Epigraphic Hebrew: Roman and Byzantine Period

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF HEBREW LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS Volume 1 A–F General Editor Geoffrey Khan Associate Editors Shmuel Bolokzy Steven E. Fassberg Gary A. Rendsburg Aaron D. Rubin Ora R. Schwarzwald Tamar Zewi LEIDEN • BOSTON 2013 © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 Table of Contents Volume One Introduction ........................................................................................................................ List of Contributors ............................................................................................................ Transcription Tables ........................................................................................................... Articles A-F ......................................................................................................................... vii ix xiii 1 Volume Two Transcription Tables ........................................................................................................... Articles G-O ........................................................................................................................ vii 1 Volume Three Transcription Tables ........................................................................................................... Articles P-Z ......................................................................................................................... vii 1 Volume Four Transcription Tables ........................................................................................................... Index ................................................................................................................................... © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 vii 1 epigraphic hebrew: roman and byzantine period Epigraphic Hebrew: Roman and Byzantine Period 1. I n t r o d u c t i o n Most written sources of Rabbinic Hebrew exist in versions for which the evidence does not go back farther than medieval times and which have passed through the hands of copyists, who often distorted the texts and in other cases ‘corrected’ them in accordance with their understanding. Inscriptions found by archeologists, on the other hand, constitute direct evidence for the language of those who wrote them. It would thus ostensibly be correct to base the study of the language of the rabbinic period first and foremost on these materials. However, epigraphic material is quite scant in comparison to the extant literary texts and can hardly be used as the foundation for a complete grammar (the epigraphic material stored in the files of the Academy of the Hebrew Language comes to about ten-thousand words, including doubtful material). And yet it is surprising that the language of the inscriptions, which, after all, constitute a not inconsiderable corpus, has received only minimal scholarly attention when compared to the number of studies that have been carried out on the transmitted language; it is thus a domain that still awaits comprehensive studies to illuminate its various aspects. Among the scholars and works dealing with the language of the epigraphic material the following deserve special mention: Kutscher’s pioneering article (Kutscher 1956), Mishor’s numerous publications (Mishor 1985; 1991; 1998a; 1998b; 1998c; 2000; 2007), two thorough papers by Naveh (Naveh 1992b; 1993), and Beate Ridzewski’s dissertation (Ridzewski 1990). The present entry deals in fact with four linguistically, chronologically, and geographically distinct language varieties. The first variety is the epigraphic corpus of materials from the pre-rabbinic Early Roman period until after the Bar Kokhba Revolt. The main components of this variety are the nonbiblical Hebrew materials from Qumran (¤ Dead Sea Scrolls, Hebrew of) and the Hebrew letters of Bar-Kokhba (¤ Bar Kokhba Documents). Here we shall deal mainly with Jewish coins of the period in question and burial inscriptions from Jerusalem, which we shall of 843 course compare to the Qumran and Bar Kokhba findings. The second variety consists of Hebrew findings until about 350 C.E., a period during which, at least in its first part, Hebrew appears to have still been a spoken language (together with Aramaic and Greek). Burial inscriptions found in Jaffa and Bet Shearim would seem to provide evidence that in Judea and even in Galilee Hebrew did not cease to be spoken until the end of this period (see below). The third variety consists of material found in the Land of Israel during the Byzantine period (from the mid-4th to the beginning of the 7th century C.E.) and perhaps even a bit later. The main texts are Hebrew synagogue inscriptions. The most important source in this group is the Re™ov Inscription, the longest inscription ever found in the Land of Israel, consisting of 364 words. The entire inscription is in Hebrew, although it does also mention Aramaic and even partially Greek geographical names such as ‫ קסטרה דגלילה‬qs†rh d-glylh ‘camp of Galilee’, ‫ פנדקה דטביתה‬pndqh d-†byth ‘Tabitha’s inn’, ‫ פילי דקמפון‬pyly d-qmpwn ‘gate of the plain’, and ‫ פנטאקומוותה‬pn†±qwmwwth ‘five villages’. Now while one may debate whether or not this is a typical epigraphic inscription, since its text does, after all, quote laws most of which are known from the literary sources, it must be stressed that the sentences the writer of the inscription added to his predecessors’ text are also written in Hebrew. The language of the Re™ov Inscription was analyzed by Sussmann (1973:146–152). Another important source that for paleographical and linguistic reasons has also been dated to the end of the Byzantine period is a Hebrew letter consisting of thirty-three short lines (130 words) acquired in Egypt in 1899 (Oxford *d.69). The language of this letter was dealt with in detail by Mordechai Mishor (1990). It should be noted, however, that according to Joseph Naveh the letter may date from the early Middle Ages (Naveh 1993:32–38). The fourth variety consists of Hebrew lines and words (that are not quotes from the Bible or the prayers) that occur in the Aramaic texts of the Babylonian incantation bowls. Although the bowls have not been dated with certainty, it is generally accepted that they date from the Byzantine period. The language of this material © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 844 epigraphic hebrew: roman and byzantine period was described comprehensively in an article by Mishor devoted to this subject (Mishor 2007). A perusal of the language of the epigraphy can often have surprising results. It turns out that it differs in some significant ways from the transmitted Hebrew of the same periods as we know it, not only from printed editions, but also from the best medieval manuscripts. We should also note that the Greek inscriptions, which constitute the majority of the epigraphic material found in the Land of Israel, as well as Aramaic materials, can indirectly teach us about the Hebrew phonology and lexicon of the times. Thus, for example, the word ‫ רבי‬is pronounced rabbi according to the official Ashkenazi tradition today (and also in the Gospels: ῥ ), rebbi in Ashkenazi folk pronunciation, ribbi according to the Sephardi tradition, and rubbi in some other communities. In the vocalized manuscripts of the Mishna all four forms can be found, and there is evidence there for a fifth form as well, rë∫i. Now, interestingly enough, such alternations can also be found in inscriptions (‫ רבי‬rby, ‫ רב‬rb, ‫ריבי‬ ryby, ‫ בירבי‬byryby, ‫ ביריבי‬byryby, PAB, PABI, PABBI, PABBH, PIBBI, PIB, BHPEBI; Kutscher 1974:65–66; Cohen 1981:7–8). A somewhat surprising form is ‫ רב‬rb (and its Greek counterpart PAB), which is attested a number of times in the Land of Israel, from the Jerusalem burial inscriptions of the Second Temple period to a Hebrew letter from the end of the Byzantine period (Cohen 1981:8; Mishor 1990:256; Avi≠am and Amitay 2011:19). The form ‫רב‬ ra∫ is well-known as a form used among the Babylonian Amora±im and has usually been explained as derived from ‫ רבי‬rabbi and shortened due to the elision of word-final vowels in Babylonian Aramaic. In light of the findings in the inscriptions it would seem that the possibility of an independent derivation of this form cannot be excluded (in fact, the form ‫ רב‬ra∫ as an honorific placed before the name of a sage makes more linguistic sense than ‫ רבי‬rabbi). 2. E p i g r a p h y a n d t h e Q u e s t i o n of Hebrew as a Spoken Language The debate concerning whether or not Hebrew served as a spoken language in the Land of Israel during the Second Temple and Tannaitic periods and whether the language of the Mishna was a natural living language or merely an artificial literary one was more or less laid to rest with the discovery of inscriptions dating from the periods in question, and especially the Bar Kokhba letters, which reflect not the world of Torah scholarship, but very earthly concerns, and whose Hebrew is clearly a living language, with elements of slang, such as the transformation of the accusative particle ‫את‬ ±et into a proclitic -‫ ת‬t-, as in ‫ תשבת הזו‬t-šbbt h-zw ‘this Sabbath (acc)’, ‫ תכבלים‬t-kblym ‘the chains (acc)’. On the other hand, it is clear that Aramaic as well as Greek were also spoken in addition to Hebrew, leaving open the question of the relative preponderance of each language and of whether there were differences in this respect between the various regions in the country (Kutscher 1982:117; Bar-Asher 2009a:21; but see Eshel 2002). In the epigraphic material from the entire Roman and Byzantine periods Hebrew plays a much less significant role than Aramaic and Greek. However, the proportions are not equal at all times and in all places. The language of the inscriptions on Hasmonean coins, and later on the coins of the Bar Kokhba Revolt, is Hebrew, with almost no Aramaic, while the coins of Alexander Jannaeus and Mattathiah Antigonus have the king’s name inscribed in Hebrew on one side and in Greek on the other; one set of Jannaeus’ coins has an Aramaic inscription instead of Hebrew, with the king’s Greek name (‫ מלכא אלכסנדרוס‬mlk± ±lksndrws ‘King Alexander’). Among the 1st-century C.E. inscriptions from Jerusalem, most of which are in Aramaic and Greek, there is also some Hebrew material, such as the famous inscription ‫לבית התקיעה‬ [. . .]‫ להכ‬l-byt h-tqy≠h lhk[. . .] ‘to/for the place of the blowing (of the horn)’, the long list of (apparent) workers and their nicknames found on an ossuary cover on the Mount of Olives, burial inscriptions of a family from Bet Shean (‫ פפיס הבשני‬ppys h-bšny ‘Papias the Beshanite’, ‫ אמיה הבשנית‬±myh h-bšnyt ‘Amya the Beshanite’, and ‫™ חנין הבשני‬nyn h-bšny ‘£anin the Beshanite’), and other burial inscriptions such as ‫ אלעזר ואשתו‬±l≠zr w-±štw ‘Eleazar and his wife’ and ‫ מרים אחותי בלבדא‬mrym ±™wty b-lbd± ‘Miriam my sister alone’. Some inscriptions contain a mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic, e.g., ‫™ חנניה בר יהונתן הנזר‬nnyh br yhwntn h-nzr ‘£ananiah son of Yehonatan the Nazarite’, ‫ שלום אנתת חנניה בר הנזר‬šlwm ±ntt ™nnyh br © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 epigraphic hebrew: roman and byzantine period h-nzr ‘Šalom wife of £ananiah son of the Nazarite’. At Masada, too, some Hebrew inscriptions concerning matters of everyday life were found, e.g., ‫[ ואינן‬. . .]‫הרה השורה הזות בה כר‬ [‫ לטהרת[ הקד]ש‬. . . ‫ כשיר]ין‬hrh h-šwrh h-zwt bh kr[. . .] w-±ynn kšyr[yn . . . l-†hrt] h-qd[š] ‘This row has ??[. . .] and are not fit [. . . for the purity] of hallo[wed things]’, ‫ מעשר כהן‬m≠«r khn ‘the priest’s tithe’, ‫† טהור לקדש‬hwr lqdš ‘pure for hallowed things’, ‫ישוע טוהר לקדש‬ yšw≠ †whr lqdš ‘belongs to Yeshua≠, pure for hallowed things’. The potsherds from Masada with inscribed names and titles (according to Yadin these may have been the ‘lots’ that were drawn on the last day at Masada) are written in Hebrew, e.g., ‫ בנ הנהתמ‬bn h-nhtm ‘the baker’s son’, ‫ בנ כנבון‬ben knbwn ‘son of ????’, ‫ בני‬bny ‘?’, ‫ גרידא‬gryd± ‘?’, ‫™ חוני‬wny ‘£oni’, ‫העמקי‬ h-≠mqy ‘the inhabitant of the plain’, ‫ בנ פטי‬bn p†y ‘son of ?’, ‫ ציפון‬ßypwn ‘Íiƒon’, ‫ בנ יאיר‬bn y±yr ‘son of Yair’, ‫ מלתא‬mlt± ‘???’, ‫ יואב‬yw±b ‘Yoav’, ‫ צידא‬ßyd± ‘the hunter’ (Naveh 1992). Already in antiquity Jews wrote contracts and bills of divorce in Imperial Aramaic. This is how they are quoted in the Mishna and later as well, for example, in Maimonides’ ‫משנה תורה‬ mišne tora; in fact, bills of divorce (‫ גטין‬gi††in) and marriage contracts (‫ כתובות‬ketubbot) are written in this language to this day. Interestingly enough, however, the Mishna mentions an amendment which was added in Judea to the marriage contract, consisting of a Hebrew sentence inserted into the Aramaic text: ‫ואת‬ ‫ עד שירצו‬. . . ‫תהוויין יתבה בביתי ומתזנה מן נכסי‬ ‫ היורשים ליתן לה כתובתה‬ve-±att tehewyin yat∫a be-∫eti u-mittazna min niúsay . . . ±ad šey-yirßu hay-yoršim litten lah ketubbatah ‘And you will sit in my house and live off my assets . . . until the heirs are willing to give her the marriage settlement’ (Mishna Ketubbot 4.12, according to MS Kaufmann). This should be compared to the findings from the Judean Desert, where the contracts were usually written in Aramaic. But a few contracts written during the Great Rebellion and the Bar Kokhba Revolt were in Hebrew, especially real estate leases, probably of public land. Some scholars have surmised that Hebrew was used intentionally in those times as a patriotic gesture (Naveh 1992; Eshel 2002). The many 3rd- and 4th-century C.E. inscriptions from Bet Shearim are nearly all in Greek or Hebrew. Aramaic is almost entirely absent 845 (with the exception of some Palmyrene inscriptions written in the Palmyrene script, whose content usually makes it clear that they belonged to Jews from Palmyra who were buried in the Land of Israel). Local Aramaic has been found in only three inscriptions, all containing a warning and a curse on whoever should open the grave. In some of the burial complexes at Bet Shearim Hebrew is more frequent than Greek (Mazar 1957:194; Avigad 1971:230). In catacomb no. 14 three Hebrew and two bilingual (Hebrew and Greek) inscriptions were found, while catacomb no. 20 contained nineteen Hebrew and six Greek inscriptions; almost all mention the title ‫ רבי‬rby. Among the people mentioned in these inscriptions are the wife of Rabbi Yehoshua b. Levy, Rabbi ‫ אניאנה‬±ny±nh (= ‫™ חנינא‬anina) and [‫הקדושים בניו ש]ל‬. . . h-qdwšym bnyw š[el] . . . ‘the holy men, sons of . . .’. According to Avigad (1971:231–232) this was a burial ground dating from the beginning of the 3rd century C.E. in which sages in Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi’s circle, his associates, children, and close students were interred. The languages of the inscriptions here remind one of Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi’s saying or instruction: ‫בארץ ישראל לשון סורסי למה? או לשון הקודש או‬ ‫ לשון יווני‬bë-±ereß yi«ra±el lašon sursi lëma? ±o lëšon haq-qodeš ±o lašon yëwani ‘What has the Syrian tongue (i.e., Aramaic) to do in the Land of Israel? (Speak) either Hebrew or Greek’ (Babylonian Talmud So†a 49b). Among the 4th-century C.E. burial inscriptions from Jaffa the great majority (sixty) are in Greek. However, of the one bilingual and eight non-Greek inscriptions most are in Hebrew and only a minority are in Aramaic (four of the inscriptions are definitely in Hebrew, two are definitely in Aramaic and three are in doubt or disputed; see Frey 1939:118–149). In Sepphoris thirteen burial inscriptions were found, of these seven are Aramaic, three are Hebrew, one is Aramaic and Greek, one is Hebrew and Greek, and only one is purely in Greek. In Tiberias, on the other hand, of twelve burial inscriptions that have been published, ten are Greek and two are Latin (Avi≠am and Amitay 2011:25). In Ío≠ar most of the texts (hundreds of burial inscriptions from the 4th–6th centuries C.E.) are Greek; of the some thirty non-Greek burial inscriptions published to date, all are Aramaic; the only Hebrew in them consists of the word © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 846 epigraphic hebrew: roman and byzantine period ‫ שלום‬šlwm ‘peace’, the phrase ‫שלום על ישראל‬ šlwm ≠l y«r±l ‘peace on Israel’, and short blessings at the end of the inscriptions, e.g., ‫יתעוריר‬ ‫ לקול משמיע שלום‬yt≠wryr l-qwl mšmy≠ šlwm ‘may he awaken to the voice of the harbinger of peace’, ‫ ינוח חכם בשלום‬ynw™ ™km b-šlwm ‘may the sage rest in peace’, ‫יבו שלום וינוח על משכבה‬ ybw šlwm w-ynw™ ≠l mškbh ‘may he come to peace and rest in his grave’, ‫יוחז במדבח ויתערר‬ [‫ )לקלו( ]לקול[ משמע ש]לם‬yw™z b-mdb™ w-yt≠rr (l-qlw) [l-qwl] mšm≠ š[lm] ‘may he grasp the altar and awaken to the voice of the harbinger of peace’ (Wilfand 2009). 3. U n t i l t h e E n d o f t h e B a r Kokhba Revolt Phonology. The spellings ‫† טהור לקדש‬hwr l-qdš and ‫† טוהר לקדש‬whr l-qdš indicate that the weak consonant ‫ ה‬h was probably dropped in speech and the word was pronounced †òr; the conservative spelling with ‫ ה‬h can be compared to similar forms in the ¤ Dead Sea Scrolls (according to Naveh 1992:304). Morphology. A typical characteristic of the texts from the Bar Kokhba Revolt, which is also found in documents from the time of the Great Rebellion, but not in Biblical or Rabbinic Hebrew, is the appearance of the accusative marker as a prefix, -‫ ת‬ta-, as in ‫תדקלים‬ t-dqlym ‘the palm trees (acc)’, ‫ תכבלים‬t-kblym ‘the chains (acc)’, ‫ תשמים‬t-šmym ‘the heavens (acc)’, and in documents from the Great Rebellion also ‫ אתמקום‬±t-mqwm (= ‫ את המקום‬±et ham-maqom) ‘the place (acc)’ and ‫ ותשאר‬w-tš±r ‘and the rest (acc) of’ (Mishor 2000). Lexicon. One document from the Great Rebellion still has ‫≠ עץ‬ß in the sense of ‘tree’, in contrast to Rabbinic Hebrew, which distinguishes between ‫ אילן‬±ilan ‘tree’ and ‫≠ עץ‬eß ‘wood’ (‫ אילן‬±yln already appears in a contract from Jericho that has been dated to the first half of the 1st century C.E.). A text from Na™al £ever has the word ‫ הללו‬hllw ‘those’ (in the form ‫ תללו‬t-llw ‘those [acc]’), a form that according to conventional scholarly opinion is characteristic of Amoraic usage and is here in use in a document from the Bar Kokhba period. On Hasmonean coins and in other epigraphic texts one finds the names ‫ יהוחנן‬yhw™nn ‘Yëhò™ànàn (John)’, ‫ יהונתן‬yhwntn ‘Yëhònàtàn (Jonathan)’, and even ‫ יהוסף‬yhwsp ‘Yëhòsèf (Joseph)’, which in the rabbinic literature always appear in the shortened version, ‫יוחנן‬ yw™nn, ‫ יונתן‬ywntn, and ‫ יוסף‬ywsp / ‫ יוסה‬ywsh. In contrast, the epigraphic texts, especially in Judea, consistently have the shortened form ‫ ישוע‬yšw≠ ‘Yeshùa≠ (Jesus)’, while in rabbinic literature it is the longer form ‫ יהושע‬yhšw≠ ‘Yehoshua (Joshua)’ that is nearly always used. Some scholars have proposed that the latter spelling was due to a desire among Jews to avoid a name that evoked Jesus of Nazareth (Ilan 1988; Talshir 1992). The masculine form ‫ גיור‬gywr is found in ‫ יהודה הגיור‬yhwdh h-gywr ‘Judah the proselyte’ (an ossuary from Na™al Qidron). This form is unattested in all of rabbinic literature, but is expected, as the masculine counterpart of the attested feminine form ‫ גיורת‬giyyoret (Mishor 1998a). Syntax. In rabbinic literature there is a clear distinction between ‫ היום‬hay-yom lit. ‘the day’, in which the definite article functions as such and which thus means ‘the time of daylight’ or ‘the day in question’, and ‫ היום‬hay-yom in which the definite article acts as a demonstrative pronoun and the expression means ‘today’: in the former the -‫ ה‬h- of the article is deleted in phrases such as ‫ שליום‬šel-lay-yom ‘of the day’, while in the latter it is preserved, e.g., ‫שלהיום‬ šel-lë-hay-yom ‘of today’. In the epigraphic texts this distinction does not exist (Mishor 1998b). One well-known difference between Biblical and Rabbinic Hebrew concerns definiteness of the demonstrative adjective in phrases. In Biblical Hebrew it is definite, as in ‫ ַה ַבּיִ ת ַה ֶזּה‬habbayiμ haz-zÆ ‘this house’, ‫ ַבּ ַפּ ַﬠם ַהזּ ֹאת‬bap-pa≠am haz-zòμ ‘this time’, ‫ ָה ֲאנָ ִשׁים ָה ֵא ֶלּה‬h<å-±≥n<åšìm h<å-±èllÆ ‘these people’, while Rabbinic Hebrew tends more towards the omission of the article, as in ‫ כלי זה‬keli ze ‘this vessel’, ‫ מדה זו‬midda zo ‘this measure’, ‫ תאנים אלו‬te±enim ±ellu ‘these figs’. In inscriptions, however, such phrases always have the definite article, as in Biblical Hebrew, for example, ‫ השורה הזות‬h-šwrh h-zwt ‘this line’ from Masada and similarly also in later periods. Phrases without the article as are found in the Rabbinic Hebrew are unknown from any epigraphic source in any period (Talshir 1996:46). The opposite occurs is the case of the title ְ‫ ַה ֶמּ ֶל‬ham-mÆlÆú ‘the king’, which in the Hebrew Bible precedes the name, as in ‫ ַה ֶמּ ֶלְ ָדּוִ ד‬ham-mÆlÆú d<åwì≈ ‘King David’, ְ‫ַה ֶמּ ֶל‬ © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 epigraphic hebrew: roman and byzantine period ‫ ְשֹׁמ ֹה‬ham-mÆlÆú šëlòmò ‘King Solomon’, ְ‫ַה ֶמּ ֶל‬ ‫ ֲא ַח ְשׁוֵ רוֹשׁ‬ham-mÆlÆú ±≥™ašwèròš ‘King Ahasu- erus’, while in the language of the Mishna (and occasionally in Late Biblical Hebrew as well) it occurs after the name (as in Biblical Hebrew, too, with respect to other titles, such as ‫ַהכּ ֵֹהן‬ hak-kòhèn ‘the priest’ and ‫ ַה ָנּ ִביא‬han-n<å∫ì ‘prophet’), for example, ‫™ חזקיה המלך‬izqiyya ham-meleú ‘King Hezekiah’, ‫ תלמי המלך‬talmay ham-meleú ‘King Ptolemy’, ‫ אגריפס המלך‬±agripas ham-meleú ‘King Agrippa’. In this case the numismatic evidence is consistent with Rabbinic Hebrew, e.g., ‫ יהונתן המלך‬yhwntn h-mlk ‘King Jonathan’ (Talshir 1991). 4. U n t i l 3 5 0 C. E. The justification for separating this period from the next comes from the texts themselves, especially the findings from Bet Shearim and Jaffa, in which Hebrew is encountered with relative frequency, as noted above, in fact more frequently than Aramaic, in contrast to the Byzantine period, in which Hebrew inscriptions are few and far between. This is apparently the period of the inscription from Dabbùra on the Golan Heights, which mentions a well-known sage who belonged to the generation of R. Yehuda Hanasi’s disciples: ‫זה בית מדרשו שהלרבי אליעזר‬ ‫ הקפר‬zh byt mdršw šh-l-rby ±ly≠zr h-qpr ‘This is the academy of R. Eliezer Haq-qappàr’. The text’s language is clearly Rabbinic Hebrew. However, note the surprising spelling -‫ שה‬šh-, attested also in Ecclesiastes. Furthermore, the particle ‫ של‬š-l- here is adjoined to the following word, as it is found in a few cases in the Bible and most traditions of Rabbinic Hebrew, but contrary to its spelling as a separate word in the Bar Kokhba letters and in the printed versions of Rabbinic Hebrew texts. One other orthographical issue: in Bet Shearim the spelling ‫זוא‬ zw± ‘this (f)’ is attested at this time (Avigad 1972:182, n. 22); the same spelling has also been found in a document dating to the time of Bar Kokhba (Talshir 1996:45). Phonology. The spelling of the name ‫אנינה‬ ±nynh, instead of ‫™ חנינה‬nynh, in Bet Shearim constitutes evidence for the weakening of the gutturals; Bet Shearim is located within the strip Bet Shean–¢iv≠on–Haifa, which were mentioned by the sages as places where the consonants ‫ ≠ ע‬and ‫ ™ ח‬were not pronounced properly (Babyolonian Talmud Megilla 24a; 847 Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 2.3; 4.4; see also Elitzur 2004:174–177). However, the spellings ‫ אנינה‬±nynh and also ‫ אושיא‬±wšy± (= ‫הושעיה‬ hwš≠yh) ‘Hoshaiah’ (Mishor 1991) have also been found in a contemporary letter in Egypt. Syntax. The phrase ‫ הקבורה הזו‬h-qbwrh h-zw ‘this burial’ has been found in an inscription in Sepphoris (Avi≠am and Amitay 2011:19). The definite form ‫ הזו‬haz-zo ‘this (f)’ has a peculiar distribution in Rabbinic Hebrew: it is entirely lacking in the Mishna and Tosefta, and only very rare in the Babylonian Talmud (where it occurs mainly in quotes from halakhic Midrashim), but it is quite common in some halakhic Midrashim (Mekhilta and Mekhilta de-Rabbi Shim≠on bar Yo™ai, Torat Kohanim, and Mekhilta to Deuteronomy), the Jerusalem Talmud, and Aggadic Midrashim. 5. B y z a n t i n e P e r i o d ( f r o m t h e Mid 4th until the Beginning o f t h e 7 t h C e n t u r y C. E.) The synagogue inscriptions in the Land of Israel are mostly dated to the 5th and 6th centuries C.E. They are usually written in Aramaic or Greek (Greek is found mainly in the coastal cities, but also in Tiberias, Sepphoris, and elsewhere). While these inscriptions do quote biblical verses—especially ‫ שלום על ישראל‬šlwm ≠l y«r±l ‘peace on Israel’, but also others, such as ‫ ברוך אתה בבאך וברוך אתה בצאתך‬brwk ±th b-b±k w-brwk ±th b-ß±tk ‘blessed are you when you come and blessed are you when you leave’ and ‫ זאיב וטלה ירעו כאחד‬z±yb w-†lh yr≠w k-±™d ‘the wolf and the lamb will graze together’— but these are not Hebrew inscriptions, only Hebrew quotations. However, there do exist a few Hebrew inscriptions from the period in question, one of which contains a date: ‫למספר‬ ‫ארבע מאות ותישעים שנה לחרבן הבית ניבנה בסרר‬ ‫ )!( חנינא בן ליזר ולוליאנא בר יודן‬l-mspr ±rb≠ m±wt w-tyš≠ym šnh l-™rbn h-byt nybnh b-srr (!) ™nyn± bn lyzr w-lwly±n± br Ywdn ‘in the year 490 since the destruction of the Temple (= 564 C.E.) it was built in srr (!) £anina son of Lizer (= Eliezer) and Lulyana son of Yudan’ (Neboraya). Of particular interest are two inscriptions with similar content, found in two different but nearby places in Upper Galilee and written by the same craftsman, one in Hebrew found in Bar≠am (‫יוסה הלוי בן הלוי‬ ‫ עשה השקוף הזה‬ywsh h-lwy bn h-lwy ≠«h ±t © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 848 epigraphic hebrew: roman and byzantine period h-šqwp h-zh ‘Yose the Levite son of Levy made this lintel’) and the other in Aramaic found in ≠Alma (‫ אנה יוסה בר לוי הלוי אומנה דעבדת‬±n± ywsh bar lwy h-lwy ±wmnh d-≠bdt [. . .] ‘I am Yose son of Levy the Levite the artisan who made [. . .]’). The ancient synagogue in Susya has a long Hebrew inscription: ‫זכור לטובה‬ ‫קדושת מרי רבי איסי הכהן המכובד בירבי שעשה‬ ‫הפסיפוס הזה וטח את כותליו בסיד מה שנתנדב‬ ‫במשתה רבי יוחנן הכהן הסופר בירבי בנו שלום‬ ‫ על ישראל אמן‬zkwr l-†wbh qdwšt mry rby ±ysy h-khn h-mkwbd by-rby š-≠«h h-psypws h-zh w-†™ ±t kwtlyw b-syd mh š-ntndb b-mšth rby yw™nn h-khn h-swpr by-rby bnw šlwm ≠l y«r±l ±mn ‘Remembered be for good the sanctity of master Rabbi ±Isi the venerable priest Berabbi who made this mosaic and covered its walls with plaster as he vowed at the feast of rabbi Yo™anan the priest and scribe Berabbi his son. Peace on Israel. Amen’. Another Hebrew inscription found at the same site has not been so well preserved: [. . . ‫זכורין לטובה ולב]רכה‬ [‫ בשנה[ הש]ני[ה שלשבוע ]ב‬. . .] ‫שהחזיקו ועשו‬ [. . . ‫ מ[שנברה העול]ם‬. . . ‫ ארבעת אלפי]ם ו‬zkwryn l-†wbh w-l-b[rkh . . .] š-h™zyqw w-≠«w [. . . b-šnh] h-š[ny]h š-l-šbw≠ [b-]±rb≠t ±lpy[m w-. . . m-]š-nbrh h-≠wl[m . . .] ‘Remembered be for good and for ble[ssing] [. . .] who maintained and carried out [. . .] in the se[co]nd [year] of the seven year period in four-thousand [and . . . since] the worl[d] was created’. Unfortunately the date has not been preserved. It may be that the Susya inscriptions are later and reflect the situation in the Middle Ages, when Hebrew had replaced Aramaic as the written language (the titles are reminiscent of the honorifics found in the Geniza and in the responsa literature). However, there are also scholars who argue that they date from the Byzantine period and reflect the fact that Hebrew never ceased to be spoken, in accordance with the testimony of R. Yonatan of Bet Guvrin: ‫ארבעה לשונות נאים‬ ,‫ רומי לקרב‬,‫ לעז לזמר‬:‫שישתמש בהן העולם ואלו הן‬ ‫ סורסי לאילייא ועברי לדיבור‬±arba≠a lešonot na±im šey-yištameš bahen ha-≠olam we-±ellu hen: la≠az laz-zemer, romi laq-qera∫, sursi la-±ilya we-≠i∫ri lad-dibbur ‘Four languages are suitable to be used by the world: Greek for song, Latin for battle, Aramaic for lamentation, and Hebrew for speech’ (Naveh 1993). Most of the amulets of this period (thirty-five have been found in the Land of Israel) are written in Aramaic, but contain opening and closing formulas in Hebrew, not all of which are quotations from the Bible or from prayers, for example: ‫בשם‬ ‫יהוה נעשה ונצליח ברוך שמך וברוכה מלכותך‬ b-šm YHWH n≠«h w-nßly™ brwú šmk w-brwkh mlkwtk ‘In the name of YHWH we shall do and succeed, blessed be Your name and blessed be Your kingdom’. ‫משביע אני על כל אוערות‬ ‫)מאורעות?( רעות רעות עם זכר ועם נקבה עם איש‬ ‫ ועם אשה עם גוי ועם ישראל‬mšby≠ ±ny ≠l kl ±w≠rwt (m±wra≠wt???) r≠wt r≠wt ≠m zkr w-≠m nqbh ≠m ±yš w-≠m ±šh ±m gwy w-±m y«r±l ‘I adjure on all bad bad events (?) whether with a male or a female, a man or a woman, a Gentile or a Jew’ (Naveh 1993). A noteworthy feature is found in a contemporary Hebrew letter from Egypt, where we find the phrase [‫ שב מ]צרים‬š-b m[ßrym] ‘that is in E[gypt]’. Here ‫ שב‬š-b ‘that (is) in’ is written as an independent word, similarly to ‫ של‬šel ‘of’ as found in the Bar Kokhba letters, in versions of the Mishna, and in Modern Hebrew (Mishor 1991). As already noted above, the most extensive epigraphic Hebrew document of this period is the Re™ov Inscription, which faithfully represents the Rabbinic Hebrew of the Land of Israel, albeit with some unique features. Sussmann (1973:146–152) analyzed this inscription in detail, including its linguistic features. Below we present a selection of his findings. Orthography. Overall the inscription exhibits plene spelling, although it is not completely consistent. Word-final [a] is always written as ‫ה‬- -h, consonantal [y] is always represented by ‫ יי‬yy, and consonantal [w] is usually written as ‫ וו‬ww. Phonology. In line with the rabbinical tradition concerning the weakening of the gutturals in Bet Shean (see above) we find ‫מתאסרין‬ mt±sryn as well as ‫ מתעסרין‬mt≠sryn ‘are tithed’, ‫ גיאתו‬gy±tw instead of ‫ געתון‬g≠twn ‘Ga≠aton’, ‫ אייתה‬±yyth instead of ‫≠ עייתה‬yyth ‘≠Ayta’, and ‫ קצע‬qß≠ instead of ‫ קצח‬qß™ ‘cumin’. The Re™ov Inscription reflects an alternation between [m], [n], and a vowel at the ends of words, a phenomenon characteristic of Rabbinic Hebrew as well as Palestinian Aramaic, already attested in the word ‫ ְמגִ ֽדּוֹן‬më/iddòn ‘Megiddo’ in Zech. 12.11 and in the transcriptions of the Septuagint. In the Re™ov Inscription all plural forms, including plural pronouns, end in n, but in the singular word-final m is always preserved; there are no alternations such as ‫ אדן‬±adan instead © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 epigraphic hebrew: roman and byzantine period of ‫ אדם‬±adam ‘man’ or ‫ דרון‬daron instead of ‫ דרום‬darom ‘south’. In the proper noun ‫גיאתו‬ gy±tw ‘Ga≠aton’ word-final n has been dropped after a vowel, whereas in ‫ קסרין‬qsryn and ‫ קיסרין‬qysryn ‘Caesarea’ n has been added after a vowel, in keeping with the spelling found in the Rabbinic Hebrew and Aramaic of the Land of Israel. The inscription also exhibits shift of vowels into rounded vowels before labial consonants and r due to assimilation, which is characteristic of Hebrew and Aramaic original versions, such as: ‫ אוף‬±wƒ ‘also’, ‫פורשת אשקלון‬ pwršt ±šqlwn ‘the Ashkelon junction’. With respect to the latter form, Mishor (1998c) has argued that it provides evidence for gemination of r, which standard Hebrew avoids, with very few exceptions in the Masoretic Bible, but which can be found to some extent in the Rabbinic Hebrew traditions of Yemenite Jews and other communities, and which is fully operative in the Hebrew of the Samaritans. Syntax. Definite noun + adjective phrases usually have the definite article on both noun and adjectives, e.g., ‫ האפונין הגמלונין הנימכרין‬h-±pwnyn h-gmlwnyn h-nymkryn ‘the large beans (that are being) sold’; sometimes, however, only the adjective has the definite article, e.g., ‫אחוניות‬ ‫ הבכירות‬±™wnywt h-bkyrwt ‘the early ripening plums?’, and sometimes only the noun, e.g., ‫ התמרין אפסיות‬h-tmryn ±psywt ‘the dates of the type afsiyot’. 6. B a b y l o n i a n I n c a n t a t i o n Bowls The Hebrew passages in amulets from the Land of Israel and the Hebrew passages in Babylonian incantation bowls share a number of similarities. The incantation bowls contain some formulas reminiscent of the hekhalot literature, e.g., ‫נורא בגלגלי רכובו אופנים עומדים‬ ‫החיות משתחוות באש כיסאו ובמים דיגלו אהיה‬ ‫ אשר אהיה שמו‬nwr± b-glgly rkwbw ±wpnym ≠wmdym h-™ywt mšt™wwt b-±š kys±w w-b-mym dyglw ±hyh ±ašr ±hyh šmw ‘The Revered One on the wheels of His chariot Ofan-angels stand, the holy beasts prostrate themselves, in fire is His throne and in water His division. I AM WHO I AM is His name’ (Naveh 1992b:28). New incantation bowls are constantly being published, most of them from private collections and only a minority from archeological excavations. Due to the lack of systematic 849 paleographical research, it is difficult to distinguish between different places of origin, dialects, or sub-periods. The language of the bowls is Eastern Aramaic; the majority of the inscriptions by far are in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, with a few in Syriac and Mandaic. What Hebrew there is in these texts consists of insertions that are not quotations from the Bible or the prayer formulae. There are quite a few half-Hebrew and half-Aramaic phrases, for example, ‫לאלהא חיא וקימא דקים לעולם ולעולמי‬ ‫ עולמים‬l-±lh± ™y± w-qym± d-qym l-≠wlm w-l≠wlmy ≠wlmym ‘To the living and everlasting God, who exists for ever and ever’, ‫המשרתין‬ ‫ קדמוהי‬h-mšrtyn qdmwhi ‘who serve before him’, and even within a single word, e.g., ‫ ליפניהון‬lypnyhwn ‘before them’. The following survey is a selection taken mostly from Mordechai Mishor’s study of twenty-four bowls containing some Hebrew that were published up to 2007. They contain 453 Hebrew words not taken from the Bible, prayers, or standard formulas (Mishor 2007). It is quite difficult to decipher the texts on the bowls, which were written in crowded script in ink on clay. The texts were not meant to be read by humans, and unclear and mysterious forms were purposely added to them. Graphically there is no difference between ‫ ה‬h and ‫™ ח‬, and often no clear distinction is made between ‫ י‬y and ‫ ו‬w, as well as between ‫ ד‬d and ‫ ר‬r. Orthography. Unlike most Rabbinic Hebrew manuscripts and the Re™ov Inscription, which generally mark consonantal ‫ ו‬w and ‫ י‬y in the middle of the word with a double letter, and Yemenite manuscripts, which tend to use double letters when consonantal ‫ ו‬w and ‫ י‬y are geminated, in the incantation bowls consonantal ‫ ו‬w and ‫ י‬y are always written as only a single letter. In the middle of the word the letter ‫ א‬± is used as a mater lectionis to represent a vowel corresponding to Tiberian qameß (‫ תושבאחות‬twšb±™wt ‘praises’) or Tiberian seghol (‫ מאלך‬m±lk ‘king’, ‫ ויפוצו אויבאך‬w-ypwßw ±wyb±k ‘and may your enemies be scattered [cf. Num. 10.35]). In standard Hebrew, plural words with a suffixed 2nd person masculine singular possessive pronoun are usually spelled with a historical but silent ‫ י‬y, as in ָ‫ יָ ֶדי‬yadeúa ‘your (ms) hands’, but in the incantation bowls the spelling is phonetic, e.g., ‫ רחמך הרבים‬r™mk h-rbym ‘Your many mercies’, ‫ מרכבותך‬mrkbwtk ‘Your chariots’. The words ‫ אין‬±èn ‘there © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 850 epigraphic hebrew: roman and byzantine period is/are no/not’ and ‫ בין‬ben ‘between, whether’ are written without ‫ י‬y, e.g., ‫למקום שאנו מקומו‬ l-mqwm š-±nw mqwmw ‘to a place that is not his place’, ‫ ובן בלילא‬w-bn b-lyl± ‘or at night’ (cf. ‫ אמר רבינא אם כן לימא קרא אן כסף‬±amar rabina ±im ken lema qera ±en keseƒ ‘Rabina said, if so then let the Bible say ‘‫ אן( ’אן כסף‬without yod)’ [Babylonian Talmud Qiddushin 4a]). Phonology. The bowls show no tangible signs of the weakening of the gutturals ‫ ה‬h and ‫≠ ע‬ (the status of ‫ ™ ח‬is difficult to judge, since the letters ‫ ה‬h and ‫ ™ ח‬have identical forms). This is especially noteworthy in view of the fact that in Mandaic gutturals are regularly weakened and even in the Babylonian Talmud, especially according to the more reliable manuscripts, it is quite common (in fact, it has been argued that the preservation of the gutturals in the Babylonian Talmud is nothing more than conservative spelling). Since the writing in the bowls clearly does not seek to preserve historical spellings, it would seem that they reflect the pronunciation of the gutturals. It is a known fact that in the Babylonian tradition of vocalization (¤ Vocalization, Babylonian) the conjunction -‫ ו‬w- is pronounced with the vowel [i] before vowelless consonants; the incantations reflect this usage, e.g., ‫ויכרובים‬ wy-krwbym ‘and cherubs’, ‫ ויגבעות‬wy-gb≠wt ‘and hills’. Often a ™olem appears where the Tiberian tradition has qameß, e.g., ‫ בורוך‬bwrwk ‘blessed (passive participle)’, ‫ הורוחות‬hw-rw™wt ‘the spirits’, ‫ בירושולים‬b-yrwšwlym ‘in Jerusalem’. The spelling ‫ הועלום‬hw-≠lwm ‘the world’ is especially interesting, since the lack of ‫ ו‬w after the ‫ ≠ ע‬here may perhaps reflect a pronunciation of the kind familiar from Yemenite traditions, in which qameß is articulated as [o] and ™olem as [ö] or [è]. Morphology. In the word ‫ אירחים‬±yr™ym ‘I will have mercy’ the initial ‫ א‬± is followed by a yod, evidently reflects an è vowel instead of a short a (™a†ef ), a typically Babylonian phenomenon. Masculine plural nouns and adjectives usually end in m and participles in n. The 2nd person masculine singular possessive pronoun ‫ך‬- was probably pronounced -aú, as in Rabbinic Hebrew and the prayers. Evidence for this is provided by the form ‫ לישמך‬ly-šmú ‘for your name’, which appears very often in the incantations and whose spelling shows that the consonant ‫ ש‬š was pronounced without a following vowel. An even more unambiguous piece of evidence is the rare spelling ‫לישמוך‬ ly-šmwk. The 2nd person masculine plural form of the accusative particle is spelled ‫ איתכם‬±ytkm and not ‫ אתכם‬±tkm ‘you’, as is usually the case in Hebrew. This would indicate that the word was pronounced with a vowel equivalent to ßere (in the incantation texts the vowel corresponding to Tiberian seghol is never indicated with ‫ י‬y), i.e., ‫ ֵא ְת ֶכם‬±èμúÆm, in keeping with the Babylonian tradition. Lexicon. The word ‫ שם‬šem ‘name’ appears in these texts in the spellings ‫ שם‬šm, ‫ שים‬šym, and ‫ שום‬šwm. The latter is the most common, and is also a typical Babylonian form. References Avi≠am, Mordekhay and Aharoni Amitay. 2011. “The cemeteries of Sepphoris” (in Hebrew). Cathedra 141:7–26. Avigad, Nahman. 1971. Beth She‘arim: Report on the excavations during 1953–1958. Vol. 3: Catacombs 12–23. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Bar-Asher, Moshe. 2009a. Studies in Mishnaic Hebrew (in Hebrew). Jerusalem: Bialik Institute. ——. 2009b. “The language of the Beit ≠Amar document” (in Hebrew). Cathedra 132:25–32. Baruch, Yuval, Danit Levi, and Rony Reich. 2011. “The tomb and ossuary of Alexa son of Shalom”. Israel Exploration Journal 61:96–105. Cohen, Shaye J. D. 1981. “Epigraphical rabbis”. Jewish Quarterly Review 72:1–17. Cotton, Hannah M. et al. 2010. Corpus inscriptionum Iudaeae Palestinae, Vol. 1: Jerusalem. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Elitzur, Yoel. 2004. Ancient place names in the Holy Land. Jerusalem: Magnes and Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Eshel, Hanan. 2002. “Hebrew in economic documents from the Judean Desert” (in Hebrew). Lłšonénu 63:41–52. ——. 2011. “A document from ‘Year 4 of the destruction of the house of Israel’ ”. Dead Sea Discoveries 18:1–28. Eshel, Ester, Hanan Eshel, and Ada Yardeni. 2009. “A document from ‘Year four of the destruction of the house of Israel’ in which a widow declared that she received all her rights” (in Hebrew). Cathedra 132:6–24. Frey, Jean Baptiste. 1939. Corpus inscriptionum Iudaicarum. Rome: Pontifical Institute of Christian Archeology. Goodblatt, David. 1994. “The definite article before names of towns in post-Biblical Hebrew” (in Hebrew). Lłšonénu 57:289–297. Ilan, Tal. 1988. “Note on the spelling of names in the Second Temple period” (in Hebrew). Lłšonénu 52:3–7. Kutscher, Eduard Yechezkel. 1956. “Jerusalem in the time of the Second Temple: Hebrew and Aramaic © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3 epistolary formulae: biblical period inscriptions” (in Hebrew). Sepher Yerushalayim, ed. by Michael Avi-Yonah, 349–357. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute and Tel-Aviv: Dvir. ——. 1974. The language and linguistic background of the Isaiah Scroll I Q Isaa. Leiden: Brill. ——. 1982. A history of the Hebrew language. Leiden: Brill. Ma±agarim. The Academy of the Hebrew Language: The Historical dictionary database. Mazar, Benjamin. 1957. Beth She‘arim: Report on the excavations during 1936–1940. Vol. 1: Catacombs 1–4. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Misgav, Haggai. 1991. “The Hebrew and Aramaic ossuary inscriptions from the late Second Temple period” (in Hebrew). MA thesis, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Mishor, Mordechay. 1985. “On typology and methodology” (in Hebrew). The Ninth Annual World Congress of Jewish Studies, Main Session: Hebrew and Aramaic, 55–59. ——. 1991. “Papyrus fragments of Hebrew letters” (in Hebrew). Lłšonénu 55:281–288. ——. 1998a. “The status of epigraphic sources in the historical dictionary” (in Hebrew). Lłšonénu 61:147–150. ——. 1998b. “Min hayyom ≠ad” (in Hebrew). Lłšonénu 61:151–154. ——. 1998c. “‫פורשת אשקלון‬: A reflex of a geminate reš?” (in Hebrew). Lłšonénu 61:147–150. ——. 2000. “Some linguistic peculiarities of First Revolt period documents” (in Hebrew). Lłšonénu 63:327–332. ——. 2007. “Hebrew in the Babylonian incantation bowls” (in Hebrew). Sha≠arei lashon: Studies in Hebrew, Aramaic and Jewish languages presented to Moshe Bar-Asher, ed. by Aharon Maman, Steven E. Fassberg, and Yochanan Breuer, vol. 2, 204–227. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute. Naveh, Joseph. 1978. On stone and mosaic (in Hebrew). Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Carta. ——. 1992a. On sherd and papyrus (in Hebrew). Jerusalem: Magnes. ——. 1992b. “Hebrew versus Aramaic in the epigraphic finds of the Second Temple–Bar Kokhba period” (in Hebrew). Lłšonénu 56:301–316. ——. 1993. “Hebrew versus Aramaic in the epigraphic finds from the Bar Kokhba Revolt” (in Hebrew). Lłšonénu 57:17–38. Naveh, Joseph and Shaul Shaked. 1993. Magic spells and formulae: Aramaic incantations of late antiquity. Jerusalem: Magnes. Qimron, Elisha. 1975. “Initial alef as a vowel in Hebrew and Aramaic documents from Qumran compared with other Hebrew and Aramaean sources” (in Hebrew). Lłšonénu 39:133–146. ——. 1994. Review of Naveh 1992 (in Hebrew). Lłšonénu 57:267–272. Rahmani, Levi Yitzhaq. 1994. A catalogue of Jewish ossuaries in the collection of the State of Israel. Jerusalem: The Israel Antiquities Authority and the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Ridzewski, Beate. 1992. Neuhebräische Grammatik auf Grund der ältesten Handschriften und Inschriften. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 851 Sussmann, Yaacov. 1973. “A halakhic inscription from the Beth-Shean Valley” (in Hebrew). Tarbiz 43:88–158. Talshir, David. 1991. “‫ יהונתן המלך‬or ‫המלך יהו־‬ ‫( ”נתן‬in Hebrew). Lłšonénu 55:277–280. ——. 1992. “The significance of different orthography in personal names” (in Hebrew). Language Studies 5–6:225–244. ——. 1996. “Ha-≠Ivrit ba-me±a ha-šniya la-sfira”. ≠Iyyunim bi-lšon £axamim, ed. by Moshe BarAsher and Ofra Tirosh-Becker, 42–49. Jerusalem: The Institute for Advanced Study, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Wilfand, Yael. 2009. “Aramaic tombstones from Zoar and Jewish conceptions of afterlife”. Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period 40:510–553. Yoel Elitzur (Mikhlala Yerushalayim and the Hebrew University) Epistolary Formulae: Biblical Period Epistolary documents in various states of preservation are attested from the Iron Age in extra-biblical sources, whereas the literary forms found in these documents are attested in the Bible itself, in both Hebrew and Aramaic, in some cases complete and in others with only partial rendering of the epistolary formulae. Most of the extra-biblical texts are in Hebrew and Aramaic, the former primarily from the kingdom of Judah in the period immediately preceding the Babylonian exile (Pardee et al. 1982), the latter mostly from Egypt and dating to the 5th–4th centuries B.C.E. (Porten and Yardeni 1986), though one of the most famous was discovered at Assur (Donner and Röllig 1966–2002, text 233, dated to the 7th century B.C.E.). A handy collection of reasonably well-preserved letters in both languages has been put together by Lindenberger (2003); the Hebrew letters are examined as part of the larger corpus of Hebrew inscriptions by Renz (1995) and Dobbs-Allsopp et al. (2005). Pardee et al. (1982:169–182) devote a chapter to the fragments of Hebrew letters preserved in the Bible, and Porten and Yardeni (1986:130–143) devote an appendix to the biblical Aramaic letters. In addition to these relatively large and well-known corpora, there are many fewer epistolary documents in Phoenician (the one well-preserved document is treated in Pardee © 2013 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-17642-3