From: owner-ane@ (ANE Digest) To: ane-digest Subject: ANE Digest V1998 #55 Reply-To: Sender: owner-ane@ Errors-To: owner-ane@ Precedence: bulk ANE Digest Wednesday, February 25 1998 Volume 1998 : Number 055 ane Aramaic Re: ane Pharisees and Persians Re: ane Pharisees and Persians Re: ane Pharisees and Persians ane Chicago-Stanford Hellenistic Egypt Seminar, April 4 ane Ward and Dever, SSS vol. 3 Re: ane Pharisees and Persians ane "Hebrew" in Greco-Roman times Re: ane Pharisees and Persians Re: ane Aramaic Re: ane Pharisees and Persians Re: ane Pharisees and Persians ane SheMichael's posting (long) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 10:04:46 GMT From: "David G.K. Taylor" Subject: ane Aramaic A useful small grammar of Palestinian Jewish Aramaic, with separate paradigms for the Aramaic of Onkelos & Ps.-Jonathan and that of the Palestinian Talmud and Midrashim is that by W.B. Stevenson, 'Grammar of Pal. Jsh Aram' (Oxford U.P. - still in print). More detailed studies of the Aram. of the Palestinian Targumim can be found in the grammars of S.E. Fassberg and D.M. Golomb. As for Babylonian Aramaic there are various options. An old work is M.L. Margolis' 'Lehrbuch der aramaischen Sprache des babylonischen Talmuds' (1910), which has complete paradigms, a chrestomathy, and word-list, but unfortunately is unpointed. More recent, and still available, is D. Marcus 'A Manual of Babylonian Jewish Aramiac', (UPA 1981) which has been highly recommended to me in the past, as has J.N. Epstein , 'A Grammar of Babylonian Aramaic' Magnes Press Jerusalem, although this latter is in Hebrew which may or may not help! Hope some of this is of use to you, Yrs, David Taylor ************************************************************************************ Dr David G.K.Taylor email: d.g.k.taylor@bham.ac.uk Department of Theology, tel: 0121-414 5666 University of Birmingham, fax: 0121-414 6866 Birmingham B15 2TT, U.K. ************************************************************************************ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 05:23:41 -0500 (EST) From: Stephen Goranson Subject: Re: ane Pharisees and Persians Albert I. Baumgarten wrote a helpful article, "The Name of the Pharisees," JBL 102 (1983) 411-28, which includes discussion of paroshim, those who specify, and perushim, separatists. Stephen Goranson goranson@duke.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 07:57:24 -0500 (EST) From: hurowitz@sas.upenn.edu (Victor Hurowitz) Subject: Re: ane Pharisees and Persians Dear Pharisees, I will stay out of the discussion of the etymology of PHarisee except to say that relating it to Persian and Paras is ridiculous. As to the verse in Leviticus 24:12, it is my opinion that, despite problems of the sibilant shin this word is to be related etymologically and semantically to Akkadian parasu and purussu referring to divinely authored legal decisions determined by divinatory methods, and we find the same use in Numbers 15:34. Victor Hurowitz Lisbeth Fried wrote: > > > On Mon, 23 Feb 1998, Lewis Reich wrote: > > > On 24 Feb 98 at 10:19, George Athas wrote: > > > > > Lisbeth Fried wrote: > > > > > > > I have been wondering if the etymology may be from parash, to explain, > > > > i.e., that they explained the law. Might they have served the same > > > > function as the jurists did in the Roman republic and early empire? In > > > > Rome you also had a fixed law code which had to be elaborated if it was to > > > > serve daily needs. > > > > > > > > Liz > > > > > > I like it, Liz! It sounds very plausible. Afterall, they debated Torah all the > > > time and various "schools" of interpretation arose within their ranks. We > > > would have to view it is a self-styled name that the Pharisees gave > > > themselves, though. > > > > It strikes me that a problem with Liz's suggestion is that P'rushim > > doesn't mean interpreters, but "separated". "Interpreters" would be > > "m'forshim". > > Wouldn't this be true if the root never appeared in the Qal? It appears > in the Qal in Lev. 24:12. > > Liz > > > > > Lewis Reich > > LBR@sprynet.com > > > > > > > Lisbeth S. Fried > Dept. of Hebrew and Judaic Studies > New York University > lizfried@umich.edu > lqf9256@is3.nyu.edu > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 07:27:30 -0700 From: John Tvedtnes Subject: Re: ane Pharisees and Persians George Athas noted: >> Pharisee has traditionally meant "Separated One", and this has generally >> been taken as a reference to their separateness from those who do not >> observe the Torah, usually the common people. However, since most >> Pharisees themselves seem to have been "commoners", I wonder if we can't >> see their "separateness" as relating to the priestly-Sadducaic class? >> This would put a spin on their name as "Independents". What say others? The "commoners" were, in this case, people who did not observe the law as interpreted in Pharisaism. Liz Fried wrote: >I have been wondering if the etymology may be from parash, to explain, >i.e., that they explained the law. Might they have served the same >function as the jurists did in the Roman republic and early empire? In >Rome you also had a fixed law code which had to be elaborated if it was to >serve daily needs. This one is appealing. It certainly describes the principal function of the rabbis. The midrashic use of the term parashah, in texts patterned on the rabbinic give-and-take of the Mishnah and Talmud (albeit usually not on legal matters) might support this idea. If it hasn't already been done, Liz, maybe this is worth a note somewhere. John A. Tvedtnes Brigham Young University ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 09:29:37 -0600 From: jhj1@midway.uchicago.edu (Janet H Johnson) Subject: ane Chicago-Stanford Hellenistic Egypt Seminar, April 4 FOURTH MEETING OF THE CHICAGO-STANFORD SEMINAR ON HELLENISTIC EGYPT: Narrative Strategies in Greek and Egyptian Prose of the Hellenistic Period Saturday, April 4, 1997 at the Chicago Humanities Institute, Regenstein Library, The University of Chicago 1100 East 57th Street, Room S 118 9:00 AM H.J. Thissen (University of Cologne) "Homeric Influence on the Inaros-Petubastis Cycle: Fact or Fiction?" 10:30 AM John Dillery (University of Virginia) "Greek and Egyptian Narrative Strategies in Manetho's Aegyptiaka" 1:00 PM John Tait (University College, London) "Tradition and Innovation in Egyptian and Demotic Narrative" 2:30 PM Ludwig Koenen (University of Michigan) "Narrative Strategies in the Potter's Oracle" 4:00 PM Ian Rutherford (University of Reading) "Narrative in the Demotic and Greek Novels" 5:30-6:30 PM Roundtable Discussion with S. Burstein (Cal-State LA) R. Hunter (Cambridge), J. Johnson (Chicago), and D. Selden (UC Santa Cruz), S. Stephens (Stanford). Sponsored by the Visiting Committee to the Division of the Humanities and the Workshop on Ancient Societies. Persons with a disability who believe they may need assistance: please contact Barbara Collins in advance at 773-702-8274. Janet H. Johnson, Professor of Egyptology, Oriental Institute, U of Chicago j-johnson@uchicago.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 09:55:00 -0600 From: "Charles E. Jones" Subject: ane Ward and Dever, SSS vol. 3 The book does indeed exist: Author..... Ward, William A.; Dever, William G. Title...... Studies on Scarab Seals, Volume Three: Scarab Typology and Archaeological Context: An Essay on Middle Bronze Age Chronology Place...... San Antonio Publisher.. Van Siclen Books Date....... 1994 Collation.. 1 volume (viii + 221 pages [including numerous figures and tables]) ISBN....... 0-933175-33-7 We've had it since mid 1995 Curiously there is not yet a record for this volume in the on-line databases, so I suppose librarians can be excused for not being able to find it. - -Chuck Jones- cejo@midway.uchicago.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 11:02:28 EST From: Abzu@aol.com Subject: Re: ane Pharisees and Persians In a message dated 98-02-23 17:13:57 EST, you write: << ane@oi.uchicago.edu (Ancient Near East E-mail list) >> Is there not a Pharisaic teaching, "al tifrosh min ha-tzibbur"--do not separate yourself from the community, using the root p-r-sh? (I'm not sure, just asking). How would this saying relate to your idea of p-r-sh as (advocating) separating from part of the community? Susan Kray Indiana State University ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 06:49:29 -0500 (EST) From: "VCBROWN@DELPHI.COM" Subject: ane "Hebrew" in Greco-Roman times All, > Could someone suggest an article or book on uses of "Hebrew" > in Greco-Roman times? I popped open the ABD, found NPL's article, > and found that it's biblio included one entry from the 60's, three > entries from the 70's, and 2 from the 80's. Here I mean Hebrew as a designation for a people not as a language. > Any suggestions? > Thanx, > Virgil Brown > vcbrown@delphi.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 13:30:22 -0500 From: Jim West Subject: Re: ane Pharisees and Persians At 11:02 AM 2/24/98 -0500, you wrote: >In a message dated 98-02-23 17:13:57 EST, you write: > >Is there not a Pharisaic teaching, "al tifrosh min ha-tzibbur"--do not >separate yourself from the community, using the root p-r-sh? (I'm not sure, >just asking). How would this saying relate to your idea of p-r-sh as >(advocating) separating from part of the community? > >Susan Kray >Indiana State University > It is quite easy to say that one should stay in the (smaller) community while separating from the (larger) community. Such a pharisaic saying would then simply mean that the one who had left the "massa perditionis" must now not leave the "community of believers', etc. Thus, the saying you quote simply means that they should remain faithful to the community of the faithful few. Jim jwest@highland.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 13:43:25 -0400 (EDT) From: huddlestunj@cofc.edu Subject: Re: ane Aramaic Regarding the volume of Margolis, there is an English edition: A Manual of the Aramaic Language of the Babylonian Talmud. Munich: C.H. Beck, 1910. Part of the Series Clavis Linguarum Semiticarum, ed. by Hermann L. Strack, Pars III. British Publisher is DAvid Nutt in London and in America: G. E. Stechert & Co., New York The text remains unpointed in this edition as well. John Huddlestun On Tue, 24 Feb 1998, David G.K. Taylor wrote: > A useful small grammar of Palestinian Jewish Aramaic, with separate > paradigms for the Aramaic of Onkelos & Ps.-Jonathan and that of the > Palestinian Talmud and Midrashim is that by W.B. Stevenson, 'Grammar > of Pal. Jsh Aram' (Oxford U.P. - still in print). More detailed > studies of the Aram. of the Palestinian Targumim can be found in the > grammars of S.E. Fassberg and D.M. Golomb. > > As for Babylonian Aramaic there are various options. An old work is > M.L. Margolis' 'Lehrbuch der aramaischen Sprache des babylonischen > Talmuds' (1910), which has complete paradigms, a chrestomathy, and > word-list, but unfortunately is unpointed. More recent, and still > available, is D. Marcus 'A Manual of Babylonian Jewish Aramiac', (UPA > 1981) which has been highly recommended to me in the past, as has > J.N. Epstein , 'A Grammar of Babylonian Aramaic' Magnes Press > Jerusalem, although this latter is in Hebrew which may or may not > help! > > Hope some of this is of use to you, > > Yrs, David Taylor > > > > ************************************************************************************ > Dr David G.K.Taylor email: d.g.k.taylor@bham.ac.uk > Department of Theology, tel: 0121-414 5666 > University of Birmingham, fax: 0121-414 6866 > Birmingham B15 2TT, > U.K. > ************************************************************************************ > John R. Huddlestun Dept. of Philosophy and Religious Studies College of Charleston Huddlestunj@cofc.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 15:08:29 -0500 (EST) From: Stephen Goranson Subject: Re: ane Pharisees and Persians Perhaps it would be helpful to label the quotation below from Avot not a "Pharisee teaching" but a "Rabbinic teaching," Rabbis being often, and probably reasonably, called heirs of the Pharisees. If Al Baumgarten is right in suggesting that the terms usually lumped together as "Pharisees" had more than one meaning, one of which was separatists, it cold be worth noting that, after 70 CE, and after the flourishing of second temple period sectarianism, the Rabbis were, at best, ambivalent about the label Perushim. The terms hairesis and minut (among others) underwent change over time. For another example, Justin (Dial. Trypho 80, 4) mentions a group, the Meristai, possibly from Greek merizein, to separate. Stephen Goranson goranson@duke.edu >In a message dated 98-02-23 17:13:57 EST, you write: > ><< ane@oi.uchicago.edu (Ancient Near East E-mail list) >> > >Is there not a Pharisaic teaching, "al tifrosh min ha-tzibbur"--do not >separate yourself from the community, using the root p-r-sh? (I'm not sure, >just asking). How would this saying relate to your idea of p-r-sh as >(advocating) separating from part of the community? > >Susan Kray >Indiana State University ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 09:15:20 +1100 From: George Athas Subject: Re: ane Pharisees and Persians John Tvedtnes wrote: > George Athas noted: > >> Pharisee has traditionally meant "Separated One", and this has generally > >> been taken as a reference to their separateness from those who do not > >> observe the Torah, usually the common people. However, since most > >> Pharisees themselves seem to have been "commoners", I wonder if we can't > >> see their "separateness" as relating to the priestly-Sadducaic class? > >> This would put a spin on their name as "Independents". What say others? > > The "commoners" were, in this case, people who did not observe the law as > interpreted in Pharisaism. I realise this, John. I was looking at things from our point of view; that is, most of those who were Pharisees were of common (urbanite?) stock, not priestly stock (though *some* obviously were). The Pharisees themselves would have seen others as commoners (such as the `am ha'aretz), but they themselves were mostly drawn from the masses as we would reckon them today (middle & low classes). They were a kind of bourgeoisie who eventually elevated themselves to a higher rung on the class ladder. Best regards! George Athas PhD (Cand.), University of Sydney Tutor of Hebrew, Moore Theological College Phone: 0414 839 964 ICQ#: 5866591 Email: gathas@mail.usyd.edu.au (Visit the Tel Dan Inscription Website at) (http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~gathas/teldan.htm) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 01:13:31 +0200 From: Naccache Subject: ane SheMichael's posting (long) Dear Sheila, First, let me thank you for your humane and informative post of Mon, 23 Feb 1998. I feel richer for having read it. This said, I have to disagree with you when you write: >I think that the use of the word "pogrom" was entirely appropriate in >reference to an attack upon the Jews in Persia, >I do think this discussion is out of place, however. First, let me point out that the purpose of the ANE list is the discussion of research and study of the area: >ANE is a mailing list on topics and issues of interest in Ancient Near >Eastern _** Studies **_ (my emphasis), It is intended to provide a >medium for discussion among scholars and students actively engaged in >_** research and study **_ (my emphasis) of this broad field. Then, let me ask you to imagine the following situation: As her thesis advisor, I have asked Lisbeth Fried to work on the following question: >Is there any evidence for pogroms against Phoenicians or others in >Achaemenid Persia? (for Phoenician presence in Achaemenid Persia, see, for instance, Ran Zadok, 1978, 'Phoenicians, Philistines and Moabites in Mesopotamia,' BASOR, 230:57-65; for the events that might have provoked these pogroms against Phoenicians, imagine for instance the role played by Abdashtart I of Sidon (Strato) in the great satraps' revolt -Krings ed. 1995, La Civilization Phenicienne et Punique, Manuel de recherche, p. 235). The first thing Lisbeth would have been expected to do is to check the definition of pogrom. What would have happened when she found the following: - "an organized massacre and looting of helpless people usu. with the connivance of officials." Webster. - "a mob attack, either approved or condoned by authorities, against the persons and property of a religious, racial or national minority." EB. Chances are that Lisbeth would have told me that I had poorly phrased my question, that there was no operational definition for "pogrom" (is it a massacre, a looting or just any attack? is it directed against person or property? what role do the authorities or officials play in it? etc.), that therefore "pogrom" could not be used as a concept in social studies, and that I should not expect her to come up with any interesting results starting from such badly defined premises. And I, or you, if you were in that position, would have had to agree. Now, since this is true independently of the actual fate of the Phoenicians, it must also be true if the question was asked about any other religious, racial or national minority in Achaemenid Persia, such as Ammonites, Arabs, Edomites, Hebrews, Israelis, Jews, Moabites, Philistine etc. If you just stop to think about it, cutting "specif.: such a massacre of Jews," from the Webster's definition, and "The term is usually applied to attacks on Jews," from that of the EB, is no sleigh of hand. Decoupled from the term "Jew", the term "pogrom," which has no value as a research concept in the social sciences to start with, muddles even its emotional connotations. Sincerely, Albert Naccache Lebanese University Anaccash@dm.net.lb ------------------------------ End of ANE Digest V1998 #55 *************************** Back issues are available on the Oriental Institute World-Wide Web (WWW) site at: http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/OI_ANE.html