Electronic Journal for Ancient and Oriental Studies

Philologie et grivoiserie à l'égyptienne : les termes bn.t / bn (ou bnbn) / bnn

Nadine Cherpion — 2025-06-16

How musical iconography can help lexicology.

La symbolique de la double vision de Jérémie

Christian-B. Amphoux — 2025-06-16

The book of Jeremiah begins with a double vision that occurred to the author when he was around twenty years old; and from these two ordinary objects, a stick and a cauldron, arises the awareness of a double danger for the people, still avoidable, and later a whole book written in two stages, which does not correspond to the Hebrew tradition of book of Jeremiah, but in the Hebrew model translated in the Septuagint, intended then to enter into Holy Scripture to close it. Several apparent inconsistencies lead us to place the writing of this book at the very beginning of the 2nd century BC: Jeremiah then identifies with Simon the Just, high priest around – 200 and, for some, final editor of the first part of the Hebrew Bible.

La bipartition des Paralipomènes traduits par Jérôme sur l’hébreu (Vulgate) : où et quand ?

Pierre-Maurice Bogaert — 2025-06-16

The division in two books of the translation of Paralipomenon (Chronicles) by Jerome according to the Hebrew (our Vulgate), although received and established, is not original. Jerome has preserved the Hebraic tradition that does not divide the Chronicles: early manuscripts of this version witness the non-division. The custom of the Septuagint nevertheless, which had divided this very long book, followed by the Latin versions according to the Greek, and confirmed by the Latin canonical lists mentioning two books, led very soon to divide Jerome’s translation according to the Hebrew, henceforth the sole available, in two books. The early canonical lists, Isidore of Seville, and Spain had a major influence in the change. The Bibles of Theodulf (Orleans, c. 800) witness the progressive transition from the non-division to the bipartition.

Entre Belzébul et le Grand Prêtre : le Codex Washingtoniensis, un témoin-clé d'un état intermédiaire de Mc 3,20-3

Laurent Pinchard — 2025-06-16

This article examines the pericope of the Beelzebul controversy (Mark 3,20-35) in Codex Washingtonianus, within the broader context of textual evolution in the New Testament. The study highlights the complex narrative structure and theological layers of the text, which go beyond a simple debate over Jesus’ power to exorcise demons. By analyzing key textual variants, the article reveals a deeper underlying theme of Jesus’ critique of religious and political authorities, particularly the Herodian priests and their relationship with the Temple. The vocabulary used, especially in reference to the ‘strong man’s house,’ evokes connections to the destruction of the First Temple and the restoration of sacred objects, drawing parallels with the language of Esdras. The analysis demonstrates how scribes’ choices in transmitting unclear passages influenced the textual tradition. Through a detailed comparison of Codex Washingtonianus with other key manuscripts, including Codex Bezae, Codex Vaticanus, and minuscule 700, this study explores the theological implications and editorial processes that shaped the transmission of the pericope.

La critique textuelle des Actes des Apôtres : l’évolution des données externes (3e partie)

Jean-Louis Simonet — 2025-06-16

This article aims to summarize the evolution of our knowledge of witnesses (continuous manuscripts, lectionaries, patristic citations) of the Caucasian Albanian, Syro-palestinian, Arabic, and Old-Slavonic versions of the Acts of the Apostles, and to evaluate the state of the global study of this field, and more specifically, of editions already produced, or in preparation, for each of these languages. As this article follows two previous publications on the same domain, the author inserts at the beginning some elements of supplements on the Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic et Georgian witnesses of the Acts.

Jésus est-il mort volontairement selon le Coran ? Une lecture historico-critique de Q 4:156-159

Naima Afif — 2025-06-16

In this article, we begin by discussing the form, structure, and substratum of Q 4:156-159. We then proceed to a new reading of the passage in light of the Christ Hymn in Philippians 2 and the Suffering Servant poem in Deutero-Isaiah. For problematic words, we rely on the consonantal ductus of the Quranic Vulgate. We consider possible influences of biblical and extra-biblical phraseology, primarily in the Syriac language, using corpus linguistics. Based on our observations, we propose alternative readings that support a new hypothesis about the voluntary death of Jesus in the Quran and question a passage which is historically regarded as fundamental for the differentiation between Islam and Christianity.

Archbishop Parker, the Bishops’ Bible (1568) and the Book of Psalms

Robert J. Wilkinson — 2025-06-16

This article begins with an investigation of the Psalter of the 1568 Bishops’ Bible and its several unhappy features. The Psalter is then placed in the history of Reformation English Bibles and the growth of English metrical psalmody. Finally, an attempt is made to reconstruct the rationale of Archbishop Matthew Parker’s dealings with the Psalms over several years in the light of his own 1568 metrical translation.

La chasse aux papillons: Butterflies, Oaks, Spinning Tops, Braggarts, and Devils between Indo-European and Semitic

Letizia Cerqueglini — 2025-06-16

The Modern Hebrew word for ‘butterfly,’ parpar, was coined by Eliezer Ben-Yehuda and is commonly believed to derive from a playful adaptation of the Italian farfalla combined with the Hebrew root pirpɛr. A comparative analysis of the mainly Levantine and Arabian Semitic lexicons suggests that the root p.r.p.r entered Hebrew through Aramaic. Aramaic also appears to underlie the Arabic developments of p.r.p.r, notably frequent in Levantine and Christian va-rieties. Aramaic may have introduced p.r.p.r into Semitic from Indo-European, where the root *pr- yields a wide semantic network including ‘beat,’ ‘split,’ ‘axe,’ and its reduplicated form produces lexemes for ‘butterfly’ and ‘oak.’ While p.r.p.r enters Semitic as a reduplicated root of Indo-European origin, triconsonantal expansions from biconsonantal *pr- likely developed within Semitic, possibly also influenced by Indo-European roots and flexed forms. Ben-Ye-huda’s parpar thus seems to draw more from Hebrew literary tradition and his familiarity with Slavic vocabulary than from any direct Italian model. Contemporary developments of p.r.p.r in Arabic and Modern Hebrew are reported. Finally, I address semantic extensions of p.r.p.r in Arabic (instability in relationships, boasting, noise-making, and nonsensical speech), which may be connected to Provençal fanfa, French fanfare, Italian farfallone, farfallino, fanfarra, fanfarone, farfugliare, vanvera, and furfante.