew. In this case, one might postulate that OSG originally had all of the text as in the Arabic Harmony but was later partly revised to align with the text of GNT. Alternatively, the foreign text in 8:22 could have come in as a result of the subconscious influence of the Diatessaron, a phenomenon that I will briefly discuss further below.

THE CONJUNCTION AT THE BEGINNING OF A SENTENCE/VERSE: ΚΑΙ / ΔΕ OSG tends to ignore καὶ and δὲ at the beginning of a sentence or verse. Even NTP may show this tendency at times. The reasons for such a stylistic feature are not yet clear, although it seems that the aim was to preserve natural Syriac narrative discourse structures. OSG may, however, add a conjunction that is absent in the Greek text, elsewhere within the sentence or verse, as in the case of 8:3.17 In the example below, the underlined words in the Syriac text have the conjunction added to them, compared to GNT. Matt 8:3 GNT: καὶ ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα ἥψατο αὐτοῦ λέγων· θέλω, καθαρίσθητι· καὶ εὐθέως ἐκαθαρίσθη αὐτοῦ ἡ λέπρα. OSG (S): ‫ܐܬܕ‬ ‫ܨ ܐ ܐܬܕ ܘ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬ ‫[ܐ ܗ ܢܘ ܒ‬ ‫]ܘ‬ This usually happens where there are Greek verb-chains involving at least one participle. This use of a conjunction is thus an idiomatic feature and should be commended as an ideal translation of the Greek text. In Matt 8, OSG omits the conjunction at the initial position at verses 8,18 11, 13,19 20, 22 and 32.

17 18

Other incidences of additions of the conjunction occur at 8:5, 8:7, 8:19, 8:25. Here, OSG shifts a conjunction in the initial position to a verbal clause later in the

verse. 19

That is, replacement of the word form.

218

GODWIN MUSHAYABASA

Addition/Specification The case in 8:2 where the translator adds the prepositional phrase to make a fuller sentence, by adding after ‫ ܐ‬demonstrates that the translator wanted to make the translation sensible. Translators evidently could do this and thus disregard the word count in their source text. Similarly, in 8:3, the translator adds the subject ‫ܥ‬ (S, ‫) ܢ‬. Similar additions occur at 8:25–26. Matt 8:2 καὶ ἰδοὺ λεπρὸς προσελθὼν προσεκύνει αὐτῷ λέγων· κύριε, OSG (C): .‫ܝ‬ ‫ ܘܐ‬. ‫ܐܬ‬

‫ܘܗ‬

Non-Literal Renderings Although the translator strove to produce a faithful copy of the Greek, the translation was not simply a word for word literal translation, as demonstrated below. Matt 8:4 GNT: καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· ὅρα μηδενὶ εἴπῃς, ἀλλ᾿ ὕπαγε σεαυτὸν δεῖξον τῷ ἱερεῖ OSG: ̈ ‫ ܐ ܙܠ‬. ‫ܐ ܐ‬ ‫ ܕ‬.‫ܥ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬ ὅρα μηδενὶ εἴπῃς (see that you tell no one) is rendered as ‫ܐ ܐ‬ ‫( ܕ‬you are not to tell anyone).20 Significant in this translation is the fact that the translator does not translate the Greek ορα directly into an equivalent in his target language. Rather, the whole expression is recast into an idiomatic rendering of the same command in Syriac. A similar manner of translating can be observed in 8:24 and 28.

OT QUOTATIONS: THE QUESTION OF DIRECT OTP INFLUENCE Stendahl refers to 11 formulaic quotations in Matthew, of which 8:17 is one.21 Matt 8:17 GNT: ὅπως πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ Ἠσαΐου τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος· αὐτὸς τὰς ἀσθενείας ἡμῶν ἔλαβεν καὶ τὰς νόσους ἐβάστασεν OSG (S): ‫ܗ‬ ‫ܠ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܕܐ ܗܘ ܕܗܘ‬ ‫ܡ ܕܐܬܐ‬ ‫ܕ‬ OSG (C): ‫ܗ‬ ‫ܠ‬ ‫ܘ‬. ̈ ‫ ܕܗܘ‬. ‫ܕܐ ܗܘ‬ ‫ܡܐ‬

In the short text that appears in OSG (S) of Mark, the translator there used ‫ ܝ‬as a rendering for ορα. In Diatessaric witnesses, the text reads: Vide, nemini dixeris, … (e.g. the Arabic Harmony and Codex Fuldensis). 21 K. Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament (Lund: Gleerup, 1968), 97. 20

OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS IN THE OLD SYRIAC GOSPELS

219

In the OSG translation, S simply translates διὰ Ἠσαΐου with , which probably seems to be an original translation of the Greek manuscripts. C adds a noun phrase so that the translation reads ‫ ܡ ܐ‬. In this case, it is quite probable that a scribe saw it to be more appropriate to render the introduction formula by ‫ ܡ ܐ‬, rather than simply by . S also omits (perhaps accidentally) the designation τοῦ προφήτου, which appears in C. Again, S represents the Greek ἀσθενείας with , an equivalent that is not used elsewhere in OSG for the same ̈ , thus opting for a root that is cognate Greek Verb. On the other hand, C uses to one of the nouns used in the MT source passage of the Greek. As far as the use ̈ in C is concerned, it is highly improbable that the translator (or of the term copyist) was influenced by referencing a specific OT text. Rather, either the OTP or a Hebrew OT text was subconsciously in their mind such that they could specifically recall the presence of a word whose root was ‫ ܒ‬in Syriac.22 Finally, for the Greek νόσους, both S and C have ‫ ܗ‬, thus an addition of the first person plural possessive pronoun which is absent in GNT.23 It is highly improbable that this addition came from an OTP text, which uses the verb instead of (as found in OSG). The OSG translator was, therefore, looking at a Greek Vorlage, though it is also possible that the translator might have referred to a Diatessaric text. Whether this reading came from Tatian or any other Syriac translator, it is difficult to think that such a translator had an OT text directly in front of them when they made this translation. This plus vis a vis the Greek may have been a subconscious addition, resulting from an awareness of the OT wording. No direct OT influence can be confidently maintained. It is also unlikely that the word order in OSG can be traced to the Diatessaron. The Syriac Gospels could have been revised considerably by copyists, especially C. Some of the revisers could have adapted/conflated words or phrases to those of the Scriptures that were known to them (but that were not necessarily in their possession). This is in addition to other ideals of producing a more fluid translated text conforming to prevailing Syriac standards. Harmonisation Although our study of translation technique in the OSG is primarily focused on Matt 8, we make a small detour to Matt 4, to study a typical scenario of how other texts might have influenced the translators in the translation of OSG Matthew generally. The translation of Matt 4:23–24, is analysed here and offered as a typical scenario of the phenomenon of harmonisation and its effects in OSG. Here, one is led to ask the question, that if ‫ ܥ‬was a reasonable equivalent (assuming that it was the initial rendering), why would scribes modify it to ‫? ܒ‬ 23 This variant also appears in the Persian harmony, the Arabic Harmony, the Venetian form of the Italian Harmony, the Tuscan form of the Italian Harmony and the Liege manuscript. See Bruce M. Metzger, “Tatian’s Diatessaron and a Persian Harmony of the Gospels,” JBL 69 (1950): 261–80. 22

220

GODWIN MUSHAYABASA

Matt 4:23–24 GNT 4:23: Καὶ περιῆγεν ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ, διδάσκων ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς αὐτῶν καὶ κηρύσσων τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς βασιλείας καὶ θεραπεύων πᾶσαν νόσον καὶ πᾶσαν μαλακίαν ἐν τῷ λαῷ // And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people. ‫̈ ܗܘܢ ܘ ܙ ܗܘ‬ ‫ܗܘ‬ ‫ܘ‬. ‫ܥ‬ ‫ܟ ܗܘ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܪܗܢ ܕ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܗܘ‬ ‫ܬ ܘ‬ ‫ܬ ܕ‬ // And Jesus was going around in all Galilee and teaching in their synagogues. And he was proclaiming the good news of the kingdom and was healing every pain and every disease that was among the people.

OSG (S) 4:23:

GNT 4:24: καὶ ἀπῆλθεν ἡ ἀκοὴ αὐτοῦ εἰς ὅλην τὴν Συρίαν· καὶ προσήνεγκαν αὐτῷ πάντας τοὺς κακῶς ἔχοντας ποικίλαις νόσοις καὶ βασάνοις συνεχομένους, δαιμονιζομένους καὶ σεληνιαζομένους καὶ παραλυτικούς, καὶ ἐθεράπευσεν αὐτούς //And the report about him spread into the whole of Syria and they brought to him all the unwell having various sicknesses, and those seized with torments, the demonpossessed, those having seizures, and the paralytics and he healed them. OSG (C) 4:24: ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܘܢ ܐ‬ ‫ܪ ܘܐ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬ ̈ ̈ ̈ ̈ ̈ ̈ ‫ܗܘܘ‬ ‫ܪ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܪܗ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܘܐ‬ ̈ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܡ ܗܘ ܘ‬ ‫ܘܢ ܐ ܗ‬ ‫ܘܗܘ‬ ‫ܐ‬ ‫ܘܢ ܘܕ‬ ‫ ܗܘ‬// And his report was heard in all Syria. Then they brought to him all those who were unwell and those that were sick with grave sicknesses and with nasty torments,24 and many that were suffering from demonic paralysis - raging against them and lunatics,25 (and 26 the paralytics) and upon each of them he placed his hand and he healed them all. OSG (S) 4:24: ‫ܘ‬ ‫̈ ܘ ܗ‬ ‫ܗܘܘ‬ ‫ܕ‬ ‫ܗܘܘ‬ ‫ܘ‬ ‫ܗܘ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬ ‫ܡ ܗܘ ܘ‬ ‫ܘܢ ܐ ܗ‬ // (and his report was heard in all Syria) and they brought him many (those who were unwell and) who were tortured by nasty afflictions, and by grave sicknesses, (and many that were suffering from demonic paralysis and lunatics, and the paralytics) and upon each of them he placed his hand and he healed them all. One will easily note from the above verses that the semantic similarity and therefore attraction, between some words and phrases in Matt 4:23c (GNT text in parenthesis) and those in Matt 4:24b is very high. This may explain why when the OSG translator came to Matt 4:23c, he was immediately attracted to 4:24b, thus omitting Highlighted text in grey shows variant text when compared against GNT. Underlined text shows additions when compared against GNT. 26 The minimized text in parenthesis shows omissions when compared against GNT. 24 25

OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS IN THE OLD SYRIAC GOSPELS

221

4:24a (as reflected in S of 4:24), something which could have been caused by a jump of the eye, or by an intentional act. Even then, the translator only paid attention to Matt 4:24b partially, and for the rest of the verse produced a variant translation which could have been influenced by Luke 4:40. The main attracting phrase between Matt 4:24b and Luke 4:40 is the phrase that appears in the former as ποικίλαις νόσοις and in the latter as νόσοις ποικίλαις. Some of the possible links triggering connections between 4:23c, 4:24b and Luke 4:40 are demonstrated in figure 1 below. As far as the adjective ποικίλος is concerned, it seems that it was unknown to the early NT Syriac translators since they translate it with , “difficult”, “grave” or “stubborn”.27 Mark 1:34 is the only other place where the word appears in the Gospels, and there the translator simply omits it. This may be the word that finally forced the translator of OSG (S) in Matthew to embark on a research mission to find out how the word had been translated elsewhere, and by so doing he was led to a Diatessaric or Syriac parallel of Luke 4:40, from which the translator completed the rest of Matt 4:24. An alternative view would be to argue that the reading in OSG (S) reflects the original reading of the Diatessaron, which subsequently underwent some changes in other Diatessaric witnesses. This makes much less sense as we would expect OSG (S) to be the one that should have undergone the largest number of corrections, as those who worked on it sought to produce an accurate representation of each of the four Gospels accounts. Together with the evidence that OSG reflects a reasonable rendering of a Greek text and not a reworking of another Syriac text, we will prefer the former conclusion that OSG (S) reflects a harmonisation that came into this translation from a Syriac translation of Luke or from a Diatessaric parallel of Luke. Figure 1. Semantic links between Matt 4:23c, 4:24b and Luke 4:40

It appears from the evidences that OSG Luke was the one that was influenced by a Diatessaric text, which then also influenced the Matthean text at 4:24. In the Arabic 27

The Greek word is translated by the more appropriate

in the Peshitta NT.

222

GODWIN MUSHAYABASA

Harmony, we find that a similar word as in OSG Luke appears. A section from Luke 4:40 in the Arabic Harmony reads: Et omnes, qui habebant infirmos gravibus languoribus et variis …28 “all those having serious sicknesses and various diseases …” It is apparent in this text that one of the noun phrases (with its adjective) is an additional item, as far as the main Greek mss are concerned (in other words an addition). As it appears, the phrase infirmos gravibus should certainly have lain in the original Diatessaron (in its Syriac form) and should have been the equivalent chosen by Tatian29 for the Greek phrase νόσοις ποικίλαις of Luke 4:40. The rendering of νόσοις ποικίλαις in the Diatessaron can also be detected in the same witness (the Arabic Harmony) at Matt 4:24 where it reads as “male … gravioribus”. It is also clearly detectable in the Middle Dutch parallel to Matthew 4:24. At these two places in the Diatessaric witnesses, the translation of the adjectival construction shows that the translators were unsure of the meaning of ποικίλος. In either of the two occurrences ̈ of the adjectival construction, Tatian should have rendered it by ‫ ܗ‬. The correct translation that now appears in some Diatessaric witnesses, languoribus variis, possibly ̈ ‫ܗ‬ in NTP, was probably added later, during the transmission history, perhaps influenced from the side revisions as that of NTP. Given below are a number of important Diatessaric texts that reflect the reading parallel to Matt 4:2430 EASTERN31 Arabic Harmony:32 Et audiebatur opinio eius in tota regione Syriae; et obtulerunt ei omnes male habentes gravioribus ac variis morbis, et tormenta sustinentes, ‘And all that had (any) sick with grievous and divers diseases …’ J. H. Hill,The earliest life of Christ ever compiled from the four Gospels: being the Diatessaron of Tatian (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1910). 29 Assuming Tatian was the compiler of the Diatessaron. 30 The OS variant reading is missing in the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew according to a primitive Hebrew text in Howard’s edition (Howard, Harmonistic readings), an Eastern Diatessaric witness. In other Eastern witnesses of the Diatessaron, the Gospel of Thomas has a variant reading at the parallel passage and does not seem to bear any relation to either C or S. 31 The relevant text is not extant in Ephrem’s commentary on the Diatessaron. However, a parallel from Luke 4:40 is found in that commentary, translated as follows: “And all that had any sick with grievous and divers diseases, brought them unto him; and laying his hand on each, he healed them.” See Hill, The Earliest Life of Christ, and Carmel McCarthy, Saint Ephrem’s Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron : an English translation of Chester Beatty Syriac MS 709 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993). 32 A. Ciasca, Tatiani Evangeliorum harmoniae arabice (Romae: Typogr. Polygl. s. c. de Propaganda Fide, 1888). This western witness shows that both readings; Matt 4:24 and Luke 4:40 that appear in Ciasca’s edition may have appeared in Tatian’s Diatessaron, but without being harmonised or conflated. Further witness of this may also be gathered from S. Hemphill, The Diatessaron of Tatian: a harmony of the four Gospels compiled in the third quarter of the second century (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1888). Both witnesses do show that the Luke 28

OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS IN THE OLD SYRIAC GOSPELS

223

et daemoniacos, et lunaticos, et paralyticos; et curavit eos. // And the report about him was heard in the whole region of Syria; and they brought to him all those who were unwell, and also various diseases and suffering torments, and demoniacs and lunatics and the paralytics; and he healed them WESTERN Codex Fuldensis33: et abiit opinio eius in totam syriam et optulerunt ei omnes male habentes, uariis languoribus, et tormentis conprehensos, et qui daemonia habebant et lunaticos, et paralyticos et curauit eos … // And the rumour about him went out into the whole of Syria, and they presented to him the sick, those with various diseases, those gripped by torments, those who were demon-possessed and the lunatics and paralytics and he healed them. Middle Dutch:34 Doe begonste sine opinie groet te werdene ende de liede sprake van hem te meerne so dat men van hem sprac in alt lant van Sirien ende alle dage so brachte men hem toe alle die hen qualec gevulden van sikheiden35 ende van tormenten ende die beseten waren van den evelen gheesten, ende die ut haren ghereke waren ende die ghensde hi alle From the foregoing, the following observations can be made: I. In cases where difficult terms were involved, translators would by preference have consulted texts already translated to Syriac, and a Diatessaric text written in Syriac could have served as one such text in a significant way.36 II.

In these texts of reference, translators would have readily made use of parallel readings, where there was a higher chance of finding the problematic terms already translated. Hence harmonisation with Greek, Syriac or any other parallel text would be characteristic of OSG translators. From the above example, we observe that the Lukan translator of OSG (S) probably consulted Tatian’s Diatessaron, while the translator of Matthew harmonised with a Syriac version of Luke.

III.

Thirdly, if the translators were inclined to make such references, then we may deduce as well that they were not only bound to the few texts such as

reading was incorporated into the Gospel harmony first, followed by the Matthean reading. Being, the first, the Lukan reading might therefore have had greater popularity than the Matthean reading which would come later, and perhaps out of its chronological place. 33 E. Sievers, Tatian: lateinisch und altdeutsch (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1892). For Codex Fuldensis, see also Ernst Ranke, Codex Fuldensis: Novum Testamentum latine interprete Hieronymo (Marburg, Leipzig: N.G. Elwerti, 1868). 34 Jan Bergsma, De levens van Jezus in het Middelnederlandsch (Groningen, 1895), 98. 35 Here, the underlined text phrase is understood to mean, “those who were seriously ill”. 36 This notion may strengthen the supposition that the Diatessaron was originally composed in Syriac.

224

GODWIN MUSHAYABASA those mentioned above. Their reference field could have been wider, stretching as well to the contexts of the Old Testament, especially where quotations were concerned. In the same breath, we need not assume that the translators made use of or were influenced by texts that were physically before them during the process of translation. The variants could well have been the result of contamination introduced into the text from the memory of the translators (i.e. a product of the reminiscence of the translators or scribes). This can especially be the case in the variant text we encounter in OSG Matt 4:24.

TRANSLATION PHILOSOPHY In the absence of specific literature on the subject from the translators themselves, researchers on this subject need to construct an approximate picture representing the philosophy or philosophies by which OSG translators might have approached their task of translating the Greek Gospels into Syriac. To do so, there is need to have a general understanding of the background in which this activity of translation takes place. One way of helping construct this background is by observing the treatment of various contemporary Jewish and Christian religious texts in the period concerned. This is what we attempt in the following section.

DRIVE FOR IDIOMATIC TRANSLATION In the preceding sections, we have alluded to the fact that OSG shows evidence or traces of tendencies towards idiomatic Syriac. Compared to other translations or reworkings of translations such as the Peshitta NT, OSG is relatively more idiomatic. There is, therefore a high degree of independence in OSG in shaping the translation in such a way as to appeal to a native audience.37 Since, in an idiomatic translation, the translator exercises greater freedom in choice of words and expressions than when the translation is literal, we should also expect that the translator aiming at an idiomatic translation would be more inclined to freely incorporate into the translation textual material foreign to its source text.38

See G. Mushayabasa, “Translation strategies: the case of the Peshitta to Ezekiel,” in Proceedings of the conference, Perspectives on Language and Culture in Early Christianity, Leuven, September 2015, where the matter on the discussion of the background to the composition of the Peshitta is handled at greater length. 38 As a translator engaged in idiomatic translation engages in a thought process of how best to represent a Greek sentence or phrase that lies in their source text, other words or phrases triggered by the words and phrases in the source text may be brought up, which may however not be precisely reflected in the translator’s source text. 37

OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS IN THE OLD SYRIAC GOSPELS

225

THE MANNER OF QUOTING SCRIPTURE IN THE GREEK GOSPELS: THE GNT OF MATTHEW39 Students of the New Testament have for a long time struggled to establish the OT sources of the quotations introduced in the NT by its authors. Some quotes have been traced with some degree of confidence either to the MT or to the LXX text (or to one of the various revisions of the LXX). Others or other parts of the quotations are however nowhere in extant literature witnessed.40 This has led to various theories being proposed as to the source of such untraced quotes, which form a good part of the NT quotations of the OT. Ultimately, however, among all these theories that may be raised as explaining the source of these quotations, part of the reason that such deviations could occur at all is due to the nature of the view of Scripture that these NT writers held. That Matthew, for example, could adapt a quotation, whether using a fixed formula or by way of an allusion, to his current context of the gospel testifies to his view of Scripture.41 In contrast, a modern producer of a text will take every care to reproduce a “quotation” in such a way that it represents the source text in every possible way, including even obvious mistakes perceived in the source text. In attributing the text of Matthew’s quotations to what he calls a “Pesher type of quoting,” Stendahl wrote: “Because of this type of quoting, the hope to find in these quotations an example of the Greek OT text which might be derived from a text known to the evangelist, is an illusion. Plausible as this showed itself to be for the quotations which the Synoptics had in common, efforts in this direction with regard to the formula quotations are misdirected.”42 On the same issue, Menken has recently noted that “the fulfilment quotations differ from the LXX and resemble the Hebrew text, but not all these quotations do so to the same degree and not all differences from the LXX bring them closer to the Hebrew text.”43 Hence Menken went on to postulate that Matthew made use of a revised LXX text (which we do not have) to make up what are known as the fulfilment quotations.44 But even though Menken traces Matthew’s fulfilment quotations In this quest, caution should of course be taken since, some tendencies, for example in Matthew, might have been peculiar only to Matthew or only to the gospel writers. 40 E.g. Matt 2:23. See also T. McLay, The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003). McLay notes that the initial phrase in the quotation in Acts 15:16–18 cannot be traced to any OT text. 41 M. J. J. Menken, Matthew’s Bible: The Old Testament Text of the Evangelist (Leuven: University Press, 2004), 280. 42 Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew, 201. Words in brackets are mine. Stendahl’s view on the sources used for Matthew’s OT formulaic quotations was that the author used various traditions and methods of interpretation aligned to the Jewish traditions of Pesher in quoting and interpreting the OT text that he was interested in. C.f. Menken, Matthew’s Bible, 4. 43 Menken, Matthew’s Bible, 3. 44 These fulfilment quotations were inserted by the writer of Matthew in order to prove the fulfilment in Jesus’ life and ministry of a prophecy recorded in the Old Testament. 39

226

GODWIN MUSHAYABASA

to a revised continuous LXX text that no longer survives, he nevertheless notes that Matthew still modified somewhat such quotations in adapting them to his text, in terms of wording and style.45 Menken even alludes to the possibility that Matthew may have used currently available oral tradition in inserting his other (nonfulfilment) quotations e.g. Matthew 5:38, 43 and 19:19. Although Menken battles to maintain the thesis of a revised LXX text, the possibility that Matthew himself was responsible for most of the untraceable text in the quotations is difficult to dismiss.46 Following some of these observations, it becomes possible to assume an underlying philosophical principle among NT writers. Such a principle would entail that there was a general belief that the meaning of OT Scriptures, though written in plain language, was nevertheless still hidden, and would only become clear with the coming of the promised Messiah and ultimately after the NT Church was born. In any case, even outside of the Christian milieu, this ideology was part of the underlying interpretational approaches, as it was within the Jewish scholarship of the time, one of which is known as the Pesher approach. Within the Christian milieu, such as in the case of John 2:19–22, the author presents Jesus as telling the Jews, “Destroy this temple and I will raise it again in three days”. Subsequently, the writer explains that only after Jesus’ resurrection did the disciples understand what he was saying. In other instances, when the gospel presents Jesus quoting Scripture (OT), he seems to give it a meaning which the current scribes had not thought of, making him ‘the perfect exegete of the Scripture’. Multiple examples can be given, e.g. Matt 5:21, 27, 33; 10:35–36; 11:10. In many cases, the extant text of OT mss differs somewhat from the one that the NT Gospel writer claims is the OT reading of the text (including aspects of verbal number, person number, tense etc). The underlying assumption appears often to be that what is in the OT may have been written cryptically, while the plain meaning is now being revealed in the New Testament.47 Thus NT Gospel writers like Matthew, who did Menken, Matthew’s Bible, 2, lists them as follows: Matt 1:22–23; 2:15, 17–18, 23; 4:14–16; 8:17; 12:17–21; 13:35; 21:4–5; 27:9–10. 45 Menken, Matthew’s Bible, 280. 46 Hence the conclusions reached at earlier by Stendahl remain: “this quotation technique should constitute a significant feature of Matthew. For its quotations cannot be consigned to a special source inserted into Matthew’s gospel, but, as a striking feature in the composition of the gospel, they may be considered a key to the character and milieu of the gospel.” Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew, 151. 47 For example, the quotation in Matt 11:10 refers to Mal 3:1 where Yahweh says that he is going to send a messenger to prepare the way before him (πρὸ προσώπου μου). But the quotation in Matt 11:10 presents the messenger as preparing the way before a person referred to by a second person pronoun (πρὸ προσώπου σου,), who is apparently Jesus. The reasoning is simply that in Malachi, the Lord Jesus was not yet revealed and therefore simply identified with Yahweh (thus before me) but in Matt 11:10, Jesus can now be distinguished from the Lord and therefore according to the current situation, the quotation already takes a

OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS IN THE OLD SYRIAC GOSPELS

227

not present their work in ways that today’s conventions of handling literature sources demand, seemed to have a different norm for citing Scripture, which was for their time, acceptable.48 Such behaviour may demonstrate that these writers believed that the proper way of quoting Scripture was to present it in such a way that the very text of the quotation would also show within it the intended meaning in the ‘present context’. In other words, to quote Scripture then, did not demand that one always reproduce the quoted text exactly as the source presented it, but as a prophetic utterance that required demystifying and explanation in its fulfilment. Notably, in-depth studies on this phenomenon belong to a specialised field, beyond the scope of the present inquiry.49 It should however, be sufficient to say that the underlying philosophical tenets that were involved within the NT authors’ view of Scripture, could have somewhat affected translators of the OSG as well, leading to the possibility that OT quotations were treated in the same manner.

THE ‘SCRIPTURE-TEXTS’ PHENOMENON The second observation we would like to make is that during this Early Church period, it is well known that there was no specialised way of identifying one’s sources. When an author had to quote from the text of Isaiah the prophet, for example, he did not need to identify the specific type of OT text he had in front of him, or which he had in mind. Hence the text may stem from a Hebrew (MT) text, a copy of an LXX text, a revised LXX version, a collection of liturgical testimonia, a reading from a Samaritan Bible, the Peshitta OT, a sermon by one of the apostles, or simply a recitation learned in the synagogue.50 In Acts 20:35, Paul provides what seems to be a quotation from Jesus. However, there is no indication in the text as to the nature of the source of these words. Another case is that of a quotation implied to be from Scripture yet is nowhere found in the OT. This is in Matt 2:23. In the first few new form, with the second person rather than the first as the purpose of the messenger’s mission. 48 McLay, The Use of the Septuagint. While observing some text that may not be found in any OT text in Acts 15:16–18, MacLay says that “the writer of Acts capitalised on the theology of the OG reading and interpreted it in the light of the Christ event.” See also Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew, 4–5, and T. M. Law, When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 91. 49 For some of the most recent literature on this topic see for example S. E. Porter, & C. D. Stanley, As it is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008); R. Sheridan, Retelling Scripture: ‘The Jews’ and the Scriptural Citations in John 1:19–12:15 (Leiden: Brill, 2012); and B. D. Sommer, “Concepts of Scriptural Language in Midrash,” in Jewish Concepts of Scripture: A Comparative Introduction (ed. B. D. Sommer. New York: NYU Press, 2012), 64–79. 50 See K. de Troyer, “Quotations from the texts of the books of Samuel, Kings and the Minor Prophets in the New Testament,” in The Reception of the Hebrew Bible in the Septuagint and the New Testament: Essays in Memory of Aileen Guilding. (ed. D. J. A. Clines et al. Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2013), 49–55, at p. 49.

228

GODWIN MUSHAYABASA

centuries, there might have been no rule established to disqualify any sources used that were generally considered to be ‘Scripture’. We have no knowledge of what was the exact nature of the sources or editions that the writers used, or what canonical value they had. In such an environment, one cannot rule out the possibility that quotations from memory would have been used.51 It is possible that some sources that were used were incomplete OT texts, or texts which did not distinguish clearly between different OT books, or simply that they were fragments. Another related common feature was the multiple numbers of allusions to various literature, but especially from the Old Testament. It is apparent that OT allusions could be made randomly, without the need of one having to identify anything about their source. Hence it could also be possible that one could allude from memory, which would involve the risk of tapping from a wide range of sources that could have been regarded as ‘Scripture’. The ultimate consequence of all this was that when one intended to cite a text, they might easily conflate readings. With the absence of the kind of precision in quoting sources such as we have nowadays, the possibility of conflating texts would not have been an uncommon thing in quotations. This could very likely be the case in Matt 2:23.52 Further, with new texts being composed and others being translated, harmonisation would also be another likely result of the ‘Scripture-texts’ phenomenon of this period. In the context just described, words and key phrases were the ones that helped authors and scribes to make references to specific texts, as opposed to names of books and chapters and verses. Although authors could sometimes refer to the authors of cited books, such as Isaiah the prophet, or David, words in the text itself acted as important triggers for specific segments of Scripture. Exegetical strategies often made good use of the intertextualities between words and themes to generate new meanings in texts.53 A few words could trigger several various frames, and these frames would then be associated with similar frames from other parts of Scripture in a spiralling process. Now, when words act as triggers, it is possible that more than one text may be invoked, say in a single verse where there has been a specific trigger, and this was probably what happened in the OSG of Matt 4:24. Further, even subconsciously, one can deviate to texts which are not necessarily concerned with the current text before a translator. Although research still suffer from want of

Hence McLay, The Use of the Septuagint, 27, and Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew, 157–9. At least we know that the church fathers such as Origen may have quoted from memory. In the many references that Jesus is reported to make to the OT, sometimes in the form of quotations, it is quite unlikely that he had the sources at hand (e.g. Matt 4–5), although the gospel authors themselves might have had the Scripture texts before them. 52 Possibly a conflation of the reference in Scripture to the Messiah as Netzer (branch) and the now concrete name of the town in which Jesus happened to dwell. 53 Martin Pickup, “New Testament interpretation of the Old Testament: the theological rationale of Midrashic exegesis,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 51 (2008): 353–81. 51

OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS IN THE OLD SYRIAC GOSPELS

229

proof, it may be postulated that the development of the synoptic gospels was occasioned or helped, in such a context of the views of Scripture as just described.

HARMONISTIC ELEMENTS OR NOT In Matt 8:10, OSG (S) reflects the reading παρʼ οὐδενὶ τοσαύτην πίστιν ἐν τῷ Ἰσραὴλ εὗρον (also the preferred variant in the Matthew text of NA28). This reading is attested in B, W and other mss such as the Old Latin, the Diatessaric text of the Armenian version of Ephrem’s commentary. On the other hand, a variant reading, οὐδὲ ἐν τῷ Ἰσραὴλ τοσαύτην πίστιν εὗρον, is reflected in OSG (C) and occurs in a few other important Greek manuscripts such as ‫א‬, C, L, Δ, Θ, 0233 and 250. This latter reading is the reading that is also parallel to the reading in NA28’s preferred text in Luke 7:9. It then seems that the reading of the Luke mss probably entered into some mss of the Matthean text due to a copyist familiar with the text as it appears in Luke. Hence, rather than follow his source text, the copyist resorted to reproducing the sentence as he remembered it from the manuscript of the Gospel of Luke. Now, the fact that there was influence in the transmission of Mathew from a parallel Gospel text of Luke and vice versa, may go on to show firstly that harmonization was not a characteristic unique to OSG. It should be noted here that the Gospel writings are pre-Diatessaric and pre-OSG compositions. Hence the harmonising tendencies of OSG stem from the same environmental features that caused harmonisation among GNT mss. A similar incident occurs at 8:28 and concerns the Greek spelling of the region across the lake and the Jordan valley (spelt as Γαδαρηνῶν), which in some mss is spelt as Γερασηνων and in others as Γεργεσηνων. The account from Matt 8:28–34 has its parallel in Mark 5:1–17 and Luke 8:26–37. The weightier mss in Matthew mainly employ a spelling different from that used by the NA28 preferred mss in both Mark and Luke. However, among mss of Matthew, we find some that adopt the spelling that is preferred in Mark and Luke. Similarly, among Mark and Luke’s mss there are some that reflect the spelling appearing in the Matthean preferred mss. The situation is such that at each of the three places of the parallel text, mss were likely to align with any one of the many variant spellings that are witnessed. Again, influences from Mark and Luke can be observed in S in Matt 8:27. What can be concluded from these is the indication that early copyists of (Greek) texts should have been at least vulnerable to being influenced by parallel texts. Hence it follows that we should be careful to attribute influence from parallel passages in OSG strictly to a harmonised text, hence the Diatessaron. In concluding this section, we should not suppose that in their simple duty to translate a text that was before them, OSG translators were totally immune from the effects of the plurality of texts with which they were familiar; texts which dealt with the same subjects that they were busy with in translation; texts that were being employed almost daily in church liturgies, on academic platforms and which were even being quoted from memory by the general community of faith. In any case, their role as translators demanded from them the ability to be able to search widely and carefully, correct word and phrase correspondences to those words in their Greek

230

GODWIN MUSHAYABASA

source text, a process that would undoubtedly expose them to a variety of lexica and texts from a wide array of literature. Hence the infiltration of lexica or phrases from parallel texts or religiously related texts such as the Old Testament might have been difficult to fend off. This would be compounded by the simple need to produce idiomatic translations, an approach which could mean that a translator had to exercise a greater degree of mental activity, as part of the process of translation than what a literal translation would otherwise require. This of course resulting in a greater chance of evoking and incorporating into the translation, words and phrases that were not necessarily represented in the translator’s source text.

CONCLUSION Following the short study on the translation techniques and the prevailing ideological systems of handling biblical literature, it is apparent that there is a significantly large array of reasons to explain the deviations that we may find between OSG and its putative source(s). Even in the case of such well-known characteristics as harmonisation, the modus operandi of the translators may not have been so obvious and hence various causes need to be explored before one can come to a conclusion. The translator of OSG used his own techniques to translate into Syriac from the Greek source. These translation techniques were also influenced by the philosophical view of Scripture that prevailed in the Early Church period. It is important to continue unravelling these ideologies, as they have a bearing on the explanations for the deviations in the OSG. This also applies in the case where the study of specifically Diatessaric influences or OT quotes in OSG are concerned.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Bergsma, Jan. De levens van Jezus in het Middelnederlandsch [ed. by] J. Bergsma, Bibl van Middelnederl letterkunde. Groningen, 1895. Brock, Sebastian P. The Bible in the Syriac tradition. 2nd rev. ed. Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias, 2006. Burkitt, F. Crawford. Evangelion Da Mepharreshe: The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels, with the reading of the Sinai Palimpsest and the early Syriac Patristic evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1904. Ciasca, A. Tatiani Evangeliorum harmoniae arabice : Nunc primum ex duplici codice edidit et translatione latina donavit p. Romae: Typogr. Polygl. s. c. de Propaganda Fide, 1888. Hemphill, S. The Diatessaron of Tatian: a harmony of the four Gospels compiled in the third quarter of the second century. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1888. Hill, J. H.. The earliest life of Christ ever compiled from the four Gospels : being the Diatessaron of Tatian. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1910. Howard, George. “Harmonistic readings in the Old Syriac gospels.” Harvard Theological Review 73 (1980): 473–91. Joosten, Jan. Language and Textual History of the Syriac Bible: Collected Studies. Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias, 2013. Joosten, Jan. The Syriac language of the Peshitta and Old Syriac versions of Matthew : syntactic structure, inner-Syriac developments and translation technique. Leiden: Brill, 1996.

OLD TESTAMENT QUOTATIONS IN THE OLD SYRIAC GOSPELS

231

Law, T. M. When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. McCarthy, Carmel. Saint Ephrem’s Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron : an English translation of Chester Beatty Syriac MS 709. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. McLay, T. The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2003. Menken, M. J. J. Matthew’s Bible: The Old Testament Text of the Evangelist. Leuven: University Press, 2004. Metzger, Bruce M. “Tatian’s Diatessaron and a Persian Harmony of the Gospels.” JBL 69 (1950): 261–80. Mushayabasa, G. “Translation strategies: the case of the Peshitta to Ezekiel.” In Proceedings of the conference, Perspectives on Language and Culture in Early Christianity, Leuven, September 2015. Forthcoming. Pickup, Martin. “New Testament interpretation of the Old Testament: the theological rationale of Midrashic exegesis.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 51 (2008): 353–81. Porter, S. E., and C. D. Stanley. As it is Written: Studying Paul’s Use of Scripture. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. 2008. Ranke, Ernst. Codex Fuldensis: Novum Testamentum latine interprete Hieronymo. Marburg, Leipzig: sumtibus N.G. Elwerti, 1868. Sheridan, R. Retelling Scripture: ‘The Jews’ and the Scriptural Citations in John 1:19–12:15. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Sievers, E. Tatian: lateinisch und altdeutsch. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1892. Sommer, B. D. “Concepts of Scriptural Language in Midrash.” Pages 64–79 in Jewish Concepts of Scripture: A Comparative Introduction. Edited by B. D. Sommer. New York: NYU Press, 2012. Stendahl, K. The School of St. Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament. Lund: Gleerup, 1968. Troyer, K. de. “Quotations from the texts of the books of Samuel, Kings and the Minor Prophets in the New Testament.” Pages 49–55 in The Reception of the Hebrew Bible in the Septuagint and the New Testament: Essays in Memory of Aileen Guilding. Edited by D. J. A. Clines, J. C. Exum and A. Guilding. Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2013.

WHEN HAPAX LEGOMENA IN THE NEW TESTAMENT ARE EXEGETICALLY IMPORTANT

LAURENŢIU FLORENTIN MOŢ ADVENTUS UNIVERSITY, CERNICA, ROMANIA There are a few hapax legomena in the NT which are exegetically relevant. The methodology of approaching these special cases consider the presuppositions the interpreter has concerning the topic of the text where the hapax appears. After this basic step, when there is no other comparative material and, especially, in the case of compound nouns, etymology is one important step forward, despite its limitations for the general study of semantics. Then, derivatives, syntax and determinatives, semantics and pragmatics represent various interpretative resorts based on which the NT hapaxes must be tackled. The more exegetically important a unique word is the more complex the lexicographical study becomes. The research applies this methodology to one case study: the cultic term θυμιατήριον in Heb 9:4 and implies that a dictionary entry of an exegetically-relevant hapax legomenon in the NT may turn out to be quite painstaking and laborious.

BACKGROUNDS OF STUDIES ON HAPAX LEGOMENA Outside the NT, hapax legomena were sometimes used for dating documents1 or studied from the perspectives of dialectal variations.2 In the NT scholarship, the hapax legomena were more known for being used to resolve questions of authorship,3 though some deny their accuracy in this respect,4 arguing that syntax is a more 1

Basil Lourié, “One Hapax Legomenon and the Date of 2 Enoch,” Henoch 33,1 (2011),

94–6. Ronald Forero Álvarez, “El Dialecto Lesbio. The Lesbian Dialect,” Byzantion Nea Hellás 27 (2008), 91–108. 3 See W. P. Workman, “Hapax Legomena of St. Paul,” The Expository Times 7 (1896), 418–19. P. N. Harrison, The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles (1921; repr. Eugene, OR: Wipf&Stock, 2016), 20, 79, Appendix IV. K. Grayston and G. Herdan, “The Authorship of the Pastorals in the Light of Statistical Linguistics,” New Testament Studies 6,1 (1959), 1–15. 2

233

234

LAURENŢIU FLORENTIN MOŢ

precise method for describing an author’s style than is word usage.5 In linguistics in general, they have been seen as tokens of linguistic productivity6 and “creative presentations of existing words or new coinages.”7 In spite of these preoccupations, the recent sentiment is still that “research on hapaxes in the NT remains a neglected field of study,”8 as Hellen Mardaga affirms in her 2014 article on hapax legomena in the gospel of John. The purpose of this study is to fill a part of this vacuum. It tries to develop a methodology of approaching those hapaxes that are important from an exegetical point of view. The methodology proposed here will then be applied in a case study.

ZIPF’S LAWS, NT WORDS, AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF HAPAX LEGOMENA Quantitative linguistics cannot be done without making reference to George Kingley Zipf (1902–1950)9 who pursued an extensive statistical analysis of natural language, which resulted in what came to be known as Zipf’s laws. The first of Zipf’s laws postulates an inverse correlation between word frequency and structural complexity,

Bruce Metzger, “A Reconsideration of Certain Arguments Against the Pauline Authorship of the Pastoral Epistles,” The Expository Times 70,3 (1958), 91–4. Metzger builds on the work of G. Yule and raises important methodological questions, (1) how long should the sample studied be in order to be sufficient, (2) how different should the two corpuses compared be in order seriously to undermine common authorship, (3) how do subject matter and literary form make one author different in his/her writing, and (4) is it right to assume that two works composed by the same author will be more similar than if they had been written by different authors? These questions throw doubts over the statistical importance of the hapax legomena in establishing authorship. More recently see also M. W. A. Smith, “Hapax Legomena in Prescribed Positions, An Investigation of Recent Proposals to Resolve Problems of Authorship,” Literary and Linguistic Computing 2,3 (Jan 1987), 145–52; Donald G. McDougall, “Unequally Yoked—A Re-Examination of 2 Corinthians 6,11–7,4,” Master’s Seminary Journal 10 (1999), 113–37, p. 121–2. 5 H. Baayen, H. van Halteren, F. Tweedie, “Outside the cave of shadows, using syntactic annotation to enhance authorship attribution,” Literary and Linguistic Computing 11,3 (Sep 1996), 121–32. 6 Mark Aronoff and Mark Lindsay, “Productivity, Blocking, and Lexicalization,” in The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology (ed. Rochelle Lieber, Pavol Stekauer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 64–83, p. 54. 7 Dorothy Kenny, Lexis and Creativity in Translation, A Corpus Based Approach, A Corpus– Based Study (London: Routledge, 2014), 142. 8 Hellen Mardaga, “Hapax Legomena and the Idiolect of John,” Novum Testamentum 56 (2014), 134–53, p. 136. 9 See George Kingley Zipf, Selected Studies of the Principle of Relative Frequency in Language (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1932). George Kingley Zipf, The Psycho–Biology Of Language, An Introduction to Dynamic Philology (1936; repr. London: Routledge, 2002). 4

HAPEX LEGOMENA IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

235

i.e. the more frequent a word is, the less complex it is.10 Zipf’s second law states that the frequency of a word in a given corpus tends to be inversely proportional to the position or rank of that word in the frequency list/table.11 Although this confirms the well-known fact that the more frequent words in a corpus are few, whereas the less frequent comprise the majority, the law itself does not prove flawless for any given corpus and language. The third law states that the more frequent a word is, the richer its lexical range becomes.12 The three Zipf laws are generally accurate with regards to the tendencies found in a certain language, nonetheless its details do not hold true for all corpora in all languages. Zipf’s first law applied to the NT seems true as the words with higher frequencies are indeed less complex. This group includes among others: ὁ, καί, αὐτός, σύ, δέ, ἐν, ἐγώ, εἰμί, λέγω, εἰς, οὐ, and ὅς. These articles, pronouns, verbs, prepositions, and conjunctions are indeed less morphologically complex than rare words such as ἀγανάκτησις (x1), ὀφθαλμοδουλία (x2), φιλοτιμέομαι (x3), συμπαραλαμβάνειν (x4), to mention only a few. Zipf’s second law is partially confirmed in the NT corpus. For example, ὁ occurs 19863 times in the NT and occupies the first position in the list of frequency. The second most frequent word (καὶ) occurs about half as often (9018). But the fourth most frequent word (σύ) is far less than half as common as the second ranked word (2908), as the law predicts. The third law is also only partially confirmed in the NT. For example the lexical richness of αὐτὸς or δὲ are well known but words such as ἐγὼ (2584) and λέγω (2353), frequent as they are, do not seem to compete in lexical complexity with rarer words such as ἐκ (914), ἐπὶ (890), or διὰ (667). Of 5393 different words, the NT corpus contains 1932 hapaxes, 832 words that appear twice, 465 words that appear thrice, 313 words appearing four times, 225 words which occur five times, 173 word which occur six times, 119 which appear seven times, 111 words which appear eight times, 102 words occurring nine times, and 79 words occurring ten times. The number of the different words occurring between once and ten times is 4351, which constitutes a substantial majority within the corpus. The table below shows the distribution of the hapaxes in the NT according to the BibleWorks 10 database.13

Regina Pustet, “On Discourse Frequency, Grammar, and Grammaticalization,” in Linguistic Diversity and Language Theories, Studies in Language Companion 72 (ed. Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Adam Hodges, David S. Rood. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2005), 143–68, p. 143–5. 11 James Milton, Measuring Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition (Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 2009), 45. 12 Marie Těšitelová, Quantitative Linguistics, Linguistic&Literary Studies 37 (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1992), 55–6. 13 The BW10 database shows a disparity between the total number of hapaxes in the NT (1932) and the sum of the hapaxes in the 27 individual books of the corpus (1940). Though the difference is not big, the numbers should be treated with caution. 10

236

LAURENŢIU FLORENTIN MOŢ

Corpora Gospels (Synoptics)-Acts

Paul

Deutero-pauline

Catholic epistles

Johannines

Hapax legomena by book Matthew 98 Mark 75 Luke 280 Acts 411 Romans 112 1 Corinthians 83 2 Corinthians 67 Galatians 30 Philippians 40 Philemon 7 1 Thessalonians 18 Ephesians 35 Colossians 37 2 Thessalonians 8 1 Timothy 65 2 Timothy 69 Titus 32 Hebrew 131 James 54 1 Peter 55 2 Peter 49 Jude 16 John 76 1 John 1 2 John 1 3 John 3 Revelation 87

Hapax legomena by corpus 864

357

246

305

168

Within the framework of these general facts we now turn to defining a hapax legomenon.

DEFINITION AND TAXONOMY Used without any further qualification, the term ἅπαξ λεγόμενον or ἅπαξ εἴρημένον, as it was known among the classicists, is quite ambiguous as it simply means anything being said or counted only once.14 Filling the expression with content did not bring scholars to a consensus with regards to the exact meaning of the phrase. Thus, according to various specialists, a hapax legomenon refers to: (1) a word which appears only once in a corpus,15 (2) a word which appears only once in a parMichael Martin Kumpf, The Homeric Hapax Legomena And Their Literary Use by Later Authors, Especially Euripides and Apollonius Rhodius (Dissertation. The Ohio State University, 1974), 2. 15 Hellen Mardaga, “Hapax Legomena, A Neglected Field in Biblical Studies,” Currents in Biblical Research 10,2 (2012), 264–74. Gustav Herdan distinguishes between real and apparent hapaxes. The former is a hapax in both a particular writer and in the larger corpus of which that writer is part. The latter refers to a word unique to a writer but well known in the 14

HAPEX LEGOMENA IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

237

ticular form or meaning, (3) a word which appears a few times within a few lines and nowhere else,16 and (4) a proper noun referring to two individuals one or both being used only once.17 In the present study, I shall be adopting the first of these definitions, while at the same time making a distinction between partial and total hapax legomena.18 The former is a word that is unique in the NT corpus but attested elsewhere, whereas the latter is a word that is unique in the whole known history of the language.

METHODOLOGY FOR INTERPRETING HAPAX LEGOMENA In order to solve difficulties posed by unknown lexemes, the LXX translators used transliteration, omission, and conjecture (contextual, exegetical, and etymological guess).19 In continuity with the third of these, the following methodology looks for ways to approach hapax legomena and make sense of them. This methodology consists of five steps. The exegetical importance of a unique word will determine the number of steps the interpreter needs to cover or apply. In many respects, the study of a hapax legomenon is similar to a usual semantic-pragmatic study. However, this unique vocabulary needs extensive evaluation and careful attention when the hapax is important for exegesis.

IDENTIFY PRESUPPOSITIONS The interpretation of an exegetically important hapax will always be controlled to some degree by larger assumptions. “The presuppositions behind the translator’s interpretation of a given passage can often determine the way in which a word is translated.”20 The way this principle works will be well illustrated in the case study following this methodology. Here, for the sake of illustration, I will refer to two examples. larger corpus. Gustav Herdan, “The Hapax Legomenon, A Real or Apparent Phenomenon?,” Language & Speech 2 (Jan–Mar 1959), 26–36. 16 Andrew Fossum, “Hapax Legomena in Plato,” The American Journal of Philology 52 (1931), 205–31. 17 Georg Authenrieth (ed.), A Homeric Dictionary, trans. Robert Keep, rev. Isaac Flagg, new ed. (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1958). Many scholars prefer to exclude proper nouns altogether. They are not hapax legomena in the sense common nouns are. 18 Louis Bekhof makes a similar discrimination, “The so–called hapax legomena constitute a special difficulty. These may be of two kinds, viz., (a) absolute, when a word is found but once in the whole range of known literature; and (b) relative, when there is only a single instance of its use in the Bible.” Louis Berkhof, Principles of Biblical Interpretation, Sacred Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1950), 70–1. 19 Tim McLay, The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 66. 20 Stanley E. Porter and Richard S. Hess, Translating the Bible, Problems and Prospects (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 131.

238

LAURENŢIU FLORENTIN MOŢ

First is the use of ταρταροῦν (more common in Greek outside the canon as καταταρταροῦν) in 2 Pet 2:4. If the interpreter assumes a strong petrine indebtedness to 1 Enoch, it will be understood that Peter “is here following the Book of Enoch”21 and therefore taken to mean that the angels thrown in Tartarus are the watchers who mated with women. If, however, one considers that Peter was not writing to confirm his familiarity with Greek mythology, then he can be understood to be using “the language of his readers,”22 and to have spoken “in terms of their own idiom”23 about the punishment of the fallen angels. Second is the verb αὐθεντεῖν (1 Tim 2:12), which can be taken, according to varying cultural presuppositions and family worldviews, either as less intense (a synonym of ἐξουσιάζειν) or more strongly (akin to δεσποτεῖν). The presuppositions must be identified and admitted so that they do not intrude into the realm of lucid lexicographical analysis.

ETYMOLOGY The second step in approaching hapax legomena is etymology. This concept cannot be confounded with semantics. However, it is helpful in diachronic studies (the history of words across long periods of time) as etymology brings out the earliest attested meaning. The interpreter needs to be cautious, nonetheless, and not fall into the trap of considering that “the key to a word’s meaning lay in its origin and history. This assumption of linear development lay behind the misuse of etymology, wherein any past use of a word could be read into its current meaning.”24 Etymology is also helpful in the study of cognate languages. But most importantly, it is of special help “in attempts to understand the meanings of hapax legomena (words that appear only once). In the last case, although etymology is a clumsy tool for discerning meaning, the lack of comparative material means we sometimes have no other choice.”25 Etymology is quite effective in the case of compound nouns. As an example, we may take ἀφιλάγαθος (2 Tim 3:3). It is unique to the NT, LXX, and the whole history of Greek language, as far as its absence from TLG testifies. In the papyri, we find cognates such as φιλαγαθία (=generosity, OGI 146, 4), φιλαγάθως (339, 27 [2nd cent. BC] et al.), and ἀφιλοκαγαθία (POxy 33 II, 13 [2nd Charles Bigg, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1901), 275. See also Jerome H. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008), 202. 22 Simon J. Kistemaker and William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Epistles of Peter and the Epistle of Jude, New Testament Commentary 16 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1953–2001), 286. 23 Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, The New American Commentary 37 (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2007), 336. 24 Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral, A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2006), 87. 25 D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (2nd ed. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1996), 33. 21

HAPEX LEGOMENA IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

239

cent. AD]).26 In P Oxy I. 33ii. 13 (2nd cent. AD) we also find the positive φιλάγαθος.27 The components of this compound noun seem clear enough as they appear to mean a negation of the love of good. This seems confirmed by modern Greek, which replaces the hapax in 2 Tim 3:3 with the equivalent εχθροί του αγαθού (“enemies of good,” Metaglottisis Μodern Greek version). DERIVATIVES Rare words do not appear out of nowhere. Many of the hapax legomena share some common features with other more common words. Word-formation in any language is generated by compounding and derivation. Compounding is the combination of two or more lexemes.28 Derivation should be distinguished from inflection, which produces no new word, but simply modifies the same word. Derivation creates new words.29 And it does it not by inflection but by other means such as affixation, reduplication, root and pattern word-formation, to name the most important.30 As for Hellenistic Greek in the past,31 recent studies have been done on compounding and derivation in Modern Greek.32 This derivation produces new words based on the same root or stem making nouns from verbs, verbs from nouns, adjectives from nouns, and so on. Therefore, another way to cope with a semantic rarity is to check the stemrelated common words. Thus, a word which is found only once in a corpus may actually be very easily understandable, since its derivatives are very well known in that same corpus.33 That is why there might be hapax legomena which are unique in form but not in root. In this case, cognate words which are more frequent speak quite well for the rare words. For instance, while οἰκοδεσποτεῖν is unique in canoni-

BDAG, s.v. James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1930), 98. 28 Rochelle Lieber and Pavol Štekauer, “Introduction, Status and Definition of Compounding,” in The Oxford Handbook of Compounding (ed. Rochelle Lieber and Pavol Štekauer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 3–18, p. 4–5. 29 Matthew Baerman, “Introduction,” in The Oxford Handbook of Inflection (ed. Matthew Baerman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 1–10, p. 2. 30 Rochelle Lieber and Pavol Štekauer, “Introduction,” in The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology, ed. Rochelle Lieber and Pavol Štekauer (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2014), 3–9 (esp. 3–4). 31 James Hope Moulton and Wilbert Francis Howard, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Accidence and Word–Formation, vol. 2 (Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1963), 332–410. 32 See Angela Ralli, “Greek,” in Word–Formation, An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, Word–Formation, vol. 5 (ed. Peter O. Muller et al. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016), 3138–3156. 33 Mardaga, “Hapax Legomena and the Idiolect of John,” 142–53. See also Andrea Bernini, “An unexplained word in the Hippiatrica, ἀρτουκοῦρος,” Mnemosyne 67 (2014), 454–7. 26 27

240

LAURENŢIU FLORENTIN MOŢ

cal Greek, one of its derivatives, οἰκοδεσπότης, is found 12 times in the synoptics.34 Beyond etymology, which suggests the verb means “to be the owner of a house,” the contexts where the derivative οἰκοδεσπότης is used clarifies that the verb/noun pictures someone with authority over a household. Likewise, though the verb ἀγγέλλειν is found only in John 20:18, some of its derivatives are rich and amply attested in the NT. Consider for example ἀναγγέλλειν, ἀπαγγέλλειν, διαγγέλλειν, ἐπαγγέλλειν, καταγγέλλειν, and παραγγέλλειν, all based on the root ἀγγέλλειν and conveying the basic idea of delivering a message.

SYNTAX AND DETERMINATIVES There are cases when the words which qualify the hapax are crucial for the meaning of the hapax. Indeed, at times, it is only the syntax of the whole sentence or paragraph which makes that meaning of the hapax legomenon clearer. Hellen Mardaga finds in the gospel of John what may be also true in other parts of the NT. In John, the NT hapax legomena are sometimes clarified by repetition, that is, by being associated with other more common, semantically similar words. Thus, the meaning of the rare words is inferred from the one of the more common ones. 35 The interpretation of hapax legomena must also rely “on cognate literatures where the biblical evidence is insufficient.”36 This is obviously helpful in the case of partial hapaxes. Such is the case for τεκνογονίας (1 Tim 2:15). Though not found elsewhere in NT, or in LXX, the term is quite clearly composed of τέκνον and γεννάω, hence means, “child-bearing”. But beyond etymology, the verb from which τεκνογονίας derives can help in ascertaining its meaning. In 1 Tim 5:14, the author uses τεκνογονεῖν, itself a hapax in NT and LXX. However, the syntax and the determinatives which surround the verb makes it obvious that τεκνογονεῖν refers to the action/state between γαμεῖν and οἰκοδεσποτεῖν, that is, between marrying and ruling a household. This is obviously the action of bearing or making children. Like the verb then, the noun τεκνογονίας means child-bearing. However, the force of the hapax in the context of 1 Tim 2:9–15 is given not by its isolated meaning but by its relation to the structure of the sentence.37 For exam34

Matt 10:25; 13:27, 52; 20:1, 11; 21:33; 24:43; Mar 14:14; Luke 12:39; 13:25; 14:21;

22:11. Mardaga, “Hapax Legomena and the Idiolect of John,” 142–53. An example would be the definition of the hapax χλιαρός by the phrase οὔτε ζεστὸς οὔτε ψυχρός (“neither hot, nor cold,” Rev 3:16). 36 Frederick E. Greenspahn, “Hapax Legomena,” The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, vol. 3, 54. See also Peter C. Craigie, “Remembering Ugarit, The Tablets from Ugarit and Their Importance for Biblical Studies,” Biblical Archeology Review 9,5 (Sep/Oct 1983), 54–75. 37 See for example Stanley E. Porter, “What does it Mean to Be ‘Saved by Childbirth’ (1 Timothy 2.15)?” JSNT 15 (1993), 87–102; Bridget Gilfillan Upton, “Can Stepmothers be Saved? Another Look at 1 Timothy 2.8–15,” Feminist Theology 15 (2007), 175–85; Gloria Neufeld Redekop, “Let the women learn, 1 Timothy 2,8–15 reconsidered,” Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses 19 (1990), 235–45. 35

HAPEX LEGOMENA IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

241

ple, in the expression σωθήσεται δὲ διὰ τῆς τεκνογονίας (1 Tim 2:15) the interpreter would like to know whether “she will be saved” refers to salvation from sin or to a non-theological rescue. Also, one would like to find out the function of the preposition διὰ. Is salvation of woman going to take place because of, in spite of, or in the process of childbearing? Only after these questions are answered could the philologist grasp the fuller meaning of the hapax legomenon in the context it appears.

SEMANTICS AND PRAGMATICS There are times when the previous steps remain insufficient. The next, and in a sense the most complete, stage is to follow the behaviour of that hapax in its context and how it works in cognate literature outside the corpus, namely the study of pragmatics or “language in context.”38 Meaning in language (semantics) is not to be looked for outside of context (pragmatics). That is why “rare words should be handled similarly to ambiguous phrases, in the sense that the best meaning is supplied by the context.”39 This is so because context creates meaning. The total or absolute hapaxes “are particularly perplexing for the interpreter. The origin of such words is often lost in obscurity, and their meaning can only be determined approximately, by means of the context in which they occur, and by the analogy of related words in the same or in other languages.”40 Cognate languages are especially relevant for Hebrew, when the context and Classical Hebrew in general are insufficient for the task.41 But when it comes to the NT, there is no cognate language to help. What matters is the cognate literatures and here the order of importance of different comparative corpora is significant. Comparative data for a NT hapax legomenon must be looked for first of all in the LXX, then in Hellenistic Greek42 (literary and papyri), and finally in Classical and post-NT Greek.

Siobhan Chapman, Pragmatics (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), 176–90; Francisca Suau, “Pragmatics,” in Working with Words, An Introduction to English Linguistics (ed. Miguel Fuster Márquez and Antonoa Sanchez. Universitat de Vàlencia, 2008), 141–80, p. 149). 39 Bruce A. Baker, “Romans 1,18–21 and Presuppositional Apologetics,” Bibliotheca Sacra 155 (1998), 280–98, p. 290. 40 Berkhof, Principles of Biblical Interpretation, 70–1. 41 “Following the premise that a word primarily gains its meaning from within its own language, investigation begins with the text itself. Once all possible information about the word has been gleaned from the immediate text, then the search continues with the wider cotext of the Hebrew Bible, then it broadens to include the CH corpus, and later Hebrew. Only when all the available Hebrew material fails to elucidate the meaning of a word should cognate languages be investigated.” Susan Anne Groom, Linguistic Analysis of Biblical Hebrew (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2003), 69–70. 42 Walter Kaiser argues that the Septuagint is to be first looked for meaning of NT words and then other bodies of Hellenistic literature. Walter C. Kaiser Jr, Toward an Exegetical Theology, Biblical Exegesis for Preaching and Teaching (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1981), 145. 38

242

LAURENŢIU FLORENTIN MOŢ

Such is the case of αὐθεντεῖν (1 Tim 2:12). It is found nowhere in the NT and LXX. In its context we may note that the verb is “defined” by its close association with διδάσκειν. The woman is not allowed to exercise an authority which teaches a man what to do. The context in 1 Tim 2 seems insufficient though. The interpreter needs to appeal to cognate literatures. When we do this, we readily discover that the term is not as Grimm and Thayer supposed, “a biblical and ecclesiastical word.”43 From Hesychius, a 5th or 6th century Alexandrian lexicographer, we discover that in his day αὐθεντεῖν was synonymous with ἐξουσιάζειν.44 Thomas Magister, an Atticist Byzantine grammarian, also states that αὐθεντεῖν is the popular equivalent of the classical αὐτοδικεῖν. Moulton & Milligan thus noted that “the use in 1 Tim 2:12 comes quite naturally out of the word ‘master, autocrat,’” and they offer an example from the papyri: ὁ ἀρχάγγελος τῶν ὑπὸ τὸν κόσμον, αὐθέντα ἥλιε (P Leid Wvi.46).”45 In practical terms, the hapax is about an exaggeration in the relations between woman and man. The woman is not allowed to rule over the man like a master, 46 at times manifesting independent authority kindred to dictatorship. Contextually this seems to be a commandment addressed only to the particular problematic group of women, not to all Eve’s daughters in general.47 So far these principles have only been explicated and illustrated. The following case study, however, will show how these steps together form a methodology.

CASE STUDY: τὸ θυμιατήριον

IN HEBREWS 9:4

We will now study more extensively one case of an exegetically important hapax legomenon in the NT. We will apply all the steps to it and draw some important conclusions and implications. The hapax is τὸ θυμιατήριον (Heb 9:4). The total vocabulary of Hebrews consists of 1054 words, of which 157 words are unique to the NT. Of these 157 words, 123 come from the vocabulary of the Septuagint, 22 of them appearing in direct quotations.48 The term θυμιατήριον is one of these 123 cases. Its exegetical importance lies in the fact that the author of Hebrews seems to have placed the altar of incense (if that is what θυμιατήριον means) in the most holy place of the OT sanctuary, which is in obvious discrepancy with the Mosaic account that places the altar of incense in the holy place, that is, in the first apartment of the sanctuary, before the inner curtain (Exod 30:6). Joseph Henry Thayer, A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1889), s.v. “αὐθεντέω”. 44 K. Latte, ed., Hesychii Alexandrini lexicon (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1953, 1966), entry 8259, line 1. 45 Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, 91. 46 Cf. G. W. Knight, “Αὐθεντέω in Reference to Women in 1 Tim. 2,12,” New Testament Studies 30 (1984), 143–57. 47 Alan Padgett, “Wealthy Women at Ephesus, I Timothy 2,8–15 in Social Context,” Union Seminary Review 41 (1987), 19–31. 48 Ronald Williamson, Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 13, 14, 16. 43

HAPEX LEGOMENA IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

243

IDENTIFY PRESUPPOSITIONS That various authors worked with a certain set of presuppositions when interpreting the hapax of Heb 9:4 is proven by the answers they put forward to solve the aforementioned contradiction. First, early scribes of codex Vaticanus and some Syriac witnesses (B, copfay, ethro) were the first to try a way out. In Heb 9:2, after the discussion of the lampstand, the table, and the bread, these scribes add καὶ τὸ χρυσοῦν θυμιατήριον, which is taken from v. 4. This, of course, leaves v. 4 without these words and hence describing the second apartment as “having the ark of the covenant” only. The result is a harmonization with the OT, but Metzger states: “The transposition was obviously made in order to remove the difficulty concerning the author’s statement regarding the location of the golden altar of incense in the tabernacle.”49 Second, another explanation which shows how presuppositions influenced the interpretation of this hapax legomenon is that, “the writer speaks not by inspiration, or from his own knowledge, but simply in accordance with traditional belief” of the rabbis.50 Yet, there is no rabbinical data to prove this point. Third, some translators,51 lexicographers,52 and older commentators53 prefer to render τὸ θυμιατήριον as “censer”. This, too, may be motivated by an apologetic agenda. Yet this translation does not help because the censer was also situated in the first apartment (Num 4:7; cf. 1 Macc 1:22) and there were in fact 12 censers, according to the numbers of the tribes of Israel (Num 7:86), whereas in Heb 9:4, there is only one. Fourth, if τὸ θυμιατήριον means “altar of incense,”54 another way to save face is to argue that the writer “is not emphasizing the place where it stood but its

B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed. London: United Bible Societies, 1994), 598. 50 A. B. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1899), 309. Unfortunately, Bruce does not disclose the basis of his allegation. 51 E.g. Vulgate, Peshitta, Tyndale, King James Version, Geneva Bible, The Noah Webster Bible, The French Nouvelle Edition de Genève. 52 Colin Brown, “Incense, Myrrh,” New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1986), 293. Max Zerwick and Mary Grosvenor, A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1974), 672. 53 Archibald Maclean, A Paraphrase and Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, vol. II (London, 1820), 13. To the objection that the high–priest needed the censer before entering the Holy of Holies he answers that it was deposited behind the veil so that the high–priest would only grab his hand for it, without actually entering in the second apartment (p. 14). See also Henry J. Ripley, The Epistle to the Hebrews with Explanatory Notes (Boston: Gold and Lincoln, 1868), 104–5. For a more elaborated approached see Francis S. Sampson, A Critical Commentary on the Epistle to Hebrews (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1856), 319–21. 54 C.f. New International Version, Revised Standard Version, American Standard Version, Complete Jewish Bible, English Standard Version, New American Bible, New American Standard Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, New Living Translation. 49

244

LAURENŢIU FLORENTIN MOŢ

liturgical function.”55 The exegetical argument put forward is the functional reading of the participle ἔχουσα. The result would be that the inner shrine had the altar of incense not physically present within, but “working” for the holy of holies.56 This is ingenious but not supported by evidence. For example, in the same Heb 9:4 the same participle (ἔχουσα) is used in reference to the golden bowl “having” the manna in a physical sense. It is inconsistent then to take ἔχουσα once in a functional way and once in a locative manner in the same verse. Also it is conspicuous that if the holy of holies “has” the altar of incense in a functional way, so it should be with the ark of the covenant (cf. χρυσοῦν ἔχουσα θυμιατήριον καὶ τὴν κιβωτὸν τῆς διαθήκης), which needless to say, it is unacceptable. Lastly, this explanation cannot be true because of contextual expressions such as ἐν ᾗ (Heb 9:2) and μετὰ δὲ τὸ δεύτερον καταπέτασμα (Heb 9:3), which are essentially topographical and express what is found in the second apartment of the temple. Acknowledging possible biases that the interpreter may have, the way is open for the following steps.

ETYMOLOGY From an etymological point of view, θυμιατήριον is formed of the verb θυμιάω (I burn incense) and the derivational suffix –τήριον, which is the sign of substantivisation or nominalization of an adjective, or verb in the present case. Examples in the canonical Greek include: ψαλτήριον (from ψάλλω), θυσιαστήριον (from θυσιάζω), ποτήριον (from πο, the root of some tenses of πίνω), and οἰκητήριον (from οἰκέω).57 The literal rendition of θυμιατήριον from an etymological standpoint is “incense burner.” In Orion’s Byzantine Etymologicum we find the mediaeval etymological definition of θυσιαστήριον (= διὰ τὰς θυσίας τηρεῖν) and θυμιατήριον (= διὰ τὸ θυμίαμα τηρεῖν),58 which are generally suggesting that the two terms refer to cultic objects ministered by sacrifices and incense respectively. This does not tell anything about size, structure, and the exact cultic function. We need more information which is why we turn now to derivatives. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, The Messianic Jewish Epistles, Hebrews, James, First Peter, Second Peter, Jude (Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 2005), 114. See also James Girdwood and Peter Verkruyse, Hebrews (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1997), ad loc.; A. W. Pink, An Exposition of Hebrews (Swengel, PA: Bible Truth Depot, 1954), 455; R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and of the Epistle of James (Columbus, OH: Lutheran Book Concern, 1938), 277. 56 Had this not been true, it is argued not only that the author would have contradicted Moses but himself too, since the high priest would not have had access to the altar except on the Day of Atonement, as Heb 9,7 testifies. John Peter Lange, A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Hebrews (Bellingham, WA, Logos Research Systems, 2008), 151. 57 See also φυγαδευτήριον (from φυγαδεύω), δικαιωτήριον (from δικάζω), ἀκρωτήριον (from ἀκρωτηριάζω), λῃστήριον (from λῃστεύω), πειρατήριον (from πειρατεύω), κριτήριον (from κρίνω). 58 Orion, Etymologicum 178.910. 55

HAPEX LEGOMENA IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

245

DERIVATIVES The noun θυμιατήριον is formed of the verb θυμιάω. The verb appears 70 times in the NT, LXX, and apocrypha. Interestingly, in the NT the verb, like its derivative noun, is found only once, at Luke 1:9. Luke speaks there about priest Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, entering into the temple building to burn incense (θυμιᾶσαι), that this action had an appointed time (τῇ ὥρᾳ τοῦ θυμιάματος, v. 10), and that he did it on the altar of incense, a fact inferred from the detail that he was standing by that altar (ἑστὼς ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου τοῦ θυμιάματος, v. 11) when he was met by the angel. Statistically, the majority of the instances in the LXX and apocrypha, when people offer incense to God or to idols, points to an altar59 where this took place, inside the first apartment of the sanctuary (when offered to God) or at the high places (when offered to idols). The few exceptions refer usually to hard times when people burned incense out of the temple precincts.60 There is one particular text of interest for Heb 9:4. This is 2 Chr 26:19, which describes Uzziah going to the altar of incense handling a censer for burning incense (τὸ θυμιατήριον τοῦ θυμιάσαι). But a closer look at this is postponed for the last section where it actually belongs. Another cognate noun which may be of interest here is θυμίαμα, which is found 87 times in the NT, LXX, and apocrypha. It refers to a perfumed or aromatic substance. From its cultic usage in the NT we find two things: (1) that the incense was burned on the golden altar (ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον τὸ χρυσοῦν, Rev 8:3) and (2) that various cultic vessels61 were filled with incense. Likewise, in the LXX and apocrypha, θυμίαμα is used in association with an altar62 or high places and a censer63. The conclusion that can be drawn at this step is that, as far as its derivatives is concerned, the hapax θυμιατήριον can be either an altar or a censer, both being used in cultic contexts as vehicles of burning incense to a deity.

SYNTAX AND DETERMINATIVES From a syntactic angle, the θυμιατήριον is something contained by the holy of holies. It is physically present in that inner chamber of the sanctuary. This follows from the double use of the participle ἔχουσα in the verse, both times having this very meaning: one container (the holy of holies and the golden pot) “has” a content (the θυμιατήριον and the Ark of the Covenant in the holy of holies, and the manna Cf., θυσιαστήριον in Lev 4:7; 1 Sam 2:28; 2 Chr 26:16; etc. In 1 Macc 1:55 it is mentioned how in the context of the abomination of desolation incense was burned “at the doors of their houses”; in Isa 65:3 and Jer 19:13; 32:29, Isaiah mentions that Israelites were burning incense to demons on the bricks of their roofs. 61 E.g., φιάλας in Rev 5:8 and λιβανωτοί in Rev 8:3, 5. 62 Cf., θυσιαστήριον in Exod 30:7–8; 1 Sam 2:15; etc. 63 There are three terms for “censer”, (1) πυρεῖον found in Lev 10:1; 16:12; Num 16:6; (2) θυμιατήριον is used in 2 Chr 26:9 and Ezek 8:11; and (3) θυίσκη, used in Num 4:7; 7:14, 20, 26, 32, 38, 44, 50, 56, 62, 68, 74, 80, 84, 86; 1 Kgs 7:36; 2 Kgs 25:14; etc. 59 60

246

LAURENŢIU FLORENTIN MOŢ

in the golden pot). This is also evident from the use of the collocation ἐν ᾗ (Heb 9:2) and the preposition μετὰ (Heb 9:3), both constructions having spatial force in their clauses. The determinatives of θυμιατήριον in Heb 9:4 are basically two. First is the adjective χρυσοῦς (golden). It is interesting that the three occurrences64 of θυμιατήριον in LXX and apocrypha are all unqualified by the adjective “golden”. This detail gets more important because in the Septuagint, the adjective golden is used to qualify the noun θυσιαστήριον, particularly to distinguish the golden altar (τὸ θυσιαστήριον τὸ χρυσοῦν) from the bronze altar (τὸ θυσιαστήριον τὸ χαλκοῦν) since the term for altar in LXX is in both cases the same. In light of the qualifying adjective, therefore, χρυσοῦν θυμιατήριον (Heb 9:4) seems to rather point to the golden altar, than to a golden censer. It is true that Moses ordered censers, too, to be made of gold, but the terms used for “censer” where this is spoken of are different.65 The second group of determinatives of θυμιατήριον is formed of the terms describing the temple furniture present in the two apartments: the lampstand, the table, and the Ark of the Covenant. The association of the θυμιατήριον with these fixed cultic objects suggests that the θυμιατήριον might also refer to a static object. All in all, syntax and determinatives appear to define the θυμιατήριον as the altar of incense, which was physically and continuously present in the holy of holies. Yet, things will get even more transparent in the light of the last methodological criterion.

SEMANTICS AND PRAGMATICS At this stage, the pragmatic behaviour of θυμιατήριον will be reviewed in cognate literatures. The term appears twice in the LXX, in the post-exilic literature (2 Chr 26:19; Ezek 8:11). In both texts, we know that the noun is to be translated as censer because king Uzziah and the elders of Israel hold each their individual θυμιατήριον in the hand (ἐν τῇ χειρὶ). The apocrypha is just as clear. In 4 Macc 7:11, the writer tells the story of Aaron interceding for Israel while being armed with a censer (τῷ θυμιατηρίῳ καθωπλισμένος).66 Here, too, the determinatives of the term make it clear that the θυμιατήριον is an object, manipulated in cultic contexts. It should be noted that in Heb 9:4, no such determinatives exist. In fact, as stated in the previous section, it seems that in Hebrews the θυμιατήριον is a fixed object. We now turn to Jewish, non-canonical data, exemplified by Philo and Josephus. Philo speaks about the sacred furniture in the temple and delineates the following enumeration: candlestick, table and θυμιατήριον.67 In the light of this trio, the 64 65

Cf., 2 Chr 26:19; 4 Macc 7:11; and Ezek 8:11. See θυίσκαι χρυσαῖ (Num 7:84, 86; cf. Exod 25:29). Cf. also λιβανωτὸν χρυσοῦν (Rev

8:3). The allusion is to Num 17:46–47, where the LXX uses the more common term πυρεῖον. 67 Philo, Her 226–227; Moses II 146. 66

HAPEX LEGOMENA IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

247

term seems to refer to the altar of incense (cf. Exod 40:26). In accordance with the Mosaic account, Philo places the three cultic objects “within the first veil” 68 or “between the two curtains.”69 Very clearly, Philo compares the inner altar of incense (θυμιατήριον) with the altar in the open air (τὸν ἐν ὑπαίθρῳ βωμὸν) called in the LXX θυσιαστήριον.70 When he refers to censers, he prefers the term τὰ σπονδεῖα.71 It appears that Philo never uses θυμιατήριον to describe a censer, rather he always has the altar of incense in mind. Like Philo, when Josephus describes the cultic objects in the Mosaic sanctuary, he talks about the lampstand, the table, and the θυμιατήριον,72 showing that in such cases the noun renders the altar of incense. On the other hand, when he retells the story of Corah’s rebellion, he paraphrases Num 16:17 and replaces πυρεῖον73 (censer) of the Septuagint with θυμιατήριον.74 So in this case the word means “censer” but this is clarified by the syntax which has Corah and his party “getting/bringing” (κομίζων) each a θυμιατήριον. Sometimes, the term in plural may refer to both the altar of incense and the censer, e.g. when Josephus describes the entrance of the Roman military leader Pompey into the first apartment of the temple in Jerusalem in 63 BC. The Jewish historian mentions that in the holy place there were deposited the candlestick, the table, the pouring vessels, and the θυμιατήρια. Not mentioning the altar of incense (in singular) is strange since at the destruction of the same temple in 70AD, Josephus testifies that inside it there were the lampstand, the table and the θυμιατήριον, here clearly a reference to the altar of incense.75 The lack of mentioning the altar of incense could only be explained if, by the plural θυμιατήρια, Josephus was referring to all devices used to burn incense (both the altar and the censers). If this is not true, then it means he has censers in mind. When both the altar of incense and the censers are present in the same context, Josephus76 would use βωμὸς for the former and θυμιατήρια for the latter. In Hellenistic literature at large, θυμιατήριον usually means altar of incense when it appears in Jewish backgrounds.77 On the other hand, it usually means censer Philo, Spec 231. See also Philo, Moses II 94. Philo, Moses II 101. That is, between the “veil” and “curtain,” as he calls the entrance to the most holy place and the one to the holy place respectively. 70 Philo, Moses II 105–106. 71 Philo, Moses II 146. 72 Josephus, Ant 3.147. See also 3.193, 198. Wars 5.218. 73 Cf., Exod 27:3; 38:23; Lev 10:1; 16:12; Num 16:17, 18; 17:11. 74 Josephus, Ant 4.32, 54, 57. 75 Josephus, Wars 5.216. 76 Josephus, Ant 8.92. In the context, Josephus distinguishes between the great altar (the altar of sacrifice) and the little altar (the altar of incense). 77 Cf. the list βωμός, θυμιατήριον, ἑστία where all terms refer to basically one category – that of an altar. Julius Pollux, Onomasticon 1.7.4–5. See also Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 5.6.33.1.2; Origen, Contra Celsum 5.44.9; Philocalia 13.2.15; Epistula ad Gregorium Thaumaturgum 2.15 (all in the second century AD). 68 69

248

LAURENŢIU FLORENTIN MOŢ

within Greco-Roman backgrounds.78 An example from the first category is found in the Apocalypse of Moses where angels are depicted having used censers (θυμιατήρια) in order to bring incense on the altar (θυσιαστήριον) and thus mediate in favour of Adam and Eve.79 The pragmatics of θυμιατήριον in various cognate literatures proves that in Heb 9:4, the term refers to the altar of incense, even though the term in the Greek language at large could also stand for a censer. The arguments are three: (1) the context of Heb 9:4 presents the trio lampstand, table, and θυμιατήριον, which makes the Greek term convey the altar of incense; (2) in Heb 9:4 there is no mention that the θυμιατήριον is somehow handled or transported, which means it is a static piece of furniture; (3) there is no other term for altar in the context, which suggests the term stands for that altar.

EXEGETICAL IMPORTANCE OF τὸ θυμιατήριον IN HEBREWS 9:4 This extensive study of the word θυμιατήριον leaves no doubt that in Heb 9:4, the word means altar of incense. The question is what is the importance of this hapax in its context? Does this hapax prove the ignorance of the author? Though the meaning “altar of incense” for θυμιατήριον goes against the Mosaic and rabbinic tradition,80 the author of Hebrews knows the OT and the Mosaic system very well. Was it a source which made the writer of Hebrews place the altar of incense in the second apartment? There is one possible trace of such an influence in 2 Baruch, a book composed somewhere between late 1st and early 2nd century AD. Its author writes in the circumstances after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD, but uses as plot the downfall of the first temple under the Babylonians. He writes that before Jerusalem was to be invaded by the Chaldaean armies, an angel from heaven came to the city with the special commission to take the holy vessels from the holy of holies. Upon entering this chamber the angel finds “the mercy seat, the two tables, the holy raiment of the priests, the altar of incense [θυμιατήριον], […] and all the holy vessels of the tabernacle” (2 Bar 6:7). The rendition as “altar of incense” seems correct because the term is singular and separated from the other “holy vessels”. The dependence of Hebrews upon 2 Baruch is doubtful, however,

Callixenus, Fragmenta 3.2.138 (second century BC); Dio Chrysostomus, Orationes 31.88.5 (first century AD); Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 5.28.9; Claudius Ptolemaeus, Syntaxis Mathematica 1.2.177.22; Claudius Aelianus, Varia Historia, 12.51.11 (all three in the second century AD). See also later lexicographers such as Lexica Segueriana, Collectio verborum utilium e differentibus rhetoribus et sapientibus multis (Σ) (recensio aucta e cod. Coislin. 345), pi.356.4; Suda, Lexicon pi.3212.1. Hesychius, Lexicon pi.4428.1; Photius, Lexicon pi.476.17; Pseudo–Zonaras, Lexicon 881.9. 79 Apocalypse of Moses 33.3. See also 38.2; Testament of Job 32.8; 52.4. 80 E.g., Exod 40:26; Yoma 5.5. 78

HAPEX LEGOMENA IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

249

since the latter was probably written after Hebrews.81 Also because 2 Baruch elevates the importance of the heavenly temple, like Hebrews, it is very possible that 2 Baruch follows Hebrews.82 If it was neither ignorance, nor taken from a source, this means the change might have been intentional and motivated by the theological construct. To place the altar of incense in the holy of holies as such would have sounded awkward to first century Jews, but by using this rare word, the claim of the Epistle might have been better received. What was the claim after all? The author of Hebrews argues that Christ is a servant of a better covenant (Heb 7:22), a better high-priest (Heb 9:11) in a better sanctuary, which should turn the focus of Israel from the then current temple services to Christ’s heavenly ministry. This better sanctuary is the heavenly abode (τὰ ἅγια) also called “the true tent”, being “true” in relation to the earthly, human, sanctuary (Heb 8:2). The relation between the earthly and the heavenly sanctuaries is resumed in chapter 9 where the writer contrasts again the heavenly temple (τὰ ἅγια) to “the first [earthly] tent” (v. 8). Not being made of human hands, the heavenly (τὰ ἅγια, v. 12) is instead a “more perfect tent” (τελειοτέρα σκηνή, v. 11). By describing the heavenly sanctuary as the second, the true, and the more perfect temple, the Epistle to the Hebrews makes the heavenly temple a kind of holy of holies in relation to the earthly temple, which was just a holy type in comparison to the heavenly, holier reality. With the heavenly sanctuary in mind, it seems as if the author of Hebrews modifies the design of the earthly sanctuary. The altar of incense is now right in the presence of God, where Jesus actually ascended to minister (Heb 8:1; 9:24). The exegetical importance of the hapax under focus here is highlighting that Christ does in the heavenly sanctuary what the earthly priests were doing in both the holy place and in the holy of holies of the sanctuary in Jerusalem. This is proven by Heb 9:19– 23, where the writer recalls the inauguration of the OT sanctuary by Moses who entered and cleansed the whole sanctuary and cultic objects. Likewise, Christ cleanses the heavenly things (τὰ ἐπουράνια) with his blood. Therefore, a strict division of the sanctuary does not make sense. Like other scholars,83 Harold S. Camacho holds that “when the earthly sanctuary is described in 9:3–4, the emphasis is more in terms of deeper theological meanIn the second part of the first century, between 70–80, according to Ellen Bradshaw Aitken, “Portraying the Temple in Stone and Text: The Arch of Titus and the Epistle to the Hebrews,” Hebrews, Contemporary Methods–New Insights (ed. Gabriella Gelardini. Leiden: Brill, 2005), 131–48, p. 136. 82 Cf., “This may reflect an exegetical tradition current in first–century Judaism.” Marie E. Isaacs, Reading Hebrews and James, A Literary and Theological Commentary (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 2002), 110. The author considers 2 Bar 6:7 as an argument if the Syriac work was written around 70 AD. 83 E. g. Craig R. Koester, Hebrews, A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008), 402: “The splendor of the inner chamber (9,4) calls attention to its superiority, allowing it to serve as a reflection of the glory of the 81

250

LAURENŢIU FLORENTIN MOŢ

ings, functions, and relationships than on merely the formal structural arrangements.”84 This is where the exegetical importance of this hapax resides. It is used to highlight deeper theological meanings regarding Christ’s heavenly ministry.

CONCLUSIONS Exegetically significant hapax legomena need to be taken seriously for their contribution to interpretation. The methodology proposed hereby is fivefold. The first consideration is identifying the presupposition that the interpreter has about the meaning of the hapax legomenon in its context. Not doing this may affect the semantics of the word. The second step is etymology, which is meant to help as a starting point in approaching the partial hapaxes and as a last resort in the case of total hapaxes. The third step concerns derivatives. These are cognate words which may be found more than once and whereby one can comprehend the related hapax. The fourth consideration is syntax and determinatives. This is where the context of the sentence becomes significant. The determinatives are very important as they define the hapax by other explanatory words. The last methodological step is the consultation of the context and cognate literatures. Here is where the hapax is followed outside the initial corpus in various separate contexts. For the NT, these words need to be checked against the LXX and Hellenistic Greek in general. Only after this methodology is followed consistently can the interpreter ascertain the contribution of a hapax that is exegetically important. All these steps have been applied in the case of θυμιατήριον in Heb 9:4. It was found that the term does not mean censer, but altar of incense. Its misplacement in the holy of holies is most probably not due to authorial ignorance or the source the author of Hebrews consulted. The deviation from the Mosaic account seems to be rather intentional. In a sense, the hapax draws a line between what was known by the addressees and what is new and emphasized by the author. It is used in an intriguing way and to call attention to the ministry of Christ, which takes place in heaven and surpasses what the limited ministry of the earthly priests used to accomplish. sanctuary in which Jesus ministers (8,2; 9,11).” Thomas G. Long, Hebrews, Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville, KY, John Knox Press, 1997), 93: “[The writer wants to contrast what happened—or failed to happen—in the old tabernacle with what happens through the priestly ministry of Jesus.” Lange et al., Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, 151 “The purpose of the author is not to describe the holy localities and furniture of the second temple, but that these things are mentioned only in order to exhibit that which mirrored forth the peculiar nature and dignity, and especially the symbolical and typical character, of the Mosaic sanctuary.” H. H. B. Ayles, Destination, Date, and Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews (London: C.J. Clay and Sons, 1899), 79: “But the heavenly altar is evidently in the Most Holy Place, for our Lord is in no outer sanctuary but seated at the right hand of God, and thus our author was forced to connect the earthly altar also with the Holy of Holies.” See 1 Kgs 6:22; Isa 6. 84 Harold S. Camacho, “The Altar of Incense in Hebrews 9,3–4,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 24,1 (Spring 1986): 5–12, p. 12.

HAPEX LEGOMENA IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

251

BIBLIOGRAPHY Aitken, Ellen Bradshaw. “Portraying the Temple in Stone and Text: The Arch of Titus and the Epistle to the Hebrews.” Pages 131–48 in Hebrews: Contemporary Methods–New Insights. Edited by Gabriella Gelardini. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Álvarez, Ronald Forero. “El Dialecto Lesbio. The Lesbian Dialect.” Byzantion Nea Hellás 27 (2008): 91–108. Aronoff, Mark and Mark Lindsay. “Productivity, Blocking, and Lexicalization.” Pages 64–83 in The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology. Edited by Rochelle Lieber, Pavol Stekauer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Authenrieth, Georg, ed. A Homeric Dictionary. Translated by Robert Keep, revised by Isaac Flagg. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1958. Ayles, H. H. B. Destination, Date, and Authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews. London: C.J. Clay and Sons, 1899. Baayen, H., H. van Halteren, and F. Tweedie. “Outside the cave of shadows, using syntactic annotation to enhance authorship attribution.” Literary and Linguistic Computing 11,3 (Sep 1996): 121–32. Baerman, Matthew. “Introduction.” Pages 1–10 in The Oxford Handbook of Inflection. Edited by Matthew Baerman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Baker, Bruce A. “Romans 1,18–21 and Presuppositional Apologetics.” Bibliotheca Sacra 155 (1998): 280–98. Berkhof, Louis. Principles of Biblical Interpretation, Sacred Hermeneutics. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1950. Bernini, Andrea. “An unexplained word in the Hippiatrica, ἀρτουκοῦρος.” Mnemosyne 67 (2014): 454–57. Bigg, Charles. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude. Edinburgh: T&T Clark International, 1901. Brown, Colin. “Incense, Myrrh.” New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1986. Bruce, Alexander Balmain. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1899. Camacho, Harold S. “The Altar of Incense in Hebrews 9,3–4.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 24,1 (Spring 1986): 5–12. Carson, D. A. Exegetical Fallacies. 2nd ed. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1996. Chapman, Siobhan. Pragmatics. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011. Craigie, Peter C. “Remembering Ugarit, The Tablets from Ugarit and Their Importance for Biblical Studies.” Biblical Archeology Review 9,5 (Sep/Oct 1983): 54–75. Fossum, Andrew. “Hapax Legomena in Plato.” The American Journal of Philology 52 (1931): 205–31. Fruchtenbaum, Arnold G. The Messianic Jewish Epistles: Hebrews, James, First Peter, Second Peter, Jude. Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 2005. Girdwood, James and Peter Verkruyse. Hebrews. The College Press NIV Commentary. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1997.

252

LAURENŢIU FLORENTIN MOŢ

Grayston, K. and G. Herdan. “The Authorship of the Pastorals in the Light of Statistical Linguistics.” New Testament Studies 6,1 (1959): 1–15. Greenspahn, Frederick E. “Hapax Legomena.” The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary. Vol. 3. Edited by David Noel Freedman. New York, Doubleday, 1996. Groom, Susan Anne. Linguistic Analysis of Biblical Hebrew. Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2003. Harrison, P. N. The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles. Eugene, OR: Wipf&Stock, 2016. Herdan, Gustav. “The Hapax Legomenon, A Real or Apparent Phenomenon?” Language & Speech 2 (1959): 26–36. Isaacs, Marie E. Reading Hebrews and James, A Literary and Theological Commentary. Reading the New Testament Series. Macon, GA, Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 2002. Kaiser, Walter C. Jr. Toward an Exegetical Theology, Biblical Exegesis for Preaching and Teaching. Grand Rapids, MI, Baker Academic, 1981. Kenny, Dorothy. Lexis and Creativity in Translation, A Corpus Based Approach, A Corpus–Based Study. London, Routledge, 2014. Kistemaker, Simon J. and William Hendriksen. Exposition of the Epistles of Peter and the Epistle of Jude. New Testament Commentary 16. Grand Rapids, MI, Baker Book House, 1953– 2001. Knight, G. W. “Αὐθεντέω in Reference to Women in 1 Tim. 2,12.” New Testament Studies 30 (1984): 143–57. Koester, Craig R. Hebrews, A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 2008. Kumpf, Michael Martin. The Homeric Hapax Legomena And Their Literary Use by Later Authors, Especially Euripides and Apollonius Rhodius. Dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1974. Lange, John Peter, Philip Schaff, Carl Bernhard Moll, and A. C. Kendrick. A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Hebrews. Bellingham, WA, Logos Research Systems, 2008. Latte, K., ed. Hesychii Alexandrini lexicon. Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1953, 1966. Lenski, R. C. H. The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and of the Epistle of James. Columbus, OH: Lutheran Book Concern, 1938. Lieber, Rochelle and Pavol Štekauer. “Introduction, Status and Definition of Compounding.” Pages 3–18 in The Oxford Handbook of Compounding. Edited by Rochelle Lieber and Pavol Štekauer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. _____. “Introduction.” Pages 3–9 in The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology. Edited by Rochelle Lieber and Pavol Štekauer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Long, Thomas G. Hebrews. Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1997. Lourié, Basil. “One Hapax Legomenon and the Date of 2 Enoch.” Henoch 33,1 (2011): 94–6. Maclean, Archibald. A Paraphrase and Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Vol. 2. London, 1820. Mardaga, Hellen. “Hapax Legomena and the Idiolect of John.” Novum Testamentum 56 (2014): 134–53. _____. “Hapax Legomena, A Neglected Field in Biblical Studies.” Currents in Biblical Research, 10 (2012): 264–74.

HAPEX LEGOMENA IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

253

McDougall, Donald G. “Unequally Yoked—A Re-Examination of 2 Corinthians 6,11–7,4.” Master’s Seminary Journal 10 (1999): 113–37. McLay, Tim. The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003. Metzger, Bruce Manning. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. London: United Bible Societies, 1994. _____. “A Reconsideration of Certain Arguments Against the Pauline Authorship of the Pastoral Epistles.” The Expository Times 70,3 (1958): 91–4. Milton, James. Measuring Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 2009. Moulton, James Hope and George Milligan. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1930. Moulton, James Hope and Wilbert Francis Howard. A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Accidence and Word–Formation. Vol. 2. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1963. Neyrey, Jerome H. 2 Peter, Jude, A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008. Osborne, Grant R. The Hermeneutical Spiral, A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2006. Padgett, Alan. “Wealthy Women at Ephesus, I Timothy 2,8–15 in Social Context.” Union Seminary Review 41, 1 (Jan 1987): 19–31. Pink, Arthur Walkington. An Exposition of Hebrews. Swengel, PA: Bible Truth Depot, 1954. Porter, Stanley E. “What does it Mean to Be ‘Saved by Childbirth’ (1 Timothy 2.15)?” JSNT 15 (1993), 87–102. Porter, Stanley E. and Richard S. Hess. Translating the Bible, Problems and Prospects. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Pustet, Regina. “On Discourse Frequency, Grammar, and Grammaticalization.” Pages 143– 68 in Linguistic Diversity and Language Theories. Studies in Language Companion 72. Edited by Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Adam Hodges, & David S. Rood. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2005. Ralli, Angela. “Greek.” Pages 3138–3156 in Word–Formation, An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, Vol. 5. Edited by Peter O. Muller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olser, & Franz Rainer. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016. Redekop, Gloria Neufeld. “Let the women learn, 1 Timothy 2,8–15 reconsidered.” Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses 19 (1990): 235–45. Ripley, Henry J. The Epistle to the Hebrews with Explanatory Notes. Boston, MA: Gold and Lincoln, 1868. Sampson, Francis S. A Critical Commentary on the Epistle to Hebrews. New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1856. Schreiner, Thomas R. 1, 2 Peter, Jude. The New American Commentary 37. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2007. Smith, M. W. A. “Hapax Legomena in Prescribed Positions, An Investigation of Recent Proposals to Resolve Problems of Authorship.” Literary and Linguistic Computing 2,3 (Jan 1987): 145–52.

254

LAURENŢIU FLORENTIN MOŢ

Suau, Francisca. “Pragmatics.” Pages 141–80 in Working with Words, An Introduction to English Linguistics. Edited by Miguel Fuster Márquez and Antonoa Sanchez. Universitat de Vàlencia, 2008. Těšitelová, Marie. Quantitative Linguistics. Linguistic & Literary Studies 37. Amsterdam, John Benjamins, 1992. Thayer, Joseph Henry. A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1889. Upton, Bridget Gilfillan. “Can Stepmothers be Saved? Another Look at 1 Timothy 2.8–15.” Feminist Theology 15 (2007), 175–85. Williamson, Ronald. Philo and the Epistle to the Hebrews. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Workman, W. P. “Hapax Legomena of St. Paul.” Expository Times 7 (1896): 418–9. Zerwick, Max. A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament. Translated, Revised and Adapted by Mary Grosvenor. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1974. Zipf, George Kingley. Selected Studies of the Principle of Relative Frequency in Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1932. _____. The Psycho–Biology Of Language, An Introduction to Dynamic Philology. 1936. Reprinted London: Routledge, 2002.

INDEX Abbasid 59 accents see: prosody adjectives 7, 9, 34, 37, 44, 51, 62, 133, 180, 183–184, 199, 204, 216, 221–222, 239, 244, 246 adverbs 29, 54, 56, 97–98, 180, 196–197, 200 Afroasiatic 135 Aḥiqar 97 Akkadian 133, 137–139, 143, 150, 152– 153 Alexandria 49, 64, 242 alphabetical arrangement 39, 50, 131, 151–152, 155 altar of incense 242–251 ambiguity 35, 58, 159, 161, 167, 169, 172, 175, 183, 236, 241 Amharic 142 Antioch 97, 115 aorist 59, 60 Aphel 36, 55, 185 Aphrahaṭ 3, 31, 49, 191–212 Apocalypse of Moses 248 apocalyptic 101, 105 apocrypha 245–246 Aquila 214 Arabic 30, 40, 49, 133, 135, 137, 139–146, 150, 153, 216–219, 221–222 Aramaic 1–2, 12, 25, 29–30, 35–36, 39, 44, 50–51, 56, 58–60, 62, 96–98, 101, 103, 105, 108, 113, 132, 134–135, 139, 141, 143–144, 151 Egyptian Aramaic 97 Galilean Aramaic 54 Imperial Aramaic 97, 143 Jewish Aramaic 30, 58, 60, 139, 142, 144 Qumran Aramaic 97 Palestinian Aramaic 29, 59

Samaritan Aramaic 29, 227 Aristotle 49 Armenian 229 Assyrian 138 Audo (dictionary) 24, 33, 35, 61, 151 Babylonian (language) 153 Bar Bahlul 144 Bardaiṣan 97 Bar Hebraeus 144 Barr, James 2, 9, 51–52, 135–136, 138– 142, 155 Baruch 248–249 BDAG Lexicon 24, 64, 74, 239 Beirut 97 biblical lexicography 18, 41 biblical manuscripts 60, 159–161, 167, 175, 192, 211 Brockelmann (lexicon) 24, 32, 50, 131, 137–140, 151, 154 Brown-Driver-Briggs (dictionary) 39, 40 codicology 20 cognitive linguistics 2, 19, 26, 38, 41–42, 45, 51, 54, 61–62 compound nouns 233, 238–239 computer-assisted analysis 2, 10, 12, 16, 20, 31, 33, 37–38, 55, 145, 178–180 concinnity 37 concordances 7, 28, 32, 34, 38, 44, 178– 180 conflation 204–205, 219, 222 conjunctions 180, 184, 187, 197, 208, 216–217, 235 conjunctive dalath 193, 202–203 conjunctive waw 200, 202, 205, 208 connectives 54, 200

255

256

STUDIES IN BIBLICAL PHILOLOGY AND LEXICOGRAPHY

Coptic 138, 156, 214, 243 corpus-based lexicography 7, 13, 20, 23– 24, 29, 31, 33–34, 47, 49, 53, 58, 131, 142, 144, 146, 153, 235–237, 239, 241, 250

intonation 57, 60, 161, 165, 172

Danker 19, 21, 41, 47–48, 53, 64 delimitation 2 demonstrative 181 denominative 152, 154 deontic modality 46 determinatives 233, 240, 245–246, 250 diacritics 20, 42 Diatessaron 3, 213–219, 221–223, 229– 230 discourse analysis 2, 9, 19, 53–54, 63, 65, 201, 216–217, 253 dottology 2, 20, 60, 111, 159–173, 175

lectionaries 46, 214 lexemes 3, 20, 28, 35–37, 44, 49–51, 55, 142, 145, 152, 183, 237, 239 lexica 1–2, 5–9, 11–16, 18–20, 23–26, 28– 45, 49–54, 58, 60–62, 64, 66, 71, 73– 74, 99, 131–132, 134–158, 166, 173, 176, 230, 233, 237, 240, 243, 251–252 lexical classification 37 lexical database 135 lexical definitions 43 lexical entries 6, 8, 23, 31, 37, 39, 43, 47, 54–55, 133 lexical information 6, 8, 26 lexical items 8, 45–46, 49, 184 lexicalization 30, 42–43 lexical meaning 8, 41, 51, 55 lexical semantics 29, 61 liturgy 59, 66, 141, 227, 229, 244 loanwords 46, 63, 131, 134–135, 138, 142–144, 150–154, 157–158

East Syrian 51, 60, 159–170, 172–175 Egyptian (language) 135, 137, 143, 150, 152 Egypto-Semitic 131, 135–138, 142 encyclopaedic information 49, 50 Ephrem 31, 49, 192, 229 Estrangelo 51 Ethiopic 107, 108, 142–143 etymological lexicography 2–3, 20, 25, 38–41, 51, 64, 131–145, 148–155, 158, 233, 238 generative grammar 61–62 Genesis Apocryphon 96 grammar 2, 9, 30, 34–36, 55–56, 58, 62, 64, 146, 160 graphemes 2 hapax legomena 3, 45, 233–243, 245, 248–250 Harklean 28, 32, 34, 46, 51, 67, 69 Hexapla 103, 214 imperative 59, 97 imperfect 59–60, 65 indicative forms 29, 59–60 interrogatives 180–181, 196

Koehler-Baumgartner (lexicon) 25, 39– 40, 131, 136–138, 140, 144

Mandaic 60, 139 maqryānē 161, 168, 171–172 Masora, Syriac 2, 42, 162–163, 165, 167– 168 Modern Syriac see: Turoyo morphology 9, 28, 31, 35–37, 44, 56, 66, 143, 178, 235 morphosyntax 29, 62 nouns 29, 44, 46, 51, 61, 119, 133–134, 145–146, 152–154, 180–181, 184, 188, 195, 203–205, 207–208, 219, 222, 233, 238–240, 245–247 Old Syriac gospels (Vetus Syra) 3, 32, 43, 96, 213–215, 219, 230 Palestinian see: Aramaic papyri 54, 66, 103, 238, 241–242

INDEX Persian (language) 135, 143–144, 150, 153–154, 219 Peshiṭta 1, 3, 6–8, 29, 31–34, 37–38, 43– 44, 46–50, 55–57, 61, 96, 98, 159–162, 166, 168, 172–173, 175, 177, 179, 183–184, 186–187, 191–193, 196, 199–200, 204–210, 213–214, 224, 227 philosophy 28, 49, 149 phonetics 38, 143, 146, 152, 180 phonology 30, 37, 56, 179–180 pointing see: dottology pragmatics 233, 241, 246, 248 prepositions 8, 37, 47, 51, 55, 64, 181, 183–184, 208, 218, 235, 241, 246 pronouns 37, 44, 113, 181, 183, 184, 207–208, 219, 226, 235 prosody 20, 57 punctuation 20, 159–161, 163, 166, 172– 175 recitation 2, 60, 159, 161, 173, 175, 227 role and reference grammar 56 schools 97, 161, 166 semantics 7–8, 19, 25, 27, 29–30, 32, 34– 35, 37–38, 40–41, 43–45, 47–49, 51, 53, 55, 58, 61, 64–66, 125, 128, 131– 136, 139–140, 142–150, 153, 181, 187, 201, 220–221, 233, 237–241, 246, 250 Semitic languages 45, 62, 131, 134, 136, 139, 142–144, 146–147 Semitic lexicography 37, 51, 136, 139, 155 Semitic linguistics 29 Septuagint 51, 61, 96, 98, 109, 214, 222227, 237–238, 240–242, 245–247, 250 Serto 51

257 spelling 46, 152, 179–180, 184, 229 statistics 31, 50, 61, 183 stress 30, 161, 168 substantivisation 244 suffixes 29, 37, 44, 134, 204–205, 244 synonymy 24, 38, 46–47, 53, 145–146, 181, 191, 195, 203, 205, 212, 238, 242 syntax 7–9, 25, 27, 29–32, 34, 37, 39, 41, 43–44, 46, 48, 51, 54–56, 58–59, 62– 64, 66, 125, 178, 186, 233, 240, 245– 247, 250 Syriac Bible 2, 7, 13, 20, 30, 32, 159–161, 169, 172, 174–175, 192, 214, 230 Syriac lexica 8, 28, 37, 43, 61 Syriac lexicography 1, 6, 8–9, 11–12, 14, 16, 24, 30, 32–33, 42, 47, 49, 58, 132, 135–136, 151 Syrohexapla 46, 57, 103, 107–108 Targums 29, 44, 58, 98, 214 Theodotion 102–105, 114, 214 Turoyo 30, 42 Ugaritic 39, 138–139, 143 verbs 1, 9, 19, 29, 33, 36, 42–44, 47–48, 51, 54–56, 59, 61–62, 64, 97–98, 111– 112, 121, 133, 146, 149, 151–154, 171, 181–182, 184–186, 188, 191, 194, 196, 198–199, 202–204, 210–211, 217, 219, 226, 235, 238–240, 242, 244–245 vocalization 7, 20, 30, 42, 51, 169 vocative 65, 196, 209 voice 29, 55 vowels 20, 30, 51, 153, 169–170