Desempeño y Metas de los Programas de Vivienda Federales en Durango

Jakob Hausheer (1865-1943) and

Hermann Gunkel (1862-1932)

This third edition of our Lexicon is a revision of the one first published in 1953. The text has been thoroughly reworked to incorporate the appendices and errata from the Supplement (1958) to the Second Edition. Even though it was possible to preserve the content and the wording of the first edition, a few alterations were necessary and everything had to be updated. As a result the entire text has had to be rewritten and reset.

1. While the essential format of the original has been preserved some changes in style have been introduced. The only foreign type-faces now to be used are Greek and Hebrew; Arabic, Syriac, Ethiopic and Coptic appear in transcription, as does Mandaic, wherever suitable Hebrew letters (as in Lidzbarski) cannot be used. With the English translations omitted and more efficient use of type-faces, this new edition is able to offer much more information within the same

compass. The use of bold type for verbal stems and the restructuring of some entries with more frequent subdivisions make it clearer and more readable. There has been an increase in the number of cross-references to grammatical sources. A “root” is specified when a corresponding Semitic verb (whether primary or denominative) can be identified and it is indicated separately so as to clear the headword entry. Concerning Hebrew orthography, the Codex Leningradensis (→ Würthwein 31f) is taken as the standard, including the use of the _{ḥolem point when it} coincides with the diacritic point of in words like

ש

ה ֶשֹׁמ

,

א ֵּנֹׁש

.

2. The main aim has been to maintain the high philological and exegetical standard of the Lexicon. Older material has been supplemented especially to take into account newer material which has appeared over the years. The textual base for OT vocabulary has been extended by including variant readings from the Oriental and Samaritan textual traditions as well as the Sirach fragments and the Biblical texts from Qumran. It has sometimes been clarified by reference to the vocabulary and word-usage of later sources: Sirach, the extra-Biblical Qumran texts, and the Middle Hebrew-Judaeo-Aramaic literature. By increasing the comparative material from other Semitic languages like Middle Hebrew, Judaeo-Aramaic and Samaritan, as well as

South Arabian and Ethiopic, we gain a greater understanding of the etymologies and of the semantic fields of Hebrew words.

a. “Oriental” or “Babylonian” textual variants have had to be added and are indicated by the siglum Or., as

ש ֶמֹׁא

for

ש ֶמ ֶא

, → Kahle, Der masoretischer Text des AT nach der

Überlieferung der babylonischen Juden (1902) and also the manuscripts collected under the siglum E in Biblia Hebraica3-7.

b. Wider reference has been made to the Hebrew text of Sirach, a linguistic bridge between the Hebrew of the OT and Middle Hebrew. To the collection of texts already known there has been added one from Massada (→ Sir.) which has as terminus ad quem the year 73 and can claim to be the oldest text in existence. It confirms the Hebrew version as original, corroborates most of the controversial variants of the Genizah B manuscript, but incidentally produces an interesting variant like

ךרד

Sir 423 for *

ַח ֵּרֹׁא

(→

חרא

qal.).

c. There is now extensive and still increasing material from Qumran and the various sites in the Judaean desert. As well as the finds from Cave I and K.G. Kuhn’s Concordance (1960), see Discoveries in the Judaean Desert (= DJD) I-IV and the various pieces published from Caves IV and XI (cf. C. Burchard, Bibliographie zu den Handschriften vom Toten Meer II (1965) 313ff), there are the recent discoveries from sites in Israeli territory (cf. for the moment Judean Desert Caves I, II (Jerusalem, 1960, 1961) and Kutscher on the texts from the Wadi Kheber (Lesh. 26 (1962) 117ff).

Further consideration has had to be given to the Greek and Latin transcriptions in the

Septuagint, in the Secunda (→ Sec.) and Jerome (see Siegfried ZAW 4 (1884) 34ff; Barr JSS 12 (1967) 1ff; in general → Sperber). There are also some more recent inscriptions which were not available to DISO and KAI and which must be mentioned: for Ramat Rachel see Aharoni, BA 24 (1961) 98ff; for Khirbet el-Lei IEJ 13 (1963) 74ff and ZAW 70:210; for Tell ʿArad Phoenix 12 (1966) 367ff; for Qasileh → Qas.

d. Given the unsatisfactory standard of existing dictionaries when dealing with Middle Hebrew and Judaeo-Aramaic material, which is widely attested in Jewish literature but is not used nearly to the same extent, it was absolutely necessary to involve an authoritative specialist in the field; E.Y. Kutscher, Professor of Hebrew and Aramaic at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, filled this role. In Middle Hebrew he distinguished between MHb.1 (otherwise just MHb.) and MHb.2. The former comprises the Hebrew of the Mishna (see his paper on

Mischnisches Hebräisch (→ Kutscher) as well as of the Tosefta and Halakhic Midrashim; MHe.2

is that of both Talmuds and the Haggadic Midrashim. For Judaeo-Aramaic there are three formally and semantically distinct regional dialects: Targumic Aramaic (JArm.t); Galilean Aramaic (JArm.g_{); Babylonian Aramaic (JArm.}b_{), which belongs to the same Eastern Aramaic}

branch as Syriac and Mandaic. He was, in most places, able to specify whether a word was vocalized or not in the manuscripts and could make the meaning of words more precise. All this important material is reliably recorded in the OT Lexicon for the first time.

e. The special Pentateuchal tradition of the Samaritans was of little significance while A. von Gall’s Ausgabe der unpunktierten Handschriften (1914/18) was the normal available source. But the situation has changed since scholars today have recorded the ceremonial recitation of texts, commonly practised still today among the Samaritan community of Nablus.

The historical-philological importance of the texts which H. Ritter and A. Schaade had dictated to them there by a priest in 1917 was recognized by P. Kahle at the time (see his Cairo

Geniza (second ed. 1959) 153ff). They have been transcribed by A. Murtonen in the appendix to his book (pp. 318-335) and explained grammatically. Murtonen himself made his own recordings there in 1955/6 and published a Samaritan glossary in 1960 as the second volume for his

Materials for a Non-Masoretic Hebrew Grammar. On the other hand Ben-Hayyim (of the Hebrew University, in the third volume of his book, The Literary and Oral Tradition of Hebrew and Aramaic among the Samaritans (1961), in Hebrew but with a four page English preface, → Ben Hayyim, where studies in English and French are mentioned) has, on the basis of his many years of research, given us selected extracts from Genesis to Numbers, and the whole of

Deuteronomy in transcription and with explanations; on pp. 167-182 he has catalogued all the proper names found in the Pentateuch (cf. J.C. Greenfield, JBL 83 (1964) 261ff; M. Baillet, RB 67 (1960) 103ff and RB 69 (1962) 570ff. From the varied types of recitation, which differed in timing and melody and, therefore, also in vocalization, in the different religious services, he chose to base his work on the one that seemed to him to serve his purpose best.

Despite some differences in transcription between Murtonen and Ben Hayyim (as with

ם ָש ֻח

) a clear picture of the language can be drawn and its affinity with that of the Qumran texts seen. However, its relationship to the Tiberian tradition found in the Massoretic text is assessed in a variety of ways. According to Kahle (Festschr. A. Bertholet (1950) 281ff = Opera Minora II, 180ff) it mainly agrees with the pronunciation of the Jews in the early Middle Ages and

represents a pronunciation which continues directly from that of the Jews of the pre-Masoretic period (which is also evident in 1QIs.a_{). According to Ben Hayyim 3S VII it represents a later}

speech period, and according to Kutscher (Lang. Is. 126ff) it may even be regarded in some ways as an artificial construction, since it has not excluded older formations within it.

Questions arise about how far special Samaritan forms presuppose their own and possibly older basic forms. Apart from all the standard peculiarities of Samaritan (the weakening of the glottal stops, penultimate accentuation with its consequences, and vowel displacement) there still remain some cases where that seems possible (→

ה ָד ֵּב ֲא

,

ה ָד ֻפ ֲא

,

ןוֹנ ְר ַא

,

ה ָדֹׁג ְד ֻג

), especially in the case of the occasional corrrespondences with the relevant forms of Oriental tradition (→

ר ָב ְד ִמ

, Kahle Text 69f) or the Septuagint (→

ד ָע ְל ְג

). Here research is still in full swing, and as such must be brought into consideration.

Because Murtonen’s Glossary is more readily available it is the one that is usually cited here, but because of certain idiosyncrasies in lay-out and terminology it is not always easy to use. Forms that are different in Ben Hayyim’s work are indicated where necessary. Both transcription systems have had to be greatly simplified and adapted to the one used in this Lexicon.

f. For the Aramaic dialect spoken by Samaritans (→ Sam. and Rosenthal Arm. Forsch. 133ff) there was available not only Petermann but also A. Cowley, Sam. Liturgy II, li-lxxii and Ben Hayyim’s Hebrew-Arabic-Aramaic glossary

ץילמה

, II, 433-616.

g. Among the excellent resources that can now be added to the constantly increasing corpus of material in the field of Ugaritic are G.R. Driver’s Canaanite Myths and Legends (1956), Aistleitner’s Dictionary (1963, third ed. 1967) and especially the greatly expanded new edition of Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook (1965 → UT), which provides not only all the texts in

transliteration and a grammar, but also the entire Ugaritic vocabulary on over 150 pages under 2762 head-words. A good third of it appears in the OT, which throws light on the

ןענכ תפש

(Is

1918) and is sufficient reason to give this material serious attention. Gordon immediately saw its

importance for the Hebrew Lexicon, as did M. Dahood in Ugaritic Hebrew Philology and numerous other articles in Biblica, Catholic Biblical Quarterly and other Journals. The time has long gone when it could be claimed that Ugaritic was better explained by Hebrew than Hebrew by Ugaritic. But that is not to say that all the previously suggested “Ugariticisms” are auspicious; Dahood, for one, could on occasions go too far.

And there are still enough problems to consider. The Ugaritic consonantal stock is richer than that of Hebrew (see UT §5.13) and establishing congruence is not always easy. There are so many words that can not be reliably vocalized, because the Ugaritic alphabet is purely

consonantal except for the three forms of aleph. Fortunately some help is offered by those texts in Babylonian syllabic script (now fairly numerous) as well as those written in Akkadian (see PRU III, 1955) containing Ugaritic proper names or common nouns (yakunni (UT 1096 = *

ןֹׁכ ָי

,

ה ָי ְנ ָכ ְי

; yaʿqub-baʿal PRU III p. 261 =

בֹׁק ֲע ַי

; munaḫḫimu UT 1634 =

ם ֵּח ַנ ְמ

), which enable very close comparisons to be made. Some five per cent of Ugaritic vocabulary can now be vocalized. With three glossaries to be compared, as well as the study by J. Gray, The Legacy of Canaan (1957, expanded in the second ed. 1965) it is possible to some degree for the researcher to check whether the meaning of an Ugaritic word has been established. The most recent texts to have appeared since the recommencement of excavations in 1958 (see AfO 19:193ff; 20:206ff; 21:131ff) were published by C.F.A. Schaeffer in Ugaritica V, partly utilized by Gordon (see UT 538ff), but were first made available by Eissfeldt in his studies in Neue Keilalphabetische Texte. Citations in this work are from UT; to change over later to the scheme of Andrée Herdner’s still more comprehensive Corpus (1963) was not practicable. Although Gordon perceives

connections with “Minoan” through Cretan Linear A (Min. Cr. 29ff) it did not seem appropriate to deal with them here so long as the presentation of the material is not fully presented and not discussed.

h. Phoenician and Punic vocabulary is listed in the grammars of Z.S. Harris (1936) and J. Friedrich (1951), as well as by C.F. Jean and J. Hoftijzer in DISO (1965), by H. Donner and W. Röllig in KAI (1964), which include Aramaic material. For the personal names, which often include verbal stems otherwise lost and are published separately in DISO, it is still best to turn to Lidzbarski’s Handbuch and to his Ephemeris (1902-15), to Wuthnow (but see Noth ZDMG 87 (1923) 240ff), as well as to academic journals like Syria and ZDMG, and to special publications like Recueil des Tessères de Palmyre (1955).

i-j. For the Aramaic parts we now have the significant and recent publication Mandaic Dictionary (MdD) by E.S. Drower and R. Macuch (1963). It is a dictionary based on a catalogue left by M. Lidzbarski (who died in 1928), then compiled by Lady Drower from her manuscripts, and then written by R. Macuch during his studies among the Mandaic community in Khuzistan. Ten thousand words have been recorded there, so Mandaic can now justify its place beside what had previously been the normative references for Aramaic, Judaeo-Aramaic and Syriac. Macuch deals in his grammar (1965) also with the Neo-Mandaic he encountered in Khuzistan. While by its very nature Mandaic is more important for Biblical Aramaic (see KBL) it is nontheless an advantage for the study of Hebrew. Thus Mandaic

אצלאה

(MdD 122a) in contrast with BArm., JArm., and Sam.

א ָצ ְר ַח

(> Syr. ḥaṣṣā) and CPArm. ḥirṣā confirms ḥalṣ as the basic Semitic

form (in contrast with the view of Brockelmann VG 1:246). Occasionally a word survives in Mandaic which has been missing even from Syriac, like

רצמ

and

קקמ

.

k. For Akkadian there are now two excellent, comprehensive (although not completed) dictionaries available, von Soden’s AHw. (1965–) and the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary (= CAD, 1956–). These have significantly extended the lexicographical stock from that of earlier times, and for the first time offer the opportunity to distinguish dialects regionally and temporally (see von Soden Gramm. §2), which is important for the debate over cognates in Hebrew. Just as Akkadian loan words (like

םלש

) have long been recognized in Sumerian, so now Western Semitic and especially Aramaic words can also be found in Akkadian (see von Soden Gramm. §192, 193; Orient. 35 (1966) 1ff). Many a word which H. Zimmern for his part felt had an Akkadian origin (as

ת ֶר ֶג ִא

,

ן ַג

) is considered differently today, a possibility with which he had already reckoned; an early transition directly from Sumerian has been assumed for →

ל ָכי ֵּה

.

The texts from Mari occupy a special position as that Old Babylonian vernacular dialect has some unusual features (see von Soden Gramm. §4d, l; Finet Mari p. vi). It is clearly Western Semitic, yet appears also early in the “Land of the Two Rivers”, as in the name of the kings of the First Dynasty of Babylon. The representatives of this language are usually described as Amorites or East Canaanites (though with questionable justification (see Noth Die Welt des AT 212ff; Huffmon Amorite Personal Names 1ff). Amorite is to be understood as a conventional term for language designation. The language of the Amarna Letters (→ EA) is related to but not identical with Ugaritic. What is interesting for the Hebraist is not just the interspersed Canaanite glosses but also the “Canaanite barbarized Akkadian” (see von Soden Gramm. §2 l).

l. For Old South Arabian the Glossary of Conti of 1931 has now been supplemented by the works of W.W. Müller, where, for the first time, an Arabic equivalent for

ן ֶרֹׁג

appears (ZAW 75 (1963) 308), and

רוֹב

“grave” (Pr 2817) is confirmed by brt (ZAW 75:307).

For the Ethiopic group of languages Dillmann’s Geʾez Lexicon (1865) has been

supplemented by the valuable and comprehensive Tigre Dictionary of E. Littmann and Maria Höfner (1962), although there language comparison does not go beyond Arabic. Dillman’s attention had already been drawn to the lexicographical stock shared with Hebrew, and Leslau and Ullendorff have pursued this further, including the use of local dialects. It is Ethiopic ḥalaya “sing” that has provided the first usable etymology for the previously unexplained

ת ַל ֲח ַמ

. For Neo-South Arabian dialects see Leslau, 2f.

m. Much information about Hebrew words which survive in European languages can now be found in the work of K. Lokotsch (1927) and in S.A. Wolf’s Wörterbuch des Rotwelsch (1956) as well as in Littmann’s Morgenländische Wörter (1924); see also Kutscher’s Words and their History (in Hebrew, 1961).

3. The progress that has been thus achieved is best seen by comparing this Lexicon with the first edition. There Koehler successfully emphasized the “words and ideas” viewpoint, but the modern massive increase in studies of Biblical and extra-Biblical material with its attendant consequences requires more attention. Many an etymological question can now be clarified,

apparently irregular forms of words and hapax legomena which had been regarded suspiciously prove to be acceptable, and meanings are often more accurately defined.

But this brings new difficulties. Koehler once expressed himself along the lines that it should soon become possible, with the progress of Hebrew lexicography, to free the Dictionary from this mass of material and to structure it in a simpler form; I am not able to share his optimism. It is the new material in particular that complicates matters and increases some of our problems; often we are obliged to contemplate various possibilities for the derivation of a word and come to no firm conclusion.

Such is the case with the many personal names that end in -yah (Adoniah, Uriah, etc.) known from Hurrian as well as Hebrew. There it must be theophoric but here a simple personal ending. Bathsheba’s husband is expressly described as

_{י ִת ִח}

, which (according to Assyrian usage) in the OT means the same as Hurrian; so the latter option seems preferable. But would this also be the case for the other purely Israelite bearers of the name, especially in a fuller form like

וּה ָי ִרוּא

? Are we dealing with a double origin of the name or with a Hurrian name Hebraized and later “Yahweh-ized” in Israel? In a similar way we are obliged to choose between a Hebrew and an Egyptian origin for the name

ןוֹי ְב ֶא

.

If we turn to compare the first edition of the Lexicon it is interesting to note how the remark “unexplained” does not now occur nearly as often. Solutions have often been found; and where this is not the case at least some indication is given of the directions in which various solutions are being sought. Often some other ideas of an explanation are presented alongside the preferred one. Naturally there are times when one’s personal views are to be renounced so that various other suggestions can be pursued.

Furthermore many of the proposals for textual change in the first edition have now been abandoned. New studies have swept the ground away from many conjectural emendations, or a better comprehension of the context or the study of dialect forms (like those from the Northern Kingdom in the language of Hosea, see Rudolph Hos. 20) have often made emendation

unnecessary. The juxtaposition of word forms which were probably originally separated by local or temporal dialect boundaries is now more widely recognized than before; so that Ps 14414 has

ףוּל ַא

“ox” (Sir 3825) beside the usual II

ף ֶל ֶא

. The text is not changed as much or as often as it

was at the turn of the century. Nevertheless this greater trust in the reliability of the text as received should not be overvalued, for often there are grounds for new conjectures.

The prevalent contemporary inclination of confining emendation to Masoretic vowels and regarding the consonantal text as more or less taboo is not without danger. Of course changes in vocalization are easier and are often already anticipated in the traditional text, but the extent to which consonantal change was also possible can be observed more than adequately in the parallel passages of the OT (Ps 1453; 2S 22; Ps 18 etc).

We should also remember the cases (which are not so rare) where an older conjecture, perhaps made on the basis of other versions but perhaps without them, has been subsequently confirmed by more recent textual evidence, such as

לא ינב

Dt 328 (→ V

ל ֵּא

III 1a). On the

other hand a textual alteration based on extra-biblical evidence can remove an old problem and supply the dictionary with a new word. So it was that Immanuel Löw in his time enriched the

dictionary with *

ץ ָל ְמ ַע

“shark” from Arb. malīṣ “slippery, smooth” in Ps 7414, and that Albright

was able to extract from Ugaritic a Hebrew root *

אתח

“destroy” to explain

ן ֶו ָא ת ַח ַת

in Hab

In document Programa Estatal de Vivienda de Durango (página 126-133)