Isn’t strange that a Persian scribe would use the Western Aramaic חמי rather than the Eastern חזי? Does this man the he was copying from a source that originated in Tiberias?
What an excellent question! The whole thing is strange. As I mentioned in the footnote, the regular equivalent term for Tiberian סביר in the Babylonian masora is חזין. The use of חמי seems to be running parallel to the semantics of the Babylonian term, without actually using the Babylonian term itself.
As for the geographical scope of חמי: you're right that it is Western Aramaic. But to the best of my knowledge it is also used in Eastern Aramaic. So I don't think the verb itself helps us geographically in this instance. Does that track with you?
Isn’t strange that a Persian scribe would use the Western Aramaic חמי rather than the Eastern חזי? Does this man the he was copying from a source that originated in Tiberias?
Hi David,
What an excellent question! The whole thing is strange. As I mentioned in the footnote, the regular equivalent term for Tiberian סביר in the Babylonian masora is חזין. The use of חמי seems to be running parallel to the semantics of the Babylonian term, without actually using the Babylonian term itself.
As for the geographical scope of חמי: you're right that it is Western Aramaic. But to the best of my knowledge it is also used in Eastern Aramaic. So I don't think the verb itself helps us geographically in this instance. Does that track with you?
Dear Dr. Kim,
Thank you so much for writing part II of manuscript archaeology.
Blessings,
Rimon Armaly
הי ידידי!
תודה לך שקראת!
כל טוב,
קים