27.12.2012 Views

Journal of Biblical Literature - Society of Biblical Literature

Journal of Biblical Literature - Society of Biblical Literature

Journal of Biblical Literature - Society of Biblical Literature

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Book Reviews<br />

ences on Aramaic (Chicago: University <strong>of</strong> Chicago Press, 1974), 109, which Sokol<strong>of</strong>f utilizes<br />

<strong>of</strong>ten. Similarly, sometimes the coverage <strong>of</strong> Persian loanwords is inconsistent. Thus<br />

for the noun ptgm (p. 454) Sokol<strong>of</strong>f refers to OP as well as CPA and Syr., while for the<br />

verb šdr #2 (p. 538) there is no mention <strong>of</strong> Rosenthal’s suggested link to Persian *aµ(x)štidrauga<br />

(see Rosenthal, A Grammar <strong>of</strong> <strong>Biblical</strong> Aramaic [6th ed.; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz,<br />

1995], 63). Such inconsistency in coverage is understandable, particularly as a<br />

proper etymological survey <strong>of</strong> Aramaic is not really possible until a new generation <strong>of</strong><br />

decent dialect dictionaries has been produced, thus enabling a comprehensive survey to<br />

be made. Sokol<strong>of</strong>f’s efforts certainly bring us closer to this aspiration.<br />

Not every entry has a bibliographical section. Such data are supplied for technical<br />

terminology such as botanical terms and to refer the reader to discussions <strong>of</strong> dialectology/orthography<br />

and the like, which have a bearing on the dictionary’s coverage or treatment<br />

<strong>of</strong> a particular lexeme. This seems to be a sensible approach, especially in<br />

comparison with DCH, which has an exhaustive bibliographical section that <strong>of</strong>ten contains<br />

superfluous entries. Again, because there is no attempt at a comprehensive bibliography,<br />

there are oversights. For example, one who consults the entry for the verb krz<br />

(p. 268) will find no reference to Kutscher, Hebrew and Aramaic Studies (Jerusalem:<br />

Magnes, 1977), 126, which contains an essential analysis <strong>of</strong> the suggested derivations <strong>of</strong><br />

this root. The reader will need the presence <strong>of</strong> mind to consult the entry for the noun<br />

krwz (seven entries before krz) to be referred to this resource.<br />

The reverse index <strong>of</strong> references cited in DJPA (pp. 595–820) will prove <strong>of</strong> limited<br />

use, and perhaps the space could have been devoted to more useful indices (cf. Kaufman,<br />

242, who is more positive about this feature <strong>of</strong> DJPA). For example, DCH and<br />

CDG give reverse English-Hebrew and English-Ge>ez vocabulary lists respectively.<br />

Such lists are not too difficult to compile electronically.<br />

As noted above, many corrections have been incorporated into this second edition,<br />

so the present reviewer noticed only one questionable gloss in DJPA. Sokol<strong>of</strong>f defines<br />

the idiom

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!