New Book on Jewish Babylonian Aramaic

Just in time for Father's Day (hint), Eisenbrauns has released a new book on the grammar of Babylonian Aramaic. I really should be reading more Aramaic (as should all of you), so don't miss this one!

This book is the first wide-ranging study of the grammar of the Babylonian Aramaic used in the Talmud and post-Talmudic Babylonian literature (henceforth: Rabbinic Babylonian Aramaic) to be published in English in a century. The book takes as its starting point the long-recognized problem of the corrupt nature of the later textual witnesses of Babylonian Rabbinic literature and seeks both to establish criteria for the identification of accurate textual witnesses and describe the grammar of Rabbinic Babylonian Aramaic. The book is both programmatic and descriptive: it lays the foundations for future research into the dialect while clarifying numerous points of grammar, many of which have not been discussed systematically in the available scholarly literature.

Subjected to Futility in Hope

After meeting many grad students and young professors at SBL this year, I've been musing a bit about the long-term job prospects for many of us. It's a depressing subject. I was reminded of a couple of posts from Chris Brady on the subject of grad students and maybe not getting a PhD. More depressing.

In honor of the universal experience of grad students in the humanities everywhere, I've paraphrased Romans 8:19-21 (building on an off-the-cuff quip using the biblical anthological style I made at 5:30 am on the way to the airport on Tuesday - yes, it was a bit early for that, Wen!).

For the students wait with eager longing for the conferring of degrees. For the students were subjected to futility, willingly, and through the professors who subjected them, in hope that the students themselves would be set free from their bondage to coursework and obtain the freedom of the glory of the tenure-track.

P.S. If you're interested in Aramaic, early biblical interpretation, issues in Higher Education, and religious studies related comics and you don't follow Chris's blog Targuman, well, shame on you - subscribe right now.

Genesis Rabbah I.I: The Pre-Existent Torah

Here is the text, my translation, and a discussion of the second half of Genesis Rabbah I.I (first half here). Finally, we’ll find out what ‘amon means and what Proverbs 8 has to do with Genesis 1:1!

ד׳א] אמון אומן התורה אומרת אני הייתי כלי אומנתו שלהקב״ה, בנוהג שבעולם מלך בשר ודם בונה פלטין ואינו בונה אותה מדעת עצמו אלא מדעת אומן, והאומן אינו בונה אות מדעתו אלא דיפטראות ופינקסות יש לו לידע היאך הוא עושה חדרים ופשפשים, כך היה הקב״ה מביט בתורה ובורא העולם, והתורה א׳ בראשית ברא אלהים ואין ראשית אלא תורה היך מה דאת אמר י״י קנני ראשית דרכו וגו׳׃

Translation:

Another interpretation: ‘amon means artisan (‘uman – Jastrow 27). The Torah says, “ I was the skilled tool of the Holy One, blessed be He” (Aramaic paraphrase of Prov 8:30). In the way of the world, [when] a king of flesh and blood builds a palace (Jastrow 1180, Gk loan word), he does not build it from his own knowledge but from the expertise of an artisan. And the artisan himself builds it not from his expertise alone but through plans (“documents” Jastrow 304, Gk loan word under alt. spelling)  and  descriptions (“tablets” Jastrow 1165-66, Gk loan word) in order that he might know how to make the rooms and doorways (“wickets” Jastrow 1248). Thus, the Holy One, blessed be He, looked in the Torah and created the world, for the Torah says, “In the beginning, God created” (Gen 1:1a), and there is no “beginning” except the Torah, as it is written, “The Lord made me, the beginning of his way, etc.” (Prov. 8:22).

The discussion of the potential meaning of ‘amon continues in the same vein – trying out words that have a similar consonant pattern. There is an entry for ‘umannu in Aramaic in Jastrow, so I think Brooke’s (Anumma) comment on this earlier post about the potential Akkadian connection is possible. Based on the only other biblical occurrence of this word in Jer 52:15, I think “master-workman”, “artisan”, or “architect” give the best sense for ‘amon which fits nicely with the meaning the rabbis want to give Prov 8:30. However, the sense seems odd in the context of Prov 8:30: “I was beside him like a master workman, and I was his delight daily, rejoicing in his presence all the time.”

The importance of Proverbs 8 is that the speaker is Wisdom personified. She seems to be simultaneously depicted as a pre-existent co-creator of the world AND a little child playing in the sand while Yahweh does the heavy lifting. When I used to teach this passage to undergrads for Intro to Judaism, some of them had a hard time wrapping their minds around the rabbinic logic.

Here are the steps (or leaps, if you will):

1. Prov 8:22 and Gen 1:1 both use the same word for “beginning” ראשית.

2. Wisdom = beginning in Prov 8.

3. Therefore, beginning = wisdom in Gen 1. (i.e., With Wisdom, God created . . . )

4. Wisdom = Torah. I’m not sure if there’s a precise trigger for this connection. Perhaps it was intuitive. Perhaps Ps. 119 helped facilitate the connection by applying some of the ideals of Proverbs to the study of Torah. Ps 119:77 could create that connection - “Your Torah is my delight” – using the same word for “delight” as Prov 8:30. Key words are important connectors in midrashic exegesis, especially a relatively rare word like שעשעים that occurs only 9 times in the Hebrew Bible (5x in Ps 119 and 2x here in Prov 8:30-31). The more I think about it, the more I’m convinced of the role Ps 119 must have in making this equation, even though it isn’t explicitly cited in this passage.

5. Therefore, “With the Torah, God created.”

What’s really amazing is how these connections are assumed and expected to be understood. This type of intertextual reading of the Torah seems almost intuitive to the rabbis. This is definitely an “insider” text – written by elites for other elites. Complete knowledge of the Torah and the oral tradition is safely assumed.

From the moment Prov 8:30 was invoked by R. Hoshea, the end goal of the exegesis was this one unified point: God created the world using the Torah. What seemed at first glance to be an odd way to begin exegesis of Gen 1:1 flowed back into a main point that underscored the rabbis’ own authority and connected it to the creation of the world. Saying that God used the Torah to create puts God in the role of the ultimate Torah sage. In some way (though I doubt they would explicitly say this), God is subject to the terms of the Torah and must abide by the rules of interpretation. This is significant because the rabbis were establishing themselves as the final arbiters of the interpretation of Torah. They controlled access to the divine now.

The story of the oven of Aknai underscores this tension between divine revelation and human interpretation. “The Torah is not in heaven” (Deut 30:12). But that’s a story for another time . . .

P.S. If you think this rabbinic logic is too easy, try to wrap your mind around the way the Zohar (a medieval kabbalah text) reads Gen 1:1 as a depiction of the emanation of the Sefirot (symbols of divine energy) from heaven to earth. “With Hokhmah (wisdom, the 2nd sefirah), Ein Sof (the ineffable unnameable, utterly transcendent divine source) created Elohim (the 3rd sefirah). Fun stuff.

P.P.S. Prov 8 also plays into Christian interpretations of a pre-existent Christ. Wisdom = the Logos = Christ (cf. John 1). It gets more complicated, but this post was about Genesis Rabbah.

P.P.P.S. Hebrew text is from J. Theodor and Ch. Albeck, 1965, Midrash Bereshit Rabba: Critical Edition with Notes and Commentary, Jerusalem: Wahrmann. Scribal errors are possible. I caught one instance of parablepsis myself. Scribal errors are much easier to understand once you’ve caught yourself caught yourself making them.

Prov 8:30 in the Versions

Genesis Rabbah begins with a discussion of the unusual Hebrew word ‘amon in Prov 8:30. A commenter on my previous post was curious about what this verse looked like in Syriac. Did the translator use a word meaning “guardian”? Well, I had to look it up, and what I found was interesting, so here it is.

Basically, the Peshitta avoids the word altogether. The Targum, however, does support reading something like “guardian” here, using the Aramaic cognate root that also means “to believe, trust.” This is striking because the Peshitta of Proverbs often looks like someone just transcribed the Targum wholesale into Syriac script. Not so in Prov 8:30.

To round it out, I looked at the Septuagint. The translator there also wasn’t sure what to do with ‘amon. I think “fitting” or “suitable” likely reflects a similar reading of the Hebrew root. Amen. It’s appropriate.

Peshitta

ܥܡܗ ܡܬܩܢܐ ܗܘܝܬ܂ ܒܝ ܚܕܐ ܗܘܐ ܟܠ ܝܘܡ܂ ܘܒܟܠܙܒܢ ܩܕܡܘܗܝ ܚܕܝܐ ܗܘܝܬ

With him, I was established/created. In me, he rejoiced every day. And continually, I rejoiced before him.

Targum

והוית צידוי ¹ מהימנותא ² מהימנתא בי אחדי הוה כל יומא ויומא וחדיא אנא קדמוי בכל זמן׃

And I was beside him, a trusted one. In me, he rejoiced every day, and I was rejoicing beside him continually.

Septuagint

ἤμην παρ᾽ αὐτῷ ἁρμόζουσα ἐγὼ ἤμην ᾗ προσέχαιρεν καθ᾽ ἡμέραν δὲ εὐφραινόμην ἐν προσώπῳ αὐτοῦ ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ

And I was beside him, suitable. I was that in which he rejoiced daily, and I was rejoicing beside him continually.

Kuttamuwa Stele Translation

I intend to work through the Kuttamuwa inscription eventually, but in the meantime, John Hobbins at Ancient Hebrew Poetry has beat me to it. Here's his translation and analysis in two parts: Part 1 and Part 2. 

I was also asked if I have Pardee's translation, and I do not. I was focused on copying down other details during the presentation. However, I agree with John and Jim Getz who have it but don't intend to publish it without permission.

SBL: Kuttamuwa Stele from Zincirli

The section on Paleographical Studies in the Ancient Near East was packed with seven papers. Dennis Pardee and David Schloen finally presented the new Zincirli inscription around 3:15 p.m. They're calling it the Kuttamuwa stele since it's his mortuary chamber. For background and a partial translation, go here. My previous posts on the topic can be found here.

Schloen provided the archaeological background. The stele was found in Area 5 at Zincirli, a new area of excavation in the north lower town.  The stele was found in situ in a kitchen converted to a mortuary chamber.  The names on the stele are Luwian but the dialect is West Semitic. Zincirli is an important site for studying the interaction of Indo-European and Semitic cultures in the Iron Age.

Pardee gave the overview of the inscription itself. He expressed their intention to have the inscription published by the end of 2009. It has 13 lines, 202 signs, and 52 word-dividers. One of the most difficult issues for reading the text right now is the absence of criteria for distinguishing dalet and resh. He gave at least a half dozen examples where they can't be differentiated.

The question of the dialect of the inscription turned out to not be as simple as originally expected. It's not clearly Samalian because the plural noun ending is /n/ like Aramaic. But it's clearly closer to Samalian than Old Aramaic; despite the fact that the primary isogloss usually identifying Samalian is absent, there are 3 other features of Samalian present. Other features identifying the dialect as Aramaic are also lacking. The text has no examples of a definite article, for example. Pardee's preliminary conclusion on the dialect is that it falls between Samalian and Old Aramaic. It's an archaic dialect of Aramaic, not as archaic as Samalian but more archaic than Old Aramaic. He suggested the possibility of contemporaneous use of 2 closely related but distinct archaic dialects. One was used as the royal dialect seen in the Panamuwa inscription. The other is this new dialect seen in Kuttamuwa, possibly a linearly developed dialect used by lower strata of society. Later Zincirli inscriptions such as BR RKB show how the dominant Old Aramaic dialect eventually displaced the unique dialects in use at Zincirli.

Pardee also highlighted a few of the grammatical features of the text. He pointed out the relative pronoun zy and the demonstrative pronoun znn (the orthography with 2 nun's is unusual this early). He also drew attention to the verb qn apparently with the meaning "oversaw production, had made." He also drew attention to the uncertain word they are translating "chamber" - bsryr/d followed by 'lmy read together as "chamber of my eternity." He made a few other technical comments on the grammar and word choice in the stele. A number of lexical items are found apparently with meanings only previously attested for these roots in very late texts.

Lines 3-5 describe the offerings to be made to certain deities such as Hadad or Shamash, but there are three unknown deity names in the inscription.

The most striking statement of the stele is found in line 5: lnbšy.zy.bnṣb.zn. "to my soul which is in this stele." Is it evidence of cremation? Of the separation of the soul from the body? He was still living when he had it made according to the first sentence:

"I, Kuttamuwa, servant of Panamuwa, am the one who oversaw the production of this stele for myself while still living." [From University of Chicago's excerpt of the translation published here.]

Based on lines 10-11 (wyhrg.bnbšy "and the slaughter on my soul"), Pardee suggested that the slaughter could have been done on the stele itself as a way of performing the funerary cult proscribed by the stone. The relief on the stele shows Kuttamuwa sitting at a table with food and drink.

That was about all that Pardee had time for. I'm looking forward to the official publication of the stone, hopefully sooner rather than later.

While I was taking these notes on the presentation, Jim Getz was furiously copying down a transcription of the text (since it was on almost every slide).

The picture to the left was found at Archaeology.com.

Rainey's Selective Use of Evidence For Israelite Origins

I've only just had the time to read over Anson Rainey's recent BAR article on Israel's origins. I have to admit I was baffled by his selective use of evidence and his conflation of archaeological, historical, and biblical material unrelated to his primary claim.

He starts off on the wrong foot and continues down the non sequitur path. I'm sure his argument made sense in his own mind, but what he's presented is a jumble of selectively chosen facts, a false dichotomy of competing theories, and a caricature of the evidence and arguments for Israelites as native Canaanites. There are so many issues with his assumptions and use of evidence that I can't imagine taking the time to offer a complete critique.

Fortunately, I don't need to do all the work on this one. Several others have pointed out some of the issues with Rainey's article already.

N.T. Wrong gives a rather detailed critique demonstrating how confusing Rainey's use of evidence is.

"Anson Rainey’s article in the latest BAR (34:06, Nov/Dec 2008) is a confused and misleading piece of popular apologetics. The best to be said for it is that, in trying to prove a Transjordanian origin for ‘Israel’, it has managed to undermine its broader thesis (which argues that the biblical account of Israel’s origins are historically true)."

Jim West commented on it briefly a few days ago:

"Rainey paints the portrait of Israel which differs not at all from the biblical portrayal and in so doing becomes an apologist rather than an historian."

Duane at Abnormal Interests also offered some insightful thoughts on Rainey's conclusions:

"I'm not even sure that Rainey is completely wrong. What I think is that he may be seeing a part, how big a part I do not know, of a far more complex picture. He then reproduces that partial picture as if it were the whole picture."

The first thing that jumped out at me reading Rainey's article was his immediate invocation of the Bible as the starting point in his inquiry.

"The Bible is very clear. They were pastoral nomads who came from east of the Jordan."

Where does the Bible say such things? He gets there after a brief interjection admitting that the real evidence for Israelite settlement in central Canaan comes from the Iron Age.

"In the period archaeologists call Iron Age I, from about 1200 to 1000 B.C.E., approximately 300 new settlements sprang up in the central hill country of Canaan that runs through the land like a spine from north to south. Almost everyone also agrees that these were the early Israelites settling down."

From this brief factual tidbit about Iron I, he makes the jump across time and space through a mythical inter-dimensional portal to the clear progenitor of true Israel . . . Abraham.

"According to the Bible, Abram (later Abraham), the first Hebrew, was born in Ur, a city far east of the Jordan. Then the family “set out ... for the land of Canaan,” though they first sojourned in Haran, a site in the modern “Jezirah” of northeastern Syria
(Genesis 11:27–32)."

Never mind that the Bible is the only evidence for Abraham's historical existence. Never mind that even if he did exist it was likely sometime in Early Bronze IV or Middle Bronze I (ca. 2100-1700 BCE), far too early to offer direct evidence that the Israelites migrated into Canaan from the Transjordan in Iron I. Never mind that he's coming to Canaan from the northeast in Paddan-Aram (or Aram-Naharaim) and likely would not have entered from directly east in Transjordan. Never mind that he's only "the first Hebrew" because the Bible says he's "Abram the Hebrew" (Gen. 14:13). Never mind that the grandson of Abraham and his children . . . ummm . . . left the region.

The main point of departure for Rainey's logic here (you know, the part where it actually walked out on him) is the forced identification of the Israelites with Arameans. In order to prove that the Israelites were not indigenous Canaanites, Rainey must connect them with a group of pastoral nomads - some of whom could have moved in and settled central Canaan during Iron I. The strange thing is that he's trying to connect the biblical story of Abraham with Israelite settlement of Canaan that would have been the result of the Conquest (according to the biblical account). So, he mixes his evidence and oddly barely mentions the Exodus and Conquest narratives. Incidentally, there's little actual evidence of Arameans as a people before the Late Bronze Age. Making it difficult for Abraham to have been one. (To be fair, there's the odd reference here and there to Aram before LB, and there were other similar pastoral tribes around.)

Rainey's forced connection of Israelites and Arameans extends to dialects as well.

"The linguistic affinities between Hebrew and the Transjordanian languages evidence the common heritage of the early Israelites with other pastoral nomadic Transjordanian tribes such as the Ammonites, Moabites and Edomites, and further east, the Arameans. This area is a single isogloss, as linguists call the area of a common dialect of languages. Coastal Phoenician (Canaanite) does not share these features.

...

Another significant link between Hebrew and Moabite is the use of the relative pronoun “that” (asher). It has no relationship to the Phoenician word ’is that performs the same linguistic service."

He gives a few examples of differences between Phoenician and the other Canaanite dialects like Hebrew (Canaanite is not just Coastal Phoenician). An isogloss isn't the area of a common dialect of languages. It's a linguistic feature that separates related languages and dialects. Closely related dialects have fewer distinguishing characteristics.

By sneaking the Arameans into his list of tribes, he ignores a MAJOR isogloss separating the Canaanite dialects from Aramaic - the Canaanite shift of historically long /a/ to long /o/, attested in Hebrew, Phoenician, and Ammonite. Claiming that Hebrew is more related to the Transjordanian dialects Ammonite, Edomite, and Moabite than to Phoenician does not prove that the Israelites came from Transjordan. Throwing in Aramaic to claim that they really were from the East is just a red herring. Very little is attested in those Transjordanian dialects. Yes, Moabite is similar to Hebrew. Yes, they use the same relative pronoun. But, Phoenician 'es has a lot more in common with asher than the Aramaic relative d-. Related dialects share some features and differ in others. If the isoglosses didn't separate them, they'd be the same language. So, pointing out a few differences with Phoenician doesn't make a bit of difference for the argument that the Israelites were a Canaanite people.

Rainey should know all of this assuming that he's read Randall Garr's Dialect Geography of Syria-Palestine, 1000-586 BCE (Univ of Pennsylvania Press, 1985). There he would have learned that the linguistic environment of the area is a dialectal continuum:

"At one linguistic extreme of the dialect chain is standard Phoenician, and at the other end is Old Aramaic. Of the dialects known, Ammonite was most closely related to standard Phoenician. Edomite was related to Phoenician as well as to Hebrew. On this dialectal continuum, Hebrew lies closer to standard Phoenician than it does to Old Aramaic. Moabite was most closely related to Hebrew; it also possessed distincitive Aramaic features. . . . Finally, Old Aramaic lies at the end of the continuum. . . . The position of Hebrew, however, in terms of this continuum, is unclear because it did not exhibit any diagnostic Aramaic traits. Rather, its unique characteristics suggest that Hebrew was a minor linguistic center within the Canaanite domain. While Hebrew participated in those changes which took place in Phoenician, Ammonite, and Edomite, it also displayed a series of independent innovations. Some of these innovations spread to neighboring Moabite and, perhaps, to Edomite."
(emphasis added; Garr 1985, 229-230)

Basically, it's not that simple to say - Look, Hebrew's related to Moabite! The Israelites must have migrated from Transjordan. The linguistic relationship could reflect Hebrew influence on the Transjordanian dialects. Of course, Rainey tries to change the rules to make his case appear stronger.

"All this linguistic material provides a very strong argument for classifying ancient Hebrew and Moabite not as Canaanite dialects, but as Trans-jordanian languages. And this provides a nearly airtight case that the speakers of ancient Hebrew came from the same area as the Moabites, the Ammonites and the Arameans—and not from the Canaanite cities on the coastal plain."

First, the linguistic material he provides does not make a strong enough argument for a major reclassification. He wants Canaanite to only mean Phoenician and wants to separate Canaanite from Israelite. Even in the biblical account, "Canaanite" doesn't just indicate people on the coast. The entire area is populated by Canaanites. They're ALL Canaanites.

Second, as I've already said, the close relationship of the Transjordanian dialects and Hebrew does not provide any evidence for the origins of the Israelites. The case is nowhere near airtight.

Third, he threw in the Arameans again. There's absolutely no justification for grouping Hebrew with Aramaic against Phoenician in a dialectal grouping.

Rainey also spends a great deal of time developing an argument against Gottwald's "peasant revolt" theory of Israelite origins because it was the original theory that claimed the Israelites were indigenous Canaanites. William Dever had claimed that the pottery found in central Canaan reflected coastal Canaanite traditions, so the Israelites were displaced Canaanites. Rainey says Dever was wrong and the same traditions were found in Transjordan, concluding the "new hill-country settlers acquired their pottery traditions from their life on the Transjordanian plateau and the Jordan Valley." Isn't Rainey making the same mistake? If the same pottery traditions are reflected in all three areas, doesn't that make the problem even more complex and not subject to a simple conclusion?

It seems that what Rainey wants to do - though he never spells it out - is show that the biblical accounts of Abraham's settlement in Canaan, the biblical relationship of Israel to Moab and Ammon (cousins), and the entrance of Israel into Canaan across the Jordan are rooted in archaeological and linguistic evidence. The problem is that he has to ignore the evidence of archaeological and linguistic affinity with Phoenician to do it.

A wise man once told me that it was much easier to destroy than to create. That is, it's much easier to see what's wrong with someone else's argument than to produce a coherent one of your own. The evidence for Israelite origins is so complicated - a mixed bag of biblical account, archaeological record, and linguistic evidence - that any explanation committed to a particular version of events is destined to fail. If I come up with my own theory of Israel's origins, I'll be sure to publish it. I'm neither minimalist nor maximalist, so I'm sure I'll come up with something both will hate.

Update: Duane has posted more about Rainey's selective use of linguistic evidence. I wonder if Duane noticed how Rainey tried to change the rules and undermine Garr.

No More Excuses for Not Learning Aramaic

If Anne Bedian can teach herself Aramaic, what's stopping the rest of you?  There's now no excuse for not learning Aramaic.  Anyone can teach it to themselves. 

And you are a follower of Kabbalah. Were you born into this, from a Jewish heritage?

No, absolutely not! Kabbalah predates Judaism. Actually, it predates all religions. Judaism came out of Kabbalah. This is ancient, ancient wisdom. The major works of the Kabbalah are the books of the Zohar, which are over 4,000 years old. It's a commentary on the Old Testament. One of the things I really love about it is, because I'm such a language buff - I already have five languages down - is that Aramaic is one of the languages. It's such a powerful language, it's the language Jesus spoke. So, I taught myself to read Aramaic, so I can read the Zohar out loud.

Her interview also demonstrates how little people really know about their own religion's origins and how there can be a big difference between the historical reality and the traditional story passed on by adherents.  To set the record straight, the Zohar was written in Spain around 1290 CE by Moses de Leon.  It is traditionally attributed to Shimon Bar Yohai, a disciple of Rabbi Akiva in the early second century CE.  So, I'm not sure where the "predating Judaism" and the "4000 years old" stuff and the "predating all religions" is coming from.  The Old Testament itself is probably not 4000 years old.  (It's 2008, add even the earliest dating of Moses of 1446 = 3454 years.) Also, if it predates all religions, how can it be a commentary on the Old Testament?  So, we have a nice incoherent mishmash of comments about Kabbalah, the oldest religion in the world. 

HT: Jim Davila

Zincirli Inscription at SBL Boston

Dennis Pardee's presentation of the new Samalian inscription from Zincirli has been added to the Paleography session at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Boston on November 23rd from 1:00 to 3:30 pm.

The full program of that session is below and can be found here.

I can't believe they're only devoting 20 minutes to it AND they're putting him last. Hmm...to go or not to go. That is the question.

SBL23-84
________________________________
Paleographical Studies in the Ancient Near East
11/23/2008
1:00 PM to 3:30 PM
Room: Meeting Room 304 - CC

Christopher Rollston, Emmanuel School of Religion, Presiding (10 min)

Jason Bembry, Emmanuel School of Religion
Multiple Vocalizations in the Cairo Genizah Fragment TS A 39.3 (20 min)

Kent Clarke, Trinity Western University
The Trinity Western University-Wikene Papyri "Rediscovery" (20 min)

Joe Zias, Science and Archaeology-Jerusalem
Ancient Graffiti within the Alleged Judean (Tzuba) Cave of John the
Baptist: John, or Lazarus, the Crusader Patron Saint of Leprosy? (20
min)

Christopher A. Rollston, Emmanuel School of Religion
Horvat Uza Epigraphs: New Collations of the Entire Corpus (20 min)

Philip C. Schmitz, Eastern Michigan University
Interpreting the "Separate Inscriptions" from Karatepe-Aslantas (20 min)

Robert Deutsch, Tel Aviv University
The Hebrew Fiscal Bullae from the Time of Hezekiah King of Judah (20 min)

Dennis Pardee, University of Chicago and David Schloen, University of Chicago A New Alphabetic Inscription from Zincirli (20 min)

New Discoveries

Wow, you take a day off, two important archaeological discoveries get announced, and there's nothing left for you to say.  I'm speaking, of course, about the news of a new alphabetic inscription discovered at Zincirli and the discovery of a seal bearing the name Gedalyahu ben Pashur (a biblical name from Jer. 38:1, but don't be too hasty on the connection).

Here's a roundup of representative posts I've found today on these two important finds.

Jim Davila at Paleojudaica has excerpts from a Jerusalem Post article about the Gedalyahu seal and presents the Agade announcement about Zincirli. 

Peter Bekins also mentioned the Zincirli find, but more importantly has a very informative summary explaining the relationship of Sam'alian to Aramaic and the Canaanite dialects.  I also found his discussion of Garr's Dialect Geography helpful in this regard.

Jim West has a couple of posts about the Gedalyahu seal.  The first has a picture and links to the Jerusalem Post article, and the other presents the views of UW-Madison alum Lawrence Mykytiuk, an expert on the methods of identifying biblical names in epigraphic finds.

Mykytiuk is understandably cautious in jumping to the conclusion that the name on the seal is definitely the same man mentioned in Jeremiah 38:1.  Charles Halton at Awilum feels the identification is a little more likely than Mykytiuk will allow.

Todd Bolen at the Bible Places Blog also has a good summary of the Gedalyahu find with some additional comments about the Jerusalem Post article and useful links to photos of the seal and the excavation site.

Between all the above sites and the links they contain, there's not much more for me to say except to advise that if you're going to SBL and want to hear Pardee's presentation of the Zincirli inscription, find out what room it's going to be in and camp out there all weekend.  Arriving early on the day of the talk won't be enough.  (I just checked and it's not on the SBL online program book yet).

Echoes of Mark 5 in Acts 9

I was reading Acts 9, the story where Peter raises Dorcas from the dead, and it reminded me of the story where Jesus resurrects Jairus's daughter in Mark 5. I wondered if Luke was intentionally trying to invoke a parallel or if it was coincidental. The circumstances are somewhat similar but what caught my attention was that Mark uses an Aramaic phrase.

Mark 5:41 Taking her by the hand he said to her, "Talitha cumi," which means, "Little girl, I say to you, arise."

The word for "little girl" talitha sounds very close to the Aramaic word for "gazelle" tabitha which was Dorcas's real name (dorcas being a Greek word for a kind of deer).

Acts 9:40 But Peter put them all outside, and knelt down and prayed; and turning to the body he said, "Tabitha, arise." And she opened her eyes, and when she saw Peter she sat up.

Unfortunately, the Greek verb for "arise" in the Acts verse is not the same verb as used at the end of Mark 5:41 when Mark translates the Aramaic phrase. However, I wonder if Luke had used an Aramaic phrase there in Acts 9 if he would have used the same word as in Mark 5. This logically raises another question - would Peter have been speaking to Dorcas in Greek or Aramaic? I think Aramaic is likely and the words were simply rendered into Greek for the report in Luke.

Or the similarity between the two passages might be coincidental. Or Mark may have intentionally used the Aramaic phrase to invoke a parallel with the Acts story. Whichever direction the echo may go, I think it's an interesting connection.