Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
1093/jss/fgi081
THE NERAB
© The author. Published by Oxford INSCRIPTIONS
University Press on behalf of the University of Manchester.
All rights reserved.
1
This paper grew out of my study of Old Aramaic with Professor Paul-Eugène
Dion to whom I am deeply grateful for warm memories of him as an exemplary
scholar and benevolent teacher.
List of abbreviations: Fek (Fekherye), Zk (Zakkur), Sf (Sefire), H (Hadad),
P (Panammu), Barr (Barrakkib), Nrb (Nerab), Herm (Hermopolis papyri), OA (Old
Aramaic), OfA (Official Aramaic), EA (Elephantine Aramaic), BH (Biblical Hebrew),
BA (Biblical Aramaic), OSA (Old South Arabian).
19
THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS
2
When Fitzmyer devised the fivefold division of the Aramaic language, i.e. OA
(925–700 BCE), OfA (700–200 BCE), Middle Aramaic (200 BCE–200 CE), Late Ara-
maic (200–700 CE), Modern Aramaic (700 CE – ) (1979: 57–84), he sought primarily
‘a purely chronological division’ (Italics his), within which one could make further
‘local or geographical subdivisions’ accounting for dialectal differences (1979: 60).
Thus, the primarily chronological division is supplemented with dialectal linguistic
features. The following are the linguistic characteristics of the OA phase, as presented
by Fitzmyer: ‘the widespread preservation of the Proto-Semitic phonemes’, ‘the devel-
opment of orthographic habits from the initial Phoenician starting-point’, the use of
’nh, the Peal infinitive without preformative m-, the Peal passive forms in yuqtal, the
prefixed negative la-; the 3rd sg. masc. suffix on plural nouns in –wh, the use of the
intensifying infinitive, the use of the waw-consecutive, the post-positive article (1979:
65–6).
20
THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS
Though the list could be much longer, enough has been said to
illustrate the diversity of scholarly opinions concerning the term-
inologies and the classification of epigraphic materials with regard to
the historical-linguistic phases of the Aramaic language of the first
millennium BCE.
One point of contention among scholars is the issue of the classifi-
cation of the language of the Nerab inscriptions. Even after Fitzmyer
rightly deplored Degen’s exclusion of the Nerab inscriptions from
OA on the basis of certain forms in them, i.e. nÒr (I:12–13), qdmwh
(II:2), the prefixed negative l- (II:4, 6, 8), the intensifying infinitive
Translation
1. Sinzeribni, priest
2. of Sahr at Nerab, died.
3. And this is his image
4. and his remains.
5. Whoever you are,
6. who remove this image
7. and these (lit. this) remains
8. from their (lit. its) place,
9. may Sahr and Shamash and Nikkal and Nusk tear away
10. your name and your vestige from the living, and with evil death
Translation
1. Si’gabbar (is) a priest of Sahr at Nerab,
2. This is his image. Because of my righteousness before him,
3. he established a good name for me and prolonged my days.
4. On the day I died, my mouth was not closed from (speaking) words,
5. and with my eyes I was looking at children of the fourth generation. They
wept for
6. me and were greatly disturbed. And they did not place with me any vessel
7. of silver or bronze. With my garment they placed me, so that
8. in the future my remains would not be taken away. Whoever you are who
do wrong
9. and take me away, may Sahr and Nikkal and Nusk make his death odious,
10. and may his posterity perish.
First, I will briefly discuss a few perennial cruxes of the texts that still
remain without any satisfactory solutions.
22
THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS
’rÒth (I:4): the most common translation for this word is ‘sar-
cophagus’ in connection with BH ¨eres, Ugaritic ¨rs, Akkadian ersu
(NSI: 187–8; Torrey 1912: 90; Gevirtz 1961: 184; Koopmans
1962: 92; KAI 2: 275; Segert 1975: 527; DNWSI: 113; Gropp
1997: 128; etc.). It fits well both in the textual and archaeological
contexts.3 The obvious problem with this interpretation is the insur-
mountable phonological difficulty in deriving the Aramaic ’rÒt from
the proto-Semitic form *¨rs. As for the phonetic change /¨/ > /’/, OA
and by and large OfA retained the independent articulation of the
pharyngeals (/¨/ and /Ì/) and glottals (/’/ and /h/), and only by the
3
The image of the priest incised on the stele must be referred to by the Òlmh of the
inscription. Thus, it is tempting to identify ’rÒth (I:4) and ’rÒty (II:8) with the sar-
cophagus containing two skeletons found at the same location. Besides the sarcopha-
gus, a golden cylinder, a bronze figurine of a male deity and a female deity, etc. were
also found. For the circumstantial account of their findings, see Clermont-Ganneau
1897: 183–7. The systematic excavation of the site was carried out by a French team
in 1926 and 1927, and produced 27 neo-Babylonian tablets inter alia. For the ar-
chaeological report of these excavations, see Barrois and Carrière 1926; Barrois and
Abel 1928.
23
THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS
24
THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS
guages and extreme rarity in Aramaic of such a root makes this op-
tion less attractive.7 The third and best option, a C-stem imperfect of
nws (Degen 1969: 76; KAI 2: 275; Hug 1993: 85; etc.), causes no
serious linguistic problem. Some reluctance to accept nws as the root
behind thns comes from the fact that the basic meaning of nws is
intransitive ‘to flee, to escape’, while thns of the Nerab inscriptions
is contextually transitive ‘to remove (something)’. But BH has the
G-stem of nws used figuratively in the sense of ‘to be gone, to disap-
pear’,8 and in the C-stem it is used for a concrete object with the
sense of ‘to cause to disappear, to hide’, i.e. l¢hanîs in Judg. 6:10 ‘to
25
THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS
9
Fitzmyer’s reading lmslÌ in Sf I B:34, which is interpreted as a G-stem infinitive
(1995: 112), has been corrected to lyslÌ (Degen 1969: 15; Kaufman 1982: 151).
26
THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS
27
THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS
4. mwt (I:10), ywmy (II:3), bywm (II:4), b¨yny (II:5): the diph-
thongs in qatl type nouns with the second weak radical w/y did not
contract in the Nerab inscriptions, with one possible, though uncer-
tain, exception mmtth (II:10). Since both in OA and OfA, the situa-
tion involving the diphthongs is similar, they have no merit for
comparative purposes. That is, the diphthongs in general did not
contract, though the supposedly exceptional examples of mono-
thongization have been increasing both in OA and OfA (cf. Folmer
1995: 173–83; Muraoka and Porten 1998: 36–8). So far, in OA, at
least, three words with contracted diphthongs, often alongside
uncontracted ones, have been found — i.e. bt (Fek 17) and bty (Zk
B:9) vs. byth (Fek 8) and byt (Zk B:12), ¨lh ‘to it’ (Sf I A:32) vs.¨lyh
(Sf III:9), and bnyhm ‘among them’ (Sf III:18 bis, 19).12 In
12
The editors of the editio princeps of the Fekherye inscription note diphthongs,
ay in lÌyy (7), lhwy (12), Ìywh (14), ty†tb (15), m’ny’ (16), yrwy (21bis), and aw in
dmwt’ (1, 15), ’Ìwh (4), tÒlwth (5, 9), the second w of ywmwh (7), snwh (8), ’nswh (9,
14), Ìywh (14), mwh (17, 18) (1982: 40–1). However, further delineation seems
necessary. First, lÌyy (7) is a D-stem infinitive construct of the root Ìyy, pronounced
either laÌayyay or laÌayyî which is not subject to the diphthongal reduction. Sec-
ond, y in lhwy (12) and yrwy (21 bis) is morphographemic for the so-called
‘Kurzimperfekt’ in contrast to ‘Langimperfekt’, and its phonetic value is uncertain.
While Degen makes an assertion that -y of the ‘Kurzimperfekt’ indicates /ay/ in con-
trast to /ê/ for -h of the ‘Langimperfekt’ (1969: 28–9, 38), Dion argues that the final
-y of ybny, a ‘Kurzimperfekt’ in Sam’alian represents /i/ (1974: 187–8, 220), and
Muraoka, while he rightly points out that ¨/i/ is only one of the possible values that
one can assign to the final y’, maintains, on the basis of another ‘Kurzimperfekt’ wy¨nny
(Zk A:11), that ‘the y in question in OA does not indicate the diphthong’ (1983–4:
85). Third, y in ty†b (15), a D-stem prefixed conjugation, is part of a trithong and is
not supposed to contract. Fourth, in the case of m’ny’ (16), vocalized ma’nayya’, y
28
THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS
which is the ending of the masculine plural noun in the emphatic state, is not a kind
of diphthong that should contract. Fifth, w in dmwt’ (1, 15) and tÒlwth (5, 9) is more
likely an internal mater lectionis for damûta and taÒlûteh. Sixth, w in ’Ìwh (4)ywmwh
(7) snwh (8) ’nswh (9, 14), Ìywh (14), mwh (17, 18), is part of the third masculine
singular pronominal suffix on plural nouns -wy, and therefore is not supposed to
contract.
13
Similarly, Degen does not offer any example of the contraction of aw and ay,
except ay > /ê/, which is indicated by the vowel letter h, in the long imperfect of the
III-y verbs (1969: 39). Also about the preposition in bnyhm (Sf. III:18 bis, 19), he
states, ‘Vielleicht liegt im Aa. eine andere Nominalform vor’ (1969: 62, no. 39a).
29
THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS
often, though ywm is still more frequent than ym (e.g. kymn in Ashur
Ostracon 16 vs. kywmy Adon Papyrus 3).
5. hwm (II:6), cf. yk†lwk (I:11), bkwny (II:5–6), smwny (II:7):14
the strictly consonantal Phoenician orthography underwent a major
modification, i.e. the orthographic representation of the final long
vowels, when the Phoenician alphabet was adopted by the
Aramaeans. This principle of the consistent representation of the fi-
nal long vowels in OA was in time extended to the sporadic use of
internal vowel letters for medial long vowels in OA, though the me-
dial /a/ was never indicated by vowel letters. In the past, the apparent
14
yk†lwk (I:11), bkwny (II:5–6), and smwny (II:7) have internal vowel letters that
are in actuality final vowels, with the pronominal suffixes attached to them.
15
The precise quality of this medial vowel letter w is uncertain sometimes. Andersen
and Freedman’s assumption that the medial mater lectionis w always represents /û/
seems to be precarious (1992: 166–7). According to Muraoka, /u/, /u/ or /o/ is repre-
sented by the medial w — for example, probably ’adaqur, gugal, sasnurî and certainly
gozan, Ìabor (1983–4: 85–6).
16
This orthographic difference of Gozan Aramaic should be attributed to the
Akkadian-Aramaic bilingual environment of the region. The plethora of Akkadian
personal names and Akkadian loan words among these early examples of the internal
vowel letters provides compelling evidence for Muraoka’s contention that ‘foreign
words and names may have served as a major catalyst for the development of matres
lectionis, whether medial or final’ (1983–4: 86).
30
THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS
letters (Fitzmyer 1979: 80, no. 50). However, Muraoka’s thesis that
‘in our inscription the use of word-medial matres lectionis is the norm
rather than the exception’ seems a bit overstated (1983–4: 87). The
absence of the expected internal vowel letters, i.e. w, in yld ‘he re-
moves’ (11) (cf. ysym ‘he puts’ in line 12) and y in plural forms such
as ’lhn ‘gods’ (14), ’nsn ‘men’ (14), s¨rn ‘barley’ (22) (cf. ’lhyn in line
4, s¨ryn in line 19), shows the inconsistent use of the internal vowel
letters even in the Fekherye inscription. That is, even in the Gozan
dialect of OA, the internal vowel letters, at least y, are only optional.
The use of internal vowel letters in the Nerab inscriptions still
31
THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS
18
For the problem of the inconsistent dissimilation of q > k in OA, Garr proposes
a solution that dissimilation was restricted only to word-initial q (1985: 45). Though
it is true that Garr’s theory is supported by the examples in the corpus of his study,
specimens investigated seem to be too few for such a generalization. Furthermore, it is
hard to find any reason for such a phonological difference between word-initial q
followed by † and non-word-initial q followed by †. It also needs to be noted that from
OfA on, even word-initial q is not always dissimilated.
32
THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS
OfA), qÒth ‘its part’ (TAD A 2.2:7) (cf. Folmer 1995: 94–6, Muraoka
and Porten 1998: 18).
The spelling k†l in Nerab is preceded by OA qtl — e.g. ’qtl (Tell
Dan 6), yqtlnh (Sf I B:27), yqtl (Sf II B:8), qtlw (Sf III:21), qtylt
(P 8) — and followed by OfA q†l. The same variety is also attested in
the other Semitic languages, i.e. qtl in OA, Akkadian, Arabic, and
Ethiophic; k†l in Nerab; q†l in OfA and Hebrew.19 Among the three
proposed proto-Semitic forms, *qtl, *k†l and *q†l (cf. Dion 1974:
111–14), *qtl is accepted by most scholars (Brockelmann 1983:
§54h; Bauer and Leander 1927: 33; Moscati 1969: §9.3; Degen
33
THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS
34
THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS
23
But the sounds represented by them might be different, i.e. the diphthongal
sound /-ay/ in lbny is contracted to /-ê/ which is represented by aleph in lbn’.
35
THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS
24
For the examples of the elision of aleph in Elephantine Aramaic, refer to Folmer
1995: 106–9; Muraoka and Porten 1998: 22.
36
THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS
yskÌ (ii:15), tsqÌ (iii:10), ’skÌ (ii:12), mns (ii:3), mlbs (iv:6), mpqn
(v:3), lmÌth (v:6).
At this point, it seems worthwhile to discuss briefly the history of
the transition of Haphel to Aphel. The idea that Haphel and Aphel
are two historically distinct verbal stems (Bauer and Leander 1927:
62) should be rejected. The so-called Aphel form, i.e. the suffixed
conjugation of the C-stem with the prosthetic aleph, developed by
analogy with the prefixed conjugation of the same stem without h af-
ter the syncope of the intervocalic h. That is, the paradigmatic pres-
sure for pattern levelling in accordance with the h-syncopated forms
37
THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS
Morphology
10. qdmwh (II:2): the third masculine singular pronominal suffix
on plural nouns and ‘plural’ prepositions is always -wh in OA and -
yh/-wh in Sam’alian, in contrast to the usual OfA form -why, e.g.
qdmwhy ‘before him’ (TAD A 6.3:6).27
11. ynÒr (I:13): the so-called internal passive conjugation (i.e. the
verbal forms with the apophonic passive marker) of the G-stem pre-
fixed conjugation yuqtal is found only in OA of all the phases of the
Aramaic language — y¨r ‘will be blinded’ (Sf I A:39 bis), ygzr ‘(this
calf ) will be cut off ’ and ‘(Mati¨el) will be cut off ’ (Sf I A:40 bis),
38
THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS
w verbs, hlk and lqÌ of the Canaanite languages consistently has the
-t ending.28 This morphological variation makes a direct borrowing
from the Canaanite languages less likely. Though coming from the
common West Semitic stock, the OA qtl infinitive underwent its
own independent development, eventually superseded by the Gozan
Aramaic innovation, the mqtl infinitive.
13. l- (II:4, 8): in OA, the negative particle of indicative verbs is
prefixed to the following verbs, while the OfA form, l’ as a separate
word, appears as early as in the Caquot inscription (c. 600 BCE).
28
Phoenician ld¨t (Ahirom Graf 1), lsbtnm (Karatepe A i:17), ltty ‘by his giving’
(Karatepe A iii:4), lbnt (Karatepe A ii:11), lqÒtnm Eshmunazar 9/10), llkt (Karatepe A
ii:4), lqÌt (Punic inscription from Carthage, KAI 76 B:5); Hebrew kÒ’ty (Arad xvi:3),
lqrt (Siloam 4), l¨st (Arad i:8), lsnth (Horvat ¨Uza iii:23,3), lqÌt (Lachish iii:18), BH
lkt (rarely hlk e.g. in Exod. 3:19; Eccl. 6:9), BH qÌt, lrpt (Lach vi:6); Ammonite: lsbt
(El Mazar Ostracon iii:3); Moabite: lspt (Mesha 21). Also note that ld¨t ‘to know’ in
Deir ¨Alla II:17 is a Canaanite form, which has been neglected in the discussion of the
classification of the language of the Deir ¨Alla texts.
29
Clermont-Ganneau’s original reading bkw ywhw m’t hmw and the problematic
translation ‘de telle sorte qu’ils atteignaient la centaine’ (1897: 193–4) were corrected
by Lidzbarski who reads hwm ’thmw and takes hwm as an abstract noun used as an
infinitive absolute of hwm, literally ‘to murmur, discomfit’ figuratively ‘to be dis-
tracted’, followed by the Ethpael third plural perfect of the same root (1900–2: 193).
This explanation has been followed by some scholars (NSI: 191; Gibson 1975: 96;
etc.), while others read hwm as the Qal infinitive absolute (KAI 2: 276; Hug 1993:
77; etc). The latter interpretation can be supported by the observation that in BH, as
a rule, the Qal infinitive absolute as the simplest and most general representative of
the verbal idea may come before a finite verb of other derived conjugations in the so-
called emphatic infinitive absolute construction (cf. GK §113w; Joüon and Muraoka
1996: §123p). Considering the fact that ‘the infinitive absolute may equally well be
represented by a substantive of kindred stem’ (GK §113w), we can safely conclude
that hwm ’thmw is the intensifying infinitive construction, whether hwm is a Qal
infinitive absolute or just an abstract noun.
39
THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS
Conclusions
40
THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS
REFERENCES
41
THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS
Folmer, M.L. 1995. The Aramaic Language in the Achaemenid Period: A Study in
Linguistic Variation. (Leuven)
Garr, W.R. 1985. Dialect Geography of Syria-Palestine: 1000-568 BCE. (Philadel-
phia)
Gervitz, S. 1961. ‘West-Semitic Curses and the Problem of the Origins of Hebrew
Law’, VT 11, 137–58
Gibson, J.C.L. 1975. Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions: Volume II, Aramaic
Inscriptions Including Inscriptions in the Dialect of Zenjirli. (Oxford)
GK = Gesenius, W., et al. 1910. Gesenius= Hebrew Grammar. 2nd edn (Oxford)
Greenfield, J.C. 1965. ‘Studies in West Semitic Inscriptions, I: Stylistic Aspects of
the Sefire Treaty Inscriptions’, Acta Orientalia 29, 1–18
—— 1976. ‘Aramaic’, in G.A. Buttrick (ed.), The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the
42
THE NERAB INSCRIPTIONS
43