Babylonisch-assyrische Lesestücke, Issues By Riekele Borger. About this book. Terms of Service · Gregorian Biblical BookShop. Pages displayed by. Babylonisch-assyrische Lesestücke. 1. Die Texte in Umschrift, Volume 1. Front Cover. Rykle Borger. Pontificium Inst. Biblicum, – pages. Published: (); Assyrisch-babylonische Zeichenliste / By: Borger, Rykle, Published: Babylonisch-assyrische Lesestücke / [di] Rykle Borger.
|Published (Last):||16 January 2008|
|PDF File Size:||5.88 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||13.73 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Post on Apr 94 views. No part babylonisch-assyrlsche this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or byany means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by means ofany information storage or retrieval system, except as may be expressly permitted by the Copyright Act or in writing from the publisher.
The Orientalizing Revolution – Near Eastern Influence on Greek Culture in the Early Archaic Age
Resources for biblical study ; no. Middle Eastern literatureRelation to the Old Testament 5. Greenspahn, University of DenverEgyptian Levine, New York UniversityHittite Krahmalkov, The University of MichiganUgaritic Day, University of WinnipegPREFACEThe lesesycke behind this book is to provide a general orientation to thelanguages of importance for the study of the Hebrew Bible for readers whohave not had detailed exposure to those languages.
We hope that the bookwill be particularly useful to students who are just beginning their aca-demic careers in the study of the Hebrew Bible. But it should also find anaudience among those who have not had detailed exposure to one ormore of the languages discussed here and who would like to cultivate atleast a rudimentary acquaintance with it or them. The chapters do presup-pose familiarity with biblical Hebrew, although we have included a chapteron biblical and inscriptional Hebrew that situates this material within itsbroader linguistic context.
Indeed, many readers may find it helpful tobegin with this chapter before moving to less-familiar territory. The languages treated here are those that, in our estimation, are themost significant for the study of the Hebrew Bible for purposes of com-parative grammar and lexicography or for comparative history andliterature, or both. Other languages might have been included. We consid-ered including a chapter on Sumerian but ultimately decided that, givenour readership, the linguistic and literary connections with the HebrewBible were not strong enough to warrant a separate chapter.
Greek litera-ture is increasingly cited in recent Hebrew Bible scholarship for itscomparative value. However, we deemed it most appropriate to reserveitalong with other languages that are especially important in textual crit-icism Syriac included for treatment in a potential companion volumedealing with the New Testament.
Failing such a volume, and granted a sec-ond chance or edition of the present work, the addition of Greek andSumerian, and possibly other languages, may be appropriate. As authors for each chapter we sought specialists with proven recordsof publication in the language that is the subject of the chapter. We weremost gratified by the gracious acceptance of those whom we contactedand are deeply grateful for their generosity and excellent work.
In aneffort to provide consistency between chapters, we proposed a three-partformat for authors to follow: It will be immediately evident thatthis format is less suitable for some languages included in this volumethan for others.
Again we are most grateful to the contributors both fortheir adherence to the format where possible and for their creativity inadapting it to the needs of their subject languages. We are particularlydelighted that a simultaneous hardback edition published by Brill willmake this volume easily available to a European readership. Edited by Harry A. Mission de Ras Shamra DBSup Dictionaire de la Bible: ER The Encyclopedia of Religion.
Oxford Uni-versity Press, Translated and edited under the supervision of M. Inventar und Interpretationder Keilschriftzeichen aus den Bogsasky-Texten. ChristelRster and Erich Neu. Studien zu den Bogsasky-Texten 2.
Pontif-ical Biblical Institute, Alreadyin the Middle Ages, Jewish exegetes and grammarians compared obscureHebrew words and roots with similar forms in the Arabic spoken in theirsurroundings and with Aramaic forms with which they were familiar.
Therise of critical biblical scholarship in Europe some two centuries ago coin-cided roughly with the beginnings of comparative and historical linguistics;although the latter was founded on the basis of the Indo-European lan-guages, its methods were pesestcke also applied to the Semitic languages, andcomparative-historical Semitic linguistics has served as one of the principaltools for elucidating the biblical text and its language ever since.
There are two fundamental reasons for the biblical scholar to studyother languages of the Near East in addition to Hebrew.
The more obvi-ous is that such study enables the scholar to read texts produced byancient Israels neighbors in the original tongues. The chapters on theindividual languages that follow survey the major types of texts that formthe basis of our understanding of the history and culture of the biblicalworld.
The relevance of a given language to biblical study naturallydepends on a number of factors, many of them nonlinguistic, but all lan-guages attested in the biblical region and period and in earlier periods are of interest because the texts recorded in them document the biblicalworld; here, among others, we may mention Akkadian and, to a lesserextent, since it is much earlier, SumerianUgaritic, Phoenician, Moabite,Ammonite, Edomite, early and imperial Aramaic, Egyptian, and Hittite.
Texts that document the early history of Judaism and Chrisitianity are pre-served in Hebrew and various forms of Aramaic, Lesestcme, and Latin, butalso in less-commonly studied languages such as Coptic and classicalEthiopic Ge ez. For text-critical work, scholars refer to early versions ofthe biblical text in Greek, Aramaic Targumic babylonisch-assyriscye SyriacLatin, Coptic,Ethiopic, and other languages. Althoughclassical Hebrew has never babylonisch-aesyrische to be an object of study, the factremains that it has long been a dead language i.
In this, biblical Hebrew is similar to Latin, classical Greek, andclassical forms of Aramaic and Ethiopic, all of which have been the sub-ject of a continuous babylonisc-hassyrische of study, and unlike, say, Akkadian,Egyptian, and Ugaritic, languages that had been completely forgotten andthat had to be recovered or reconstructed in toto when they were redis-covered. There are other, related difficulties in the study of biblicalHebrew, including 1 the relatively small size of the corpus of biblicalHebrew so that many words that may have been quite common in thespoken language appear only sporadically and are consequently difficultto interpret with confidence ;1 2 the presence in the corpus of diversegenres, including poetry, narrative prose, aphorisms, and the like; 3 thelong chronological span covered by the corpus, nearly a millennium, dur-ing which time the spoken language undoubtedly underwent at leastsome change; 4 the likely existence in the corpus of diverse dialects inaddition to the standard Jerusalem literary dialect in which most of thetext was written.
The study of other languages and of other forms ofHebrew especially Mishnaic, for which see the chapter on postbiblicalHebrew provides an awareness of these problems and, sometimes, solu-tions, as is also abundantly illustrated in each of the subsequent chaptersof this book. Other members ofthe family that are described in detail in the present volume are Akkadian,Ugaritic, Phoenician, Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Aramaic, and Arabic. Still other Semitic languages are Eblaite, a cuneiform language, closelyrelated to Akkadian, attested in third-millennium texts from the city of Ebla in present-day Syria ; the various Old or Epigraphic South Arabian lan-guages, which lesesycke attested from the eighth century B.
Hadramiticare sometimes referred to collectively as S ayhadic ; theEthiopian Semitic languages, including classical Ethiopic or Ge ez from thefourth century C. The Semitic family itself is part of a still larger linguistic group,called Afro-Asiatic formerly called Hamito-Semitic. Other members ofthe Afro-Asiatic phylum are ancient Egyptian; the Berber languages ofNorth Africa; the Cushitic and Omotic languages of Ethiopia, Somalia,and neighboring countries; and the vast family of Chadic languages incentral and western sub-Saharan Africa.
The fact that most of thesebranches, with the notable exception of Egyptian, are not attested beforethe modern period makes comparison with the Semitic branch difficult,and comparative linguistic work on Afro-Asiatic as a whole is still in itsearly stages. Which of the Semitic languages are more closely related to oneanotherthat is, the internal classification or subgrouping of the familyis a much-debated topic.
It is an important issue, however, because greatercloseness implies a more recently shared common ancestor. What followsis a summary of one plausible subgrouping of the Semitic language fam-ily. Most scholars are agreed on a primary division, based on the form ofthe perfective verb, into East Semitic, which comprises only Akkadian andEblaite, and West Semitic, which includes the rest of the languages. WestSemitic in turn is further subdivided into the Modern South Arabian branch,the Ethiopian branch, and a third branch called Central Semitic.
According to this clas-sification, therefore, Hebrews closest relatives, the languages with whichit most recently shared a common ancestor, are, first, the other Canaanitelanguages note that in Isa Schoeler; Beirut and Stuttgart: In addition to factors of genetic proximity, account must also be takenof cultural and historical considerations.
For example, for much of the second millennium B. In particular it should be noted that a given scriptmay be used for the writing of a number of languages, which need not berelated. Similarly, the Arabic script is also used to write modernPersian, an Indo-European language. Less commonly, a single language, orvariant dialects of a single language, may be written in more than onescript.
The Anatolian language called Luwian, for example, is attested bothin Mesopotamian cuneiform and in an indigenous hieroglyphic script. Mal-tese, a form of Arabic, is written in the Latin alphabet, like English. No writing system records every significant feature of a language. Dif-ferent systems are more successful in noting some features, less successfulin others.
The early Phoenician alphabet, for example, presumablyrecorded each of the consonants of the language discretely but gave noindication of the vowels. Phoenician had fewer consonants than ancientHebrew, and when speakers of Hebrew borrowed the Phoenician alpha-bet they had to press at least one symbol into service to represent morethan one sound, namely, for what the Masoretes later differentiated as cs and v s there were probably a few other such double-duty letters inearly Hebrew; see below and the article in this volume on biblicalHebrew.
In Mesopotamian cuneiform, on the other hand, vowel quality and sometimes, but not regularly, vowel quantity was indicated, but thesystem was not well adapted for the clear differentiation of series ofhomorganic consonants i.
Catalog Record: Babylonisch-assyrische Lesestücke | Hathi Trust Digital Library
Both because of the inadequacies of native writing systems andbecause of their diversity, scholars find it useful to transliterate the vari-ous languages into a common system. This allows the details of thephonology and grammar of individual forms to be represented clearly,and it also greatly facilitates the comparison of forms across languages.
The linguistic similarity of Hebrew [m’ v;Syriac: Western scholars specializing in the study of theSemitic languages have long used a relatively uniform system for translit-erating the sounds into the Latin alphabet, using special diacritics forsounds that are not represented by Latin letters.
Diacritics are marksadded to a letter to denote a special phonetic value, like the in Span-ish for [ny]. Some of the diacritics have different values in otherphilological traditions, however such as Slavic philology, Sanskrit philol-ogy.
The main fea-tures of the traditional Semitistic system are as follows; the correspondingIPA symbols are also noted, in square brackets: Hebrew [ reflects the merger oftwo distinct Semitic consonants which remain distinct, for example, inUgaritic and Arabic; see below, section 5the voiced pharyngeal fricative and a voiced velar fricative, which is transliterated by Semitists as gor g in IPA, this is [F]. The IPA representation of these consonants depends on their actual pro-nunciation in the various Semitic languages.
In the modern EthiopianSemitic languages, they are glottalic, thus IPA [t] for the consonant that cor-responds to Hebrew f; in Arabic, they are pharyngealized, e. As we will see below sec-tion 4, endHebrew j, like [, reflects the merger of two originallydistinct Semitic consonants which also remain distinct in Ugaritic andArabicthe voiceless pharyngeal fricative h IPA  and a voiceless velarfricative, which is transliterated by Semitists as h i.
Babylonisch-assyrische Lesestücke, Volume 1
The Semitistic transliteration of Hebrew c is s i. Traditionally, c is pronounced the same as s, IPA [s]; theprobable ancient pronunciation of c is a voiceless lateral fricative, IPA [l]. Babyylonisch-assyrische University Press, In the IPA system, lengthis generally indicated by the symbol  or by a colon, [: The length symbol is also usedfor long or geminated [doubled] consonants, thus lD” GItraditionally gid-dal, IPA [gidal]. For the transliteration of the Hebrew vowels, see thechapter, Hebrew Biblical and Epigraphic.
That all languages do change over time is well known; we have only tolook at a page of Shakespeare, Chaucer, or Beowulf to see that English hasundergone considerable change in just a few centuries. Biblical Hebrewwas written over a period of nearly a millennium, and the Masoretic systemof vowels and accents was added nearly a millennium later still; in all ofthis time it is babyloonisch-assyrische that Hebrew, which was not immune from normallinguistic processes, would not have undergone some development.
Seethe chapter on biblical Hebrew for more discussion leseetcke this topic. Whenspeakers of a language become separated into two or more groups, for rea-sons of politics, geography, or climate change, the speech patterns of theseparate groups will change in different ways; eventually, if contactbetween the groups is sufficiently weak, the variant speech patterns, whichwe call dialects at first, will eventually become unintelligible from onegroup to the other, and distinct languages will have emerged.
These lan-guages are said to be genetically related to one another because they sharea common ancestor. Comparative linguistics is the study of the relationshipsamong related languages and between such languages and their commonancestor.
Frequently, especially in the case of babylonisch-assyrischhe attested lan-guages, the study of languages in the same family will clarify aspects of thegrammar and vocabulary that would otherwise remain obscure. One of the main engines driving language change is sound change. For a variety of reasons, speakers do not pronounce their language inexactly the same way as those from whom they learned it.
One of the mostimportantand surprisingaspects of sound change is that it is regularand can be described by rules. The Hebrew segholate forms kesep andebed show two babylonisch-awsyrische developments: