Biblical Aramaic dispensa 12 Aprile 2013 ultima modificacion.pdf

C. Morrison Biblical Aramaic dispensa Page 1

Biblical Aramaic:

Reading Daniel 2 and Ezra 5 Craig E. Morrison, O.Carm.

Oh, and the camel. Was it a camel that could pass through the eye of a needle more easily than a rich man? Or a coarse piece of yarn? The Hebrew words are the same, but which one did they mean? If its a camel, the rich man might as well not even try. But if its the yarn, he might well succeed with a lot of effort, you see?

Barbara Kingsolver The Poisonwood Bible

Practical matters This dispensa was created for the personal use of students in biblical Aramaic at the Pontifical Biblical Institute. It is not for publication or for distribution of any kind. This course has five objectives: a. to learn Rosenthals grammar b. to read Daniel 2 and Ezra 5 c. to prepare a set of notes on Daniel 6 d. to increase ones ability to interpret biblical Hebrew syntax e. to be exposed to an ancient language that has been spoken continually for three millennia and is still spoken today. This course is a corso informatico of 12 sessions. Obviously this is insufficient time for students to acquire a grasp of the language. You have the option to taken as part of your licentiate program the course Laramaico del Secondo Tempio A-B in which you will gain a competency with Biblical Aramaic and Jewish/Christian Aramaic. There is an emailing list for the course. You will receive this dispensa as soon as I have the mailing list. Please send me an email by 21:00 this evening. At 21:00 I will distribute the dispensa.


[email protected] I will acknowledge your email and add you to the list. If I do not acknowledge your email, I have NOT received it and you should send it again. You will also receive articles (in pdf) that are relevant to our course. Most of the time you are NOT responsible for reading all this material. But if I send an attachment (pdf) and ask a question about an attached article, then you are responsible for learning the answer to that question from the reading. For example, in the article I will send shortly (Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Phases of the Aramaic Language) I will ask you to be able to list the Phases of the Aramaic language. Fitzmyer has much more to say than just his list of phases of Aramaic, but you are only responsible for that information from his article. You are free to email me a question that you feel pertains to the course and I will respond to you. Again, these notes are only for our use during this course. Please do not circulate them outside of this course. Why a course on biblical Aramaic? a. Part of the Bible is written in Aramaic (See Rosenthal 1) b. Aramaic was the international language of the Middle East (8th-3rd C.): see 2 Kings 18,26. 2 Re 18,26

rm,aYow" Ala, an:ArB,D" hqe%v;Abr"Ala, ja;/yw hn:!b]v,w WhY:qil]jiAB, yqiy:l]a,

ynEza;B] tydI+Why WnM;~[i rBd"T]Ala'w Wnj]n:=a} y[i`m]vo yKi tymi+r:a} ~yd


d. Aramaic questions in the New Testament: al;m]g (camel or rope?) The variant reading kavmilo" (rope) instead of kavmhlo", (camel) is found in the Georgian version here and in the Armenian in Matthew, both of which show considerable Syriac (Eastern Aramaic) influence (J. P. Lyons, Syriac Gospel Translations, 117). Other Aramaic expressions appear in New Testament Greek (called an Aramaism ). Difficulties with this course a. The text of Daniel has many corruptions that do not allow for simple explanations b. The corpus of biblical Aramaic is so limited that it is difficult to create a grammar with such a limited corpus. There it is always necessary to refer to other Aramaic texts, but these texts do not from the same period of time or form the same geographical region. An Introduction to Aramaic See: Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Phases of the Aramaic Language, in A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays (Society of Biblical Literature. Monograph series 25; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979), 57-84. [A.P. 17 25] One can disagree about the structure Fitzmyer imposes on the history of Aramaic, but it allows for the conversation among scholars regarding the evolution of the Aramaic language. Old Aramaic: See the Tel Dan inscription:

See Baruch Halpern, The Stela from Dan: Epigraphic and Historical Considerations. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 296 (1994) 63-80. Halpern identifies characteristics of the inscription that qualify its language as Old Aramaic. He presents a translation of the text and then discusses the archaeological and palaeographic evidence for its dating, neither of which is conclusive. Reviewing historical circumstances of the 9th and 8th centuries B.C.E. as known from biblical and extrabiblical texts, H. suggests that the stela be attributed to Ben-Hadad II and that a date of composition between 805 and 796 B.C.E. is the most plausible one.


Introduction to the Book of Daniel 1. Please read the introductions to the Book of Daniel that I have sent you (Lucas, Goldinday, Collins). A basic understanding of the Book of Daniel will assist you in your detailed reading of this chapter. 2. In the Catholic Bible, Daniel is placed within prophetic literature. In the Hebrew Bible it is placed in the Writings, between Esther and Ezra. 3. One book, two languages. Why?

1. Why is there Aramaic and Hebrew in Daniel? (See Collins Daniel, p. 12-13.)

4. A structure for the Book of Daniel: a. chapter 1-6, court stories or novellas. b. chapters 7-12, the visions that Daniel had.

5. What is the genre of Daniel 2 (see Collins p. 38 and Luca p. 22)? 6. Is there a structure to the Aramaic section (2:4b-7:28) of Daniel? Chapter 2 four kingdoms

Chapter 3 miraculous deliverance from apparent death (walking in the furnace)

Chapter 4: admonitions to the king (the king will be driven away. )

Chapter 5: admonitions to the king (hand: NyIsrApw lqV;t anVm) Chapter 6 miraculous deliverance from apparent death (lions den) Chapter 7 four kingdoms 7. Regarding the Qumran texts, I will send you the following articles so you can see the Qumran material. Eugene C. Ulrich, Daniel Manuscripts from Qumran. Part 1: A

Preliminary Edition of 4QDana, BASOR 268 (1987) 1737. Eugene C. Ulrich, Daniel Manuscripts from Qumran. Part 2: Preliminary

Editions of 4QDanb and 4QDanc, BASOR 274 (1989) 326. J. C. Trever, Completion of the Publication of Some Fragments from

Qumran Cave I, Revue de Qumran 5 (1964-66) 323-44. See also: Eugene C. Ulrich, Orthography and Text in 4QDana and 4QDanb and in

the Received Masoretic Text. In Harold Attridge, John J. Collins, and Thomas H. Tobin, eds., Of Scribes and Scrolls: Studies on the Hebrew Bible, Intertestamental Judaism and Christian Origins Presented to John Strugnell (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1990) 2942.


8. I will also send you: a. The first chapter of Zdravko Stefanovic, The Aramaic of Daniel in the

Light of Old Aramaic (JSOTSup 129; Sheffield: 1992. This chapter introduces you to some of the questions in the field of Biblical Aramaic. I will include John J. Collins negative review of this study. Thus, the results of Stefanovics study are not to be followed, but the introduction is still helpful. b. Michael B. Shepherd, The Distribution of Verbal Forms in Biblical

Aramaic, JSS 52 (2007) 227-244. This article introduces you to the challenges in translating verbal forms in Aramaic (a major problem!). Shepherd writes: Biblical Aramaic has a primary verbal form for narrative (qetal) and a primary verbal form for discourse (yiqtul). c. H. B. Rosn, On the Use of the Tenses in The Aramaic of Daniel,

JSS 6 (1961) 183-203. Shepherd reacts to Rosns study in his article. 9. Read Daniel 1 (in your own language, Italiano, English, etc.). What book of the Bible is Daniel continuing. a. What is the function of this opening scene? How is Daniel presented? What do we learn about him? b. Where does the author locate Daniels story within the history of Israel? Read the last verses of 2 Kings 25 and then turn to Dan 1,1. Rosenthals introduction to Aramaic 1: A list of Aramaic texts in the OT. 2: The name of this language appears in Ezra 4,7 (tymir:a} G:rtum]W) and Dan 2,4. 3: Rosenthals discussion is complemented by Fitzmyers article. 4: The alphabet. 5: The matres lectionis. The final a is a common mater lectionis in Aramaic. 8: vowel signs: Tiberian system is 7th century: there are two other systems: Palestinian and Babylonian. The Babylonian system appears in the Official Targums (2 Sam 1,1-3):


9: What is a vowel? The nucleus of a syllable. Vowel quality refers to the auditory character of the vowel. This is determined by the posture of the vocal organs.

a. Semitic languages have three stable long vowels: a,i,u. The short vowels are unstable and can change. Thus in Hebrew, rk;z;, zakar (male)/ /rk;z] (Hebrew), But in Aramaic: rk'z]//rk]z"

Remember that the graphic sign for a vowel does not indicate the precise sound of that vowel in every word it appears (think of how women is pronounced in English). We are reading Daniel thousands of years after it was written and these graphic signs for vowels (patah and qamez, etc.) guide our pronunciation but they do not reveal exactly how Aramaic was spoken in the 3rd Century BC (think of the vowel a in cat and say-the same graphic sign, different sound). Rosenthal acknowledges this when he writes: How far the subtle Masoretic distinctions are applicable to the pre-Masoretic period of BA remains doubtful (9). Rosenthal notes that different dialects of Aramaic developed different vocalization systems. Eastern Aramaic (known as Syriac) developed a system of dots to indicate vowel sounds. I can show you that system below (taken from Nldeke, T., Compendious Syriac Grammar [trans. J.A. Crichton] [London 1904]. XXVII 84 3):


10: The vowels. You know the system from biblical Hebrew. 12: qere/ketib: Rosenthal knows that to consider the Ketib more original is a gross oversimplification. Rosenthals discussion is complemented by two articles:

1. William S. Morrow and Ernest G. Clarke, The Ketib/Qere in the Aramaic Portions of Ezra and Daniel, Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 36, Fasc. 4 (Oct., 1986), pp. 406-422 2. Steven E. Fassberg, The Origin of the Ketib/Qere in the Aramaic Portions of Ezra and Daniel, Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 39, Fasc. 1 (Jan., 1989), pp. 1-12.

We will read Rosenthals grammar in connection with our study of Daniel 2 and Ezra 5

Reading Daniel 2 Daniel 2:1-4a is written in Hebrew. 2,1: Setting b. On the phrase wyl[; htyh]nI /tn:v]W, see Dan 6,19. Note that most scholars read htyh]nI with 6,19 and change the text to tD"n". We are in the first verse and already you note that the text is problematic. Was it poorly transmitted? The Peshitta (the Bible in Syriac) does not understand the expression either. It reads twh htncw Yhwl[ and his sleep was upon him i.e., he fell back asleep. The Peshitta reads htyh]nI as ht;y]h;. The Peshitta reading is helpful here


because it indicates that the translator could not understand his Hebrew Vorlage, which most likely was identical to the MT. Consulting the Peshitta: As I mentioned in class, the Peshitta is a 2nd-3rd century translation of the Bible in Syriac, which, if you have read carefully the article by Fitzmyer, is Eastern Aramaic (the Aramaic dialect of Edessa) that emerges in the late first century. Thus, the Peshitta can assist us in interpreting Daniel because it is a second century, Eastern Aramaic translation of an Official Aramaic text (using Fitzmyers phases). You will see that the Peshitta will offer a solution to many difficulties we encounter. This does not mean that the Peshitta has the original reading (most likely not). But it indicates that the Peshitta translator (a native speaker of Aramaic) could not represent without adjustment the Aramaic text of Daniel in Syriac. 2,2 Rosenthal lists ypiV;a' as an Akkadian loan word. You will see that there are many foreign words in the Book of Daniel. See Collins, p. 18 (which I have already sent you) in which he discusses how these loan words suggest the Sitz im Leben and date of Daniel. See Rosenthal XIV (p. 57) where he lists the loan words in Biblical Aramaic. The word forj' appears in Exodus 7,11. 2,4 a. How does the word tymir:a function within the syntax of the clause? b. aK;l]m': We will review the Aramaic noun. Please read Rosenthal, 39-46.

1. The indication of determination (emphatic) is the a after the follows the noun (Rosenthal uses the word postpostive to describe this in 42). 2. Regarding gender, masculine and feminine, please remember, as Lipiski writes in 30.1. Primarily gender has nothing to do with sex. Gender from its latin root means kind or type. So when we talk about gender we are speaking about types of nouns. 3. The feminine form is Semitic languages is marked with t. Thus you can see the t is most feminine forms. But where it the t in the fem absolute? Here, see Lipiski, 30.4: The t of the most frequent ending -at- was eventually lost in many Semitic idioms from the first millennium B.C. on, although it was consistently retained in the construct state. Besides, it was preserved


in the cuneiform writing. The ending of the absolute state was thus reduced to -a, which was indicated in some languages as Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic by the mater lectionis

c. aK;l]m': Rosenthal notes that the determined form expresses the vocative. Consider the New Testament: aB;a' (see Mark 14:36), a determined form also in the vocative case (compare to Hebrew, see Waltke and OConnor, 8.3d). d. ymil][;: Notice the short o vowel in the first syllable. See Rosenthal 10. Why is this word plural? Compare to Hebrew, see 1 Kings 1,43, hmolv]Ata, Jylim]hi dwID:AJl,Mh' WnynEdoa}, where WnynEdoa} refers to David (See Walkte and OConnor 7.4.3). e. yyIj: Third h roots in Hebrew are third a in Aramaic (see paradigma VIII). Thus, Hebrew hnb becomes anb in Aramaic. But originally it is likely that these verbs had y as the third radical (thus, the forms hc;[;/t;yci[;). See the discussion of the verbs with third radical w/y in: Moscati, S. - Spitaler, A. - Ullendorff, E. - von Soden, W., An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages (PLO NS 6; Wiesbaden 1964), 16.121. f. rma G impv. rma. See Rosenthal 110, the impv has the same vowel as the impf. (see paradigma V). Then see 106: No practical rules can be formulated for the vowel following the second consonant of the root. For a full discussion on the morphology of the Semitic verb, see Edward Lipiski, Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 80; Leuven: 2001) 38.1-38.10. [M.P. A 232 80.1]

How to learn the Aramaic verb in this corso informatico? I suggest that you use BibleWorks or Accordance for the morphological analysis of the verb. You may also need to consult Rosenthal. Then find the form in the Paradigms of the Aramaic verb that I have sent to you. Then learn the pattern for that form.

g. aml]j,: Hebrew: /lj}. h. qere: Jd:b]['l]; ketib: ydb[l. How did the Masoretes vocalize the Ketib? See Rosenthal 49. Fassberg discusses the qere at length (Steven


E. Fassberg, The Origin of the Ketib/Qere) and he discusses this very form on p. 3-4 (he explains the ketib). See Dalman p. 204 (Grammatik des jdischen-palstinischen Aramisch (Darmstadt 1960/78). Look at the 2nd masc. sg forms. Fassberg interprets these different forms as examples of different dialects of Aramaic.

The term dialect: how is a dialect distinct from a language? (This is

apart from the common use of the term for derogatory reason: I (superior) speak a language, you (inferior) speak a dialect). John Lyons (Theoretical Linguistics, 34) writes:

Intensive study of the history of the classical and modern languages of Europe made it quite clear that the various regional dialects, far from being imperfect and distorted versions of the standard literary languages (as they were frequently thought to be), had developed more or less independently. They were no less systematicthey had their own regularities of grammatical structure, pronunciation and vocabularyand they were no less suitable as tools for communication in the contexts in which they were used. It became clear, in fact, that the differences between 'languages' and closely-related 'dialects' are for the most part political and cultural, rather than linguistic.

On the term dialect, see the Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics. i. aWEj'n: See Rosenthal XIII (p. 42) The question of perfect/imperfect is complemented by the articles sent via pdf by Shepherd and Rosn. Rosenthal 99 lists the basic patterns of the Aramaic verb: p>al [G] hitp>el [Gt] pa>>el [D] hitpa>>al [Dt] haf>el [C] hithaf>al [Ct] aWEj'n: naww


[or aphel]). Bibleworks or Accordance will analyze the form for you. My question is the function of this imperfect. aWEj'n: Note that this prefix verb form (or imperfect) is in a main clause in direct discourse. Note what Michael B. Shepherd writes in his abstract: The thesis here is that Biblical Aramaic has a primary verbal form for narrative (qetal) [what we sometimes call perfect] and a primary verbal form for discourse (yiqtul) [what we sometimes call imperfect]. So, you see in this verse that the yiqtul form [imperfect] is in direct discourse and in a main clause. I would suggest a modal sense (seeking permission): And let us tell aWEj'n: Tarsee Li writes: the prefix conjugation verb could express either

future or purpose (Dan. 2:4, 7b, 9c, 24; 7:14a). He then translates this verse: Tell your servants the dream, so that we may make known [or, and we will make known] its interpretation. I think Li here has made a mistake. aWEj'n does not express purpose. I would expect yd to introduce this clause if it expressed purpose.

Note the word order in the clause aWEj'n ar:v]piW j. ar:v]pi: Note this noun formation. Read the discussion in Rosenthal 51. This is qitl for as in Hebrew (rv,Pe//rv]Pi), see Joon 88 C. Note that Joon analyzes this form as a qitl, Rosenthal as a pi>l (same thing!) More recent grammars will have C1iC2C3. k. ar:v]pi: see the note in the critical apparatus: a. hr:v]pi: Sometimes the determination is written with the h instead of the a. b. Hrev]pi: Its interpretation. 2,5 a. hnE[; Note the lack of the waw (called asyndetic: the joining together of syntactic units without a conjunction). There is no wayyiqtol form in Aramaic. The absence of waw here is unusual. The apparatus in BHS proposes revocalizing this verb to perfect. This is wrong. It is normal in Aramaic for the verbs rma and an[ (or hn[) in narrative discourse (main clause, primo piano) to be vocalized as a ptc. Thus, in the Syriac NT, kai; ei\pen is translated in the Peshitta NT with rma;w (rmaw), a


participle. This also occurs in other Aramaic texts such as The Acts of Judas Thomas. Note what Shepherd writes about this construction on p. 232: the introductory formula 'he answered and said' is often expressed by two qatil forms [i.e., participles], but it is little more than a fixed preparation for discourse. See the excellent review of this problem in Tarsee Li, The Verbal System of the Aramaic of Daniel, p. 43-45. b. Note the Aramaic expression: rma;w aK;l]m' hnE[;: This Aramaism appears in the NT, see, for example, Luke 19,40 kai apokriqei eipen c. ayED:c]k' Note the suffix for a people, y (here plural, ye). See Rosenthal 58. A fuller discussion is given Lipiski 29.41. Below, I provide a brief summary of his remarks:

The gentilitial or adjectival suffixes -iy- > and -ay- > , [are] most commonly signify an individual member of a social group and they are widely used as gentilitial and hypocoristic endings with Semitic and even non-Semitic proper names. The relation between these different functions of the suffix is not evident. The genitilitial ending, extended to professional qualifications, may have originated from a postposition, used also to form the genitive marker -i (32.7). The difference between -iy- [the Hebrew form] and -ay- [the Aramaic form] seems to have been originally dialectal. While the Aramaic gentilitial and hypocoristic ending is -ay (e.g. Kasday, "Chaldaean";), the suffix -iy > is used in Arabic [and] in Hebrew (e.g. don, "Sidonian";

d. at`L]mi mll + at (gender) + (state): See the morphology for the Aramaic noun in Rosenthal 42. e. aD:za': listed in Rosenthal in 189 under Persian terms. The term only occurs in Dan 2,5 and Dan 2,8. Rosenthal notes that Persian words are normally in the area of political and legal administration or in written communication. So we are not surprised to see the word here. HALOT (Loehler, L., W. Baumgartner, B. Hartmann, E.Y. Kutscher & J.J. Stamm, Hebrisches und aramisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament, 5 vols., Leiden 1967-95. English ed. by M.E.J. Richardson: The Hebrew and Aramasic Lexicon of the Old Testament, Leiden 1994-) provides a


more complete discussion of loan words in Biblical Aramaic. Please look at HALOT (click on it in Bibleworks) and read the discussion of this word. This is the entry that appears in HALOT: *dza: a;dzAa, sbst. det. or adj. fem. (bad variant adz`Da, as though from the JArm. root dza to walk, so e.g. KBL); foreign word < Old Persian azda notice (Andr. Hbschmann 92; Hinz Altiranisches Sprachgut 52) or publicly announced, known, so Vogt Lexicon 3a, with reference to EgArm. arkdza = herald (Cowley Arm. Pap. 17: 57; Hoftijzer-Jongeling Dictionary 25); cf. Schaeder 66 announcer; also p. 68 announced; see further Herzfeld Inschriften 104; Kent Grammar 173f; EgArm. dboty dza Nh if an investigation is made (Cowley Arm. Pap. 27:8; dza examination, investigation; see Cowley Arm. Pap. 102; and Vogt Lexicon 3b; Jean-H. Dictionnaire 7; Hoftijzer-Jongeling Dictionary 25 :: Rosenthal Gramm. 189 (p. 59): a;dzAa publicly known :: Beyer Arm. Texte 506): definite, irrefutable, undeniable; a;dzAa ynIm aDt;VlIm Da 25 and aDt;VlIm ynIm iAa 28. Both these instances of a;dzAa can be translated in two ways: a) the word (matter) is irrevocable, so ZBi; cf. Bentzen Daniel 205: the matter is certain with me; Montgomery Daniel 147f; or b) the word (matter) is promulgated by me, so KBL; TOB; Bentzen Daniel 20; cf. 25 NRSV, this is a public decree :: REB this is my firm decision; 28 NRSV, I have firmly decreed; REB, I have come to this firm decision; for a discussion of these two possibilities see especially Bentzen Daniel 20; Plger KAT xviii: 44 and 455; literally for my part the matter is definite, analogous to aDt;VlIm aDbyIxy Da 613; see further Vogt Lexicon 3; Sokoloff, DSD 7 (2000) 82 refers to Rundgren, OS 25 (1978) 4655; Huyse SEIr. 17 (1998), 331337. The Persian loan words are critical to the question of dating the Book of Daniel. Recall what Collins writes (p. 19):

This observation does not necessarily require a pre-Hellenistic date for any part of the extant text of Daniel, but it does weigh against the theory that the whole book originated in the second century. However, while a late sixth-century date is compatible with the Persian loanwords, a later date is more probable, because extensive linguistic borrowing does not occur instantaneously. Persian loanwords are well attested in the Aramaic papyri of the fifth century.

aD:=za' yNImi at`L]mi: The is a nominal clause that appears again in 2,8 (different word order). We will discuss it in that verse. f. Note the condition. The protasis is introduced with h, Where does the apodosis begin? Clue: Aramaic distinguishes itself from Hebrew on this syntax. In Hebrew you have the so-called waw of the apodosis (Joon 176), which is impossible to identify. But in Aramaic, after he (introducing the protasis), all clauses that begin with a waw are part of the


protasis. The first clause without a waw begins the apodosis. Therefore, where does the apodosis begin here? g. ynIN"W[d/ht] (See paradigm V): Compare with the Hebrew form ynI[eydI/t (Ps 16,11). Hebrew shows the loss of intervocalic h. lyfiq]hi, haphil, (a in closed unaccented syllable becomes i). Then see Rosenthal 174: verbs with pronominal suffixes. The pronominal suffix is preceded by (i)nn. Thus, the form is thd>un+n+ani. See Rosenthal 31 for the pronominal suffixes. See Moscati et al. 16.34: Finally, Old Aramaic may insert -an before the suffixes: e.g. Eg. Aram. yminnk he puts thee. This imperfect form in a protasisI would suggest expresses modality: if you have unable to make known h. HrEv]piW Nouns with 3 m sg suff. See Rosenthal 49 for the pronominal suffixes in Aramaic. i. ymiD:h': hdm, absolute state, Rosenthal 42. j. Wd+b]['t]Ti: Notice the sense of this Gt form is middle, reflexive.

On the expression, Wdb]['t]Ti ymiD:h' I have sent you the article by John Makujina, Dan 2:5 and 3:29 as an Old Persian Idiom, To be Made into Parts, Journal of the American Oriental Society 119/ 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1999), 309-312. Wd+b]['t]Ti is an imperfect in a main clause (an apodosis). It expresses modality, though it may be difficult to express in English (perhaps, you shall be made ).


The expression You will be made limbs (sarete fatti a pezzetti) may be an Old Persian expression. This would have implications for the Sitz im Leben and dating of Daniel (you are NOT responsible for all the information in this article). Note the author's conclusion: In terms of literary issues, there is now further evidence for the anachronistic use of Persian terminology within a Babylonian setting in the book of Daniel. This study also suggests that Old Persian influenced the book of Daniel and Imperial Aramaic in more ways than hitherto estimated, especially in regard to syntax and loan translations. In discussions of the interaction of Old Persian and Aramaic, Aramaic is usually considered the dominant language and credited with a far greater degree of influence. Yet if the conclusions of this study are correct and if other calques can be found in Imperial Aramaic, the subordinate role of Old Persian may need revision. k. Wmc;T]yI: hitp>el [Gt]. See paradigm VI:

On the vocalization here see Takamitsu Muraoka and Bezalel Porten, A Grammar of Egyptian Aramaic (Leiden: Brill, 1998) 35. XLV 13 55.1 I will send you the pages from the volume, but the relevant paragraph is cited below (notice for Gt, Muraoka -Porten use tG):


The form is problematic. One might expect WmT;c]yI (t/c sibilant/dental metathesis, see Rosenthal 114). l. yliw:n: another loan word of unknown origin, see Rosenthal, 190. Again, HALOT provides a more recent and complete discussion of this word. In such cases, scholars can look to the context to a meaning. In this context, the king is threatening his wise men so it is more likely that yliw:n refers to something bad. It is also clear that yliw:n is something that can happen to a house. The Peshitta translates the expression Wmc;T]yI yliw:n /kyTeb;W with Nwzbtn Nwkytbw (wzbty wkytbw: your houses will be destroyed.). The Syriac translator does not translate the word yliw:n. He probably did not know its meaning. m. Please read Shepherd's article (only 9 pages in pdf). You will need to read it several times. I would ask you to consider the following questions: 1. What are the problems with the tradition description of the Aramaic verb? What are the difficulties with the study of the Aramaic verb? 2. What is Shepherd's methodology for analyzing the Aramaic verb? How is it a new approach? 3. How does Shepherd describe the word order in Biblical Aramaic? 4. In his conclusion, how does Shepherd distinguish the functions of qetal (perfect) and yiqtul (imperfect)? 5. Does his analysis help you? 2,6 a. See the condition. Where does the apodosis begin? b. wOj}h'T]: haphel, 2 m pl awj. See paradigm VIII


This root occurs in Hebrew in the so-called hitaphal (WjTv]YIw" Gen 47,31) but the Aramaic root is not related to this Hebrew root. c. n:T]m': mattnn, fem plural, maqtal ntn gifts. This is called a maqtal, because it comes from a triconsonantal root (ntn, to give). Note that the first n has assimilated to the t. d. hB;zbinW: The term only appears in Daniel. Rosenthal classifies it as Akkadian (190). But read the entry in HALOT. There you see that the etymology is less certain. e. ayGIc' rqywI:; Explain the vocalization of rqywI. f. ayGIc': adj m abs sg, sg


b. tWny:nti: The form only occurs here, but you have in Hebrew hnVvIm (v/t, see the chart of Hebrew/Aramaic consonants, Rosenthal 17). From Syriac: yrt (Nyrt), Aramaic Nyn;It, Nyr;Vt, hnt. See Rosenthal 88(2). The root in Biblical Aramaic is tny + n suffix + t suffix (see Rosenthal 56). Note that it is in the absolute state and next to the verb that it modifies (thus functioning as an adverb). I include for you the discussion Lipiski provides on this word. I am only interested that you note that there is an early change n > r.

c. rmayE. yiqtal in Hebrew yaqtul. Note that the a has quiesced (Think of rmoale in Hebrew, See Joon 24e). See Rosenthal 13(2). The verb is in a main clause and in direct discourse. How would you describe the use of this prefixed form (imperfect). Notice that the servants do not use an imperative to address the king (their superior). d. yhi/db]['l] See Rosenthal 49 for the 3 m sg suff on a plural noun. We have already looked at this paragraph in class. Note the masculine


singular, feminine singular and feminine plural take the same form of the suffixes. Only the masculine plural form has different suffixes. 2,8 a. hnE[;: The Aramaic ptc is qtel. Note the form in Hebrew, hn


Consider the personal pronouns in Semitic languages (Moscati, S. - Spitaler, A. - Ullendorff, E. - von Soden, W., An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages [PLO NS 6; Wiesbaden 1964] 13.1.):

Look at the 2 m sg pronoun. Notice how the n assimilates or is pronounced. It seems that in Biblical Aramaic the n was pronounced. f. yDI: introducing the complement after verbs of knowing, seeing, etc. (in Hebrew yKi). g. an:D:[I: Hebrew d[y, qil(l) + n. h. Aram: rm'a;w aK;l]m' hnE[; in biblical Hebrew would be rAmayw X NAoyw i. atL]mi yNImi aD:za': Nominal (verbless) clause. What is the subject and what is the predicate? The subject is atL]mi and the predicate is aD:za', which, though it is a loan word, in Aramaic must be considered fem sg abs. Thus, this is a nominal clause of classification (because the predicate, in the absolute state, classifies the subject). See the discussion on nominal clauses in B. Waltke and M. OConnor, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 8.4. It is very important to grasp the structure of a nominal clause as it is often the source of translation errors.


j. atL]mi yNImi aD:za': Note that the word is different that what you read in Dan 2,5. This confirms the observations of many scholars regarding the flexibility of word order in Biblical Aramaic. k. yDI lbeqAlK;: I have sent the article by J. W. Wesselius, Language and Style in Biblical Aramaic: Observations on the Unity of Daniel II-VI, Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 38/2 (Apr., 1988), 194-209. I do not consider it a very good article and you are NOT responsible to know it. But you can see how he attempts to unlock the meaning of this phrase. I do not follow this approach. 2,9 a. the yDI is difficult to interpret but it is probably epexegetical (in italiano, cio). This phrase also occurs in 2,5 but without yDI: 2:5 aml]j, ynIN"W[d/ht] al h aD:=za' yNImi at`L]mi 2,8-9: ynIN"@[ud/ht] al; a*m;l]j,Ahe yDI 9 .atL]mi yNImi aD:za'

Note that the words are all the same, but the word order is different. The subject and predicate of the nominal phrase are reversed:

2:5 aD:=za' yNImi at`L]mi 2,8-9: atL]mi yNImi aD:za'

Has the reversal of the subject/predicate in 2,8-9 provoked the use of yDI?

b. he introduces the protasis of a condition. Where does the apodosis begin? c. ynIN"[ud/ht]: See Rosenthals discussion of this form in 175. d. /kt]d: ayhiAhd:j}: is a tripartite nominal clause of classification (your judgement/fate is one) a common feature of Aramaic. Though /kt]d: is a loan word it is grammaticalized in Aramaic as feminine (determined/emphatic with the possessive suffix). hd:j} is the predicate, fem sg abs (see Rosenthal 63). What is the function of ayhi (agreeing in gender and number with the subject)? In Aramaic it is sometimes referred to as the copula, functioning as the verb to be. But this is unhelpful. What we can say is that it normally follows the predicate and underscores it.


e. Consider two other examples of tripartite nominal (verbless) clauses in Aramaic: Please prepare Ezra 5,3-5 and 5,9-11. Ezra 5,4: aY:r"b]GU thm;v] WNaiAm' Ezra 5,11: yhi/db][' /Mhi an:j]n"a} f. hbdki: hapax in Biblical Aramaic but common in Syriac, to lie (dire bugia). Here it is an fem sg abs adj, modifying hL;mi which is absolute. g. ht;yjiv] is a passive ptc fem sg abs modifying hL;mi. h. qere: WTnmiDzhi ketib: wtnmzh (remember the ketib is unvocalized. Any vocalization is a modern critical suggestion). On the qere form: WTnmiDzhi: this is a Gt with a metathesis of the sibilant (z) and the dental (t) and then a partial assimilation of the t to d (d). See Rosenthal 114. See Rosenthals discussion of the ketib (what he calls the written form) in 114. He suggests WTnmiZhi (Gt) or WTnMiZhi (Dt) with the complete assimilation of the t (t). He notes that the qere (what he calls the reading prescribed) has a partial assimilation. i. aNE=T'v]yI Dt (hitpa>>al). Note the metathesis of the t/ (Rosenthal 114). The sense is middle or reflexive: until the time changes.

j. [D"naiw a simple waw (not expressing purpose after an imperative as in Hebrew). Aramaic employs yDI before the imperfect to express purpose. k. [D"naiw: In Hebrew [d"ae. Look at the Aramaic verb: the yod assimilates () and there is a dissimilation to the form [D"nai (). See Rosenthal 21. We will discuss this in class.


l. Note that ynIN"wUj}h'T] is in a main clause and in direct discourse. Observations? m. yDI d[. The word d[ is a preposition and if it were followed by a noun, you would have a prepositional phrase as in hDrShn d[, up to [until] the river. But here you have yDI d[ where the preposition d[ is followed by yDI + a subordinate clause. Thus yDI d[ here introduces a temporal subordinate clause. 2,10 a. aK;l]m'Ad:q: This is a common construction in Aramaic that can also appear in Hebrew: Esther 1,16: Jl,M,h' ynEp]li kmwm rm,aYow", though it may be an Aramaism in Hebrew. In the Targums and the Peshitta dq rma often translates the Hebrew construction for la rma See Gen 4:13: MT: hw:hyAla, yIq rm,aYow" TgOnk: ywy dq yq rmaw (The Peshitta here has ayrml Nyaq rumaw: ayrml yq rmaw) Note that in the Targum, the expression has become a polite or reverential form of address God. It can also be used with person in authority as in TgJon 2 Sam 3:19 MT: dwId: ynEza;B] rBed"l] rnEb]a'AG" Jl,YEw" TgJon: dywd dq allml rnba a lzaw b. ytyai Hebrew vyE, Rosenthal 95, see the chart of Hebrew/Aramaic consonants. The expression vyE al normally does not appear in Hebrew (but see Job 9:33). Instead, yIa' is used. c. vn:a} in the absolute state. d. tLmi fem sg cs. See Rosenthal 42. e. lk`Wy: (G imperf?) borrowed from Hebrew (HALOT calls it an error). See Rosenthals discussion 171. Note the more expected Aramaic form that appears in Dan 3:29 (lKyI; yikkul) in a similar phrase.


f. hy:=w:j}h'l]: complement of lkWy. C (hafel) infinitive, notice the h suffix which occurs on infinitives in the derived conjugations (Gt, D, Dt, C, Ct), 111.

g. fyLiv': qattil, adjective. h. hn:dki: See Rosenthal 32 for the demonstrative pronouns. Note his comment on this verse in 33.

i. laev] qatil, stative (in Hebrew dbeK;, note that the short a vowel in Aramaic is syncopated, hence qtil, as in laev], but in Hebrew the short a vowel becomes a full vowel, written with qame), in Syriac: lave (Lac). 2,11 hr:yQiy" laev; hKl]m'AydI at;L]miW: Identify the words that comprise the nominal clause and then describe it as we have learned in class. Questions you want to ask: 1. What words are part of the nominal clause? 2. Is the nominal clause bipartite or tripartite? 3. What is the state of the words in the clause (absolute or determined [emphatic])? 4. What is the subject (usually the known topic) and what is the predicate (the new information)? 5. Is this a clause of identification or classification?


Note this clause could have been written: at;L]mi ayhi hr:yQiy"w. How would your analysis of this clause be different? r:ja;w: >orn hKl]m': with h but in 2,10, aK;l]m'. HN"WIj'y yawwinnah. Note the inn suffix that precedes the pronominal suffix, 175. HN"WIj'y: notice this prefix form is a subordinate clause: literally: There is not a person who might be able to make in known hl;: introducing a restriction or exception with regard to the preceding assertion: There is no oneexcept /h+rd:m], maql, dwr. Given this root, see the note in BHS that notes the more common spelling, whrwdm. yhi/tyai al. in Syriac the form is contracted tyl (layt; tyl). Note that ytyai takes the suffixes that normally appear on a masc. pl. noun, 49. The pronoun suffix on yhi/tyai has rd:m] as an antecedent. Literally: their dwelling with flesh it (yhi/) is not. Note that yhi/tyai al ar:c]BiA[i /hrd:m] is also a nominal clause, though much easier to analyze. rd:m] is the subject and tyai al is the predicate. (Remember in Hebrew, Lambdin called Hebrew vyE the predicate of existence.) 2,12 lbqAlK; (not followed by yDI) is a preposition before a noun (in this case, a pronoun) because of this. sn"B]: hapax, the word is unknown. Rosenthal seems to have avoided commenting on it. See the discussion of opinions in HALOT. The fact that this word is unknown is not problematic since the verb that follows (xq]), also a hapax in the Bible, is known in Syriac (was this second, better-known verb added later to clarify sn"B]?).


Note the entry from Payne-Smith where he notes the biblical formhe calls it Chald.[i.e., Chaldean].

The term never occurs in the Peshitta but it is known in early Syriac literature. I include as well the note from Jastrows, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature.

You can see that Jastrow knows the Dan 2,12 verse that we are reading. The Peshitta here is useful to see if that native Aramaic translator knew the verb snb.

The Peshitta reads: Then the king became very angry and in his great anger he said Thus, the Peshitta does not know the meaning of snb. hdDbwhVl: from dba, C inf. See 124 where Rosenthal explains the loss of the aleph. This verb is proto-Semitic *wbd. Hence Rosenthal explains the form h < haw. For a more complete discussion of first radical verbs w/y see Moscati, S. - Spitaler, A. - Ullendorff, E. - von Soden, W., An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages (PLO NS 6; Wiesbaden 1964), 16.119. On the C infinitive, see Rosenthal 111.


ayGIc': Adjective masc. sing. absolute. In this verse it is placed beside the verb so that, in the absolute state, it is functioning as an adverb. 2,13 yliF]q't]mi: Dt. See the paradigms of the Gt (hitp>el) and Dt (hitpa>>al) participles. Note that the only difference is the dagesh for the doubling of the second radical in the Dt form. hDlDfVqVtIhVl: Gt inf. The meanings of Gt and Dt forms of a verb are often very close. Now Prof. Hogler Gzella (Professor of Hebrew and Aramaic, University of Leiden; lecture at the PIB March 22, 2011) suggests that the difference may be better understood as plurality and not simply intensification. Thus, when all the wise people are to be killed: Dt form. When the number of people to be killed is limited to Daniel and his companions: Gt form. 2,14 yId"aBe: Can indicate a break in the story line. Note that it is never written with the waw (i.e., yId"aBew) af[e: Fem. abs. noun modifying the verb. Hebrew: [e. [ef]W: again an masc. abs. noun modifying the verb. Both nouns function as adverbs (in the absolute state). aKl]m' yDI aY:j'B;f'Abr": See Rosenthal 48. Review the three different ways Aramaic can express the genitive. These constructions are common in TgArm and Syriac, and scholars have tried to establish semantic distinctions among them without success.


qpn: pluperfect, who had gone out. A past event in a relative clause that occurred before the past event in the main clause. Thus, it is translated with the English pluperfect. 2,15 aK;l]m'AydI afyLiv': see 48. hmAl[': literally, On account of what or regarding what = why. hp`x]j]h'm]: C ptc, fem sg, predicate for atd:. Observe how yId"a is used in the narrative. Observe the word order in the phrase: laYEnId:l] J/yra' [d"/h at;L]mi yId"a 2,16 h[b]W l[ laYEnId:w: Note the variation in word order. h[b]W l[ : Aramaic can write two perfect verbs that occur simultaneously or nearly simultaneously without the waw. See Ezra 5,16 (bhy at;a}) for an example of asyndetic perfect verbs. We will discuss these examples. Note the Peshitta reading: aklm m a[b layndw

Thus, the note in BHS suggests eliminating w l[ on the basis of the Peshitta and Theodotian. TenyI mz yDI, note that yDI is followed by the imperfect: TenyI. The yDI expresses purpose (finalit) before the prefix verb form (imperfect). Therefore two functions of the prefix verb form (impf) can be identified 1. it expresses modality in a main clause in direct discourse 2. it appears in dependent clauses to express purpose.


hy:w:j}hl]: Compare the use of the infinitive here with the Hebrew infinitive in Gen 11,6: t/c[}l' Ljih' hz


Hla is in the construct state. See 2,20 for the emphatic state: ah;l;a Wdb]hoy al yDI, expressing purpose (relative clause followed by the prefix verbal form). Regarding Wdb]hoy see the discussion in Dan 2,12. hz:r: is an important theological term in this scene. Consider Pauls use of musthvrion in, for example, Rom 11,25 and 16,25. As in Daniel, so in Romans, hz:r:/musthvrion is not a puzzle or an enigma, but is associated with revelation. In the Acts of Thomas, a third century Christian Aramaic text, the apostle Thomas refers to God as the revealer of hidden mysteries (aysk\ azaRd anywjm/ aysk azard anywjm) similar to what we read in Daniel. Thus, a hz:r: is something God knows and reveals to those who are faithful. 2,19 aw:zj,B]: on the formation of this word (zy), see Rosenthal 55. yId"a: Observe again the function of yId"a. Recall that it never is combined with waw. ylig: G passive ptc. gly (absolute state, predicate). Note that in Biblical Aramaic there is the perfect passive, see Rosenthal, p. 62. Note that the verb alg is central to the theology of the book of Daniel. God reveals mysteries to the faithful one. JrIB;: D perfect. The r cannot be doubled. The preceding vowel is lengthened. See the discussion in Rosenthal 20. Hlal,: The l introduces the direct object (accusative). 2,20 Jr"b;m]awEhl,: Rosenthal 168: hwh "to be" uses a form of the imperfect with a preformative l instead of the y. See also S. Moscati et al. An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages 16.58: l, which occurs in Talmudic Aramaic lehw he is, may be considered a remnant of precative l. See also E. Lipiski, Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar, 38.2: Subsequent changes introduced special prefixes aimed at characterizing the cohortative, the optative or precative and the vetative or prohibitive, e.g.


Assyro-Babylonian, luprus, may I separate; liprus, may he separate; Aramaic lhwy may he be. These proclitics express the expectation on the part of the speaker or active subject that the process will indeed take place, or not at all. Jr"+b;m]: D passive ptc (active ptc would be Jreb;m]). On the use of the participle in 2,21-23 recall what Shepherd (quoting Stefanovic) observed (p. 240-1) that the participle (qatil) often appears in poetic sections of biblical Aramaic. ayhiAHl yDI: in Syriac Yh hlyd. ayhiAHl yDI atrWbgW atm]k]j;: a nominal clause. What is the function of ayhi? 2,21 aY:n"D:[I, qill + n (like ble//Bli, Joon 88Bh). Hebrew d[y (hiph: to set an appointment) (*w>d). D:[i e mz appear together again in Dan 7,12. a[`Dnm': maqtal, knowledge (yd>) the y assimilates, then a dissimilation (nunation), mand> 2,22 1. atq;yMi[' qattil + at 2. qere ar:/hn ketib aryhn, alternative spellings. See Ulrichs note (the BASOR article). Do you see a yod or a waw in 4QDana

3. [d"y:: Note 4QDana: The addition of the waw is expected. The waw is added in the Peshitta as well:


Remember that the Peshitta is a translation of biblical Aramaic into middle Aramaic. This version allows us to consider how a later Aramaic translator, who obviously knew Aramaic better that any of us, handled certain problems. 2,23 1. ytih;b;a}: In Hebrew yt'/ba}. In Hebrew the h is syncopated (loss of intervocalic h). But see Hebrew hm;a; (maid-servant) pl. thom;a} (with h). These plurals are referred to as internal plurals or broken plurals. For further discussion, see Waltke and OConner 7.4b and S. Moscati et al. An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of the Semitic Languages 12.43. For the suffix, see Rosenthal 49. 2. [k]W: introduces a conclusion. Its function is similar to Hebrew hT;[' 3. an:T[]d"/h aKl]m' tLmiAyDI: The relative clause here (yDI) is difficult. Note that the CEI translation ignores it. How does yDI function? Epexegetical? The Peshitta renders yDI with w.

Note that 4QDana reads yd. 2,24 1. J/yra'Al[' l[ laYEnID:: The expression l[ l[ would mean to enter against, i.e., to attack. In Syriac (see Gen 16,4 below) it means to have sexual relations. The expected Aramaic expression would be: J/yra'l] l[ laYEnID: or J/yra'Atw:l] l[ laYEnID: Exod 23:27 the expression l[ lza (Nwhyl[ Lzat) in the Peshitta (translating MT: hB; aboT;) means to attack: Nwnpond Kybbdl[\bl Ltaw Nwhyl[ Lzatd am\m[ Lkl Bwrjaw Kymdq rdca Ytljdw See Gen 16,4 MT: rh'Tw" rg:h;Ala, aboY:w" TgOnk: tayd[w rghAtwl l[w Peshitta: tnfbw rgh l[ l[w (tunfbw rgh L[ L[w)


My point here is that this text is clearly corrupt. The writing l[' l[ is an example of dittography since the normal meaning of this expression makes no sense in this context. The limited corpus of biblical Aramaic together with these types of corrupt readings is why you may find biblical Aramaic difficult. It is difficult! According to Ulrich, 4QDana reads wyra ]l[ laynd. He claims to be able to see the tail on the . Can you see it? When you find it you can show it to me! 2. The verb yNIm' in the phrase aK;l]m' yNIm' yDI is properly translated with the pluperfect (whom the king had appointed) because it is in a relative clause and the action of appointing preceded the verb of the main clause (l[). 3. lb,b; ymyKij'l]: the lamed precedes the accusative (Hebrew ta,). See Rosenthal 79 (common in Syriac). 4. dbe/hT]Ala'. Note that in biblical Aramaic la' negates the jussive (in this case, second person). See Rosenthals discussion 87. For a fuller discussion, See Joon 114i and 160f. 5. ynIl][eh': C, ha>>ln (impv >ll). Note that the [ is doubled for the short a vowel to remain in a closed syllable (Rosenthal, 20: The dot indicating gemination is also not used with [jh). 2,25 1. hl;+h;B]t]hiB]: Gt infinitive introduced with b, modifying the verb l[nh'. The infinitive hl;+h;B]t]hiB] is written hl;+h;B]t]aiB] in 4QDana (as in Targum Onkelos). 2. laYEnId:l]: again the l to mark the accusative. This l is optional in Syriac. But in early classical Syriac l always marks a personal name in the accusative. 3. tj'Kv]h'AyDI: the particle yDI introduces direct discourse. 4. tj'Kv]h': The paradigmatic form is tbeT]k]h'. See Rosenthal 117 where he discusses the anaptyctic vowel here. See also Moscati, S. - Spitaler, A. - Ullendorff, E. - von Soden, W., An Introduction to the Comparative


Grammar of the Semitic Languages (PLO NS 6; Wiesbaden 1964), 9.16-18. (I have sent it to you.) 5. [d"/hy in direct discourse, modal sense: who can make known 6. l[nh': han>l < ha>>l (dissimilation with nunation, compare 2,24: ynIl][eh'). 2,26 1. On the name Belteshazzar, see Dan 1,7. 2. Note the nominal clause: rXav'f]l]Be Hmv] yDI. Whose name is Belteshazzar: a bipartite nominal clause of identification. 3. ytyah: the interrogative h in biblical Aramaic (it does not exist in Syriac). 4. lheK; ytyah: Note the construction here. The suffix on the particle yt'yai is the subject of the participle. This is typical of later Aramaic. For other examples, see Rosenthal 95. 5. ynIt[ud:/hl] This is an hafel (C) inf. Notice that the infinitives of the derived conjugations (Gt, D, Dt, C, Ct) take an ut (tW) suffix before a pronominal suffix. See Rosenthal 111. On the Hebrew infinitive see Joon 49. Note the discussion in 49d where Joon notes that some Hebrew infinitives have the fem. ending h ;, as in hb;h}a'. 2,27 1. Compare the two expressions: 2,26: laYEnId:l] rma;w aK;l]m' hnE[; 2.27: aKl]m' d:q laYEnId: hnE[; The king speaks to Daniel [l] but Daniel speaks before [dq] the king. Why this difference in prepositions?

2. yMifurj': 4QDana reads ymfrj . Again we see the influence of Hebrew in Daniel. 3. yrIzG:: This group of dream interpreters was not mentioned previously. See HALOT for a discussion of the meaning of this word. In this case, the meaning of the root rzg is well-known (to cut). Who exactly are the


yrIzG: and how are they different from the yMifurj' and the ypiv]a? I do not think we can know for certain. 3.5: I pause here on an exegetical point since still today in biblical theology there is the tendency to use the etymology of the word to arrive at its meaning. Here I reference James Barr words as repeated by S. E. Balentine:

Against the emphasis on etymology in lexical studies, Barr showed that root meanings are at best guides to a word's history. They are not adequate statements about a word's meaning in current usage. And against the principles of 'inner lexicography' and 'concept history' which were foundational for Kittel's highly influential theological dictionary, Barr argued convincingly that semantic distinctiveness derives from larger linguistic complexes like the sentence, not from individual words that may be 'hypostatized' or 'de-syntacticized' from their linguistic environments.

(Samuel E. Balentine, James Barr's Quest for Sound and Adequate Biblical Interpretation in Language, Theology, and The Bible: Essays in Honour of James Barr [Oxford 1994] 6). In the case of yrIzG: the only information to be gleaned from the larger linguistic complexes like the sentence is that the yrIzG: must have been a kind of diviner. 4. ylik]y: al: Note the distance of the negative from the verb. Regarding Hebrew, Joon (160e) writes: The position of al is immediately before the verb. But this normal order can be relinquished, especially for the sake of emphasis. 2,28 1. [d"/hw: 4QDana reads the ptc [dwhmw. Note that the Peshitta reads the prefix form (imperfect), which in Biblical Aramaic would be: [dwy yd ({dwnd).

The problem with [d"/hw is that it is coordinated with alG:. 4QDana probably harmonizes [d"/hw with alG:, thus making it a participle.


2. ywEzj,w: Rosenthal 55. 3. aWh hn:D.JvarE ywEzj,w Jm;l]j, is a tripartite nominal phrase of identification (there is more than one way to analyze this phrase). I would take JvarE ywEzj,w Jm;l]j, as the subject. hn:D is the predicate (the predicate is the new information) and aWh is the third element that follows the predicate (what I sometimes refer to as the enclitic). Note that the pronoun hn:D stands for the interpretation that follows (the new information). 4. aY:m'/y tyrIj}a'B]: Note the expression in similar to certain phrases in the NT. See Collins, Daniel, p. 106. 5. Note the title for God: yzIr: alG: 6. awEhl,: this archaic precative form appears again but without a precative sense. Why? See Steven Fassberg, Salient Features of the Verbal System in the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls, in Katell Berthelot and Daniel Stkl Ben Ezra (eds.), Aramaica Qumranica: Proceedings of the Conference on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran in Aix-en-Provence 30 June-2 July 2008 (STDJ 94; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2010), 65-80. Fassberg argues (see p. 68) this 3 masc. imperfect form with l is used here to avoid writing or pronouncing the tetragrammaton (hwhy). 2,29 1. Jn:/y[]r": morphologically, this word can be taken as singular or plural. See the discussion in 2,4. But since it is the subject of Wqlis], it is plural. The Peshitta takes Jn:/y[]r" as plural (Ktbcj\m). 2. How does the phrase following hm function in the verse. The Peshitta reads: atyrjab awhnd am L[ Qls Kbl Kl Ktb\cjm aklm tna. The Peshitta translator has added l[ before hm: hn:d yrEj}a' awEhl, yDI hm l[' Wqlis] JbK]v]miAl[' Jn:/y[]r" Thus, the Peshitta translator was not sure about the Aramaic syntax of this verse and added l[.


3. Note qere/ketib: T]na / htna . 4QDana reads with the qere. This suggests that the qere may come from another manuscript whose reading was placed in the margin of a proto-MT manuscript. 2,30 1. hn:a}: casus pendens (for emphasis.). This pronoun is resumed in yli. 2. The main clause is: yli yliG hn:d az:r: hm;k]j;b] al the relative clause is: aY:Y"j'AlK;Ami yBi ytyaiAyDI 3. yDI tr"b]DIAl[' followed by the prefix verbal form (imperfect) expressing purpose. Rosenthal 86. In English, so that in Italiano, affinch. 4. W[+d/hy: See Rosenthal 181 where he explains this form. It is similar to Hebrew dgn in, for example, 2 Sam 3,23:

WdGIY"w" WaB /TaiArv,a} abX;h'Alk;w ba/yw ./lv;B] Jl,YEw" Whj`L]v'yw" Jl,M,+h'Ala, r~nEAB, rnEb]a'AaB rmo+ale b~a;/yl]

[NRSV] When Joab and all the army that was with him came, it was told Joab, Abner son of Ner came to the king, and he has dismissed him, and he has gone away in peace. The subject of WdGIY"w" is not expressed. Note that the NRSV translates WdGIY"w" with a passive sense. So W[d/hy in Dan 2,30. There is no plural subject expressed. 5. aY:Y"j'AlK;Ami yBi ytyaiAyDI:

4QDana reads with the Peshitta:

[m ryty] Peshitta reads:


6. yliG: We have already discussed these perfect passive verbs (See Rosenthal 102 and 107). Note that the Peshitta prefers Gt verb here: Ylgta\ylgta (in Daniel it would be written ylgth). We see that the author of Daniel prefers these perfect passive forms. 7. hel;: HALOT labels it an adversative particle. But perhaps it is simply another use of hel; introducing a restriction. The semantic difficulty is that the main clause contains a negation. 2,31

1. qere T]na ketib htna. 4QDana reads with the qere 2. t;yw"h} hzEj;: note the composite (compound) tense, qtal + hwa. See Rosenthal 177 where he says it has a continuous and habitual action. He provides three examples: (1) in Ezra 4,24, the verb lfb is stative; (2) in Ezra 5,11, hnEb] is a passive ptc.; and (3) in Dan 6,11 the compound tense is in a subordinate clause. Our example, in Dan 2,31 is in a main clause (interesting that Rosenthal does not cite this case). What would be the difference between t;yw"h} hzEj; and t;yz"j}? See Tarsee Li, The Verbal System of the Aramaic of Daniel, p. 86. 3. br" KDI am;l]x': Analyze this nominal clause. 4. ryTiy" HwEyzIw and lyjiD HwErEw: Analyze these nominal clauses. 5. On the meaning wrEw, see Dan 3,25 where you also have the expression yhil;a rb'. 6. aq; the Peshitta reads Maqw (aqw), adding a waw before aq;.


2,32 1. The Peshitta eliminates am;l]x' aWh

2. What is the syntax of am;l]x' aWh? (Not an easy question to answer, but by now you are accustomed to the difficulties in biblical Aramaic!) 3. Note how the waw is used in Dan 2,32-33 in this list of nouns. It is used to link pairs (for example, yhi/[r:dW yhi/dj} and Htk;ry"w yhi/[m]) but it is not used to connect the various components of the list (no waw before yhi/dj} or yhi/[m]). Rosenthal 85 writes: Strings of coordinated nouns or verbs may be without a coordinating particle, or w may be used before one, or several, or all components. 4. Note the possible translations for the following phrases: a. bf;+ bhdAyDI H~vearE: head of fine gold or its head [was] of fine gold. b. sk] yDI yhi/[r:dW yhi/dj} chest and arms of silver or its chest and its arms [were] of silver. c. vjn yDI Ht`k;ry"w: bronze thighs or its thighs [were] of bronze. Is the Aramaic ambiguous? Are both meanings possible? I think there are some clues that the second meaning in each case is more probable.

A. First of all, be aware that this is a genitive of material, see Joon 129f (number 5). B. Compare these phrases with Rosenthals examples in 48 (the examples after the letter c ahla yd Htyb and ayrbg yd whthmv). Note that in both examples the genitive nouns (ahla and ayrbg) are in the emphatic/determined state. Note that in Daniel 2,32, the nouns of material (gold, silver, etc) are in the absolute state. C. Compare Dan 2,32, bhdAyDI HvearE (its head [was] of fine gold) with Dan 2,38, abh}d" yDI hvarE (the head of gold). Note that in Dan


2,38 there is no possessive suffix on hvarE and that abh}d" is in the emphatic/determined state. D. There is less ambiguity in the phrase lz


2. yDI d[': See Rosenthals list of conjunctions 86. 3. /Mhi or yNIai? Which is correct? 4. tq,DEh'w: could also be written tq,yDIh'w 5. yId"+ybi: Notate the vocalization here. To the word ydayin is prefixed the preposition b: bydayin > bdayin. See Rosenthal 75 (he calls a vocal shewa a murmured vowel). Note also the dual vocalization. 6. Note the negation al followed by a prepositional phrase, yId"ybi , literally: not by hands 2,35 1. Note the verb qqd (but vocalized here as if from qwd, see the note in BHS where some Hebrew witnesses vocalize wqd from qqd). In G (peal) it has a middle sense (to be crushed). Thus in C is has an active and transitive sense. 2. ab;h}d"w aPs]K' av;j;n aP;s]j' al;zrP': Note in this list of items, the waw introduces the final item in the list. See Rosenthals discussion in 85. 3. rW[: chaff, hapax in Daniel, but common enough in Syriac (though the Syriac meaning may derive from this verse). The meaning is also clear from the context: rW[ is something from the threshing floor that the wind blows around. It can only be chaff. 4. aj;Wr: usually fem, but here masc. 5. /Mhi: masc pl. What is its antecedent? 6. rta}: Hebrew rv,a}. 7. jkT}v]hi: On the metathesis, see Rosenthal 114. 8. In the phrase br" rWfl] tw:h} am;l]x'l] tjm]AyDI an:b]a'w identify the main and subordinate clauses. 2,36 am;+l]j, hn:D is a nominal clause. How would you analyze it? What is the subject? What is the predicate? Ask yourself, which of these two words is (or represents) the new information. 2,37 1. ar:q;ywI aPq]t;w an:s]ji atWkl]m': another list. The waw connects the last two items. (Is the waw used consistently in biblical Aramaic?) 2. ar:q;ywI: on the vocalization, see the explanation for yId"+ybi in 2,34. 2,38 1. qere yrIyd: ketib yrad: optional spellings for the masc. pl. ptc.


2. hvarE aWh htna is a nominal phrase. Analyze it. The questions are: a. Is this bipartite or tripartite nominal clause?

b. Is this a clause of classification or identification? c. Can you distinguish the subject and the predicate (The predicate is the new information. Thus, is hvarE or htna the new information?)

3. ar:B; tw"yje: collective noun. 4. Note that the Peshitta makes yrIa}d: yDIAlk;b]W more explicit: hb Nyrm[d rta Lkw which retroverted into Biblical Aramaic would be: Hbe yrIa}d: yDI rt'a} lk;W. The expression rva} lkoB] meaning wherever appears in 2 Sam 7,9 and elsewhere. The Peshitta rewrites the verse: And everywhere that people, birds of heaven and wild animals dwell [in it (Hbe)] he has given into your hands. He has given you dominion over all of it.

hvarE aWh htna is a nominal clause. Analyze it. av;n:a}AynEB]: This is the generic term for people, all people, everyone, whereas aM;[' normally refers to people as in the people of Israel. The singular of av;n:a}AynEB] is av;n:a rB, someone. This phrase comes into the New Testament as oJ de; uiJo;" tou' ajnqrwvpou. For an excellent study on this phrase, see J. Fitzmyer, The New Testament Title Son of Man Philologically Considered in A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays (Society of Biblical Literature. Monograph series 25; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979), 143-160. Consider Dan 2,37-38. Distinguish the main clause from the subordinate clauses. Note that there is no waw before htna. 2,39


yrIja;: fem abs modifying Wkl]m'. a[r"a}: the masora writes a ryty by to explain the vocalization. a[r"a}: The qere writes this word in the absolute state. See the expression aB;%GU ty[ira'l] (bottom of the pit) Dan 6:25. The meaning of y[ira' as lower is more common in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic. Thus, I am giving you the entry from Michael Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period (2d ed.; Dictionaries of Talmud, Midrash and Targum 2; Ramat-Gan: Bar IIan University Press; Baltimore/London: John Hopkins University Press, 2002):

You can see that in later Aramaic the word is written yy[ra (or y[ra). Qere: hat;ylit] Ketib aytylt: The orthography of ordinal numbers varies. See below the various spellings for third in later Jewish Palestinian Aramaic noted by Dalman (Dalman, G., Grammatik des jdischen-palstinischen Aramisch [Darmstadt 1960/78]) 132:


2,40 lvej;w: The word is hapax in Daniel. See the discussion in HALOT. Note that, as we saw in 2,12 regarding sn"B], there are two verbs here and the meaning of qDEh'm] is clear. The Peshitta renders lvej; with Cra (vra). HALOT suggests you look at C. Brockelmann, Lexicon Syriacum, Halle 1928 (second ed.; repr. 1966). I have reproduced that entry below.

Given that the corpus of biblical Aramaic is so small, a knowledge of other phases of Aramaic can illuminate the language of Daniel. In this case, given that lvej; parallels qDEh'm], its meaning is clear. 2,41 ydIw: and that [in the dream] you saw feet. How does the ydI function? HALOT glosses it with whereas and categorizes ydIw among examples of ydI after verbs of knowing, seeing, hearing, and so forth. But the fact is


that the construction here is ht;yz"j}AydIw not ydI ht;yz"j}w. What is the difference between ht;yz"j}AydIw and ydI ht;yz"j}w? Note that on three occasions Daniel refers to what the king saw in the dream. Note that the third construction is quite different. 2,41: ht;yz"j}AydIw (tyzjdw = ht;yz"j}AydIw) 2,43: t;yz"j} yd (tyzjdw = ht;yz"j}AydIw) 2,45: yDI t;yz"j}AyDI lbqAlK; (d tyzjd ankya = ydI ht;yz"j}AydI ]yhe) 2,42 HN"miW txq]Ami: See Rosenthals translation, 80. I know of no parallel in Aramaic literature for this construction (though I suspect there are parallels). See the entry in HALOT. HN"miW: the suffix refers back to at;Wkl]m'. 2,43 1. Note the variation in the orthography of t;yz"j} 2. ybir[;t]mi: Dt. What would be the Gt form? 3. ydIk]Aah: HALOT suggests reading ydI yhe, just as for ydIk]Aah. If this is correct, we have another example of the poor transmission of the Hebrew text of Daniel. The Peshitta translates al;zrp' ydIk]Aah with alzrp Kya, which in the Aramaic of Daniel would be al;zrp'k], like [just as] iron 4. The expression av;n:a} [r"zBi wOhl, ybir[;t]mi is illuminated by the expression t/xr:a}h; yM['B] vd


4. qDIT' asyndetic clause.1 The Peshitta reads: Pyst Qqdt ala (yst qqdt ala), adding the conjunction ala. On the reception history of Daniel , see my article available on the web: http://syrcom.cua.edu/hugoye/Vol7No1/HV7N1Morrison.html 2,45 There are two nominal clauses in this verse. Identify and analyze them. 2,46 2. yjijoynIw: See HALOT. Scholars are not certain of the precise meaning of this word. Ezra 6:10 (Hlal, yji/jynI ybirq]h'm]) makes clear that it is something offered to God. [Remember that our dictionaries are simply a collection of glosses.] The Ezra reading confirms that Nebuchadnezzar is offering Daniel something that is normally offered to God. 2,47 There is a nominal clause in this verse. Analyze it.

1 Asyndeton: The joining together of syntactic units without a conjunction (Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics 1997).

Biblical Aramaic dispensa 12 Aprile 2013 ultima modificacion.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Biblical Aramaic dispensa 12 Aprile 2013 ultima modificacion.pdf