This volume is the final installment of the English translation of the German Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. It covers the Aramaic portion of the German publication. Thus, in some sense, this review is of the German edition as well. This volume, for the most part, is a straightforward translation of the material that was published in 2015 in German with the addition of a few more up-to-date bibliographic entries (p. xx). The reader will have to compare the English edition with the German to note where these updates take place. That will not be covered here.The edition is edited primarily by Holger Gzella, professor of Hebrew and Aramaic at Leiden University. Gzella has left his mark on this volume more than the editors of the volumes on Hebrew terms, as he authored a large number of entries for this volume (p. xix). The volume begins with an introduction to the Aramaic language as a whole, including a discussion about the different eras (Aramaic of the Iron Age, Achaemenid Imperial, and Post-Achaemenid periods). There are also several appendixes that appear in the volume dedicated to Iranian official titles, numbers, and a helpful historical outline of Aramaic grammar.The reader who is unfamiliar with the publication history of the individual fascicles in German should note that there is a time gap between the first and second fascicle of the German edition. This gap occurs lexically between בנה and בעי. These two words are representatives of one of the major differences between the approach of the first editor, Ingo Kottsieper, and the second, Holger Gzella. In the first fascicle, begun in 1995 and published in 2001 (p. xix), words that older Aramaic scholarship would refer to as III-he are spelled with a final he. Under Gzella, these roots are more precisely spelled with a final yod. The English translation does not seek to remedy this inconsistency from the German edition. In other words, the inconsistencies between the approaches of the editors are maintained. This may be a positive or a negative aspect of the volume, depending on the preference of the reader.Another difference between the two editorial approaches is that, in the first fascicle, words were grouped by semantic field (e.g., the entry for אב contains an entry for אם). In the subsequent fascicles under Gzella, an alphabetical approach was adopted instead. However, there are exceptions to this, since some of the articles in later portions were commissioned under Kottsieper and therefore maintain the original approach (e.g., אמר is found under מלל).Gzella mentions briefly that some of the differences between approaches relate to “linguistic preferences” (p. xx). He does not identify all of these preferences to the reader. However, one “linguistic preference” that should be noted when reading this volume is the shift in the 1990s that occurred in Aramaic scholarship concerning “Old Aramaic” inscriptions. In the first fascicle, there is a clear statement under אבד that says, “Many classify the language of the inscription of KAI 215 from Zincirli as Old Aramaic. DNSI categorizes it as Sam’alian. The authors follow the traditional classification, however, and, accordingly, assign it here to Aramaic” (p. 4). In other words, the authors treat KAI 215 as Old Aramaic, rather than the more recent trend which treats it as a separate, yet related, Northwest Semitic language (for more on this, see John Huehnergard, “What is Aramaic?” ARAM 7 [1995]: 261–82). In Gzella’s portion of the book, the data from Zincirli is commented on but is almost always kept distinct from any discussion of “Old Aramaic” (e.g., pp. 135, 443).Overall, an undertaking of this magnitude is beneficial to the scholarly community. The most positive aspect of the dictionary is its sheer wealth of information. But readers will also benefit from the comparison of biblical Aramaic with the Aramaic found in the inscriptions and at Qumran. However, no work is without its criticisms. Of particular note for me was the omission of any discussion of the theological significance of “son” (בר) in Ps 2:12. At first, this could be because it falls outside of the Aramaic portions of Daniel or Ezra/Nehemiah. However, a word as mundane as “testimony” (שׂהד) and its use in Gen 31 receives treatment in its entry. Given the Christological importance of Ps 2:12, the absence of a reference in a theological dictionary is quite a significant omission.Overall, as long as the reader keeps the history of publication in mind and has a working knowledge of the history of Aramaic and its scholarship, the sections that discuss Old Aramaic will be helpful. If there is little or no knowledge of these older Aramaic inscriptions, the dictionary will still be beneficial, if one keeps to the sections on Imperial, Biblical, and Qumran Aramaic.
Read full abstract
Aug 27, 2024
Christian Stadel 
Open Access