Studies in Semitic Vocalisation and Reading Traditions
| ,Biblical Quotations in the Aramaic Incantation Bowls and Their Contribution to the Study of the Babylonian Reading Tradition
Texte intégral
1.0. Introduction
- 1 Ford (2012, 215). The most recent comprehensive study of the language of the incantations is that b (...)
- 2 Shaked, Ford, and Bhayro (2013, 1). An overview of the research on the dating of the bowls is avail (...)
1The Aramaic incantation bowls are a corpus of spells written on earthenware bowls and composed in several archaising literary dialects of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic.1 The vast majority of these artefacts were found in the historical region of Mesopotamia. We have positive evidence that these incantations were being produced in the sixth and seventh centuries CE. It is likely, however, that the practice had started already in the fifth (or perhaps even fourth) century.2
2In order to bolster the process of asserting dominion in the spiritual realm, biblical verses were often quoted as part of the incantation. In the vast majority of cases passages were cited in the original Hebrew.
- 3 For an introduction to the Babylonian reading tradition, see Khan (2013c). The most comprehensive s (...)
- 4 The singular form ‘tradition’ is used here as the collective designation of manuscripts that use th (...)
- 5 Khan (2012, 50).
3These biblical quotations in the incantation bowls (henceforth ‘quotations’) constitute a very valuable source for the study of pre-Masoretic pronunciation traditions of the Bible in Babylonia.3 The most extensive testimony to the Babylonian pronunciation tradition4 is found in medieval biblical manuscripts pointed with the Babylonian vocalisation system. The pronunciation types which the Babylonian system reflects are themselves ancient pronunciation traditions. In general, the medieval Babylonian and Tiberian (as well as Palestinian) pronunciation traditions are typologically close. This suggest that they all reflect the continuation of the various pronunciation traditions which existed in Palestine in the late Second Temple period. The pronunciation traditions that developed into the medieval Babylonian tradition, then, were exported to Babylonia, perhaps following the downfall of the Bar Kochba revolt.5
- 6 We possess only about seven biblical manuscripts that can be dated with certainty to the this perio (...)
4It is at this point that the significance of the quotations in the incantation bowls becomes apparent: they constitute the only epigraphic source of the Hebrew Bible from Late-Antique Babylonia, and are one of the few sources dated to the period following the standardisation of the text and preceding the period of Masoretic activity. Thus, they are a reliable source for the study of the pronunciation traditions that existed prior to the Masoretic period.6 They are suitable for that purpose because—though unvocalised—they display a partial tendency toward phonetic spelling.
- 7 Despite the apparent significance of the quotations, research thereon is still sorely lacking. For (...)
- 8 This methodology rests on the widely accepted assumption that at the time of the bowls’ production, (...)
5In this paper, therefore, I present a few case studies that illustrate the contribution of the quotations to the study of pronunciation traditions. The corpus likewise sheds light on the character of the transmission of the biblical text at the time, highlighting the prominence of orality.7 In the study, my method is to focus on orthographic features which are different from the consonantal text of the Masoretic Text (MT), as represented by the Leningrad Codex (I Firkovitch B19A), and consider their linguistic significance.8
- 9 That is, it contains linguistic features which are parallel to those found in the medieval Babyloni (...)
6Most of the orthographic features found in the corpus of the quotations reflect a distinctly ‘Babylonian’9 phonology or morphology of Biblical Hebrew. An example of this is discussed below. Moreover, the quotations point to some interference of contact languages on the reading tradition of the Bible. Most often, we observe the influence of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, the main vernacular of the Jewish scribes who wrote the bowls. However, when we consider the gutturals—a class of consonants which underwent different forms of weakening in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic—there is extremely little orthographic evidence for any weakening in the corpus of texts available to me. I discuss the likely linguistic significance of such a conservative orthography. Third, a handful of spelling features may reflect a particular type of reading which is attested in the medieval Tiberian as well as, probably, Babylonian tradition. This reading is a careful one, characterised by what is technically referred to as ‘orthoepy’. And finally, some forms, spelled as pausal, bear witness to the prominence of orality in the transmission of biblical passages.
2.0. Case Studies
2.1. A Distinctively Babylonian Instance of Epenthesis in Deut. 29.19
7The majority of features attested reflect a phonology or morphology which is distinctly Babylonian. This in turn indicates that at least as early as Late Antiquity, there already existed traditions which were very close to the medieval Babylonian tradition. This linguistic proximity will be illustrated with the following form (the word in question appears underlined):
(AMB, 176; B9.11) || BHS ‘but rather the anger of the Lord (…) will smoke’ (Deut. 29.19)
- 10 A parallel morphology is attested also in the yiqṭol (Yeivin 1985, 462– 63).
8In the form ןשיעי , a yod appears where the Tiberian tradition has a silent shewa. The letter in question represents an epenthetic i-vowel, the expected vowel in the Babylonian reading tradition. In the Babylonian tradition, such an epenthetic i occurs in the yiqṭal forms of qal I-ʿayin verbs.10 For instance, the verb שע " ר is vocalised in the following ways in different Babylonian manuscripts:
- 11 Yeivin (1985, 464).
[jiʕiˈʃaːr] (Old Babylonian)
(3) [tiʕiˈʃaːr] (New Babylonian)11
9In view of this, the pronunciation of ןשיעי is best reconstructed as [jiʕiˈʃaːn]. Such a realisation is an example of more general phonological processes which occurred in this pronunciation tradition.
- 12 Bybee (2015, 30–31).
- 13 Yeivin (1985, 287).
10From the point of view of syllable structure, forms such as ןשיעי [jiʕiˈʃaːn] can be described as a product of the moving of the guttural ʿayin from syllable coda (where it is in Tiberian [jɛʕˈʃaːn]) to syllable onset. This process, in turn, has phonological causation. Namely, it most likely reflects an attempt to preserve the ‘weak’ consonant ʿayin. From a phonetic viewpoint, consonants in syllable-coda positions are especially susceptible to weakening.12 Therefore, through the insertion of a vocalic segment after the ʿayin, the guttural is removed from its original syllable-coda position and is thereby strengthened. Indeed, the medieval Babylonian tradition reflects a wide susceptibility to the weakening of ʿayin and ʾalef (that is, apparently, a decrease in muscular pressure in their production). Thus, for instance, these two consonants typically do not receive a shewa (whether silent or ḥatef), but are instead vocalised with a full short vowel.13
2.2. Examples of Cross-linguistic Interference in Deut. 29.22 and Isa. 44.25
11While the quotations reflect a tradition which continued over centuries, they also bear witness to the interference of the synchronic vernacular. In several instances we find what is most probably matter-borrowing from, inter alia, Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, the language of Babylonian Jews in Late Antiquity.
- 14 For further details of such processes in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, see Juusola (1999), Morgenstern (...)
- 15 Khan (2013a).
12A group of linguistic processes which are known to have taken place in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic are those which are normally referred to as ‘weakening of gutturals’.14 The category of gutturals includes the consonants heh [h], ḥet [ħ], ʿayin [ʕ], and ʾalef [ʔ]. From the perspective of articulatory phonetics ‘weakening’ is defined as a decrease in muscular pressure during a phoneme’s production.15 This is reflected in various phonetic phenomena, such as the loss of ability for the consonant to be geminated, its complete elision, or a shift in the place of its articulation.
- 16 My discussion on the issue is available in Molin (2017). A summary of the existing research on the (...)
13In my corpus, however, orthographic evidence for any form of guttural weakening, and therefore, for the interference of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, is extremely sparse. In the corpus— which comprises about 155 biblical verses—there are eight possible manifestations of different forms of guttural weakening. In addition, it should be noted that the graphic forms of the letters heh and ḥet are usually identical in the incantation bowls. This has been interpreted by certain scholars (e.g., Mishor 2007) as a possible sign of the weakening of ḥet (that is, presumably, a shift in the place of articulation of ḥet towards heh). However, I believe that, for reasons which are beyond the scope of this paper, this shift of ḥet—at least on such a sweeping scale—is unlikely.16 I now present and comment on two possible cases of guttural weakening in my corpus. First, consider the form
(BM 91767, 15, ln. 16) || BHS ‘and in his anger’ (Deut. 29.22)
14This form presumably constitutes a textual variant with the additional ו ‘and’, which is lacking in the MT. Also, ʾalef is missing in the orthography, presumably reflecting elision of the glottal stop. This verse occurs twice in this incantation (the second time the words are given in the inverse order). The other attested spelling is ופאב , that is, without either the linguistic or the textual variant.
- 17 Morgenstern (2007, 24).
- 18 For the theory of rule ordering, see Booij and Rubach (1987, 1).
15The yod in ופביו reflects the typical Babylonian pronunciation of ו ‘and’ when it precedes a consonant with shewa— [wi]. However, since this form would most likely have been pronounced [wivapˈpoː],17 there would have been no shewa after the bet. One way of explaining the fact that the conjunction ו was still pronounced [wi] would be to hypothesise that the glottal stop existed at an underlying level, which may be referred to as the ‘lexical level’ according to the framework of Lexical Phonology. The vocalisation of the conjunction would have been determined at this lexical level. The elision of the glottal stop would have occurred post-lexically and, on account of this rule ordering, did not have an impact on the vocalisation of the conjunction.18
16The second instance of a likely guttural weakening is the insertion of ʿayin in the following phrase:
- 20 The alternative explanation, which is a textual one, is highly unlikely. This explanation would hav (...)
- 21 Cf. Winford (2005).
17It appears that this additional ʿayin is a case of hypercorrection which, in turn, indicates a tendency for ʿayin to reduce towards zero in this scribe’s dialect. The scribe would have heard the form [meːˈfeːr]. He then assumed that there had originally been an ʿayin, which was subsequently elided, and he thus spelled the word . רפעמ20 This hypothesis assumes imperfect acquisition of Biblical Hebrew, and the resultant misunderstanding of the form.21
- 22 For a discussion of the significance of orality in the transmission of the quotations see Mishor (2 (...)
- 23 For discussion of possible manifestations of guttural weakening in the Aramaic of the spells and an (...)
- 24 See the discussion of Bhayro (2015, 1–2) in this connection.
18Overall, while there are a few orthographic indications of certain phenomena associated with guttural weakening, their number is rather insignificant in relation to the size of my corpus. How do we best interpret this situation? Of course, the six attested forms most probably do not reflect the entire scope of guttural weakening in the pronunciation traditions represented by the quotations. This is inferred from the fact that in the corpus of the quotations as such historical spellings are attested. We may therefore assume that the gutturals were also sometimes spelled historically, though their pronunciation may have changed somewhat. On the other hand, it should also be borne in mind that several scholars—including the author of this paper—suppose that many of the biblical verses are likely to have been quoted from memory.22 If this were indeed the case, and had weakening processes taken place on a larger scale, we would perhaps expect to find more symptoms thereof in the orthography.23 Moreover, a similar conclusion can be reached even if we assume that the scribes had access to a biblical text, but deliberately chose to deviate from it in order to reflect synchronic pronunciation.24 In this case, too, would we not expect to find phonetic spellings of the gutturals, such as their omission or interchange?
- 25 Of course, a partial loss of muscular pressure must have occurred at some stage, leading to loss of (...)
- 26 Yuditsky (2013).
- 27 For the phonology of North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic dialects see, e.g., Mutzafi (2002, 44–45).
19Thus, overall, the quotations appear to reflect pronunciation traditions in which the gutturals were largely preserved,25 even though various forms of weakening had taken place in the synchronic vernacular. Indeed, a similar picture emerges from the Secunda, Origen’s transcription of the Hebrew Bible into Greek. There also we find a tradition in which the gutturals appear to have been widely preserved, though, admittedly, the evidence for this is indirect.26 A similar conservative approach to a sacred language is found, for instance, in the contemporaneous Biblical Hebrew reading traditions among the Jewish speakers of North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic. For instance, though the realisation of ḥet as [ħ] and of ʿayin as [ʕ] is largely lost in these Aramaic dialects, the pharyngeal realisation of these two phonemes is preserved in their reading of the Bible.27 This preservation of the phonemes doubtless relates to the status of Biblical Hebrew as the sacred language, and the consequent attempts to pass it on as received.
2.3. A Case of Careful Reading (Orthoepy) in Num. 10.35?
- 28 Khan (2018).
20In my corpus some quotations may be taken as reflecting various degrees of carefulness in reading. Here, I shall consider a particular verse which may constitute an example of a careful, deliberate reading, referred to technically as orthoepy. Orthoepy appears to be reflected in certain Babylonian manuscripts, and is characteristic of the standard Tiberian tradition.28 It should be noted that my interpretation of the quotation discussed below remains conjectural. This uncertainty notwithstanding, the verse in question is unique and deserves renewed attention.
(AMB, 146; 3.5) || BHS
‘And whenever the ark set out, Moses said, “Arise, O Lord, and let your enemies be scattered, and let those who hate you flee before you.”’
- 29 This is a possibility offered by Mishor (2007, 214).
21The two issues on which I wish to focus at present are: the form יהיהו instead of יהיו and the phrase ןיב עוסנ instead of עוסנב (or עסנב (. First, let us consider the form יהיהו . The inserted heh may, of course, be a result of scribal error. For instance, it is possible that the scribe initially confused this form with the corresponding weqaṭal verb . היהו29
- 30 There is one possible parallel case in the DSS: ואהסתר ‘hiding’ (1QIsaa 47.17 || MT (...)
22However, heh in this form may also serve as mater lectionis for the a-vowel represented by Tiberian pataḥ.30 Though this is possible, the use of heh for word-internal a is rare—it appears to be unattested elsewhere in the incantation bowls. Therefore, an explanation for its alleged employment in this form should be sought. There are two possibilities.
- 32 The use of ʾalef for long, word-internal a parallel to Tiberian pataḥ is attested once in my corpus (...)
- 33 Khan (2013d, §9).
- 34 Khan (2013c, §15).
23Alternatively, it could be hypothesised that this mater lectionis reflects a lengthening of the relevant a-vowel—a likely feature in a word at the beginning of a parasha section. In other words, heh may mark not only the quality of the vowel, but also its quantity.32 In both the Tiberian and the Babylonian traditions the corresponding a-vowel, i.e., pataḥ, has both long and short allophones.33 In Babylonian manuscripts with ‘complex vocalisation’, long pataḥ is indicated by the pataḥ sign without a ḥitfa (shewa) sign beneath.34 In Babylonian manuscripts with complex vocalisation where the verse in question occurs, the pataḥ in question is indeed marked long, even though it occurs in a closed unaccented syllable:
- 36 This type of orthoepic lengthening is likely to have its roots in the (late) Second Temple Period ( (...)
- 37 Yeivin (1980, 262–63).
- 38 Khan (2013d).
24A parallel lengthening of pataḥ is also attested in Tiberian Masoretic manuscripts,36 where it may be indicated by the insertion of a phonetic gaʿya next to the vowel sign.37 This vowel lengthening occurs in cases where a vowel is followed by contiguous consonants of ‘weak’ articulation. It therefore serves to prevent the elision of those ‘weak’ phonemes.38 A ‘weak’ consonant is a sonorous one, which is therefore prone to lenition. In this case, these weak consonants are the approximant yod [j] and the guttural heh [h]. The lengthening of pataḥ therefore serves to prevent the elision of those consonants.
25The form in question might, therefore, reflect a stage of pronunciation earlier than that attested in the medieval Masoretic manuscripts—one at which the shewa was still vocalic. Such retention of vocalic shewa would also appear to hint at a slow, careful reading.
nundageshshewa41lamedmemnunṣadeqof4243lamedmemnundagesh4426Thus, if the hypothesis of secondary gemination is correct, the orthography in this quotation would reflect a slow, careful reading. This type of pronunciation, though non-standard, appears to have parallels in the Babylonian as well as Tiberian traditions. The fact that two features which may be interpreted as reflecting the practice of orthoepy are attested within one quotation lends this interpretation some weight.
2.4. Evidence for the Prominence of Orality
- 45 For references to literature on this topic, see footnote 20 above.
27And finally, my corpus contains four forms which bear strong witness to the prominence of orality in the transmission of the biblical passages in question, or even to quotation from (oral) memory.45 Specifically, these forms are explicitly spelled as pausal, demonstrating that they were known to the writers from the liturgical (synagogue) readings or memorisation. Consider, for instance, the following word:
wawmater lectionisqameṣ4647(HLIB, 213; 684.14) || BHS ‘they kept’ (Num. 9.23)
28Similarly, the following form is also spelled as a pausal one:
yodṣere48(AMB, 176; 9.9) || BHS ‘you will eat’ (Lev. 26.29)
2.0. Conclusion
29To summarise, the Biblical Hebrew quotations in the Aramaic incantation bowls, due to their status as the only Babylonian epigraphic source from Late-Antique Babylonia and their tendency to phonetic orthography, are a unique source for the investigation of pre-Masoretic reading traditions in Babylonia. Their study illuminates the relationship between the tradition found in the quotations and that reflected by the medieval Babylonian manuscripts. This, in turn, helps us deepen our understanding of the history of the reading tradition in Babylonia.
30The aim of this paper has been to offer a few case studies which illustrate what we can infer from the quotations about the pronunciation of Biblical Hebrew. Specifically, I presented a type of epenthesis in verbs which is distinctly Babylonian. I also pointed to the fact that most features attested in the corpus are in line with the Babylonian tradition. I also studied possible orthographic evidence for guttural weakening in my corpus, which is very scarce. I submitted that this probably reflects a relative absence of guttural weakening, and thereby a degree of resistance to the influence of the phonology of the vernacular, Jewish Babylonian Aramaic. However, I pointed out that in other areas, the phonological (and morphological) interference of the vernacular Aramaic is apparent. Additionally, I discussed a verse with peculiar orthographic features which may attest the practice of orthoepy, that is, careful, deliberate reading. And finally, moving beyond language, I suggested that some of the forms in the bowls point to a particular mode of transmission of the biblical text. Specifically, spellings of pausal forms highlight the prominence of orality.
31The study of these biblical quotations not only contributes to our understanding of Biblical Hebrew reading traditions, but also offers some insight into the textual history of the Bible and the transmission of the biblical text in Late Antiquity.
Bibliographie
3.0. References
3.1. Primary Sources
In brackets, I give abbreviations of the titles as used in the paper.
(BM 91767) Morgenstern, Matthew. 2007. ‘The Jewish Babylonian Aramaic Magic Bowl BM 91767 Reconsidered’. Le Muséon 120 (1–2), 5–27.
(AMB) Naveh, Joseph and Shaul Shaked. 1985. Amulets and Magic Bowls: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity. Jerusalem: Magnes Press.
(BM) Segal, Judah B., with a contribution by Erica Hunter. 2000. Catalogue of the Aramaic and Mandaic Incantation Bowls in the British Museum. London: British Museum Press.
(HLIB) Shaked, Shaul. 1995. ‘Peace be Upon You, Exalted Angels: On Hekhalot Liturgy and Incantation Bowls’. Jewish Studies Quarterly 2/3: 197–219.
Yeivin Yisrael. 1973. Geniza Bible Fragments with Babylonian Massorah and Vocalization: Including Additional Bible Fragments with Babylonian Massorah and Vocalization, together with a Description of Manuscripts and Indices. Vol. 1. Jerusalem: Makor.
3.2. Secondary Sources
Abudraham, Ohad. Forthcoming. ‘On Some Features of the Hebrew Language in the Jewish Babylonian Incantation Bowls’. Lešonenu (in Hebrew).
Bar-Asher Siegal, Elitzur. 2013. Introduction to the Grammar of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Blapp, Samuel. 2017. ‘The Non-Standard Tiberian Hebrew Language Tradition according to Bible Manuscripts from the Cairo Genizah’. PhD dissertation, University of Cambridge.
Blau, Yehoshua. 1980. ‘On the Development of Guttural Weakening as a Living Phenomenon’. Lešonenu 45 (1): 32–38 (in Hebrew).
Bhayro, Siam. 2015. ‘Studies on Aramaic Magic Bowls and Related Subjects: Introduction’. Aramaic Studies 13: 1–8.
Booij, Geefert E. and Jerzy Rubach. 1987. ‘Postcyclic versus Post-lexical Rules in Lexical Phonology’. Linguistic Inquiry 18 (1): 1–44.
Bybee, Joan L. 2015. Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Elitzur, Yoel. 2013. ‘Epigraphic Hebrew: Roman and Byzantine Period’. In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, edited by Geoffrey Khan et al. Leiden: Brill Online.
Faraj, A. 2010. Coppe magiche dall’antico Iraq con testi in aramaico giudaico di età ellenistica. Milan: Lampi di Stampa.
Ford, James N. 2012. ‘Phonetic Spellings of the Subordinating Particle d (y) in the Jewish Babylonian Aramaic Bowls’. Aramaic Studies 10 (2): 215–47.
Juusola, Hannu. 1999. Linguistic Peculiarities in the Aramaic Magic Bowl Texts. Helsinki: Finnish Oriental Society.
Kahle, Paul. 1959. The Cairo Geniza. 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Khan, Geoffrey. 2012. A Short Introduction to the Tiberian Masoretic Bible and its Reading Traditions. Piscataway: Gorgias Press.
——. 2013a. ‘Guttural Consonants: Masoretic Hebrew’. In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, edited by Geoffrey Khan et al. Leiden: Brill Online.
——. 2013b. ‘Shewa: Pre-Modern Hebrew’. In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, edited by Geoffrey Khan et al. Leiden: Brill Online.
——. 2013c. ‘Vocalization: Babylonian’. In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, edited by Geoffrey Khan et al. Leiden: Brill Online.
——. 2013d. ‘Vowel Length: Biblical Hebrew’. In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, edited by Geoffrey Khan et al. Leiden: Brill Online.
——. 2018. ‘Orthoepy in the Tiberian Reading Tradition of the Hebrew Bible and Its Historical Toots in the Second Temple Period’. Vetus Testamentum 68: 1–24.
——. 2020. The Tiberian Pronunciation Tradition of Biblical Hebrew. 2 vols. Cambridge Semitic Languages and Cultures 1. Cambridge: University of Cambridge and Open Book Publishers.
Kutscher, Yechezkel E. 1965. ‘Contemporary Studies in North-Western Semitic’. Journal of Semitic Studies 10: 21–51.
Lanfer, Peter. 2015. ‘Why Biblical Scholars Should Study Aramaic Bowl Spells’. Aramaic Studies 15: 9–23.
Lange, Armin. 2016. ‘Ancient Hebrew-Aramaic Texts’, in Textual History of the Hebrew Bible, edited by Armin Lange. Leiden: Brill Online.
Mishor, Mordechai. 2007. ‘Hebrew in the Babylonian incantation bowls’. Sha‘arei Lashon: Studies in Hebrew, Aramaic and Jewish Languages Presented to Moshe Bar-Asher, edited by Aharon Maman, Steven E. Fassberg, and Yohanan Breuer, vol. 2, 204–27. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute (in Hebrew).
Molin, Dorota. 2017. ‘The Language of the Biblical Hebrew Quotations in the Aramaic Incantation Bowls’. MPhil thesis, University of Cambridge.
Mor, Uri. 2013. ‘Gutturals: pre-Masoretic Hebrew’. In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, edited by Geoffrey Khan et al. Leiden: Brill Online.
Morgenstern, Matthew. 2011. Studies in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic. Based upon Early Eastern Manuscripts. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Mutzafi, Yehezqel. 2002. ‘Barzani Jewish Neo-Aramaic and its Dialects’. Mediterranean Language Review 14: 41–70.
Shaked, Shaul. 2011. ‘Transmission and Transformation of Spells: The Case of the Jewish Babylonian Aramaic Bowls’. In Continuity and Innovation in the Magical Tradition, edited by Gideon Bohak, Yuval Harari, and Shaul Shaked, 187–218. Leiden: Brill.
Shaked, Shaul, James N. Ford, and Siam Bhayro. 2013. Aramaic Bowl Spells. Jewish Babylonian Aramaic Bowls, vol. 1. Leiden: Brill.
Tov, Emanuel. 2012. ‘The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Textual History of the Masoretic Text’. In The Hebrew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, edited by Nora Dávid, Armin Lange, et al., 54–59. Göttingen: Vandenhoec & Ruprecht.
Ulrich, Eugene. 2015. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible. Leiden: Brill.
Winford, Donald. 2005. ‘Contact-Induced Changes: Classification and Processes’. Diachronica 22 (2): 373–427.
Yeivin, Yisrael. 1980. Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah. Translated and edited by John E. Revell. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press.
——. 1985. The Tradition of Hebrew as Reflected by Babylonian Vocalization. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language Press (in Hebrew).
Yuditsky, Alexey E. 2013. ‘Transcription into Greek and Latin Script: Pre-Masoretic Period’. In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics, edited by Geoffrey Khan et al. Leiden: Brill Online.
Notes
1 Ford (2012, 215). The most recent comprehensive study of the language of the incantations is that by Juusola (1999).
2 Shaked, Ford, and Bhayro (2013, 1). An overview of the research on the dating of the bowls is available in Faraj (2010).
3 For an introduction to the Babylonian reading tradition, see Khan (2013c). The most comprehensive study of this type of pronunciation is that by Yeivin (1985).
4 The singular form ‘tradition’ is used here as the collective designation of manuscripts that use the Babylonian signs, despite the fact that these manuscripts reflect relatively diverse types of pronunciation (Khan 2013c).
5 Khan (2012, 50).
6 We possess only about seven biblical manuscripts that can be dated with certainty to the this period (Lange 2016, §§1.2.2.4.2–3). Biblical passages are also found in rabbinic literature. For these, however, we rely on medieval manuscripts. These, in turn, as is commonly recognised, were at a later stage subject to correction towards the increasingly more prestigious and authoritative Tiberian Hebrew (Shaked 2013, 18). For recent hypotheses on the standardisation of the biblical text, see Tov (2012) and Ulrich (2015).
7 Despite the apparent significance of the quotations, research thereon is still sorely lacking. For overview articles on the topic, see Abudraham (forthcoming), Mishor (2007), and a section in Elitzur (2013). For a comprehensive study of the contribution of the quotations to the study of pre-Masoretic Babylonian reading traditions see Molin (2017).
8 This methodology rests on the widely accepted assumption that at the time of the bowls’ production, the existing proto-Masoretic text had already been established as authoritative, and on the hypothesis that this text was highly similar to the consonantal text of the Leningrad Codex. In the course of my study of the topic, I have collected and analysed around 155 biblical verses available in a number of publications of transcribed bowl spells.
9 That is, it contains linguistic features which are parallel to those found in the medieval Babylonian manuscripts.
10 A parallel morphology is attested also in the yiqṭol (Yeivin 1985, 462– 63).
11 Yeivin (1985, 464).
12 Bybee (2015, 30–31).
13 Yeivin (1985, 287).
14 For further details of such processes in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, see Juusola (1999), Morgenstern (2011), and Bar-Asher Siegal (2013).
15 Khan (2013a).
16 My discussion on the issue is available in Molin (2017). A summary of the existing research on the topic of ḥet and heh in the Aramaic of the incantations is available in Juusola (1999).
17 Morgenstern (2007, 24).
18 For the theory of rule ordering, see Booij and Rubach (1987, 1).
19 It should be remarked that, though this transcription appears to be correct, the rest of the quotation is highly illegible. Therefore, this reading is not absolutely certain.
20 The alternative explanation, which is a textual one, is highly unlikely. This explanation would have it that the form in question is a participle derived from the root עפ"ר, with the supposed meaning ‘casting dust’. However, there is only one attestation of a verbal form derived from this root (2 Sam. 16.23) and it is not a semantic fit for this context.
21 Cf. Winford (2005).
22 For a discussion of the significance of orality in the transmission of the quotations see Mishor (2007, 211), Shaked (2011; 2013, 18), Lanfer (2015), and Molin (2017, 78–87).
23 For discussion of possible manifestations of guttural weakening in the Aramaic of the spells and an interpretation of this orthography see Juusola (1999).
24 See the discussion of Bhayro (2015, 1–2) in this connection.
25 Of course, a partial loss of muscular pressure must have occurred at some stage, leading to loss of gemination, etc. Cf. Blau (1980).
26 Yuditsky (2013).
27 For the phonology of North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic dialects see, e.g., Mutzafi (2002, 44–45).
28 Khan (2018).
29 This is a possibility offered by Mishor (2007, 214).
30 There is one possible parallel case in the DSS: ואהסתר ‘hiding’ (1QIsaa 47.17 || MT Isa. 57.17).
31 Mishor (2007, 214).
32 The use of ʾalef for long, word-internal a parallel to Tiberian pataḥ is attested once in my corpus. See Molin (2017, 13–14).
33 Khan (2013d, §9).
34 Khan (2013c, §15).
35 Yeivin (1973, 1: 343).
36 This type of orthoepic lengthening is likely to have its roots in the (late) Second Temple Period (cf. Khan 2020, §§I.2.5.8 and I.2.10).
37 Yeivin (1980, 262–63).
38 Khan (2013d).
39 Khan (2013b, §4).
40 Note that [a], rather than [ə] is used here for vocalic shewa, since [a] is a more accurate representation of its quality.
41 Khan (2020, §I.3.1.11.1).
42 Yeivin (1985, 359–61).
43 Yeivin (1985, 359).
44 Blapp (2017, 165, 210).
45 For references to literature on this topic, see footnote 20 above.
46 Employment of waw as vowel letter parallel to Tiberian qameṣ is indeed attested in some incantation bowls (both in their Aramaic and Hebrew), and has been discussed at length by numerous scholars. For an overview and evaluation of the existing research, see Juusola (1999) and Molin (2017, 17–22).
47 Yeivin (1985, 427). Again, [a] here indicates shewa.
48 Yeivin (1985, 585).
Table des illustrations
© Open Book Publishers, 2020
Creative Commons - Attribution 4.0 International - CC BY 4.0