Although the Aramaic of the Levi Document from the Cairo Geniza is not Qumran Aramaic, the text i... more Although the Aramaic of the Levi Document from the Cairo Geniza is not Qumran Aramaic, the text is a late copy of the Words of Levi from Qumran. Although the medieval text occasionally shows accommodation to later forms of Aramaic, it is still an important lexical source for earlier Jewish Literary Aramaic
The curse found in the Sefire Treaty inscription i A 24 (kai 222) has resisted a consensus interp... more The curse found in the Sefire Treaty inscription i A 24 (kai 222) has resisted a consensus interpretation. A recent study by J. Dušek points the way to a more accurate understanding. Further refinement yields a coherent curse, focused on the reversal of the masculinity of the treaty-breakers' army and the consequent neutralisation of its martial effectiveness.
This paper provides a comprehensive and uniform description that accounts for the use of all the ... more This paper provides a comprehensive and uniform description that accounts for the use of all the participial periphrastic constructions in Biblical Hebrew and calls into question the claim that a second ('preterite') function of the construction was developed in Late Biblical Hebrew. We define the syntagm and give criteria for distinguishing true participial periphrastic constructions from superficially similar constructions. We then show that close attention to situation aspect and (un)boundedess provides a unified and sound account of every occurrence of the syntagm in the Hebrew Bible. We conclude that, unless the situation is bounded by an adverbial phrase, every participial periphrastic construction is unbounded which semantically distinguishes the construction from wayyiqtol.
Hebrew Texts and Language of the Second Temple Period: Proceedings of the 8th Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira, 2021
Mishnaic Hebrew is at least partially the outcome of intense second language acquisition by adult... more Mishnaic Hebrew is at least partially the outcome of intense second language acquisition by adult native Aramaic speakers in the late Second Temple period.
Although it has been claimed that Mishnaic Hebrew derived from a pre-exilic dialect independent o... more Although it has been claimed that Mishnaic Hebrew derived from a pre-exilic dialect independent of Biblical Hebrew, the archaisms usually cited to buttress this view are not archaisms at all. MH must be considered a later development out of Biblical Hebrew in the post-exilic period.
Paper delivered at the conferences "New Aspects of the Texts and Language of the Dead Sea Scrolls... more Paper delivered at the conferences "New Aspects of the Texts and Language of the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Eighth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira and Related Fields," Jerusalem, Israel, 2016.
The massive transformation in Hebrew visible in the differences between BIblical and Mishnaic Hebrew is not due to internal development, but to contact with Aramaic in the post-exilic period. This contact led to significant substratum influence from Aramaic (interference), betraying a period of non-native adult L2 acquisition. The Hasmonean period may be the crucial historical watershed.
Abstract: The origin of Mishnaic Hebrew and its differences from Biblical Hebrew have been explai... more Abstract: The origin of Mishnaic Hebrew and its differences from Biblical Hebrew have been explained in different ways, e.g., in terms of chronological development (MH is later), register (MH is colloquial), or geographic (MH originated elsewhere than in Judea). None of these accounts explain, however, just why MH is different in the way that it is different, especially in the pronounced and drastic simplification of its verbal system vis-a-vis BH.
Recent advances in contact linguistics suggest that MH originated out of a very specific kind of contact with Aramaic, namely, the fairly rapid adult acquisition of Hebrew as a second language by Aramaic speakers, which left the language permanently changed. The most likely historical framework for this contact situation is the expansion of the Jewish state under the Hasmoneans in the second and first centuries BCE.
Uncorrected page proofs from "A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism" (Eerdmans,... more Uncorrected page proofs from "A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism" (Eerdmans, 2012; M. Henze, ed.). To quote this essay, see the published volume.
A consideration of Torrey's "translation hypothesis" for the Gospels in the light of a comparison... more A consideration of Torrey's "translation hypothesis" for the Gospels in the light of a comparison of Greek Tobit to Aramaic Tobit from Qumran.
Although the prevailing vocalism of the Aramaic causative internal passive is thought to be ‘Hoph... more Although the prevailing vocalism of the Aramaic causative internal passive is thought to be ‘Hophal’, there is some evidence for an alternative vocalism with short /a/ in the first syllable, therefore ‘Haphal’. The orthographic renderings of the causative passive in Qumran Aramaic suggest that the vocalism in that dialect was throughout ‘Haphal’. Although it is tempting to hypothesize that ‘Haphal’ was in fact the normal vocalism of the stem in all ancient Aramaic, it is possible that ‘Hophal’ was also used in some dialects. Finally, it is suggested that the vocalism of the ‘Ittaphal’ stem is based on the ‘Haphal’.
The Aramaic of Qumran is sometimes claimed to be the best or only Aramaic dialect to use for unde... more The Aramaic of Qumran is sometimes claimed to be the best or only Aramaic dialect to use for understanding the Aramaic background of the New Testament. In fact, although it has its uses, the corpus of Qumran Aramaic is very small, and it is not a sufficient source on its own for the purposes of back-translating portions of the New Testament into “authentic” first-century c.e. Palestinian Aramaic. A consideration of the difficulties of retroversion when the translation technique of the Greek writer is unknown, combined with inadequate control of Aramaic among retroverters, suggests that large-scale Aramaic retroversion of New Testament passages has no chance of reconstructing the original Aramaic of the Gospels.
Uncorrected proof from the Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics. Please cite published... more Uncorrected proof from the Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics. Please cite published version only.
Introduction to my 2008 Glossary of Targum Onkelos, with discussion of the dialect and provenance... more Introduction to my 2008 Glossary of Targum Onkelos, with discussion of the dialect and provenance of the Targum.
This is an unedited submission to the Michael P. O'Connor memorial volume, to be published by Eis... more This is an unedited submission to the Michael P. O'Connor memorial volume, to be published by Eisenbrauns
Although the Aramaic of the Levi Document from the Cairo Geniza is not Qumran Aramaic, the text i... more Although the Aramaic of the Levi Document from the Cairo Geniza is not Qumran Aramaic, the text is a late copy of the Words of Levi from Qumran. Although the medieval text occasionally shows accommodation to later forms of Aramaic, it is still an important lexical source for earlier Jewish Literary Aramaic
The curse found in the Sefire Treaty inscription i A 24 (kai 222) has resisted a consensus interp... more The curse found in the Sefire Treaty inscription i A 24 (kai 222) has resisted a consensus interpretation. A recent study by J. Dušek points the way to a more accurate understanding. Further refinement yields a coherent curse, focused on the reversal of the masculinity of the treaty-breakers' army and the consequent neutralisation of its martial effectiveness.
This paper provides a comprehensive and uniform description that accounts for the use of all the ... more This paper provides a comprehensive and uniform description that accounts for the use of all the participial periphrastic constructions in Biblical Hebrew and calls into question the claim that a second ('preterite') function of the construction was developed in Late Biblical Hebrew. We define the syntagm and give criteria for distinguishing true participial periphrastic constructions from superficially similar constructions. We then show that close attention to situation aspect and (un)boundedess provides a unified and sound account of every occurrence of the syntagm in the Hebrew Bible. We conclude that, unless the situation is bounded by an adverbial phrase, every participial periphrastic construction is unbounded which semantically distinguishes the construction from wayyiqtol.
Hebrew Texts and Language of the Second Temple Period: Proceedings of the 8th Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira, 2021
Mishnaic Hebrew is at least partially the outcome of intense second language acquisition by adult... more Mishnaic Hebrew is at least partially the outcome of intense second language acquisition by adult native Aramaic speakers in the late Second Temple period.
Although it has been claimed that Mishnaic Hebrew derived from a pre-exilic dialect independent o... more Although it has been claimed that Mishnaic Hebrew derived from a pre-exilic dialect independent of Biblical Hebrew, the archaisms usually cited to buttress this view are not archaisms at all. MH must be considered a later development out of Biblical Hebrew in the post-exilic period.
Paper delivered at the conferences "New Aspects of the Texts and Language of the Dead Sea Scrolls... more Paper delivered at the conferences "New Aspects of the Texts and Language of the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Eighth International Symposium on the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Ben Sira and Related Fields," Jerusalem, Israel, 2016.
The massive transformation in Hebrew visible in the differences between BIblical and Mishnaic Hebrew is not due to internal development, but to contact with Aramaic in the post-exilic period. This contact led to significant substratum influence from Aramaic (interference), betraying a period of non-native adult L2 acquisition. The Hasmonean period may be the crucial historical watershed.
Abstract: The origin of Mishnaic Hebrew and its differences from Biblical Hebrew have been explai... more Abstract: The origin of Mishnaic Hebrew and its differences from Biblical Hebrew have been explained in different ways, e.g., in terms of chronological development (MH is later), register (MH is colloquial), or geographic (MH originated elsewhere than in Judea). None of these accounts explain, however, just why MH is different in the way that it is different, especially in the pronounced and drastic simplification of its verbal system vis-a-vis BH.
Recent advances in contact linguistics suggest that MH originated out of a very specific kind of contact with Aramaic, namely, the fairly rapid adult acquisition of Hebrew as a second language by Aramaic speakers, which left the language permanently changed. The most likely historical framework for this contact situation is the expansion of the Jewish state under the Hasmoneans in the second and first centuries BCE.
Uncorrected page proofs from "A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism" (Eerdmans,... more Uncorrected page proofs from "A Companion to Biblical Interpretation in Early Judaism" (Eerdmans, 2012; M. Henze, ed.). To quote this essay, see the published volume.
A consideration of Torrey's "translation hypothesis" for the Gospels in the light of a comparison... more A consideration of Torrey's "translation hypothesis" for the Gospels in the light of a comparison of Greek Tobit to Aramaic Tobit from Qumran.
Although the prevailing vocalism of the Aramaic causative internal passive is thought to be ‘Hoph... more Although the prevailing vocalism of the Aramaic causative internal passive is thought to be ‘Hophal’, there is some evidence for an alternative vocalism with short /a/ in the first syllable, therefore ‘Haphal’. The orthographic renderings of the causative passive in Qumran Aramaic suggest that the vocalism in that dialect was throughout ‘Haphal’. Although it is tempting to hypothesize that ‘Haphal’ was in fact the normal vocalism of the stem in all ancient Aramaic, it is possible that ‘Hophal’ was also used in some dialects. Finally, it is suggested that the vocalism of the ‘Ittaphal’ stem is based on the ‘Haphal’.
The Aramaic of Qumran is sometimes claimed to be the best or only Aramaic dialect to use for unde... more The Aramaic of Qumran is sometimes claimed to be the best or only Aramaic dialect to use for understanding the Aramaic background of the New Testament. In fact, although it has its uses, the corpus of Qumran Aramaic is very small, and it is not a sufficient source on its own for the purposes of back-translating portions of the New Testament into “authentic” first-century c.e. Palestinian Aramaic. A consideration of the difficulties of retroversion when the translation technique of the Greek writer is unknown, combined with inadequate control of Aramaic among retroverters, suggests that large-scale Aramaic retroversion of New Testament passages has no chance of reconstructing the original Aramaic of the Gospels.
Uncorrected proof from the Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics. Please cite published... more Uncorrected proof from the Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics. Please cite published version only.
Introduction to my 2008 Glossary of Targum Onkelos, with discussion of the dialect and provenance... more Introduction to my 2008 Glossary of Targum Onkelos, with discussion of the dialect and provenance of the Targum.
This is an unedited submission to the Michael P. O'Connor memorial volume, to be published by Eis... more This is an unedited submission to the Michael P. O'Connor memorial volume, to be published by Eisenbrauns
This volume is part of a series of English translations of the Syriac Peshitta along with the Syr... more This volume is part of a series of English translations of the Syriac Peshitta along with the Syriac text carried out by an international team of scholars. Edward M. Cook has translated the text, while Kiraz has prepared the Syriac text in the west Syriac script, fully vocalized and pointed. The translation and the Syriac text are presented on facing pages so that both can be studied together. All readers are catered for: those wanting to read Numbers in English, those wanting to improve their grasp of Syriac by reading the original language along with a translation, and those wanting to focus on a fully vocalized Syriac text. I provided collations for this project.
Handout for Edward Ullendorff lecture, given at Cambridge Univ. in May 2016: "Language Contact an... more Handout for Edward Ullendorff lecture, given at Cambridge Univ. in May 2016: "Language Contact and the Genesis of Mishnaic Hebrew." Full lecture to be made available on Cambridge website.
Although it has been claimed that the Zohar has a similar linguistic profile to the Targum Pseudo... more Although it has been claimed that the Zohar has a similar linguistic profile to the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and other texts (based on my work in Cook 1986), in fact the languages of the two texts are very different. A consideration of the Eastern Aramaic elements in the two corpora demonstrates this. The author of the Zohar was apparently unaware of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan.
Review of Frederick Mario Fales and Giulia Francesca Grassi, L’aramaico antico: Storia,grammatica... more Review of Frederick Mario Fales and Giulia Francesca Grassi, L’aramaico antico: Storia,grammatica, testi commentati, con un’appendice paleografica di Ezio Attardo,
This paper provides a comprehensive and uniform description that accounts for the use of all the ... more This paper provides a comprehensive and uniform description that accounts for the use of all the participial periphrastic constructions in Biblical Hebrew and calls into question the claim that a second (‘preterite’) function of the construction was developed in Late Biblical Hebrew. We define the syntagm and give criteria for distinguishing true participial periphrastic constructions from superficially similar constructions. We then show that close attention to situation aspect and (un)boundedess provides a unified and sound account of every occurrence of the syntagm in the Hebrew Bible. We conclude that, unless the situation is bounded by an adverbial phrase, every participial periphrastic construction is unbounded which semantically distinguishes the construction from wayyiqtol.
Uploads
Papers by Edward Cook
The massive transformation in Hebrew visible in the differences between BIblical and Mishnaic Hebrew is not due to internal development, but to contact with Aramaic in the post-exilic period. This contact led to significant substratum influence from Aramaic (interference), betraying a period of non-native adult L2 acquisition.
The Hasmonean period may be the crucial historical watershed.
Recent advances in contact linguistics suggest that MH originated out of a very specific kind of contact with Aramaic, namely, the fairly rapid adult acquisition of Hebrew as a second language by Aramaic speakers, which left the language permanently changed. The most likely historical framework for this contact situation is the expansion of the Jewish state under the Hasmoneans in the second and first centuries BCE.
The massive transformation in Hebrew visible in the differences between BIblical and Mishnaic Hebrew is not due to internal development, but to contact with Aramaic in the post-exilic period. This contact led to significant substratum influence from Aramaic (interference), betraying a period of non-native adult L2 acquisition.
The Hasmonean period may be the crucial historical watershed.
Recent advances in contact linguistics suggest that MH originated out of a very specific kind of contact with Aramaic, namely, the fairly rapid adult acquisition of Hebrew as a second language by Aramaic speakers, which left the language permanently changed. The most likely historical framework for this contact situation is the expansion of the Jewish state under the Hasmoneans in the second and first centuries BCE.