{"title":"The Oriental Institute Archeological Report on the Near East: Fourth Quarter, 1939","authors":"G. Hughes, A. D. Tushingham, N. C. Debevoise","doi":"10.1086/370537","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/370537","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":252942,"journal":{"name":"The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1939-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133078955","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1939-04-01DOI: 10.1086/amerjsemilanglit.56.2.528935
{"title":"Back Matter","authors":"","doi":"10.1086/amerjsemilanglit.56.2.528935","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/amerjsemilanglit.56.2.528935","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":252942,"journal":{"name":"The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1939-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132618911","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
struction of ancient history, especially that history concerned with the cultures of Mesopotamia and the Tigris-Euphrates Valley, is so vast and varied that its proper evaluation is difficult. Students in related fields of ancient history are working feverishly to give their material the adequate publication and treatment that it deserves. But written sources for Babylonian and Assyrian history have appeared in such quantity that the energy and time of scholars have been absorbed almost entirely in a mere presentation of narrative history with but brief recognition of cultural features. Hence the greater part of this material has not been adequately interpreted and correlated. One of the largest groups of published cuneiform texts-more than ten thousand-dates from the Chaldean and Persian periods. The majority of these texts, commonly called "contracts," are in reality archives of a much greater variety than the term applied to them would seem to indicate. Aside from over six hundred letters, they include actual contracts, receipts, various types of lists, temple documents of many kinds, judicial records, and most valuable administrative material. Many of these collections were published twenty or thirty years ago; some of the more valuable have appeared recently. For some scholars the major value of these documents lay in the date formulas, the basis of our chronology; for others these texts have been hunting-grounds in legal terminology. A few attempts have been made to study the documents for their content, but then usually only a select group and from a special point of view with a definite objective.
{"title":"Comparative Prices in Later Babylonia (625-400 B. C.)","authors":"W. Dubberstein","doi":"10.1086/370525","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/370525","url":null,"abstract":"struction of ancient history, especially that history concerned with the cultures of Mesopotamia and the Tigris-Euphrates Valley, is so vast and varied that its proper evaluation is difficult. Students in related fields of ancient history are working feverishly to give their material the adequate publication and treatment that it deserves. But written sources for Babylonian and Assyrian history have appeared in such quantity that the energy and time of scholars have been absorbed almost entirely in a mere presentation of narrative history with but brief recognition of cultural features. Hence the greater part of this material has not been adequately interpreted and correlated. One of the largest groups of published cuneiform texts-more than ten thousand-dates from the Chaldean and Persian periods. The majority of these texts, commonly called \"contracts,\" are in reality archives of a much greater variety than the term applied to them would seem to indicate. Aside from over six hundred letters, they include actual contracts, receipts, various types of lists, temple documents of many kinds, judicial records, and most valuable administrative material. Many of these collections were published twenty or thirty years ago; some of the more valuable have appeared recently. For some scholars the major value of these documents lay in the date formulas, the basis of our chronology; for others these texts have been hunting-grounds in legal terminology. A few attempts have been made to study the documents for their content, but then usually only a select group and from a special point of view with a definite objective.","PeriodicalId":252942,"journal":{"name":"The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures","volume":"65 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1939-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121177685","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
vention. This was undoubtedly the "proportioned writing," ,LIa u t. i. It is now clear that this was not a specific script-one of many such-but a mathematical control of the basic forms of the letters of the Arabic alphabet.' Mr. Eric Schroeder has recently published an article entitled "What Was the Badi Script?"2 which is likely, if allowed to go unchecked, to involve Ibn Muklah's contribution in another series of misunderstandings. Schroeder has unfortunately limited his study to meager sources. He has accepted Huart's pioneer work3 without further investigation. Valuable as this pioneer work is, it is nevertheless based largely on later Persian and Turkish sources, which should be checked by the earlier and therefore comparatively more reliable Arabic works now available to us to a much larger extent than in Huart's day. Furthermore, Schroeder has misunderstood and misquoted his one early Arabic source, the Fihrist, and has most unfortu-
{"title":"The Contribution of Ibn MuḲlah to the North-Arabic Script","authors":"N. Abbott","doi":"10.1086/370527","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/370527","url":null,"abstract":"vention. This was undoubtedly the \"proportioned writing,\" ,LIa u t. i. It is now clear that this was not a specific script-one of many such-but a mathematical control of the basic forms of the letters of the Arabic alphabet.' Mr. Eric Schroeder has recently published an article entitled \"What Was the Badi Script?\"2 which is likely, if allowed to go unchecked, to involve Ibn Muklah's contribution in another series of misunderstandings. Schroeder has unfortunately limited his study to meager sources. He has accepted Huart's pioneer work3 without further investigation. Valuable as this pioneer work is, it is nevertheless based largely on later Persian and Turkish sources, which should be checked by the earlier and therefore comparatively more reliable Arabic works now available to us to a much larger extent than in Huart's day. Furthermore, Schroeder has misunderstood and misquoted his one early Arabic source, the Fihrist, and has most unfortu-","PeriodicalId":252942,"journal":{"name":"The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1939-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127560144","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In 1934 E. J. Goodspeed contributed to this Journal' a short note on "The Shulammite," in which he criticized the view, common in present-day commentaries, that the word is the equivalent of "the Shunammite," or native of Shunem, and proposed to understand the word as the feminine of Solomon, "just as Judith is the feminine of Judah and Jeanne of Jean." He noted that Erbt had recognized that Shulammith is the feminine of Shelomo, and referred to the efforts of the more recent Tammuz theorists to bring the name into connection with a deity whose name is the feminine counterpart of that which lies behind Solomon. But Goodspeed desired rather to use the connection in the service of the Wetzstein-Budde wedding theory of the Song, and claimed that it provided a striking confirmation of that theory, remarking that "the simplicity and obviousness of this suggestion make one wonder that it has not been dealt with before." Finally, he suggested that it may not be an accident that "the Shulammite" occurs in connection with the sword dance, and in the New Testament the lady who entranced Herod Antipas by her dancing was named Salome, which is the feminine of Solomon.
1934年，E. J. Goodspeed给《华尔街日报》写了一篇关于“书拉密女”的短文，他批评了一种观点，这种观点在今天的评论中很常见，认为这个词相当于“书拉密女”，或者是书嫩的本地人，他建议把这个词理解为所罗门的女性，“就像朱迪思是犹大和让的珍妮的女性一样。”他注意到Erbt已经认识到Shulammith是Shelomo的女性，并提到最近搭模斯理论家的努力，将这个名字与一个神联系起来，这个神的名字是所罗门背后的女性对应。但古德斯比更希望利用这种联系来为宋朝的韦茨斯坦-布德婚礼理论服务，并声称它为该理论提供了惊人的证实，并评论说:“这个建议的简单性和显而易见性让人怀疑它以前没有被处理过。”最后，他提出，“书拉密女”与舞剑有关可能不是偶然的，在新约中，因跳舞而使希律·安提帕着迷的那位女士被命名为莎乐美，这是所罗门的女性。
{"title":"The Meaning of \"The Shulammite\"","authors":"H. Rowley","doi":"10.1086/370528","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/370528","url":null,"abstract":"In 1934 E. J. Goodspeed contributed to this Journal' a short note on \"The Shulammite,\" in which he criticized the view, common in present-day commentaries, that the word is the equivalent of \"the Shunammite,\" or native of Shunem, and proposed to understand the word as the feminine of Solomon, \"just as Judith is the feminine of Judah and Jeanne of Jean.\" He noted that Erbt had recognized that Shulammith is the feminine of Shelomo, and referred to the efforts of the more recent Tammuz theorists to bring the name into connection with a deity whose name is the feminine counterpart of that which lies behind Solomon. But Goodspeed desired rather to use the connection in the service of the Wetzstein-Budde wedding theory of the Song, and claimed that it provided a striking confirmation of that theory, remarking that \"the simplicity and obviousness of this suggestion make one wonder that it has not been dealt with before.\" Finally, he suggested that it may not be an accident that \"the Shulammite\" occurs in connection with the sword dance, and in the New Testament the lady who entranced Herod Antipas by her dancing was named Salome, which is the feminine of Solomon.","PeriodicalId":252942,"journal":{"name":"The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures","volume":"56 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1939-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130991311","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1939-01-01DOI: 10.1086/amerjsemilanglit.56.1.528978
{"title":"Back Matter","authors":"","doi":"10.1086/amerjsemilanglit.56.1.528978","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/amerjsemilanglit.56.1.528978","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":252942,"journal":{"name":"The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1939-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115978469","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Oriental Institute Archeological Report on the Near East: Third Quarter, 1938","authors":"G. Hughes, A. D. Tushingham, W. Dubberstein","doi":"10.1086/370530","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/370530","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":252942,"journal":{"name":"The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures","volume":"77 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1939-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121077125","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Tonyukuk's Epitaph: An Old Turkish Masterpiece Introduction, Text, Annotated Scientific Translation, Literary Translation and Transliteration","authors":"M. Sprengling","doi":"10.1086/370524","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/370524","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":252942,"journal":{"name":"The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures","volume":"185 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1939-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116602239","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The tent or tabernacle ( 1M), the ark (W), the ephod (11i ), and the ariel ( 3'W) are among the more tantalizing problems of the Old Testament. Their solution is less difficult when it is recognized that they may be closely related institutions. Although they may not be identical in form or in all details of their function, each may be described as a palladium, as a portable instrument of the cult, and as important in divination techniques. This study supplements an earlier discussion of the ark and sacred tent.' Here we shall be primarily concerned with the ariel and ephod. It is not surprising that there should have been several different names for somewhat similar cultic objects, when one considers the many different designations for a temple or sanctuary. The most obvious parallel is to be found among the Arabs, where we find the terms qubba, markab, mahmal, cutfa, and bait used to indicate the palladium.2 It may be argued that these designations were not all used by the same group or groups of peoples at the same time, but this is also true of the names with which we are concerned. The tent or tabernacle was more native to the nomadic environment, while the ark belonged to the more settled communities. As we shall see, the ariel is in the Old Testament primarily associated with Transjordan.3 Although ark (11'X) and ephod are synonymous terms, the former is employed, at least by our Old Testament sources, more often as the designation of the palladium which came to be placed in the Jerusalem sanctuary, while the latter is used more widely of the palladia at Ophra, Nob, etc. And it is not to be assumed that the tent, ark, ariel, and ephod were all exactly identical in form, for we know that the ark and sacred tent were different in form, since one was a sacred
{"title":"Ephod and Ariel","authors":"H. G. May","doi":"10.1086/370526","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/370526","url":null,"abstract":"The tent or tabernacle ( 1M), the ark (W), the ephod (11i ), and the ariel ( 3'W) are among the more tantalizing problems of the Old Testament. Their solution is less difficult when it is recognized that they may be closely related institutions. Although they may not be identical in form or in all details of their function, each may be described as a palladium, as a portable instrument of the cult, and as important in divination techniques. This study supplements an earlier discussion of the ark and sacred tent.' Here we shall be primarily concerned with the ariel and ephod. It is not surprising that there should have been several different names for somewhat similar cultic objects, when one considers the many different designations for a temple or sanctuary. The most obvious parallel is to be found among the Arabs, where we find the terms qubba, markab, mahmal, cutfa, and bait used to indicate the palladium.2 It may be argued that these designations were not all used by the same group or groups of peoples at the same time, but this is also true of the names with which we are concerned. The tent or tabernacle was more native to the nomadic environment, while the ark belonged to the more settled communities. As we shall see, the ariel is in the Old Testament primarily associated with Transjordan.3 Although ark (11'X) and ephod are synonymous terms, the former is employed, at least by our Old Testament sources, more often as the designation of the palladium which came to be placed in the Jerusalem sanctuary, while the latter is used more widely of the palladia at Ophra, Nob, etc. And it is not to be assumed that the tent, ark, ariel, and ephod were all exactly identical in form, for we know that the ark and sacred tent were different in form, since one was a sacred","PeriodicalId":252942,"journal":{"name":"The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures","volume":"79 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1939-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125083479","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1938-10-01DOI: 10.1086/amerjsemilanglit.55.4.3088119
F. Buckler
The problem of the translation of the last words of Our Lord, spoken in His native tongue, has not been eased by the arbitrary action of the Evangelist in identifying them with the words of the Psalmist (Ps. 22:2), "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"' It has tended to control the readings, which betray not only a fair range of variety but also a double strand, one of which-the ?aoOavpl group-bears the distinct impress of the Psalmist's word (':~_TY). Theologically, the identification has caused the gravest difficulties, as the complete breakdown of faith, which it reflects as it stands, has forced the apologist to many strange devices, which reach their culmination in the eschatological view, that He was a deluded apocalyptic at last disillusioned-substantially the view of those who stood by in mockery to "see whether Elijah cometh to take him down" (Mark 15:36; cf. Matt. 27:49). It is quite possible, of course, that the truth lies in this view, or in the view that in the combined effects of the agonies of thirst and crucifixion, with the ebbing of the Sufferer's physical strength, momentary despair overwhelmed Him. Against either of these hypotheses it may be urged, however, that they are unnecessary assumptions, their homiletic appeal to the contrary notwithstanding. The view obtains no support from the Lukan or Johannine tradition, although it is known that both were acquainted with, and used, Mark. Their omission by Luke, in fact, amounts to a positive objection to the validity of the interpolated identification. That he saw the difficulty of the Aramaic words merely transliterated into Greek may perhaps be deduced from his summary of the Markan passage (Luke 23:45), where (possibly under the influence of Joel 2:31, used later by him in Acts (2:17-21) he is led to depart from the guidance of Ps. 22, which he had used earlier (Luke 23:34, 35). In place of Ps. 22:1 he appears to have taken 'XEl as a corrupt form of iXlov and identified o-aax~avel or ~a•apaoavl with cKXLWbVro(23:45a); otherwise he passed over the passage-a 1 The reading in the Massoretic text is 'I gy -
{"title":"\"Eli, Eli, Lama Sabachthani?\"","authors":"F. Buckler","doi":"10.1086/amerjsemilanglit.55.4.3088119","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/amerjsemilanglit.55.4.3088119","url":null,"abstract":"The problem of the translation of the last words of Our Lord, spoken in His native tongue, has not been eased by the arbitrary action of the Evangelist in identifying them with the words of the Psalmist (Ps. 22:2), \"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?\"' It has tended to control the readings, which betray not only a fair range of variety but also a double strand, one of which-the ?aoOavpl group-bears the distinct impress of the Psalmist's word (':~_TY). Theologically, the identification has caused the gravest difficulties, as the complete breakdown of faith, which it reflects as it stands, has forced the apologist to many strange devices, which reach their culmination in the eschatological view, that He was a deluded apocalyptic at last disillusioned-substantially the view of those who stood by in mockery to \"see whether Elijah cometh to take him down\" (Mark 15:36; cf. Matt. 27:49). It is quite possible, of course, that the truth lies in this view, or in the view that in the combined effects of the agonies of thirst and crucifixion, with the ebbing of the Sufferer's physical strength, momentary despair overwhelmed Him. Against either of these hypotheses it may be urged, however, that they are unnecessary assumptions, their homiletic appeal to the contrary notwithstanding. The view obtains no support from the Lukan or Johannine tradition, although it is known that both were acquainted with, and used, Mark. Their omission by Luke, in fact, amounts to a positive objection to the validity of the interpolated identification. That he saw the difficulty of the Aramaic words merely transliterated into Greek may perhaps be deduced from his summary of the Markan passage (Luke 23:45), where (possibly under the influence of Joel 2:31, used later by him in Acts (2:17-21) he is led to depart from the guidance of Ps. 22, which he had used earlier (Luke 23:34, 35). In place of Ps. 22:1 he appears to have taken 'XEl as a corrupt form of iXlov and identified o-aax~avel or ~a•apaoavl with cKXLWbVro(23:45a); otherwise he passed over the passage-a 1 The reading in the Massoretic text is 'I gy -","PeriodicalId":252942,"journal":{"name":"The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures","volume":"54 2","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1938-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132119869","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：