Aramaic Texts Research Articles

Letters of Kings about Votive Offerings, The God of Israel and the Aramaic Document in Ezra 4:8–6:18

Building on Bill’s Arnold’s thesis that the presence of Aramaic in Ezra presents a shift in perspective to an external point of view, Joshua Berman has theorized that Ezra 4:8—6:18 presents a narrator who is speaking from a gentile point of view as opposed to a Judean voice for the Hebrew that precedes and follows this Aramaic section. However, Berman’s thesis does not account for all of the narration in this Aramaic text. The narrative verses that link the individual letters in this section indicate that the controlling voice for the overall narration is pro-Judean. These verses employ the Judeo-centric language and demonstrate that the author had a Judean source for much of the information he presents. Moreover, the narrative that connects the letters demonstrates the narrator’s knowledge of the Judean prophets, their names, patronymics and office as prophets (5:1; 6:14), revealing his Judean perspective. Ultimately, this narrator reveals his viewpoint by placing the command of God next to the decrees of Persian kings (6:14). Thus, Ezra 4:8—6:18 is a single literary creation, a document that is the result of an archival search and is designed to persuade the reader that the Judeans ought to be allowed to build in Jerusalem. The inclusion of this Aramaic document in Ezra is the author/editor’s way of demonstrating that even under foreign dominance, the Judeans will ultimately prosper because their God controls the events of the narrative and speaks through pro-Judean narrators even in a foreign tongue.

The Tanhuma-Yelammedenu Literature: Studies in the Evolution of the Versions, and: Megillat Taʻanit: Versions, Interpretation, History, and: Pirke de-Rabbi Elieser (review)

Reviewed by: The Tanhuma-Yelammedenu Literature: Studies in the Evolution of the Versions, and: Megillat Ta‘anit: Versions, Interpretation, History, and: Pirke de-Rabbi Elieser Catherine Hezser Marc Bregman. Tanhuma-Yelammedenu Literature: Studies in the Evolution of the Versions. Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias Press, 2003. Pp. x + 302 (Hebrew section); pp. x + 9 (English section). Vered Noam. Megillat Ta‘anit: Versions, Interpretation, History. [Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2003. Pp. 451. Dagmar Börner-Klein. Pirke de-Rabbi Elieser. Nach der Edition Venedig 1544 unter Berücksichtigung der Edition Warschau 1852, aufbereited und übersetzt. Studia Judaica 26. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2004. Pp. xlix + 800. The text- and literary-critical study, edition, and translation of rabbinic works is of fundamental importance, since it constitutes the basis of all forms of "higher criticism" investigating the meaning, historical context, and religious significance of the respective texts. Unfortunately, this groundwork has not yet been accomplished for all rabbinic documents. The three books discussed here all contribute to this task. The first two works are revised versions of doctoral dissertations submitted to the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Marc Bregman's study of the Tanḥuma-Yelammedenu literature is an analysis of the textual witnesses of this corpus of traditions, the printed edition, the Buber version, references in the Midrash Rabbah and Pesikta literature, and further fragments and quotations. Altogether Bregman has identified more than two hundred complete or partial manuscripts which contain Tanḥuma-Yelammedenu–related material. These manuscripts are described in the second chapter of his book, following a review of previous scholarship on the issue (chapter 1). The third chapter focuses on one particular text passage, namely, the Tanḥuma-Yelammedenu commentary on Ex 7.8 ff. The four different versions are compared and their literary character and evolution determined. In the fourth and final chapter Bregman provides concluding remarks on the nature and development of the Tanḥuma-Yelammedenu literature as well as suggestions for further scholarship. Bregman points out that from the linguistic and literary point of view [End Page e39] the Tanḥuma-Yelammedenu Midrash cannot be considered a unified whole. One rather has to distinguish between different strata which developed over hundreds of years and differ from each other with regard to language, style, date, and place of composition. The earliest corpus of material seems to go back to late amoraic times, to the time of the editing of the Talmud Yerushalmi, Genesis Rabbah, and Leviticus Rabbah in the fifth century C.E. Most of the material was created in the sixth and seventh centuries, however, in the time preceding the Islamic conquest of Palestine and its impact on the Jewish community. Later additions and accretions were made in the geonic period. These later editors and scribes may have changed some of the earlier material as well. The next step would obviously be a critical edition of the Tanḥuma-Yelammedenu material and the critical analysis of a larger number of textual passages, combining lower with higher criticism. A combination of a critical edition and a literary analysis of a text has been accomplished by Vered Noam in her book on Megillat Ta'anit, a text which is much shorter than the Tanḥuma-Yelammedenu literature and therefore constitutes a very good basis for a detailed literary-critical study and edition. Megillat Ta'anit, which originated in the Second Temple period, lists thirty-five days of victory and rejoicing on which fasting is prohibited. It is arranged according to the order of the year and the events range from the time of Ezra to the early Roman period, with a special emphasis on the Hasmonean victories. The first part of Noam's work consists of a critical edition of the Aramaic text of Megillat Ta'anit based on the Parma manuscript with variants from the Oxford and other manuscripts and the versions of the Yerushalmi and Bavli; and a critical edition of the Scholium, the later Hebrew commentary, presenting the two versions of the Scholium synoptically, with manuscript variants below. In addition, references to biblical passages and parallels in rabbinic works are listed as well. In the second part of her work Noam explores...

How Old is the Aramaic Levi Document?

of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, scholars eventually noticed that the two texts, while showing clear affinities, were not identical. In fact, the surviving fragments did not even contain clear indication that this Aramaic text belonged to the testament genre. For that reason, the text has come to be known as the Aramaic Document, or simply, the ALD or Aramaic Levi. This text is now generally believed to have been used by the author of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs to compose the Testament of Levi section of that book hence the resemblance between the two texts.3 When was the Aramaic Document {ALD) written? The first evidence to be considered in any discussion is that of paleography, which seems to provide the most accurate evidence for dating manuscripts of this type and period.4 Of course, the Cairo Genizah fragments

The Dead Sea Scrolls. Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Texts with English Translations. Volume 3. Damascus Document II, Some Works of the Torah, and Related Documents

The Dead Sea Scrolls. Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Texts with English Translations. Volume 3. Damascus Document II, Some Works of the Torah, and Related Documents

New Nabataean Funerary Inscriptions from Umm al-Jimal

During a survey of the southern sector of the Hauran in Jordan conducted in 1996-7, a number of new Nabataean Aramaic texts were found scattered among the ruins of the late antique village of Umm al-Jimal. All the new texts appear to be funerary stelae and were found in secondary contexts, taken probably from the adjacent necropolis of the earlier town of al-Herri'. Most of them date probably to the first century AD. With the other recently published Nabataean texts from Umm al-Jimal, these fourteen new texts expand the existing corpus from the settlement to almost fifty, the most from any town in this region of the Hauran with the exception of Bosra in Syria.

Wat is er met de lijdende knecht gebeurd? De lezing van Jesaja 52:13-53:12 volgens Targoem Jonathan What's happened to the Suffering Servant? The Targumic reading of Isaiah 52:13-53:12

In Targum Jonathan to Isa. 52:13-53:12, the well-known picture of the suffering servant is transformed into the image of a victorious Messiah, of extraordinary appearance, who delivers his people from bondage, punishes the wicked and makes intercession for the sins of the people. This far-reaching interpretation has led some scholars in the past to suppose that the translation as we have it now is the result of Jewish-Christian polemic. In this paper we will compare the Hebrew and the Aramaic text, and see how they are related. On the basis thereof we will reconsider whether it is necessary and tenable to suppose Jewish-Christian polemic as the immediate cause for the present translation.

The Last Battle of Hadadezer

The recently discovered stele at Tel Dan consists of three fragments that join together to present thirteen partial lines of Old Aramaic text.1 Most interpreters classify it as a memorial inscription and ascribe it to Hazael, king of Aram-Damascus ca. 844-800 B.C.E. The text divides into two sections, (1) Lines l-4a review events during reign of a previous Aramean king, whom Hazael calls The reference presumably is to Hadadezer, who is attested repeatedly in Assyrian inscriptions of Shalmaneser III.2 (2) Lines 4b-13 report Hazael's rise to kingship and his subsequent campaign against Jehoram of Israel and Ahaziah of the House of David, that is, Judah. Biblical scholars have concentrated on second section, since it appears to contradict 2 Kgs 9:15-27. The text in 2 Kings 9 claims that Israelite general Jehu, commissioned by prophet Elisha, executed Jehoram and Ahaziah in vicinity of Jezreel and Iblearn. In contrast, Tel Dan stele asserts in lines 7-9 that Hazael killed two kings in battle. In a separate article, I have argued for historical reliability of inscription's report over against pro-Jehu account in 2 Kings 9.3 The present essay concerns first section of stele. It is of equal historical interest, since it also appears to bear on question of Aramean-Israelite relations during mid-ninth century B.C.E,, as well as issue of Hazael's background and manner of his ascendance to throne in Damascus.4 I will focus specifically on meaning and historical value of statements about military conflicts in lines 2 and 3b-4a. Avraham Biran and Joseph Naveh published editio princeps of inscription, and following translation rests largely on their transcription of Aramaic text.5 Since very little of line 1 is preserved, any restoration of text here is highly conjectural.6 I begin, accordingly, with line 2. 2. ... aga[inst] my father, he went up7 [against him when] he fought at Ab[el].8 3. my father lay down, he went to his [ancestors]. Now king of I[s]rael had entered 4. previously into land of my father. [And] Hadad made me king.9 If last word of line 2 is restored correctly, text here reports a battle at Abel between Hadadezer and a certain enemy whose name is lost. Several scholars assume that enemy was a king of Israel, and they identify Abel as Abel-Beth-Maacah (Abil al-Qamh), just west of biblical Dan (Tell al-Qadi) in border area between Aram-Damascus and Israel.10 Presumably Jehoram, Ahab, or Omri encroached on southern fringe of Hadadezer's kingdom. After a notice on death of Hadadezer (line 3a), inscription refers to an Israelite invasion of Aramean territory (lines 3b-4a). The Aramaic reads: wy'l.mlky[s].qdm.b'rq.'by. The meaning of qdm in line 4a is crucial. Following Biran and Naveh, most scholars render term as a temporal adverb, formerly, previously. Lines 3b-4a thus appear to describe an attack by a king of Israel during Hadadezer's time, presumably same attack as one noted in line 2.11 Nadav Na'aman recently has challenged this interpretation, arguing that, as a temporal adverb, qdm does not fit immediate context.12 He asks: Why should Hazael report [in lines 3b-4a] what he already said about Israelite aggression (line 2)? To eliminate repetition, Na'aman construes qdm as a verb specifying preceding verb wy'l.13 He thus translates sentence: And king of Israel invaded, advancing in my father's land. The report supposedly explains that Israel's aggression began during Hadadezer's reign (line 2) and subsequently resumed between king's death and Hazael's enthronement (lines 3b-4a). Although this proposal is not impossible, there is good reason to doubt it. Among Northwest Semitic inscriptions, qdm as a verb does not occur in Old Aramaic. It is attested in Official Aramaic, but its meanings there are precede (in time), rise, stand up, present oneself, be brought. …

Identifying Biblical Persons in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions of 1200-539 B.C.E

Identifying Biblical Persons in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions of 1200-539 B.C.E., by Lawrence J. Mykytiuk. SBL Academia Biblica 12. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature; Leiden: Brill, 2004. Pp. xix + 327. $150.00/$42.95. ISBN 9004127240/1589830628. Lawrence Mykytiuk's monograph will provide much relief for all those who are interested in questions of biblical historicity but who are critical of maximalist or minimalist prejudices concerning historicity of biblical accounts. The main body of book comprises five chapters and is a slightly revised version of Mykytiuk's 1998 dissertation. It claims to include all Hebrew from pre-Persian era that turned up before October 1997 and in which names occur that can possibly be identified with persons named in Hebrew Bible. It also discusses Aramaic text on Tel Dan stela and Moabite Mesha Inscription. Other Northwest Semitic as well as Hebrew that were published between October 1997 and July 2002 are listed and briefly discussed in appendices. The include some longer texts on ancient monuments as well as very short texts on personal seals or impressions from personal seals on jar handles and bullae. The book omits that do not name persons that can be identified with persons named in Bible. Neither does it discuss controversial King Jehoash Inscription, which was made known to a broader public as late as January 2003. However, continuing debate about this possible forgery demonstrates how important it is to apply a sound method for making identifications. Therefore, Mykytiuk's endeavor to describe the first comprehensive system for evaluating potential identifications in Northwest Semitic inscriptions (p. xii) is more than welcome. Previous studies treat only a small number of and generally do not presuppose a method to evaluate proposed identification of persons named in with persons named in Bible. In ch. 1 Mykytiuk tries to establish an appropriate set of criteria for determining identifications. He demonstrates that some identifications by pioneer archaeologists such as W. F. Albright are now known to be erroneous. Some of these mistakes were due to limited information and absence of a sound methodology. There was not enough caution in vocalization of names; identifications were readily made even if additional identifying marks, such as patronymics and titles, were lacking, and significance of titles was sometimes misjudged. In case of some provenanced inscriptions, original dating of layer where they had been uncovered proved to be wrong and thus proposed identification was impossible. Also, importance of paleography was not yet fully recognized. Fortunately, Nahman Avigad and others gradually became more aware of potential risks when trying to identify persons named in with biblical figures. However, Avigad did not describe all factors that determine credibility of an identification. Mykytiuk tries to make his own list of criteria as comprehensive as possible, but he admits that criteria may have to be revised when new present problems. For now, he distinguishes eleven criteria. The first question is whether inscriptional data are reliable. In Mykytiuk's view, an identification is most convincing if inscription has been excavated under controlled conditions (1) and if exact find spot is known (2). If artifact looks genuine but was purchased on antiquities market, a nineteenth-century date of purchase tends to confirm authenticity of inscription. The pioneers' knowledge of paleography was not yet sufficient to determine exactly when certain letter shapes were used. This means that risk of forgery must be considered only for unprovenanced that turned up during twentieth or twenty-first centuries (3). …

Qumran Grotte 4. XXII: Textes Arameens, premiere partie, 4Q529-549 (review)

Reviewed by: Qumran Grotte 4. XXII: Textes Araméens, première partie, 4Q529-549 Robert A. Kugler Qumran Grotte 4. XXII: Textes Araméens, première partie, 4Q529-549, by Émile Puech. DJD XXXI. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001. 439 pp. + Plates. $125.00. In this DJD volume, one of two in the series dedicated entirely to Aramaic texts from Qumran, Émile Puech provides the editio princeps of 4Q529-549. These manuscripts were originally assigned to one of the early scrolls editors, Père Starcky. Starcky died before he was able to finish his work, which was then passed on to Puech. J. T. Milik also had a hand in interpreting the fragments [End Page 155] that constitute these texts, and his contributions, along with Starcky's, are often—and suitably—acknowledged by Puech. The volume includes the following manuscripts. 4QWords of Michael (4Q529) is a single fragment of sixteen lines of text and a second fragment of two lines of just over a dozen letters; it reports the "words of the book which Michael spoke to the angels." 4QBook of Giantsb-e (4Q530–533) is four manuscripts of text closely related to Gen 6:1–4 and the Book of the Watchers (1 Enoch 6–16); Puech relates 4Q203 1 to 4Q530–533 as well, and he publishes an appendix including that fragment in this volume. 4QBirth of Noaha-c (4Q534–536) are three manuscripts that seem to have to do with, among other things, the birth of Noah. 4QTestament of Jacob (4Q537) is a single manuscript that Milik in particular was persuaded provides a testamentary-style vision from the patriarch Jacob. Puech relates aspects of the very fragmentary and small manuscript 4QTestament of Judah (4Q538) to the Testament of Judah of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Likewise, Puech relates 4QTestament of Joseph (4Q539) to the Testament of Joseph. At one time Puech identified 4QApocryphon of Levia-b? (4Q540–541) as perhaps two more Aramaic texts belonging to Aramaic Levi (4Q213-214), but now he seems content to treat them as an apocryphon somehow connected with the biblical patriarch Levi. 4QTestament of Qahat (4Q542) is preserved in sufficient scope to provide confidence that it is a valedictory speech of the text's namesake to his sons. And finally, 4QVisions of Amrama-g (4Q543–549) are manuscripts claiming to recount Amram's visions as he described them to his sons at his death. While there are differences in how each work is presented depending on the special circumstances affecting it and its representative manuscripts (e.g., 4QBook of Giantsb-e merits an additional section on its relationship with the Book of Giants and the Books of Enoch), Puech usually provides the following elements in presenting each manuscript: a physical description of it, a discussion of its paleography and date, and an analysis of its orthography language. Then follows a transcription of the fragments with notes on readings, a translation, and commentary on the translation. As is typical for Puech, every step is exhaustively accomplished, but receiving special care and attention is the paleographical analysis of each manuscript. Few match Puech on this score. Also typical of Puech are the remarkably full reconstructions of very fragmentary texts. Though one of the less important manuscripts in the volume, 4QTestament of Joseph 2–3 (4Q539) perhaps illustrates this best. Merging two fragments of six and seven lines respectively—and there are never more than ten to twelve letters per line!—Puech fills in the gaps that remain to produce nearly seven full lines of reconstructed text which he relates closely to [End Page 160] Testament of Joseph 15–16 in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. While his reconstruction is ingenious, it must be noted that it begins with the smallest of hints that the scroll may be related to the Testament of Joseph, brings the two fragments together on that basis, and then fills in the gaps in the joined fragments from what one knows of the Greek testament itself. In other words, it is a reconstruction that depends heavily on comparison with much later material preserved only in Greek. None of this is to counsel readers...

A Cave 4 Fragment of Divre Mosheh (4QDM) and the Text of 1Q22 1:7–10 and Jubilees 1:9, 14

I PAM 43.686 frg. 30 is also found in PAM 42.472,42.815, and 43.490. B.Z. Wacholder & M.G. Abegg, A Preliminary edition of the Unpublished Dead Sea Scrolls. Hebrew and Aramaic texts from Cave Four. Fascicle III. Based on a Reconstruction of the Original Transcription of J.T. Milik and J. Strugnell (Washington, D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1995) 283, transcribed the fragment as 4Q396 frg. 2, due to the fact that it was placed with 4Q396 fragments in PAM 43.490, even though the hands are clearly different. E. Qimron and J. Strugnell (Qumran Cave 4.V. Miqsat Ma'as'eh ha-Torah [DJD 10; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994] 16-17) characterize the hand of 4Q396 as a vulgar semiformal of Herodian times, whereas the few letters of PAM 43.686 frg. 30 are written in a late Hasmonaean to early Herodian bookhand. 2 1Q22 was published by Milik in Qumran Cave I (DJD 1; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955) 91-97, Pls. XVIII-XIX. earliest photograph of the still unopened scroll and some fragments is given in G. Lankester Harding, The Dead Sea Scrolls, PEQ 81 (1949) 112-16, Pls. XVII-XXI, at P1. XXI, fig. 2. 1Q22 fragments shown in PEQ are frgs. 41 (verso), 42, 44 and 45, as well as three fragments from the beginning of the scroll, to wit the unnumbered fragments of col. 1 placed beneath frgs. 1 and 2, as well as the upper left piece of frg. 26. Apparently, these fragments had become detached from the interior of the unopened scroll.

Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic Texts with English Translations, Vol. 4B: Angelic Liturgy, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice

Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic Texts with English Translations, Vol. 4B: Angelic Liturgy, Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice

Plates for Aḥituv and Yardeni, “Aramaic Texts”

Previous articleNext article No AccessPlates for Aḥituv and Yardeni, “Aramaic Texts”PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Volume 11, Number 12004 A journal of ASOR Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/MAR200411109 © 2004 American Society of Overseas Research. All rights reserved.PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

Figures for Aḥituv and Yardeni, “Aramaic Texts”

Previous articleNext article No AccessFigures for Aḥituv and Yardeni, “Aramaic Texts”PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Volume 11, Number 12004 A journal of ASOR Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/MAR200411108 © 2004 American Society of Overseas Research. All rights reserved.PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.

Seventeen Aramaic Texts on Ostraca from Idumea: The Late Persian to the Early Hellenistic Periods

Previous articleNext article No AccessSeventeen Aramaic Texts on Ostraca from Idumea: The Late Persian to the Early Hellenistic PeriodsShmuel Aḥituv and Ada YardeniShmuel AḥituvBen Gurion University; Hebrew University of Jerusalem Search for more articles by this author and Ada YardeniBen Gurion University; Hebrew University of Jerusalem Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Volume 11, Number 12004 A journal of ASOR Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/MAR200411102 Citations: 1Citations are reported from Crossref © 2004 American Society of Overseas Research. All rights reserved.PDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:André Lemaire and Anat Mendel-Geberovich Unpublished and Newly Read Aramaic Inscriptions from Samaria, Maarav 23, no.22 (Mar 2023): 337–346.https://doi.org/10.1086/MAR201923204

Q Review

This review article focuses on recent treatments of Q, the sayings source widely believed to stand behind the common material in Matthew and Luke (the double tradition). We begin with some recent works against the Q hypothesis, before examining the work of the International Q Project, including their Critical Edition of Q and Kloppenborg Verbin’s Excavating Q. We then turn to a more detailed treatment of Casey’s Aramaic Approach to Q, which seeks to reconstruct the original Aramaic text of material common to Matthew and Luke. Discussion of these works suggests that contrary to the claims implicit in several studies it is not possible to reconstruct the actual wording of Q in either Greek or Aramaic with any confidence.

1 Enoch: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch: Chapters 1-36; 81-108

1 Enoch: Commentary on Book of 1 Enoch: Chapters 1-36; 81-108, by George W. E. Nickelsburg. Edited by Klaus Baltzer. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. Pp. xxxviii + 618. $58.00 (cloth). This book, welcome addition to Hermeneia commentary series, is critical and historical commentary on books 1, 4, and 5 of 1 Enoch, which provides careful use of philological, historical, textual, and literary methods. Nickelsburg brings together results of lifetime of study on what is probably most important of Jewish pseudepigrapha of postbiblical period. Accordingly, most of Nickelsburg's major contributions are not presented here for first time, but they are presented in comprehensive and integrated way, possible only in full-length commentary. Not least of its virtues is that it contains most authoritative and readable English translation currently available. It is to be hoped that it will soon be possible to purchase this translation separately in form of an inexpensive paperback. The introduction consists of short discussion of methodology and Some Hermeneutical and Theological Observations, review of enochic corpus, textual and literary notes, long theological discussion of worldview, place of 1 Enoch in history of ideas and social contexts, followed by treatment of 1 Enoch in ongoing Jewish and Christian tradition and in modern scholarship. The commentary itself consists of introductions to each major section, translation, extensive textual notes, and detailed notes. The also includes useful bibliography and index. Nickelsburg has contributed greatly to study of text of 1 Enoch, although, as he himself says, A major desideratum is new critical edition of 1 Enoch . (p. 125). In absence of printed text translation is based on Nickelsburg's own decisions in each passage. Where Aramaic or Greek texts are available, Nickelsburg generally translates them, but occasionally he translates two or more different versions combined. Independent of, but generally in agreement with, Uhlig's appraisal of Ethiopic textual evidence (Siegbert Uhlig, Das athiopische Henochbuch [JSHRZ 5/6; Gutersloh: Mohn, 1984]), Nickelsburg prefers the older mss. (T^sup 9^, 2080, and g) but notes that later MS t and sometimes even later group [beta] deserve serious consideration (p. 19). In most (but not all) of passages that I investigated, I have been persuaded by Nickelsburg's textual choices, even in some for which I had previously argued for other readings. Nickelsburg accepts use of emendation as a last resort, one that he makes use of when text is opaque or clearly (p. 20). The Ethiopic, Greek, and even Aramaic texts of 1 Enoch are frequently corrupt, and bold emendation is often only practical recourse for one who wants to understand text as product of second century B.C.E. Judea. One of many persuasive emendations offered by Nickelsburg is his proposal to read dabbar (Aramaic for leader) at end of Animal Vision (90:41 [p. 403]) where Ethopic reads nagar (thing). This is by far best proposal offered for this corrupt text. Nickelsburg's understanding of 1 Enoch and arrangement of his commentary depend on his view that text is best seen not as corpus of collected Enochic books but as an accumulation in stages of single that consisted at one point of books 1, 4, and 5. Nickelsburg's argument that this book was testamentary in form has often been criticized (and sometimes not well understood), and this has unfortunately deflected attention from more important issue, that of shape and history of corpus. This argument controls shape of commentary primarily in that first volume of commentary covers books 1, 4, and 5 along with chs. 81-82. Although these chapters now belong to Astronomical Book, Nickelsburg believes that they consist of remnant of final vision of Book of Watchers and narrative bridge between books 1 and 5. …

The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Texts with English Translations. Volume II: The Damascus Document, War Scroll and Related Documents

The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Texts with English Translations. Volume II: The Damascus Document, War Scroll and Related Documents

Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek Documentary Texts from Nahal Hever and Other Sites, with an Appendix Containing Alleged Qumran Texts (The Seiyal Collection II)

This volume in the series contains first and second century documents in Aramaic and Greek said to come from Nahal Se'elim and now generally held to be from Nahal Hever (the provenance of the Babatha Archive and the Bar Kokhba documents). The transitional stage of the Aramaic language is documented here for the first time. The Greek language and script closely resembles that of the Greek papyri from Egypt. The legal documents in the archive of Salome Komaise daughter of Levi from Mahoza (a village in the Roman province of Arabia) and similar documents from Judaea published here, like those of the Babatha archive, constitute the best and most authentic evidence for certain legal and social aspects of the life of Jews at the time. The evidence of assimilation of non-hellenized Jews to their environment contrasts with and complements that contained in contemporary and later rabbinic sources.

Demons, Scribes, and Exorcists in Qumran

The article analyses 4Q560, an Aramaic text from Qumran Cave 4. This text preserves an Aramaic magic formula typical of the ancient Near East that mentions concerns common to other similar texts: childbirth, demons, sleep, and dreams.

The Hebrew manuscript from "the new find" in the monastery of St. Catherine: a Jewish Machzor

As a library of manuscripts from the ancient Middle East, the Monastery of St. Catherine in Sinai is second to none except that of the Vatican. In 1975, a new find of manuscripts was made in the monastery, including one Hebrew paper codex. In 1996 I visited the monastery for an examination of the manuscript, which turned out to be a Jewish Machzor. The script type is Sephardic and the watermarks indicate a date in the 16th century. The size of the codex is 157 x 110 mm and its 144 folios contain 279 pages with Hebrew or Aramaic texts. The codex contains a Jewish liturgy to Rosh Hashana and Jom Kippur together with 104 piyyutim, inserted in extensor. 21 of these are written by Moshe ibn Esra from Granada, and at least one of the piyyutim – “God, save me by thy name” – is previously unknown.