{"id":20,"date":"2015-07-01T17:31:27","date_gmt":"2015-07-01T17:31:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blog.huc.edu\/cal\/?p=20"},"modified":"2019-10-30T18:09:36","modified_gmt":"2019-10-30T18:09:36","slug":"a-new-dictionary-of-qumran-aramaic","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.huc.edu\/cal\/a-new-dictionary-of-qumran-aramaic\/","title":{"rendered":"A new Dictionary of Qumran Aramaic"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Edward M. Cook has been closely involved with the development of Qumran Aramaic studies for thirty years and has previously published two major lexical projects in Aramaic, a dictionary to (some of?) the targumim in the Accordance computer program database and A Glossary of Targum Onkelos: According to Alexander Sperber\u2019s Edition<\/em> (Brill, 2008). He is thus the perfect person to undertake the work here reviewed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We are not quite sure if it should be called a \u201cDictionary,\u201d however. Unlike the Onkelos volume, which contained only brief glosses and little else, this one\u2019s entries are extensive; but they are not the kind of entries usually associated with an academic lexicon. Rather they are more like a concordance, with the examples within entries arranged by semantics or by grammatical context rather than by text number or alphabetical order. One gets the impression that, except perhaps for the very most common words, almost every example of every word is given in its context. But little of what one might expect to find in a traditional scholarly lexicon is to be found in the entries here: Notably missing are an indication of the vocalization and morphological structures of well-known words, lists of derived forms for verbs, or even a guide for students as to what words are common elsewhere in Aramaic and what are relatively or extremely rare.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This work would seem, then, to be of little value to a novice. Its major contribution may well be instead a collection of all of the most thoroughly studied readings of texts whose correct readings and interpretations have long been subject to dispute\u2014and there are hundreds of such problematic readings in this corpus. The Dictionary contains many revised and undoubtedly correct readings, not all of which are indicated in notations, as well as frequent references to the earlier publications whose readings are here accepted or have been rejected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An important, unadvertised, feature is the fact that Cook here proposes many readings of fragmentary passages differing from those of earlier editions. In most cases Cook\u2019s readings are superior to those of earlier scholars, which is not surprising considering that the earlier scholars, by and large, were not Aramaists! Perhaps the worst decision of the Israeli board in charge of the final publication of the scrolls was to assign the remaining Aramaic texts of Milik\u2019s Nachlass<\/em> to E. Puech, a well-known epigrapher who is generally recognized to have had little knowledge of Aramaic at the time. Puech\u2019s ignorance of Aramaic (both grammar and lexicon) is repeatedly demonstrated here (though never emphasized\u2014Cook is too nice) in the notes to several entries. For an example of each see the notes to \u05d0\u05dc \u201cdo not\u201d and \u05e2\u05d1\u05d3 \u201cto make\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Except for 1QapGen<\/em> and 11QtgJob<\/em>, references are given by text number rather than by text name. This was an unfortunate choice, as it immediately removes the context of text genre from such citations. (An index of text numbers, sigla, and \u201cdefinitive\u201d publication is included in the Introduction, to be sure.) Another notable lack that could easily have been remedied is an index to cited passages, such as the immensely useful ones provided by Sokoloff in his Jewish Aramaic dictionaries. As a final general comment, one wishes Cook would have included the material from the Genizah copies of the Testament of Levi. The undoubtedly Qumranic vocabulary of that text is adduced here only occasionally.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The origin of Akkadian loanwords is sometimes (e.g. s.v. \u05d2\u05e0\u05d5\u05df \u201cbridal chamber\u201d) but not consistently indicated in any pattern I can determine; see for example \u05d0\u05e1\u05d9 \u201cto heal\u201d, \u05d0\u05e9\u05e3 \u201cmagician\u201d, \u05de\u05e1\u05db\u05df \u201cpoor person\u201d, and \u05d3\u05e9 \u201cdoor.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cook has fallen victim to unwise reliance on parallels in other languages. In fact neither the Hebrew source (e.g., for TgJob<\/em>) nor the Greek rendering (e.g., for Tobit<\/em>) should be considered definitive for the semantics of the Aramaic text. Priority must always be given to the Aramaic context itself and to the use of words in other Aramaic dialects. Consider the word \u05d3\u05e8\u05d4, which means \u201ccourtyard (and in the context of royalty \u201dcourt\u201d NOT necessarily \u201ccourtyard\u201d), but also simply \u201ddwelling\u201d (for which see the JBA example BT BB 67a(18)\u201d :\u05db\u05d9 \u05e4\u05dc\u05d9\u05d2\u05d9 \u05d3\u05d0\u05de\u05f3 \u05dc\u05d9\u05d4\u0660 \u05d3\u05e8\u05ea\u05d0\u0660 \u05de\u05e8 \u05e1\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d1\u05ea\u05d9 \u05de\u05e9\u05de\u05e2 \u05d5\u05de\u05e8 \u05e1\u05d1\u05e8 \u05ea\u05e8\u05d1\u05d9\u05e6\u05d0 \u05de\u05e9\u05dd : when do they disagree? (If ) he said to him \u05d3\u05e8\u05ea\u05d0; . this one is of the opinion that it means rooms [i.e. the entire property], and the other is of the opinion that it means a courtyard\u201d). At Tobit 7:1<\/em> in the phrase \u05d9\u05ea\u05d1 \u05e7\u05d3\u05dd \u05ea\u05e8\u05e2 \u05d3\u05e8\u05ea\u05d4, the word is rendered \u03b1\u1f50\u03bb\u1fc6\u03c2 in the Greek. But, unlike Cook, we do not take this as proof that the word means \u201ccourtyard\u201d in the original, only that this is the rendering chosen by the Greek translator. Another example comes under the entry \u05d1\u05e8 \u201cson\u201d, which admittedly means \u201cchildren\u201d in the plural but never definitively \u201cchild of either sex\u201d in the singular. Yet the Greek at Tobit 3:15<\/em>
\u05dc\u05d0 ]\u05d1\u0597\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d4 \u05d0\u05d7\u05e8\u05df \u05d3\u05d9 \u05d9\u0597\u05e8\u0597\u05ea\u0597\u05e0\u0597[\u05d4] \u05d5\u0597\u05d0\u05d7 \u05dc\u05d4 \u05e7\u0597\u05e8\u0597\u05d9\u0597\u05d1\u0597 \u05dc[\u05d0 \u05d0\u05d9\u05ea\u05d9] \u05dc[\u05d4 where the Greek renders with \u03c4\u03ad\u03ba\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd and so Cook renders \u201cchild of either sex\u201d. Yet surely the context is clear and refers to male heirs! The reverse (converse?) process is illustrated by examples s.v. \u05d2\u05d1\u05e8 \u201cman\u201d, where in the final chapter of Job Hebrew \u05d0\u05d9\u05e9 is so rendered. By telling us that in this context it is shown by the Hebrew that the Aramaic \u05d2\u05d1\u05e8 can mean \u201ceach one,\u201d as Hebrew (and Aramaic) \u05d0\u05d9\u05e9 often does to be sure, Cook overlooks the near certainty that the translator\u2019s choice of words was intentional to show that it is only the males that are referred to. Several other similar examples could be cited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The entries include many dubious readings (always so indicated), such as \u201c\u05d1\u05dc interj. indeed(?)\u201d, presumably as an aid to readers of the text publications, that probably should have been omitted. Also, forms that occur only as a part of collocations, such as \u05d1\u05dc\u05d9 without (properly \u05de\u05df \u05d1\u05dc\u05d9), are given under the single word, a decision that can only mislead those same students.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We found much to comment on in the individual entries, but have limited our notes here to those most important to the learner:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05d0\u05d1\u05e2 vb. APH to hasten<\/strong> : If the reading is correct and the binyan<\/em> is indeed aphel<\/em>, then the effective root is indeed beth, ayin, ayin<\/em> here, in spite of the etymology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05d0\u05d5\u05e9 [Pers.] n. m. advisor (\u2018voice\u2019)<\/strong> (?): As noted in the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon, \u201cIt (i.e. \u05d0\u05d5\u05e9\u05d9) could, however, simply be a personal name or a figurative use of #1 \u201cfoundation\u201d > \u201csupport\u201d > supporting member of the royal court.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05d0\u05df conj. if; not (in oath formula); yes<\/strong>: The word \u201cyes\u201d (< \u02c0\u0113n<\/em> < \u02c0ayn<\/em>) is not the same word as \u201cif\u201d (< \u02c0in<\/em> < hinn<\/em>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05d1\u05e8 \u05d0\u05e0\u05e9 man, men, humanity<\/strong> (p. 17): better simply \u201chuman being.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05d0\u05e4\u05d5 conj. then, and so<\/strong>: This word is an enclitic in rhetorical questions. Neither feature is indicated in the gloss.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05d0\u05e8\u05e2\u05d9 n. f. lower portion, depth<\/strong>: As demonstrated by the cited text (pl. \u05d0\u05e8\u05e2\u05d9\u05d0), this cannot be a feminine noun but is rather simply the common adjective \u201clower.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05d1 prep. in, on, with, at, by<\/strong>: As an example of the detail Cook provides in the semantic realm, I give here the major divisions by which he has divided his examples:
I. Locative (spatial). (a) in or at a place, without filling it
(b)among (with plural or collective nouns)
(c) in, with a quality or state, adverbial
(d) after verbs of motion, into or onto a place
(e) By, geometrical
II. Temporal. (a) In, during a time indicated by nominal
(b) In, during a time indicated by infinitive
III. Extended Uses: (a) with, comitative
(b) by means of, instrumental
(c) in exchange for, beth pretii (!SAK)
(d) identity or role, with pred. nom
(e) introducing verbal complement (q. v. the verbal roots): verbs of perception, attitude, or disposition:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the other hand, why the following introductory paragraph is given and to whom it is addressed is a mystery to me:
\u201c[The core relation is \u201cin\u201d an area or container, with most of the extended meanings metaphorical or metonymic developments from this core. The
preposition generally is used in situations of low transitivity; its complement is never the agent of the action, nor an entity that is completely or wholly affected by the action. It often marks the complements of verbs of experience (where the subject is the experiencer of the action), or entities in general that do not undergo a change of state or location. With motion verbs, it generally marks the endpoint of the motion, but not its direction.]\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Under \u05d1\u05e8 II n. m. field, wild country<\/strong> he gives a usage \u2014prep. except for, outside of. But this is incorrect. The preposition is only \u05d1\u05e8\u05d4 \u05de\u05df. (See below s.v. \u05d4\u05de\u05d5\u05df).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05d2\u05dc\u05d2\u05dc n. m. sphere<\/strong>: In reference to the moon. Surely the word means a two-dimensional circle, not a three-dimensional sphere here.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05d2\u05e8\u05d1\u05d9 n. m. north<\/strong>: Given that the form \u05e9\u05de\u05d0\u05dc appears in close conjunction in the text, the meaning may rather be something like \u201cnortheast\u201d instead.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Under \u05d3\u05d9\u05df one finds essentially hidden the term \u05d1\u05e2\u05dc \u05d3\u05d9\u05df, \u201copponent at law,\u201d clearly a separate lemma.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As a note s.v. \u05d3\u05d9\u05df II n. m. judge<\/strong>, the student is, as always, given no clue as to the well-known vocalization of the word, yet a gratuitous note is added re the expression \u05d3\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05de\u05ea: \u201cFor a parallel in QH, see 11Q5 24:6\u201d , while the important and ubiquitous usage within Judaism as a blessing upon hearing of a death: \u05d1\u05e8\u05d5\u05da \u05d3\u05d9\u05d9\u05df \u05d0\u05de\u05ea is overlooked.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05d3\u05db\u05d0 n. f. chamber<\/strong>: Better: \u201critual shrine\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05d3\u05de\u05d9 PA. to suppose, believe<\/strong>: \u201cto imagine\u201d is a much more imaginative and accurate rendering.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05d3\u05de\u05e2 II n. m. offering<\/strong>: Why not terumah<\/em>?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05d3\u05e8\u05d7 \u201cto shine<\/strong>\u201d: There are three forms of this root in the corpus: normative \u05d3\u05e0\u05d7, Hebrew \u05d6\u05e8\u05d7, and this mixed form \u05d3\u05e8\u05d7. Surely a note pointing this out to the student and speculating on possible contextual differences would have been welcome.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05d4\u05d5\u05da vb. PE. to go (impf.\/inf. only)<\/strong>: Surely the reader should have been told what this is suppletive for (ie. \u05d4\u05dc\u05da)!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05d4\u05de\u05d5\u05df indep. pers. pron. 3 m. pl. they, them<\/strong>: This form is always a direct object and should not be reconstructed either as a subject or as the object of a preposition (see s.v. \u05d1\u05e8 II n. m. field and \u05d7\u05dc\u05dd II vb.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05d4\u05e8 [BH \u05d4\u05e8] n. m. mountain<\/strong>: This should not have been included; the entire expression \u05d4\u05e8 \u05e1\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9 is a geographical name here.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05d4\u05e8\u05d9\u05d4 n. f. conception, fetus<\/strong> and \u05d4\u05e8\u05d9\u05d5\u05df n. m. conception, pregnancy<\/strong>: Since the same text uses both forms, the meanings are almost certainly different, the first is \u201cfetus\u201d, the second \u201cpregnancy\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05d6\u05d1\u05d3 vb. PE. to present<\/strong>: Rather \u201cto provide\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05d6\u05de\u05df vb. ITHPA. to meet by intention<\/strong> and \u05d6\u05de\u05df [Pers.] n. m. time, occasion; meeting<\/strong>: The idea of \u201cmeeting\u201d for this verb comes from the rendering of BH \u05d0\u05d4\u05dc \u05de\u05d5\u05e2\u05d3 as \u05de\u05e9\u05db\u05df \u05d6\u05de\u05e0\u05d0 here and in the targumic tradition (e.g., at Ex29:4). But this translation is due to the erroneous conception that the Biblical Hebrew term means \u201ctent of meeting\u201d. \u05de\u05d5\u05e2\u05d3 means \u201ctime\u201d just like \u05d6\u05de\u05df always does. Also, this word is an Akkadian loan, not Persian. As I demonstrated forty years ago in Akkadian Influences<\/em> (p. 92), an Iranian etymology is no longer sustainable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05d6\u05e2\u05e7 APH. to cry out<\/strong>: Rather pael<\/em>, for afel<\/em> makes no sense morphologically or semantically.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05d7\u05d5\u05d8 n. m. thread, line<\/strong>: Not \u201cline\u201d rather \u201cmeasuring cord\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05d7\u05d5\u05ea\u05dc n. m. covering<\/strong>: Rather \u201cswaddling\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05d7\u05d6\u05d9\u05d4 II n. f. watchtower<\/strong>: Cook\u2019s lengthy note defending his translation is simply wrong. The word in context clearly means \u201ccornerstone\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05d7\u05dc\u05d7\u05dc\u05d9 n.f. trembling, ague(?)<\/strong> : Cook has changed his preference between an earlier draft \u201centrails\u201d and the published version. He should have stuck with his original intention. However, the variation in forms remains unexplained.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05d7\u05dc\u05dd II vb. OPH. to be healed<\/strong>: This reading and interpretation of \u05dc\u05d1\u05e8 is impossible (see above s.v. \u05d4\u05de\u05d5\u05df).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05d7\u05dc\u05e3 vb. OPH. to be made to pass across<\/strong>: It is quite possible that the C examples from Qumran are not in fact passives: Note especially the example from 4QEne1.26.19<\/em> where the verb is parallel to a C form of \u05e8\u05d7\u05e7 which is also widely used as an active.The difference from G would then be G=\u201dpass beyond\u201d while C=\u201dpass by\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05d7\u05dc\u05e5 II n. f. loins, hip<\/strong>: The lemma should be the plural or dual form.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05d7\u05de\u05d3 vb. ITHPE.\/ITHPA. to desire, be desired<\/strong>: The T stem typically means simply \u201cto desire\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05d7\u05e8\u05d2\u05d4 n. f. terror<\/strong>: This is not a precise rendering. It is rather fear of power and future, not terror or fright.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05d7\u05e8\u05e9 n. m. sorcery<\/strong> and \u05d7\u05e8\u05e9\u05d4 n. f. sorcery<\/strong>: All this is dubious and does not comport with other aramaic usages. \u05d7\u05e8\u05e9 should be sorcerer (sorcery is \u05d7\u05e8\u05e9\u05d9\u05df) and \u05d7\u05e8\u05e9\u05d4 a sorceress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05d7\u05e9\u05d5\u05da n. m. darkness<\/strong>: In the first cited example (\u05d0\u05d1\u05d3\u05df \u05d7\u05e9\u05d5\u05da) it is the adjective, not a noun.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05d7\u05ea\u05df vb. ITHPA. to be married<\/strong>: Rather \u201cto be allied through marriage\u201d, which is quite a different thing altogether.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05d7\u05ea\u05e3 vb. PE. to rob, raid<\/strong>. He renders here \u05d9\u05ea\u05d5\u05df \u05d7\u05ea\u05e4\u05d5\u05d4\u05d9 as \u201chis raiders come\u201d. But since when does a Qumran Aramaic imperfect express the general present as in SBH?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05d9\u05d0\u05e9 vb. PA. to abandon, leave<\/strong>: This is totally incorrect. In this context the piel<\/em> of this verb means \u201cto console\u201d and it is translating the Hebrew text read as a piel<\/em>. See the targum to Is 61:3 \u05dc\u05b0\u05d9\u05b7\u05d0\u05b8\u05e9\u05b8\u05c1\u05d0 \u05dc\u05b7\u05d0\u05b0\u05d1\u05b5\u05d9\u05dc\u05b5\u05d9 \u05e6\u05b4\u05d9\u05d5\u05b9\u05df\u05c3 where it is clearly parallel to
\u05dc\u05b0\u05e0\u05b7\u05d7\u05b8\u05de\u05b8\u05d0.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05d9\u05d1\u05e9 vb. PE. to wither<\/strong>: By form and usage \u05d9\u05d1\u05d9\u05e9 is an adjective, not a finite verb.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05d9\u05d3\u05d9 vb. HAPH.\/APH. to give thanks, acknowledge<\/strong>: Why not \u201cto praise\u201d?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05d9\u05d7\u05dc vb. PA. to wai<\/strong>t: The Qumran Job passage [for MT \u05dc\u05b9\u05d0 \u05d0\u05b6\u05d7\u05b0\u05d1\u05b9\u05bc\u05dc] seems to reflect the Hebrew of Job 13:15, which itself is a long-standing crux of interpretation; the traditional \u201cI shall wait\u201d is dubious. The verb means \u201cto despair\u201d in Syriac.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05d9\u05e0\u05d9 vb. APH. to vex, trouble<\/strong>. \u05d3\u05e2 \u05de\u05d0 \u05d9\u05d5\u05e0\u05d0 \u05d1\u05e2\u05d4, know what will trouble one who seeks, 4Q541 fg 24 ii:4. This passage remains troublesome in spite of Cook\u2019s cited article supporting this interpretation, which I find to be totally unacceptable in both syntax and context. I tend to think the earlier interpretation \u201cwhat Jonah sought\u201d may well be right.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05d9\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 n. m. chastisement, correction<\/strong>: A very unlikely reading and interpretation, since \u201cchastisement\u201d elsewhere is always a plural form.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05d9\u05e8\u05db\u05d4 n. f. thigh<\/strong>: The singular form is rather \u05d9\u05e8\u05da, which takes a feminine plural.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05d9\u05e9\u05e2 [BH] vb. APH. to save, deliver<\/strong>. \u05d5\u05d9\u05d5\u05e9\u05e2, he saved (or: will save)<\/strong>: This is not BH, so why would he suggest \u201che saved\u201d as a first rendering? The context is clearly a pseudo-prediction of the future of Israel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05d9\u05e9\u05e8 vb. APH. to send away<\/strong>: Much better \u201cto release\u201d. BH teachers and students: Please do not use the translation \u201cto send\u201d when you translate the BH piel of \u05e9\u05dc\u05d7! It is like chalk screeching on a blackboard to my ears.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05db\u05d5\u05dc, \u05db\u05dc n. m.\/quant. any, all, every, each<\/strong>: We find in the divisions of this entry an extreme example of missing the forest for the trees. His categories are count nouns (indet., det.), non-count nouns (indet., det.), relative clauses, alone, and with pronominal suffixes. In so doing, the major semantic distinction from a translational point of view, i.e. when and why it means \u201cevery\u201d and when and why it means \u201call\u201d or \u201cwhole\u201d is completely overlooked.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05db\u05e1\u05d9 vb.: The entry is missing a potential Dt form, which appears emended s.v. \u05db\u05e0\u05e1.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05db\u05e4\u05e8 n. m. kind of flower<\/strong>. One misses an explanation of why this is a type of flower and not simply kwpr\u02c0<\/em>, \u201cspadix\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05dc\u05d1\u05d5\u05e0\u05d4 n. f. incense<\/strong>: It is rather \u201cfrankincense\u201d, which is a particular incense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05dc\u05d5\u05dc\u05d1 n. m. branch<\/strong>: A lulav<\/em> is a palm branch; since this text is in reference to a grape vine, this must be \u201csupport stick\u201d as in CPA. The second example is probably \u201clulavs\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05dc\u05d7\u05e5 vb. PE. to oppress<\/strong>: Better \u201cto constrain\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05dc\u05d9\u05dc\u05d0, \u05dc\u05d9\u05dc\u05d4 n. m. night<\/strong>: Here the absence of any guide to vocalization is sure to mislead the Hebrew-knowing student. The absolute is l\u0113l\u0113<\/em> and probably should have been given as \u05dc\u05d9\u05dc\u05d9.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05dc\u05db\u05d5\u05e9 n. m. brazier<\/strong>: it is not a pleasant \u201cbrazier\u201d but rather a fire-brand that can burn up everything!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05dc\u05e7\u05d7 vb. PE. to take<\/strong>: Better \u201cto remove\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05de\u05d0\u05d9\u05df adv. where<\/strong>: This word means \u201cwhence\u201d. He tries to justify his rendering (changed from an earlier draft!) with a totally inane argument, including a blatantly incorrect adduction of BH Nahum 3:7 (\u05de\u05b5\u05d0\u05b7\u05d9\u05b4\u05df \u05d0\u05b2\u05d1\u05b7\u05e7\u05b5\u05bc\u05e9\u05c1 \u05de\u05b0\u05e0\u05b7\u05d7\u05b2\u05de\u05b4\u05d9\u05dd \u05dc\u05b8\u05da\u05b0) as if it supports the meaning \u201cwhere\u201d in Biblical Hebrew. The sun passes through and sets from the western gates and is then somewhere else from the perspective of the sun and from the perspective of the astronomer. I would have expected better of Cook.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05de\u05de\u05e8, \u05de\u05d0\u05de\u05e8 [\u221arma] n. m. command, bidding, word:<\/strong> \u201ccommand\u201d not \u201cword\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05de\u05d0\u05df n. m. vessel<\/strong>: In this context it clearly means \u201cheavenly body\u201d or even \u201cconstellation\u201d. His literal translation \u201cvessels of heaven\u201d is makes little sense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05de\u05d3\u05d9\u05e0\u05d4 n. f. land, nation, city<\/strong>: \u201cLand\u201d is never correct. By definition it is a political unit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05de\u05d7\u05e1\u05df n. m. fortress<\/strong>. \u05de\u05d7\u05e1\u05e0\u05d9\u05da \u05d0\u05ea\u05e7\u05e3, strengthen your fortresses<\/strong>: Might one instead venture \u201cbe a man!\u201d See the Syriac meaning \u201cgenitalia\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05de\u05d8\u05dc\u05d4 n. f. shelter<\/strong>: Taking it from \u05d8\u05dc\u05dc in a broken context, but \u201cburden\u201d (from \u05e0\u05d8\u05dc) is equally possible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05de\u05df prep. from, out of, of<\/strong>: Surely he should have noted that in this orthography the nun is assimilated to a nun-initial word.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05de\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4, \u05de\u05e1\u05e8\u05d4 [taking from the root \u05d0\u05e1\u05e8 \u2018to bind\u2019?] n. f. company, array<\/strong>: This is very misleading. It means rather \u201cassignment > assigned group\u201d from the root \u05de\u05e1\u05e8. Had the \u201cscholars\u201d cited in his note looked at the samaritan dictionary (p. 480) they would know this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05de\u05e6\u05d9\u05e2\u05d4 n. f. middle<\/strong>. The form \u05de\u05e6\u05e2\u05d4 is probably a separate word.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05de\u05e7\u05d8\u05d5\u05e8\u05d4 n. f. incense<\/strong>: This is surely rather incense pan as in hebrew \u05de\u05b4\u05e7\u05b0\u05d8\u05b6\u05e8\u05b6\u05ea and should be given with final taw. There is no reason why \u201cincense\u201d should have a mem<\/em> preformative. Also, note that his citation of the meaning of the root: [\u221a\u05e7\u05d8\u05e8 \u2018to give off smoke\u2019] does not comport with the definitions given under the root itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05de\u05e7\u05dd n. m. position, office<\/strong>: \u201cOffice\u201d surely is misleading in english; he means \u201cposition\u201d or \u201cstanding\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05de\u05e9\u05dc\u05d7\u05d4 n. f. emissary<\/strong>: Probably rather Hebraic \u05de\u05b4\u05e9\u05b0\u05c1\u05dc\u05b7\u05d7\u05b7\u05ea.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05e0\u05d2\u05d3 I vb. PE. to proceed (intrans.), stretch, pull (trans.)<\/strong> and \u05e0\u05d2\u05d3 II vb. ITHPE.\/ITHPA. to be scourged<\/strong>: This is a single root.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05e0\u05d5\u05e8 n. m. fire<\/strong>. His note reads: \u201cWhen the gender is clear, it is always masc. as in Tg. Onk., although in some other dialects both genders are used\u201d. This is highly misleading, given that there is only one example (ex. 22:5) in Onkelos and the masculine forms there all have feminine variants!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05e0\u05d7\u05d9\u05e8 n. f. nostril<\/strong>: The lemma should be cited as a dual.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05e0\u05d7\u05dc n. m. ravine<\/strong>: Not just a ravine. A wadi is a well-known English word these days.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05e0\u05e6\u05e5 vb. APH. to produce blossoms<\/strong>. \u201c\u05de\u05e0\u05e6 \u05d1\u05d4\u05d5\u05df, (as if) making blossoms among them\u201d. This is nonsense; read \u05de\u05e0\u05e6\u05d1\u05d4\u05d5\u05df \u201cfrom their planting\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05e0\u05e9\u05de\u05d9\u05df n. m. pl. breath<\/strong>: Probably rather just a plural of common \u05e0\u05e9\u05de\u05d4.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05e0\u05e9\u05e8 n. m. eagle<\/strong>. As I note in the CAL, the frequent modern rendering as \u201ceagle\u201d is misguided for the Ancient Near East, where a distinction between these two large raptors was not generally made. Most commonly the word would seem to refer to what is now known as the \u201cgriffon\u201d vulture (\u201cGyps Fulvus\u201d). Why the other modern dictionaries continue to put \u201ceagle\u201d first escapes my understanding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05e1\u05d2\u05e8 vb. PE. to hand over, deliver<\/strong>: No, this word means \u201cto shut\u201d. It only acquires the connotation \u201cto hand over\u201d when used with \u05d1\u05d9\u05d3.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05e1\u05d3\u05e8 vb. PE.\/PA. to follow, come next<\/strong>: At 4Q197 fg 4 i:5 (Tobit 6:1)<\/em> night (restored!) is said to have \u05e1\u05d3\u05e8 \u05dc\u05d4\u05d5\u05df. Rather than his \u201cto follow, come next\u201d, we would render \u201cappeared as usual\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8 vb. PE. to turn away, depart<\/strong>. Read instead \u05d9\u05e1\u05d5\u05e8\u05d9\u05df.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05e1\u05ea\u05e8 n. m. secret place, loin<\/strong>: The Syriac text cited in the note is irrelevant for it clearly renders the second half of the verse, not the first.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05e2\u05d1\u05d9\u05d3\u05d4 n. f. work; servants<\/strong>: The passages justifying the translation \u201cservants\u201d do no such thing. Their context is of building and burying, so whence \u201cservants\u201d?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05e2\u05d5\u05e4\u05d9\u05d4 n. f. branch<\/strong>: Instead just \u05e2\u05d5\u05e4\u05d9.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05e2\u05dc prep. on, upon, against, concerning<\/strong>. He writes \u201c[The basic function is to indicate a relation of an action or thing to a state or entity that does not exist in or pass into the state or entity, pass by or under it, or issue from it or out of it. Hence the relation so denoted is essentially external, and includes the concepts indicated by English on, over, against, by, next to, towards, above, or conceptually about, for, because of, concerning, regarding.]\u201d: I doubt if such clever gibberish can mean anything at all to the learner. In any case, it hardly describes a \u201cbasic function\u201d. Cook seems to be bothered by the fact that he chose to use such a large number of different English words to render a single Aramaic one. But such is the nature of translation. Had he tried a bit harder, though, he could have rendered virtually every textual example with the actual basic function that is a perfectly good multivalent English word: \u201cover\u201d. Try it and see.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05e2\u05df n. f. flock of sheep<\/strong>: As anyone who has traveled in the Near East knows, this means \u201csheep and goats\u201d not just \u201csheep\u201d. This oversight explains his mistranslation of \u05ea\u05d9\u05e9 as \u201cram\u201d, q.v.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05e7\u05dc\u05dc n. m. curse<\/strong> and \u05e7\u05dc\u05dc\u05d4 reproach<\/strong>: These should probably be reversed, with the first example cited s.v. \u05e7\u05dc\u05dc\u05d4 almost surely instead restored as \u05db\u05de\u05dc\u05ea\u05d9, i.e. metathesized \u05db\u05dc\u05de\u05ea\u05d9.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05e7\u05dc\u05d9\u05e4\u05d9\u05df, \u05e7\u05dc\u05e4\u05d9\u05df n. m. pl. tree bark<\/strong>: This is rather the plural of \u05e7\u05dc\u05e4\u05d4.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05e7\u05e5 n. m. time; end<\/strong>: The examples of \u201cend\u201d (\u05e7\u05e6\u05d5\u05d9) are from \u05e7\u05e6\u05d4 not from \u05e7\u05e5.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05e7\u05e9\u05e9 vb. APH. to cause to enter adulthood, raise<\/strong>. \u201c\u05d9\u05e7\u05e9\u05df \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u05d4\u05df \u05d5\u05d9\u05e4\u05e7\u05df, they raise their young and send them away, 11QtgJob 32:3<\/em>\u201c: In spite of the defectively written ending these verbs are almost certainly simply peals<\/em> with \u05d1\u05e0\u05d9\u05d4\u05df as the subject. The apparent feminine forms have been influenced by the previous verse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05e8\u05d2\u05e9 vb. HAPH. to stir up (?)<\/strong>: More likely \u201cassemble urgently\u201d as in BH.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05e8\u05d7\u05e6\u05df n. m. security<\/strong>: Better \u201creliance, certainty\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u05ea\u05d9\u05e9 n. m. ram<\/strong>: Never \u201cram\u201d, rather \u201che-goat\u201d.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Edward M. Cook has been closely involved with the development of Qumran Aramaic studies for thirty years and has previously published two major lexical projects in Aramaic, a dictionary to (some of?) the targumim in the Accordance computer program database and A Glossary of Targum Onkelos: According to Alexander Sperber\u2019s Edition (Brill, 2008). He is thus the perfect person to undertake the work here reviewed. We are … Continue reading A new Dictionary of Qumran Aramaic<\/span> »<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-20","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-dictionaries","category-review"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.huc.edu\/cal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.huc.edu\/cal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.huc.edu\/cal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.huc.edu\/cal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.huc.edu\/cal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=20"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blog.huc.edu\/cal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":21,"href":"https:\/\/blog.huc.edu\/cal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20\/revisions\/21"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.huc.edu\/cal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.huc.edu\/cal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.huc.edu\/cal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}