The Aramaic term psḥ(ʾ) and its possible relation to the Hebrew psḥ (recorded in the Hebrew Bible) are associated with “the Passover” feast in Judaism and Samaritanism and, by extension, with Easter in Christianity. This lexeme is exceedingly rare in extra-biblical sources and my goal with the present article is to closely examine the only two unambiguous sources available to us—both of which are found on Aramaic ostraca associated with the Yahwistic community at Elephantine and both share an acute sense of impending trepidation and anxiety. The article is divided into two parts. The first offers a new epigraphic analysis of the two ostraca on which this term appears—building upon a recent publication of one and offering a new publication: reconstruction, translation, and detailed commentary of the other. The second presents a multifaceted analysis—combining etymological and contextual data with insights from social psychology, archeology, and anthropology—supporting the connection of the term psḥ(ʾ) with apotropaic magic rituals tied to the fear of evil-eye, disease, malicious spirits, demons, curses, etc. Finally, insights from these first-hand documents are applied to the ongoing debate regarding the origins and etymology of the term psḥ(ʾ) and its use in the biblical narrative.

ABSTRACT Past studies of graffiti containing the word ΜΝΗΣΘΗ have never fully established its intrinsic meaning. However, due to the existence of the Aramaic term DKYR, which carries a seemingly identical meaning to ΜΝΗΣΘΗ, in similar contexts in the Roman Near East, a comparison between both words is possible. Four distinct sites where the coexistence of these words is attested were chosen: the cities of Dura‐Europos and Palmyra, and the desertic zones of Wādī Ramm and Wādī Mukattab. The variety of archaeological contexts and the range of formulae allow for a comprehensive examination of their occurrences, especially in areas where they co‐occur in multilingual inscriptions. It appears that these inscriptions can encompass a wide range of functions. Furthermore, Greek texts appear to bear a comparable significance to the Aramaic DKYR, whose meaning is more readily discernible and has contributed to the use of ΜΝΗΣΘΗ in the epigraphic tradition.

Abstract Headaches, including those that conform to disorders identified today as migraines, have been attested in magical texts as early as three millennia ago. Ritual practitioners from different traditions and periods have attempted to treat them by using spells, magical materials, and appeals to supernatural entities. This article explores the attestations of migraines in the corpus of late antique Mesopotamian incantation bowls. It begins with the modern medical classifications of migraines and their symptoms. It then outlines some of the terminology, symptoms and treatments for migraines in antiquity, followed by a description of migraine attestations in the rabbinic corpus and in the Jewish ritual/ magical traditions. The article then surveys and analyzes the attestations of migraines in the Mesopotamian magic bowls, placing them in a historical medico-ritual context. Lastly, the article puts forward a new interpretation of the Aramaic term baruqta, which is frequently found in association with migraine terminology.

This paper endeavors to elucidate the semiotic, morphological, and historical observations of some Hebrew vocabularies signifying the commencement and culmination of time and space, in the context of the era of return marked by the widespread dissemination of apocalyptic literature and eschatological worldview. The early period of the return, following the exile, stands as one of the most theologically fertile phases in ancient Israel’s history. During this time, the Hebrew language evolved to become more multilayered and diversified, coinciding with the spread of apocalyptic and eschatological thought.
 Upon scrutinizing such terminology, it becomes evident that ancient Israel, within the purview of apocalyptic eschatology, embraced and assimilated foreign linguistic elements on the one hand, while reinterpreting and infusing distinctive expressions with signification on the other. Some terms like קץand אחרית, for example, signifying the end of time, and ראשית,ראש,קדם, representing the beginning of time, reveal the theological development during this era in multilayered ways. New terminology that crosses the the boundaries of time and space also emerged during the era of return. ‘Island’(אי) signifies Israel’s expansion of awareness beyond geographical limits. Additionally, the loanword סוף, imported Aramaic term, clearly denoted the end of eschatological time, while the Persian loanword פרדס did not yield such meaning. This multifaceted and diversified nature reveals that the documents of ancient Israel were shaped through continuous dialogue and interchange with external influences.

Abstract Jesus is referred to as Rabbi or Rabbouni on four occasions in Mark. Most scholars assume that it was a commonplace term during Jesus’ lifetime and it is a Hebrew synonym for Teacher. It will be posited that it was not in use during the early decades of the first century ce and that it is actually an Aramaic term utilized by Mark and endowed with a messianic valence. This will be viewed within the context of Mark’s agenda of obfuscating the true identity of Jesus and employing Aramaic as a code language. Both Bartimaeus’ petition and Judas’ betrayal of Jesus will also be viewed from this perspective.

The article is dedicated to the first chapter of the Book of Genesis in the Targum Onkelos, the most important Jewish translation of the Pentateuch into Aramaic. The paper deals with terms related to the structure of space, time and eternity. In the Targum of Onkelos, the influence of Ptolemaic cosmology and geography, as well as the worldview of the era of the formation of the Mishna, are observed. The creator of the translation uses the term kadmin (originality, eternity), which al­lows us to interpret that Onkelos in a sense allows the existence of the world for an indefinitely long time in the past. In the theological aspect, the author of the Targum uses the Tetragrammaton, which is translated into Russian as the word “Lord”, instead of the Hebrew elohim (plural form). The author of the article inter­prets this unconditionally monotheistic term as a struggle against Gnosticism and Manichaeism, which was relevant in the 2nd century AD. The Aramaic term rekiya, which Onkelos translates into Hebrew rakia, means not so much “firma­ment” as extension, and this article discusses its possible translation as “space”. If a number of concepts “signs”, “holidays”, “days” and “years” are used in the He­brew Torah as synonymous, then in the Aramaic text “signs” and “times” are sepa­rately distinguished, and it is separately indicated that the luminaries are needed to count days and years. This shows the influence of Late Antique astrology, popu­lar among the Jews too. The author of this Targum not only created an interpreta­tion of the biblical text, but also created his own aspects of Jewish cosmology, which were used by Jewish interpreters to build their medieval cosmology.

This paper analyzes the Aramaic and Egyptian textual evidence for the practice of marking enslaved persons in Late Period Egypt, concluding that the terminology of the period refers to branding, not tattooing, as previously suggested. Both branding and tattooing existed as forms of body mutilation, but these practices inhabited different spheres of social power; branding marked one as property, whereas tattooing was religious and decorative. Bearing in mind the use of branding as an indication of ownership, the evidence of tattooing as a cultic (and particularly feminine) practice, and the etymology and usage of the Aramaic terms, this paper proposes that the body mutilation practiced in this period on enslaved persons was branding, not tattooing. The identification of these marks as brands emphasizes the dehumanization of these enslaved persons and implies that their status was on par with other property such as cattle.

Abstract It is generally believed that there was a shift in Eretz Israel from an Ur-targum to the Prophets (“Targum Proto-Jonathan”) to a later Palestinian offshoot (“Targum Yerushalmi”), whose precise character and origin are controversial. In each of these two targumim, the Aramaic term used to render Hebrew ‮קֶסֶת‬‎ (Ezek 9:2, 3, 11) is of Greek origin. Proto-Jonathan’s rendering, preserved as ‮פִינקַס‬‎ in Targum Jonathan, comes from a Greek term (πίναξ) related to Symmachus’s Greek rendering (πινακίδιον). Targum Yerushalmi’s rendering, preserved as ‮קלמרין‬‎ in MS Sassoon 368, is equivalent to the Greek rendering (καλαμάριον) attributed to “one of the Hebrews” by Origen in his commentary on Ezekiel. These correspondences, taken together with other evidence, suggest that Targum Proto-Jonathan to Ezekiel was still being used in Eretz Israel during Symmachus’s time (late second century CE), and that the shift from Proto-Jonathan to Targum Yerushalmi in Ezekiel had at least begun by the time that Origen completed his commentary on Ezekiel (fifth decade of the third century CE).

Abstract Translation is hardly an exceptional event. On the contrary, it is quite common and reflects the necessity of communication despite the obvious multiplicity of human languages. Therefore, it has often exhibited a practical and prescriptive nature – as a discourse characterised by instructions to translators about how, what and why to translate. In the present article, I will pay special attention to the treatment of Hebrew and Aramaic terms in the thirteenth-century Latin translation of the Talmud – better known as Extractiones de Talmud (‘Excerpts from the Talmud’). This translation is a large anthology from the Babylonian Talmud that was compiled by Christian authorities in consequence of the famous Paris process of 1240, when the Jewish convert Nicholas Donin confronted the prominent Rabbi Yehiel of Paris regarding the allegedly blasphemous, anti-Christian nature of the Talmud. This large anthology frequently emphasises linguistic difference and abounds in providing details about specific terms from Talmudic literature. Yet the Extractiones appear to neglect the complex nature of the Talmud. They never mention that the Talmud is bilingual – as it collects Hebrew and Aramaic texts – while emphasising that in it the Jews still employ the so-called ‘Holy Tongue’. I will argue that the Extractiones’ emphasis on Hebrew has both ideological and practical purposes. On the one hand, the notion that Hebrew abounds in the Talmud resonates well with the Christian expectation that Judaism is still bound to the “hebraica veritas” (‘Hebrew truth’). On the other hand, an unexperienced Christian reader might have found it difficult to come to terms with the linguistically and historically complex nature of the Talmud. Therefore, the focus on Hebrew may have been the result of an oversimplification for the readers’ sake. The case will be proven on account of one central example: the translation of the Hebrew term “yeshivah”. I will show that the treatment of this term illustrates how the Latin translator of the Talmud intended to emphasise the cultural difference between Jews and Christians, without abandoning the practical need of offering some form of cultural adaptation.

This article recovers history of term the of Israel (b'not yisrael) from its earliest usage in biblical passages and second temple sources to its appearance in late antique Jewish texts, focusing specifically on term's connotations in rabbinic sources and ritual texts. Rather than taking term at face-value as denoting women's subordinate status, we argue that this term may have a buried history, and that uncovering history of term daughters of Israel offers a fascinating entry-point into role of women in establishing and transforming—rather than merely observing—Jewish law and ritual. Extending Mieke Bal's notion of feminist philology to investigation of rabbinic and other late antique Jewish sources, we make case that in rabbinic literature from late antiquity, Hebrew term daughters of Israel appears in sites of contestation, sometimes deployed in discussions about women's innovation in ritual practice in ways that evoke women's ritual agency from narrative biblical sources. In late antique incantations bowls, Aramaic term for daughters of Israel (b'not yisrael) evokes legal language of second temple marriage contracts that explicitly includes women and may have served to highlight their particular agency as well. Thus in both sets of sources, term often signals moments when women act as subjects (rather than objects) of ritual and legal discourse.

In this note, we consider the multiple attestations of the Jewish Babylonian Aramaic term פלסא פליסא, which occurs in several Aramaic incantation bowls from late-antique Mesopotamia. After a summary of previous scholarship, the correct reading is confirmed and the meaning of this phrase is considered. It is asserted that currently available definitions are both ill-founded and unsuitable, both philologically and logically, so a new hypothesis is advanced on the basis of Ge‘ez ፈሰሰ and Epigraphic South Arabian fls3.

In the Greek text of Mt. 16.18 Peter's name is Πέτρος, while the 'rock' is Πέτρα. Many have assumed an Aramaic substratum to the text whereby the same Aramaic term ﬤ'פּﬡ underlies both Greek words. An alternate view posits that while ﬤ'פּﬡ lies behind Πέτρα, a différent Aramaic term was most likely rendered by Πέτρα. This article examines the Aramaic and Syriac évidence afresh and at the same time proposes a methodology for studying such issues. It concludes that ﬤ'פּﬡ is a strong candidate for an original Aramaic background for Πέτρα.

The Egyptian noun ntr, “god,” provides a plausible explanation for Hebrew נצר in Isa 14:19 and נצורים in 65:4, both of which have thus far defied positive explanation. In Isa 14 it is perfectly suited to mock the king’s divine aspirations; it commonly refers to the deceased king and to the mummified corpse in Egyptian; it requires a strong negative modifier such as נתעב ; and it is no great stretch to think that Isaiah knew such common Egyptian vocabulary. In Isa 65:4 it avoids an emendation and reveals a far better parallelism (graves/corpses) than other proposed solutions. Isaiah 49:6 has long been understood to employ the same word as 65:4, and it may well reflect an intentional wordplay on the meanings “returning the survivors” and “restoring the corpses.” Finally, the Aramaic term nqr in Deir ‘Alla II.5, 12, 14 has frequently been connected to the Isaianic texts, and a reference to a divinized dead person in makes better sense in the context than a word related to “detached flesh.”

The study of the relevant terms concerning ‘time' in the book of Daniel, led to the following conclusions: It is remarkable how often reference is made in this hook to 'time - time in its different aspects of "point of time", "duration of time", and "units of time" (cf. Louw & Nida, 1988:628-629). Almost every one of the most important Hebrew and Aramaic terms in this regard is used.

The author, a rabbi, examines the relevant precepts pertaining to marital relations, contraception, and abortion in Jewish law as found in the Talmud, Codes of Jewish Law, and rabbinic Responsa literature. He interprets the legal and moral Judaic teaching on such themes as sexual responsibility in marriage, the commandment of procreation, the legitimacy of sexual pleasure, the prohibition of onanism, the problem of irregular sex acts, the historical and legal background of contraceptive devices including the "pill," and the question of intentional abortion. As the author himself points out in his preface, the three alignments of modern Judaism—Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform—differ in their application of traditional Jewish law. This book succeeds in presenting the material in a manner which transcends the position of any one group. Dr. Feldman's exhaustive study makes available a wealth of primary sources on the issues surrounding birth control and abortion. Transliterated Hebrew and Aramaic terms