Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Wandering Arameans: Arameans Outside Syria. Textual and Archaeological Perspectives

2018; Eisenbrauns; Volume: 28; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.5325/bullbiblrese.28.2.0270

2576-0998

Caleb Chow,

Biblical Studies and Interpretation

Although the title suggests that the contents would specifically concern Arameans outside Syria, this volume of 12 essays is divided into two sections: “Arameans in Syria and Palestine,” and “Arameans in Mesopotamia and Egypt.” Within each section, the articles are arranged alphabetically by the authors’ last names.In the first article concerning Arameans in Syria and Palestine, J. Greer (“The Cult at Tel Dan: Aramean or Israelite?”) points out how the “altar kit,” the ʿImmadiyaw seal, and the animal bone remains from the sacred precinct (Area T) of Iron II Tel Dan fit what is expected of Israelite religious worship. Nevertheless, Greer also acknowledges the limitations of relying on archaeological material for making ethnic connections and carefully caveats his conclusions by offering reasons the material may be Aramean instead.Through tracing the morphological features of the various forms of written Aramaic, H. Gzella (“New Light on Linguistic Diversity in Pre-Achaemenid Aramaic: Wandering Arameans or Language Spread?”) identifies an Eastern Syrian and Central Syrian variety in the ninth century. However, in the Neo-Assyrian period written Aramaic preserved Central Syrian expressions, while in Assyria and Babylonia of the seventh and sixth centuries the written Aramaic was intentionally consolidated into a form not derived from any Syrian varieties of Aramaic. Before 500 BC, Achaemenid Official Aramaic (a term Gzella argues is preferable to “Imperial Aramaic”), derived from the Babylonian Aramaic developments, implemented a more standardized written language throughout the empire, while diverse spoken Aramaic forms continued to evolve simultaneously.Based on an analysis of the genealogical and patriarchal accounts in the Bible, Y. Levin (“‘My Father was a Wandering Aramean’: Biblical Views of the Ancestral Relationship between Israel and Aram”) addresses the Deuteronomist’s reasoning behind closely tying the Israelites and Arameans, exemplified by Deut 26:5. In his view, the Deuteronomist intended to communicate both the facts that the Israelites’ ancestors hailed from Aram and that they are indeed linked by blood, but despite these facts, Israel, unlike the Arameans, would not worship idols and would inherit the land of Canaan.A. Maeir (“Can Material Evidence of Aramean Influences and Presence in Iron Age Judah and Israel be Found?”) begins by summarizing the available evidence for Aramean presence in Judah and Israel, including the development of the Aramaic language as well as archaeological evidence from Tel es-Safî/Gath, Tel Dan, Hazor, Tel Kinrot, and Deir Allā. He concludes by providing a sober acknowledgment of the limitations in the archaeological record due to current events in Syria, but also identifies the potential in ongoing excavations at Abel Beth Maacah.A. Schüle (“Balaam from Deir Allā: A Peripheral Aramean?”) addresses whether Balaam in Num 22–23 and the Deir Allā text can be identified as Aramean. Schüle discusses the date, content, historical context, and language of the inscription through a comparison with the Aramaic of the Tel Dan inscription and Zakkur stele. Schüle concludes that the Deir Allā text leans toward being a dialect of Aramaic and that Balaam in Num 22–23 can be identified as Aramean in the ethnic or tribal sense. There are a noticeable number of spelling and grammatical errors in this article, but Schüle’s cautious conclusions are reasonable assessments of the evidence.O. Sergi (“The Battle of Ramoth-Gilead and the Rise of the Aramean Hegemony in the Southern Levant during the Second Half of the 9th Century BCE”) investigates the textual evidence concerning the battle of Ramoth-Gilead in 2 Kgs 8–9, which marks the fall of the Omride dynasty, the rise of Aram-Damascus, and the end of the anti-Assyrian coalition of which Ahab and Hadad-ezer were part. Based on the Tel Dan inscription, the battle account of 2 Kgs 8–9, and an analysis of the prophetic nature of 1 Kgs 22:1–38, Sergi concludes that the primary reason for Jehu’s revolt is the weakening of the Omride dynasty after the Moabite rebellion, which led to Joram’s abandonment of the anti-Assyrian coalition.“Social Climbing in the Babylonian Exile” is the first article in the section dedicated to the study of Arameans in Mesopotamia and Egypt. In light of a recent publication of sixth–fifth century BC documents by exiled Judeans living rural Babylonia, A. Berlejung provides several case studies that show the significant extent of social mobility of Judean deportees in Babylonia. She provides a detailed look into the prosperity of some Judeans living in Babylonian and Persian society, from managing small amounts of barley to establishing trade networks and engaging in private entrepreneurship.J. Hackl (“Babylonian Scribal Practices in Rural Contexts [CUSAS 28 and BaAr 6]”) provides a detailed linguistic analysis of sixth-century Babylonian texts concerning Judean exiles in the countryside. Hackl argues that the presence of deviant, aberrant, and erroneous writing structures exhibited by the rural Babylonian scribes are not a result of West Semitic influence but rather the result of inferior training of the Babylonian scribes, who were sent to rural areas, as well as of differences between written and spoken Babylonian.T. Oshima (“How ‘Mesopotamian’ Was Ahiqar the Wise? A Search for Ahiqar in Cuneiform Texts”) covers the major textual features that hint at either Mesopotamian or Aramean origins of Ahiqar and concludes that, while Ahiqar was Aramean in origin, like many other Arameans, who became high-ranking officials in Assyria, Ahiqar can be considered an Aramean who assimilated into Assyrian identity.Following the publication of new Aramaic epigraphs on cuneiform tablets, M. Streck (“Late Babylonian in Aramaic Epigraphs on Cuneiform Tablets”) identifies the unique orthography, phonology, morphology, and vocabulary of the nearly 300 Aramaic epigraphs that verbatim parallel Akkadian cuneiform texts. Streck believes that these transcriptions contribute to the overall understanding of Late Babylonian. This article will likely serve as a valuable reference mainly for language specialists, as Streck does not offer any historical or archaeological conclusions related to the Arameans.K. L. Younger Jr.’s “Tiglath-Pileser I and the Initial Conflicts of the Assyrians with the Arameans” provides a comprehensive picture of the geopolitical circumstances of the early conflicts between Tiglath-pileser I and the Arameans through a detailed historical reconstruction of the period based on the historical records. Younger points out that, despite 28 “successful” campaigns against the Arameans under Tiglath-pileser I, their pressure on Assyria only increased toward the end of his reign and into the reign of his successor.Since “Arameans in Egypt” is the only article in this volume dedicated to Egypt, its broad title is justified considering the breadth of G. Vittman’s discussion. Vittman identifies Aramean elements in Egyptian texts through an overview of the geographic distribution and content of the available corpus, followed by a brief discussion of Egyptian loan-words in Aramaic. He concludes by showcasing the difficulties of identifying Arameans in Egyptian documents due to their tendency to adopt Egyptian names.This volume covers a wide range of periods and locations, from the earliest mention of the Arameans through to the Persian period and from Egypt to Mesopotamia. The volume’s contributors delve deeply into specialized topics of archaeology, linguistics, political history, literature, and culture of the Arameans. What this broad range of topics leaves desired is an article dedicated to a methodological discussion on utilizing varying evidence types in identifying Arameans. That said, this volume constitutes a worthy addition to the scholarly study of the Arameans.