Collectanea Christiana Orientalia 22 (2025): 39-59
Christa Müller-Kessler
Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena
On the Rare Usage of Object Suffixes in Christian Palestinian Aramaic:
A Phenomenon in Biblical Texts?
Pronominal Object Suffixes in Western Aramaic
Western Aramaic dialects are known to share many features in their grammar like
morphemes, syntagms, or in their mutual lexicography, but some of them tend to be more
specific for the individual dialect than others. Noteworthy is the random usage of
pronominal object suffixes in Christian Palestinian Aramaic (CPA) and its fashion of
suffixing them to the finite verb. CPA deviates here from the neigbouring and
contemporary dialects, Samaritan Aramaic
1
and Galilean Aramaic,
2
where they seem to
have been a bit more popular. On this point all three dialects are not close to the remaining
Palestinian Targumic fragments from the Cairo Genizah, since pronominal object suffixes
are hardly to be found.
3
This also goes for Targum Neofiti. The construction of suffixing
pronouns on verbs was there regularly replaced with the object markers yt- and l-. By
accumulating all available CPA attestations, including the material from the New Finds at
St Catherine’s Monastery on Mt Sinai, which is not much to speak of, it looks as if the
usage of object suffixes is mostly restricted to Bible passages. The direct object suffixing
hardly ever occurs in patristic (only five examples) or other non Biblical text genres. There
has recently been a first attestation in a church inscription from the vicinity of Sussita-
Antiochia Hippos at ‘Uyūn Umm el-Azam.
4
It is also not obvious on what ground and why
1
Rudolf Macuch, Grammatik des samaritanischen Aramäisch «Studia Samaritana» 4 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1982),
pp. 224-236; and for a part of Tibat Marqe only in Christian Stadel, “Object Suffixes in Samaritan Aramaic
from the First Two Books of Tībåt Mårqe and Some Considerations as to Their Development”, Ancient
Near Eastern Studies 48 (2011), pp. 232-247.
2
Gustav Dalman, Grammatik des jüdisch-palästinischen Aramäisch (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrich’s Verlag, 1905), pp.
359-392, esp. 396.
3
Steven E. Fassberg, A Grammar of the Palestinian Targum Fragments from the Cairo Genizah (Atlanta, GA:
Scholars Press, 1990), pp. 119-120; Steven E. Fassberg, “3rd Masculine Plural Object Suffixes in
Northwest Semitic”, Eretz-Israel 34 (2021), pp. 140-144 [Hebrew].
4
See for the first attested example in an inscription Estēe Dvorjetski, Christa Müller-Kessler, Michael
Eisenberg, Adam Pažout, and Mechael Osband, “A Christian Palestinian Aramaic Inscription from the
Territory of Sussita-Antiochia Hippos”, ARAM. Periodical 34.1 (2022), pp. 139-152, esp. 149. The part of
the inscription was prepared by me.
Christa Müller-Kessler
40
CPA translators of the Old and New Testament from the Greek “Vorlagen” opted to
deploy these object pronominal suffixes so randomly instead of the more frequent
alternative with the direct object indicator yt- or l- plus pronominal suffixes. One of the
prominent questions on this issue remains why are they so rare and are so irregular
employed in these texts. Since there existed no written tradition for this language type
running today mostly under the name CPA, sometimes and earlier under Syro-Palestinian,
in some French publications Melkite Aramaic,
5
the background stays obscure and any kind
of dialectal development is difficult to follow up. Whether the literary language types as
occurring in Qumran Aramaic can be considered a predecessor is more than questionable
and they are far too remote in time and language style, but the fashion of object pronoun
suffixing on the verb in Genesis Apocryphon comes very close to the CPA one.
6
One
answer, however, could be that in the translation of Bible books there was a tendency to
opt for a more archaic or better conservative style of language, which was then
intentionally applied, but not consequently. Why for example, unpublished Gospel
manuscripts, Sin. syr. NF M56N — is not part of the Old Jerusalem Lectionary
7
— or Sin.
syr. NF M11N, as many others show object suffixes on an irregular basis, stays unclear. In
most instances, however, the alternative with the direct object indicator yt- and l- was given
preference. Often both options are deployed in the same verse (see below). Whereas in the
hagiographical, apocryphal, and theological works the translators did not opt for them, as
the texts were not in need to be formally or precisely expressed. The Biblical texts,
however, required or called for more ancient constructions, here for example, the suffixing
of the object pronouns to finite verbs, never infinite verbs (infinitive, participles).
This is also the case for another conservative syntagm of the figura etymologica, which can
be still found in the infinitive construction in some Biblical passages. It occurs in the
citation of Exodus 21:16 ‘he shall (surely) die’ (θανάτῳ τελευτάτω) in Matthew
15:4 (Sin. syr. NF M56N, fol. 45r/40v; unpubl.), or in
Genesis 2:17
(eleventh-century Lewis Lectionary).
8
Such syntagms are also not very typical for the Late
Aramaic stage, let alone any usage of the infinitive in CPA in particular.
9
This might also
5
The Hebrew term לארסי־ץרא תירוס used in publications in Ivrit is hardly fitting.
6
It should be pointed out that the nota accussativi תי with pronominal suffixes is not a feature in this text.
7
Alain Desreumaux errs here by taking the Eusebian kephalaia in this Gospel manuscript as lectionary
rubrics; see Alain Desreumaux, “Le palimpseste Sin. syr. NF M56N du nouveau fonds de Sainte-
Catherine : son apport à la codicologie araméenne christo-palestinienne, aux versions anciennes des textes
bibliques et à l’histoire de la liturgie”, in Claudia Rapp, Guillia Rossetto, Jana Gruskova, and Grigory
Kessel (eds.), New Light on Old Manuscripts: The Sinai Palimpsests and Other Advances in Palimpsest Studies
«Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung, 45; Denkschriften der philosophisch-historischen
Klasse» 547 (Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, 2023), pp. 131-145.
https://doi.org/10.1553/978OEAW91575s131.
8
Agnes Smith Lewis with Critical Notes by Professor Eberhard Nestle D.D. and a Glossary by Margaret
Dunlop Gibson, A Palestinian Syriac Lectionary Containing Lessons from the Pentateuch, Job, Proverbs, Prophets,
Acts, and Epistles «Studia Sinaitica» VI (London: C. J. Clay & Sons, 1897), p. 84.
9
Considering the few attested examples not employed as nominalized infinitives, they are also limited to
Bible passages. It is out of the question that this grammatical feature can go back to Arabic influence in
the early text material. One needs a fixed and written Arabic language corpus so that such a syntagm
On the Rare Usage of Object Suffixes in Christian Palestinian Aramaic
41
explain another dialectical lexical remnant of the vernacular in the written CPA texts, the
randomly surfacing of the verbal root ntn instead of ntl. The latter was obviously introduced
from Syriac as replacement for the weak verb yhb in the imperfect or even infinitive, with
the take over and modification of an Estrangela script type to write this western Aramaic
dialect for Christian text purposes. Although ntl seems to be predominant, in some early
manuscripts ntn is still present as an alternative option in some specific ones.
10
With CPA’s direct dependency on Greek “Vorlagen” it required someone well-trained
in translation technique who could work this into the translations from Greek into CPA.
The syntactical features of CPA are not slavishly based on the Greek as one would have
expected them. It is sometimes close, but not always. Therefore, one should refrain from
reading or restoring the CPA text according to the Greek, especially in difficult to read
palimpsest texts. Often the CPA texts are literally translated as the Syriac Ḥarklean version,
but this is mostly only the case for the New Testament material. In the Old Testament
translations it can often deviate as demonstrated by Hugo Duensing for a parallel passage
of Isaiah 50:4-5 for three samples deriving from lectionaries (early and late).
11
Interestingly,
in many instances the CPA translators were still able to restore the Semitic spelling of
proper names in the Biblical texts (personal, geographical), which they could properly
transliterate from the Greek back into CPA, since the Greek alphabet is missing certain
characters to represent the correct Semitic characters.
12
There can be no doubt that CPA as appearing in the written corpus was only in use as
an artificial written literary language to serve the purpose of the cleric to have
comprehensible Bible and liturgical texts for the lower cleric and the Melkite church
community. Greek, however, remained the dominating communal church language, and
the lingua franca of the educated, but at times CPA can be found in monastic, church, and
sepulchral inscriptions
13
next to the much more attested Greek ones, as well as recently in
protective amulets.
14
This can be deduced from the growing examples from even northern
could have crept into this Aramaic dialect as early a this, but the CPA replacement constructions with d-
+ imperfect or in rare cases with a participle construction are rather good Aramaic constructions and
nothing unusual. There are no Arabic loanwords in this period as well. Such facts should have been
considered by Christian Stadel, “The Loss of the Infinitive and Its Replacement by the Imperfect in
Christian Palestinian Aramaic”, Israel Oriental Studies 21 (2022), pp. 274-310.
10
Christa Müller-Kessler, “The Verbal Root ntn Replacing yhb ‘to give’ in the Imperfect. A Case Study in
Early Christian Palestinian Aramaic Manuscripts” [in preparation], where all attestations, including the
new unpublished ones, have been collected.
11
Hugo Duensing, Christlich-palästinisch-aramäische Texte und Fragmente nebst einer Abhandlung über den Wert der
palästinischen Septuaginta (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1906), p. 91.
12
Christa Müller-Kessler, “1.4.9 Christian Palestinian Aramaic Translation”, in Armin Lange and Emanuel
Tov (eds.), The Hebrew Bible, vol. 1A (Leiden: Brill, 2016), pp. 454-455.
13
Although in the meantime some new additional inscriptions came to light, the best overview is still by
Émile Puech, “Notes d'épigraphie christo-palestinienne de Jordanie”, in Claudine Dauphin and Basema
Hamarneh (eds.), In Memoriam Fr Michele Piccirillo, OFM (1944-2008): Celebrating His Life and Work «BAR
International Series» 2248 (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2011), pp. 75-94, figs. 206-230.
14
No provenances are known yet for these objects, which have increased lately, since all come through the
antiquities market; see for some of them published by Joseph Naveh and Shaul Shaked, Magic Spells and
Formulae. Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1993), pp. 107-109; Émile Puech,
Christa Müller-Kessler
42
sites such as the Decapolis (‘Evron near Naharia, ‘Uyūn Umm el-‘Azam near Sussita-
Antiochia Hippos),
15
or in Western Palestine near Tel Aviv (Tell Jonas),
16
where this
‘spoken idiom’ was definitely not at home.
Coming back to the Bible translations. Any influence from the Syriac Bible witnesses or
even the Hebrew Masoretic texts cannot have any impact on the usage of object
pronominal suffixes in CPA and therefore, can be definitely ruled out. Although there is in
the late Gospel Lectionary A (1030 AD) some heavy Syriac influence to be noted,
especially in the second readings of some periscopes,
17
including the Nestorian punctuation
system. This late liturgical text, however, was copied several hundred years after the prime
time of CPA (5th to 7th century AD). Previously, these features tended to be taken within
the grammatical exploit much too seriously on account of the easy access and the legibility
of the manuscript itself. It happened also to be the first known CPA manuscript and text
for some time,
18
but it is not at all representative for the actual language state as found in
the early text period (5
th
to 7
th
century AD). The issue concerning the deployment of object
suffixes is there far more representative, although also not uniform in the whole surviving
early text corpus. In some examples the usage in the eleventh- and twelfth-century
manuscripts agrees to the early ones, but not always. The view by Moshe Bar-Asher that
the examples outweigh in the later period could not even be supported at the time of his
thesis in 1977.
19
What is clear is that these late liturgical texts are definitely not copies of the
earlier text witnesses, and one should also refrain from restoring them from these late
manuscripts as Alain Desreumaux did in several Gospel fragments from parts of the Codex
Sinaiticus rescriptus.
20
“Deux amulettes palestiniennes une en grec et une bilingue en grec-christo-palestinien”, in Hermann
Gasche and Barthel Hrouda (eds.), Collectanea Orientalia. Histoire, arts de l’espace et industrie de la terre. Études
offertes en hommage à Agnès Spycket (Neuchâtel: Recherches et Publications, 1996), pp. 299-310. Also now
Ohad Abudrahman, “A New Christian Palestinian Aramaic Amulet”, Orientalia N.S. 86 (2017), pp. 97-
106.
15
Alain Jacques (Desreumaux), “A Palestinian-Syriac Inscription in the Mosaic Pavement at ‘Evron”,
Michael Avi-Yonah Memorial Volume, Eretz-lsrael 19 (1987), pp. 54*-56*; Dvorjetski, Müller-Kessler et al.,
“Christian Palestinian Aramaic Inscription”, pp. 144-152.
16
Moshe Bar-Asher, “A New Syropalestinian Inscription”, Haaretz Museum Annual 17.8 (1975), pp. 17-21,
pls. 1-2 [Hebrew].
17
Some lexemes have definitely to be taken as Syriac, since they have no “Sitz im Leben” in CPA or
Western Aramaic in general, for example the verbal root , its derivations and a number of lexical
items, ; see Christa Müller-Kessler, Grammatik des Christlich-Palästinisch-Aramäischen.
Teil 1: Schriftlehre, Lautlehre, Morphologie (Hildesheims: Olms, 1991), p. 24.
18
This does not diminish the excellency of the first study on this dialect by Theodor Nöldeke who had
nothing else to base his grammatical erudition on in 1868; see Theodor Nöldeke, “Beiträge zur Kenntniss
der aramäischen Dialecte. II.”, Zeitschrift der morgenländischen Gesellschaft 22 (1968), pp. 443-527.
19
Moshe Bar-Asher, Palestinian Syriac Studies. Source-Texts, Traditions and Grammatical Problems (Jerusalem: Diss.
Hebrew University, 1977) [Hebrew; handwriting], p. 209 n. 195. Lectionary A might have given the
impression.
20
Alain Desreumaux, Codex sinaiticus Zosimi rescriptus «Histoire du Texte Biblique» 3 (Lausanne: Édition du
Zebre, 1997).
On the Rare Usage of Object Suffixes in Christian Palestinian Aramaic
43
Greek as “Vorlage” and its language type does not work with such pronominal object
suffixes and therefore any kind of influence from this side is understandably out of the
question. Another option would be the dependence on Rabbinic Western Targums as
Targum Neofiti or the Samaritan Targum for the Old Testament part, which can be clearly
rejected as well, since the CPA translators were hardly influenced by these text traditions.
The CPA translations are also not dependent on the Syriac Bible witnesses in any text
genre as can be demonstrated just by comparing them.
21
In most text parts this ancient
Semitic and earlier Aramaic syntagm of suffixing the direct object to the verb is given up in
CPA, or better is being replaced with the nota accussativi yt- or the other object indicator l- +
pronominal suffix, often in alternative usage.
22
In the Palestinian Targumic fragments the
latter option seems to have been already the rule.
23
The first occurrences of the nota accussativi loaned from Hebrew into Western Aramaic
can be already noted in Nabatean, a form of Late Imperial Aramaic.
24
It was already
deployed in literary Qumran Aramaic, for example, in Targum of Job or in the Aramaic
Naḥal Hever documents.
25
Later this syntagm developed into a standard feature in the
Western Aramaic dialects. It was then transferred during the diaspora through Rabbinic
literary Aramaic to Mesopotamia to be deployed in the official translation of the Bible
(Targum Onqelos and Jonathan) as well as in the magical text corpus on incantation bowls
in the Aramaic square script, although being an alien syntactical feature in this geographical
environment. It gradually replaced the ancient function of the direct object suffixing.
26
The rarity of attestations of object suffixes in CPA could be also simply a question of
the fragmentarily surviving manuscript material. Some manuscripts, however, show them
arbitrarily such as CCR2B, a manuscript with the Pauline letters under Codex Climaci
rescriptus,
27
where the translator made use of this alternative with object suffixes twelve or
21
The overrated Gospel Lectionary A dated to 1030 does not count as the best representative of the early
language type, although it still maintains some earlier features. The examples from the Syriac versions in
the footnotes are only added for comparative reasons, but do not intend to claim any relation or influence
from Syriac on CPA on this formation.
22
Friedrich Schulthess, Grammatik des christlich-palästinischen Aramäisch, edited by Enno Littmann (Tübingen:
J.C.B. Mohr, 1924), pp. 33, 78, 88.
23
Fassberg, A Grammar of the Palestinian Targum, pp. 119-120. The language in the Targumic Palestinian
Aramaic fragments seems to be not identical to Galilean Aramaic, as already remarked by Eduard Y.
Kutscher, “The Language of the Genesis Apocryphon – A Preliminarily Study”, in Chaim Rabin and
Yigael Yadin (eds.), Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls «Scripta Hierosolymitana» IV (Jerusalem: Magnes Press,
1957), pp. 1-35, esp. 12 n. 54.
24
Jean Cantineau, Le Nabatéen (Paris: Librarie Ernest Leroux, 1930), pp. 56-57. Kutscher, “The Language of
the Genesis Apocryphon”, pp. 20-21.
25
Klaus Beyer, Die aramäischen Texte vom Toten Meer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), p. 601.
And for more examples from the Judean Desert see also Takamitsu Muraoka, A Grammar of Qumran
Aramaic (Leuven: Peeters, 2011), pp. 215-217.
26
Christa Müller-Kessler, “The Linguistic Heritage of Qumran Aramaic”, in Armin Lange, Emmanuel Tov,
and Matthias Weigold (eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls in Context. Integrating the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Study of
Ancient Texts, Languages, and Cultures (Leiden: Brill, 2011), pp. 215-259, esp. 234, 237, 255.
27
The dismembered manuscript was formerly edited by Agnes Smith Lewis, Codex Climaci Rescriptus «Horae
Semiticae» VIII (Cambridge: University Press, 1909), and recently a missing part of this codex with more
Christa Müller-Kessler
44
thirteen times in 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, and 2 Timothy. The
surfacing of a missing quire of this codex containing only 1 and 2 Corinthians added some
new attestations.
28
The rather small, fragmentary, and not unified text corpus from the
Cairo Genizah shows only eight attestations so far. There they can be also found in diverse
manuscripts of the Pauline letters, 2 Corinthians, 1 Thessalonians, and 2 Timothy as well as
in the Gospel of John next to three occurrences in Old Testament passages of Isaiah,
Jeremiah, and Lamentations.
29
Noteworthy is a double parchment folio with a deviating
version of Leviticus and Numbers (Sin. gr. NF M167, fol. ?) without parallels from the
Monastery of St Catherine’s on Mt Sinai under a Greek minuscule containing the Ilias,
which shows alone seven attestations as well as the replacement verb instead of the
more often employed , which might speak for the early translation of this exceptional
Bible manuscript or a different scribal school.
30
Only three examples can be noted among
the Damascus palimpsest material of Luke and Hebrews.
31
Except for three attestations in
Job (CCR3; Sin. gr. NF MG 32) and John (CSRP
b
) no other examples are attested in the
various surviving witnesses of the early Old Jerusalem Lectionary transmission in CPA.
32
The eleventh-century Lewis Lectionary has only four attestations, three in the Pauline
Letters and one in Psalms.
33
In this it accords with the early Old Jerusalem lectionaries
being nearly void of its usage. Sometimes the early Gospel manuscript witnesses, agree to
the later ones in the usage of the construction of the direct object suffixing in identical
Bible passages, but not always, although they also are not depending on each other. A
continuous Gospel Bible manuscript of former 42 folios, now 84 bifolios with Matthew
and Mark (Sin. syr. NF M56N), has even seventeen attestations, which makes about thirty
Corinthian sections could be added by Christa Müller-Kessler, “The Missing Quire of Codex Climaci
rescriptus Containing 1-2 Corinthians in Christian Palestinian Aramaic (Sin. syr. NF M38N)”, in Claudia
Rapp, Guillia Rossetto, Jana Gruskova, and Grigory Kessel (eds.), New Light on Old Manuscripts: The Sinai
Palimpsests and Other Advances in Palimpsest Studies «Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung, 45;
Denkschriften der philosophisch-historischen Klasse» 547 (Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press,
2023), pp. 147-170. https://doi.org/10.1553/978OEAW91575s147. Only here and there the readings of
Lewis could be improved by me for the publication in Christa Müller-Kessler and Michael Sokoloff, The
Christian Palestinian Aramaic Old Testament and Apocrypha Version from the Early Period «A Corpus of Christian
Palestinian Aramaic» I (Groningen: STYX, 1997).
28
Müller-Kessler, “The Missing Quire of Codex Climaci rescriptus”, p. 153.
29
Two attestations could be added after the publication of the grammar, and two are simply a presumed
addition; see Christa Müller-Kessler and Michael Sokoloff, The Christian Palestinian Aramaic New Testament
from the Early Period. Acts and Epistles «A Corpus of Christian Palestinian Aramaic» IIB (Groningen: STYX,
1998), p. 16 (Acts 10:39).
30
Christa Müller-Kessler, “Unparalleled Variant Readings for Leviticus 26:26b-44 and Numbers 4:15b-5:6a
in an Early Christian Palestinian Aramaic Palimpsest from St Catherine’s Monastery (Greek NF M 167)”,
Revue Biblique 128 (2021), pp. 354-370, esp. 364.
31
Schulthess, Grammatik des christlich-palästinischen Aramäisch, pp. 78-80.
32
See Christa Müller-Kessler, Grammatik des Christlich-Palästinisch-Aramäischen, pp. 259-262. The lack might be
due to the scanty text material, but also the complete eleventh-century Lewis Lectionary shows only four
of them.
33
Lewis, A Palestinian Syriac Lectionary, pp. 8, 17, 23, 77.
On the Rare Usage of Object Suffixes in Christian Palestinian Aramaic
45
to forty percent of the new texts, but the complete text including any Luke and John has
not been preserved.
The rare feature of object suffixing became rather obvious in the preparation of the first
reference grammar, but it is now further supported through the publication and reading of
the new and early text material in the last thirty years after the publication of this
grammatical study from 1991.
34
Some of the faulty reading examples (only two) could be
eliminated due to several collations on the palimpsests with various technical appliances.
According to what principles object suffixes were employed in the various manuscripts
remains unanswered. The infrequent usage of direct objects suffixed on verbs still tends to
have been rather unpopular in CPA,
35
but any kind of statistical statement would say
nothing at all. In case the literary written language type of CPA reflects the spoken idiom it
must have been rather unpopular in the spoken dialect too. The situation of the translated
texts, however, are hardly representative for the vernacular of CPA. This applies also to the
inscriptional and amulet material.
Attestations of Object Suffixes in CPA
The so far attested examples are collected form the published und unpublished text
material and are listed below according to the verbal stems and their finite verbal forms
they are attested with. Only object suffixes with the verbs IIIy are listed in a separate
section. As many attestations from new texts are integrated into this study of which some
of them still remain unpublished the citations are indicated by the collection number of the
manuscripts to help to trace them back.
There tend to be more samples for the perfect than for the imperfect and imperative,
but this could be simply a coincidence due to the fragmentary text state in CPA. Without a
complete text corpus one can only judge the forms by the surviving text material and
present the actual situation of their occurrences. One should refrain from statistical
statements on this issue, which holds no merit for such a grammatical issue. Until recently
only the attestations from the late manuscripts outweighed the earlier ones with most of
them occurring in the Gospel Lectionary A (Vat. sir. 19) or B and C (Sin. syr. 2, 3). With
the publications, collations, and the discovery of new manuscript material the number of
examples for the early period has slightly increased. Still it cannot be considered a salient
feature of CPA, as it is more or less a morpho-syntagm restricted to Biblical texts.
34
Müller-Kessler, Grammatik des Christlich-Palästinisch-Aramäischen, pp. 259-262.
35
Müller-Kessler, Grammatik des Christlich-Palästinisch-Aramäischen, pp. 259-262. Despite the amount of
various and additional text material for the CPA, there are only about forty-two more attestations to be
noted.
Christa Müller-Kessler
46
Perfect with Object Suffixes on Strong Verbs
36
In the perfect the object suffixes are on the rule directly suffixed to the perfect affixes
except for the third singular masculine, which forms in general the perfect basis in Aramaic
ending in a consonant. This can be also observed in Galilean Aramaic
37
and partially in
Samaritan Aramaic depending on the manuscripts.
38
So far only two cases can be noted for
CPA, where -n- is infixed after the affix of the second singular masculine and before the
object suffix in the perfect. The attestations are restricted to the μεταγραφαί, which are not
representative for CPA, but they reflect a formation of an earlier language period, e.g.
Biblical Aramaic: ‘you have forsaken me?’ Mt 27:46 (Sin. syr. NF M56N, fol. 13r)
(2.1.1) for the re-transliteration from Greek σαβαχθανι comparable to the translations into
the Syriac versions (Sinai, Peshitta). One manuscript of Codex Climaci Rescriptus has
(CCR1, fol. 79v = CCPA IIA 41) instead, partially corresponding to the Ḥarklean
version , which shows here a plene spelling. This rather exceptional CPA
manuscript CCR1 with its deviating orthography and morphological forms cannot be
dependent on this version or having been influenced by it at all. In three Syriac translations
of the passage of Mark 15:34 (Sinai, Peshitta, Ḥarklean) one finds corresponding .
This verse of Mark has not been attested yet for CPA. Syriac and CPA try here to re-
transliterate the Greek form in their understanding, but they are not regular formations in
both Aramaic dialects and go back to an earlier Aramaic period when this kind of
formation was in use. Only one “real” CPA example with n-infix is found in a hitherto
unidentified homily ‘I? compared to him’ (3.1.1), if its understanding is correct.
This feature can be compared to the alternative usage in Samaritan Aramaic, where both
formations are possible without and with -n- infix.
39
The other option would be Galilean
Aramaic for this formation, if one takes the saying of Jesus as authentic as being a native of
Nazareth. Some attested examples from Vayiqqra Rabba speak for it.
40
Pe‘al
3 singular masculine + 3 singular masculine
‘he bound him’ Mt 14:3 (Sin. syr. NF M56N, fol. 22v);
41
‘he touched
him’ Lk 5:13 (BL, Add 14.446; late MS);
42
‘he took him’ Mk 7:33 (Sin. syr. NF
36
If no text reference is given then there does not exist an attestation for the late transmission of the Bible
passages.
37
Dalman, Grammatik des jüdisch-palästinischen Aramäisch, pp. 359-392, 396.
38
Macuch, Grammatik des samaritanischen Aramäisch, pp. 224-236.
39
Macuch, Grammatik des samaritanischen Aramäisch, pp. 224-230.
40
Dalman, Grammatik des jüdisch-palästinischen Aramäisch, pp. 364-365.
41
SCḤ .
42
Syr nil.
On the Rare Usage of Object Suffixes in Christian Palestinian Aramaic
47
M56N, fol. 51v);
(A 85
1
);
43
‘he kissed him’ Mt 26:49 (BL, Add 14.450), but
two early MSS have Mt 26:48 (CCR1 = CCPA IIA 37) and (CSRP
d
=
CCPA IIA 51),
44
and two late MSS have (C);
(B);
‘he passed him’
Lk 10:31 (A 64
2
); (B); (C);
45
‘he commanded him’ Nu 4:23; 46 (Sin. gr.
NF M167, fol. ?); ‘he grasped him’ Mt 14:31 (Sin. syr. NF M56N, fol. 40r);
(A
47
3
);
46
Lk 14:4 (Sin. syr. NF M11N, fol. 95r; A; B; C);
47
‘he asked him’ Mt
27:11 (BL, Add 14.446; late MS),
48
but
(A 136
4
);
(B).
3 singular masculine + 3 singular feminine
‘he bound her’ Lk 13:16 (A 66
2
); vocalic spelling in (B, C);
49
‘he
committed adultery with her’ Mt 5:28 (A 37
4
);
50
(B);
‘he thought her’ 1 Sam
1:13 (Vat. Syr. 627, fol. ?);
‘he hid it’ Mt 13:44 (Sin. syr. NF M56N, fol. 77v; A
158
2
);
51
‘he planted it’ Mt 15:13 (Sin. syr. NF M56N, fol. 16r).
52
3 singular masculine + 2 singular masculine
ἔχρισέν σε ‘he anointed you’ Hebr 1:9 (Dam
j
= CCPA IIB 194); (Lewis
Lectionary 23).
53
3 singular masculine + 1 singular
‘he handed me over’ Lam 1:14 (Bodl., Heb. b. 13 [P] = CCPA I 183); με
ἐρρύσατο ‘he delivered me’ 2 Tim 3:11 (CCR2B = CCPA IIB 178).
54
3 singular masculine + 1 plural
) ἱκάνωσεν ἡμᾶς ‘he made us competent’ 2 Cor 3:6 (T-S 20.157, fol. 2b
= CCPA IIB 103).
55
43
The punctuation in Gospel Lectionary A follows the Syriac Nestorian one and differs from the simple
diacritical signs used in the early CPA manuscripts, which only indicate the supralinear single dot on he for
the 3 singular feminine, or in some cases the reading of /a/ in
‘who’,
‘there’, and to distinguish
‘sign’ from ‘you’, to distinguish the reading of aleph as /e/ with dot
instead of /a/ without dot
, and the plural dots (Seyāme).
44
S .
45
SC .
46
SCPḤ .
47
But followed by .
48
SPḤ .
49
SCPḤ
.
50
SCPḤ
.
51
SCPḤ
.
52
PḤ
.
53
P .
54
P .
55
P .
Christa Müller-Kessler
48
3 singular feminine + 3 singular masculine
‘(the spirit) seized him’ Mk 9:20 (Sin. syr. NF M56N, fol. 71v);
56
(A
86
1
);
(B, C).
57
3 singular feminine + 3 singular feminine
ܗܬܕܒܥ ‘(Thekla) erected (lit. made) it’ Sussita-Antiochia Hippos inscription l. 1.
58
2 singular masculine + 1 singular
[ ‘you have forsaken me?’ Mt 27:46 (Sin. syr. NF M56N, fol. 13r),
59
(CCR1 = CCPA IIA 41)
60
< σαβαχθανι , but
(A 138
4
), (B, C)].
61
1 singular + 3 plural masculine
‘I (did not) reject them’ Lev 26:44 (Sin. gr. NF M167, fol. ?).
62
3 plural masculine + 3 singular masculine
‘they gave him’ Mk 15:17 (A 132
1
); (B, C);
63
‘[they killed] him’
Acts 10:39 (Khirbet Mird frag. 657v = CCPA IIB 16),
64
‘they questioned him’
Mk 9:28 (Sin. syr. NF M56N, fol. 70v), but
(A 86
3
);
(B);
(C);
65
‘[they hu]ng [him]’ Acts 10:39 (Khirbet Mird frag. 657v = CCPA IIB 16).
66
Pa‘‘el
3 singular masculine + 3 singular masculine
‘he wrapped him’ Mk 15:46 (CSRP
c
= CCPA IIA 96);
(A 12
2
); (B, C);
67
‘he flogged him’ Jn 19:1 (A 129
2
), (B, C);
68
‘he received him’ Mt 16:22
(Sin. syr. NF M56N, fol. 79v);
69
Lk 19:6 (CSRP
c
= CCPA IIA 153),
(A 71
4
);
70
56
But preceded by
.
57
P ; Ḥ .
58
Dvorjetski, Müller-Kessler et al., “A Christian Palestinian Aramaic Inscription”, p. 146.
59
Another early MS has (CCR1) for the Aramaic equivalent of the μεταγραφαί like in Gospel
lectionary A; SP have it too.
60
Another early MS has (CCR1); Ḥ .
61
Another early MS has (CCR1) for the Aramaic equivalent like in the Gospel lectionary A; SP
.
62
P with independent object pronoun .
63
An early palimpsest text has
(CSRP
e
= CCPA IIA 124).
64
P .
65
SP
.
66
P .
67
SPḤ .
68
Ḥ .
69
Syr nil.
On the Rare Usage of Object Suffixes in Christian Palestinian Aramaic
49
‘he preceded him’ Mt 17:25 (BL, Add 14.446; late MS);
(A 47
4
);
71
‘he
sanctified him’ Jn 10:36 (A 25
4
); (B, C);
72
‘he sent him’ Jn 10:36 (A 25
4
);
73
Lk 15:15 (A 73
3
);
74
‘he authorized him’ Jn 19:38 (A 136
1
);
75
ἠσπάσατο
αὐτὸν ‘he greeted him’ Tale of a Monk (Göttingen, SUB, Syr. 18 = Duensing
1944:217:5).
3 singular masculine + 3 singular masculine
ἀπέστειλέν με ‘he sent me’ 1 Cor 1:17 (CCR2B = CCPA IIB 70).
76
3 singular feminine + 3 singular masculine
‘she proceeded him’ Jn 11:30 (CSRP
d
= CCPA IIA 172).
77
1 singular + 3 singular masculine
παρέλαβον ‘I received him’ 1 Cor 15:3 (CCR2B = CCPA IIB 81).
78
3 plural masculine + 3 singular masculine
‘they sent him’ Lk 20:11 (CSRP
c
= CCPA IIA 156).
79
Af‘el
3 singular masculine + 3 singular masculine
‘he met him’ Mk 5:2 (Sin. syr. NF M56N, fol. 56v);
80
‘he took him down’
Mk 15:46 (CSRP
c
= CCPA IIA 96);
81
‘he surround him’ Mt 21:33 (CCR1 =
CCPA IIA 22),
82
but
(A 95
1
);
(A 51
3
);
(B, C);
στρατολογήσαντι ‘he enlisted him’ 2 Tim 2:4 (Bodl., Syr. c. 17r [P] = CCPA IIB 180);
‘he put him’ Mt 27:48 (Sin. syr. NF M56N, fol. 24v),
83
but
(A 133
4
);
but
(A 139
4
); Rom 3:25 (Lewis Lectionary 17); ‘he let him out’
LESC 67:7 (Cambridge, Westminster College without number); ‘he appointed
70
SP .
71
SCPḤ .
72
SP .
73
SP .
74
SCPḤ .
75
Syr nil.
76
P .
77
SPḤ .
78
P nil.
79
P .
80
Syr nil.
81
PḤ .
82
CP .
83
SPḤ .
Christa Müller-Kessler
50
him’ Mt 24:45 (Sin. syr. NF M56N, fol. 73v),
84
but (CCRI = CCPA IIA 30);
ἔστησεν αὐτὸ ‘he raised him’ Mk 9:36 (CSRO
e
= CCPA IIA 109), but
(A 164
3
);
85
ἐγείρας αὐτόν Eph 1:20 (CCR2B = CCPA IIB 128).
86
3 singular masculine + 3 singular feminine
‘he answered her’ Mt 15:23 (Sin. syr. NF M56N, fol. 21r),
87
but Syriasm in
(A 195
4
);
‘he raised her’ Mk 1:31 (Sin. syr. NF M56N, fol. 14v);
88
‘he
found it’ Mt 13:44 (Sin. syr. NF M56N, fol. 77v);
(A 158
2
).
3 singular masculine + 1 plural
‘he raised us’ συνήγειρεν Eph 2:6 (CCR2B = CCPA IIB 129),
89
but corrupted
form in (Lewis Lectionary 8); ‘he let us return’ συνεκάθισεν Eph 2:6
(CCR2B = CCPA IIB 129).
90
2 singular + 3 singular masculine
‘you recognized him’ Hymns (BL, Add 14.446; late MS).
1 singular + 3 singular masculine
‘I discovered him’ Acts 25:25 (CCR2A = CCPA IIB 107).
91
1 singular + 3 plural masculine
‘I (did not) annihilate them’ Lev 26:44 (Sin. gr. NF M 167, fol. ?);
92
‘I (did not) distance them’ Lev 26:44 (Sin. gr. NF M 167, fol. ?).
93
3 plural masculine + 3 singular masculine
‘(his people) recognized him’ Mt 14:35 (Sin. syr. NF M56N, fol. 45v);
94
‘they questioned him’ Mk 9:28 (Sin. syr. NF M56N, fol. 70v).
95
84
SP .
85
SPḤ .
86
P .
87
Syr nil.
88
SPḤ
.
89
P .
90
P .
91
Better reading than . The yud is very closely written to the taw and can be easily overlooked in the
palimpsest; see Kim Philipps, Two Early Byzantine Bible Manuscripts in Christian Palestinian Aramaic: Codex
Climaci Rescriptus II & XI «Cambridge Semitic Languages and Cultures» 34 (Cambridge: University Press,
2025), p. 171. P nil.
92
P with independent object pronoun .
93
P with independent object pronoun .
94
SCPḤ .
95
SP ܝܗܘ
ܠܐܫ .
On the Rare Usage of Object Suffixes in Christian Palestinian Aramaic
51
3 plural masculine + 3 singular feminine
‘they brought it up’ Mt 13:48 (Sin. syr. NF M56N, fol. 77v),
96
but
(A 158
3
).
Imperfect with Object Suffixes on Strong Verbs
In the imperfect the object suffixes are added to the infix -n-. There are no exceptions to
be noted.
Pe‘al
3 singular masculine + 3 singular masculine
‘he will deliver him’ Jn 12:4 (T-S 12.211 = CCPA IIA 181); Jn 12:4
(Sin. geo. NF 19 [lectionary] = CSRP
b
), but (CSRP
e
= CCPA IIA 181);
(A 92
4
);
97
αὐτὸν ἐξουθενήσῃ ‘he will despise him’ 1 Cor 16:11
(CCR2B = Sin. syr. NF M38N, fol. 2v);
98
‘he will grasp him’ ὅν … κατέχειν
Philem 13 (CCR2B = CCPA IIB 192).
99
3 singular masculine + 1 singular
‘he will kill me’ Job 6:9 (CCR3 [lectionary] = CCPA I 110).
100
3 singular masculine + 2 plural masculine
‘he will reach you’ Jn 12:35 (C).
101
1 singular + 3 singular masculine
‘I will bring him out’ Apophthegmata of the Fathers, Abba Isidorus (Sin. syr. NF Frag.
M59N, fol. 2r, 17).
102
1 singular + 2 singular masculine
‘I will give you advice’ Jer 45(38):15 (Bodl., Heb. e. 73, fol. 43r).
103
‘I will ask you’ Job 38:3 (Sin. gr. NF MG 32; lectionary).
104
96
S ; CPḤ .
97
PḤ .
98
P .
99
P
100
P .
101
SPḤ .
102
See Alain Desreumaux apud Philothée du Sinaï, Nouveaux manuscrits syriaques du Sinaï (Athens: Sinai
Foundation, 2008), p. 545.
103
Unfortunately, there is a whole in the parchment, but the character for the middle kaph speaks for a
construction with an object suffix.
Christa Müller-Kessler
52
1 singular + 2 plural masculine
‘I will pursue you’ Lev 26:36 (Sin. gr. NF M167, fol. ?);
105
‘I will ask
you’ Lk 20:3 (Sin. CPA NF frg. 16 = CCPA IIA 155; Damascus 48 = CCPA IIA 165);
(A 175
1
).
106
3 plural plural feminine + 2 singular masculine
‘they will anoint you’ (Horologion 349:2).
3 plural plural masculine + 2 singular feminine
‘they will force you’ Lk 19:43 Dam 48.
107
2 plural masculine + 1 plural
‘you will kill us’ Ex 16:3 (Vat. sir. 623, fol. 190/193 = CCPA I 33).
108
Pa‘‘el
3 singular masculine + 3 plural masculine
‘he guides them’ Is 11:6 (CSRP
a
[lectionary] = CCPA I 137).
109
3 singular masculine + 2 plural masculine
‘he will establish you’ 1 Thess 3:2 (T-S 16.326, 2b = CCPA IIB 167).
110
3 singular masculine + 1 plural
ἐζέληται ἡμᾶς ‘he will deliver us’ Gal 1:4 (CCR2B = CCPA IIB 107).
111
ᾧ ξενισθῶμεν ‘he will receive us’ Acts 21:16 (CCR2A = CCPA IIB 32).
112
1 singular masculine + 3 singular masculine
πέμψαι ‘I will send him’ Phil 2:25 (CCR2B = CCPA IIB 140).
113
1 singular masculine + 2 plural masculine
‘I will scatter them’ Lev 26:40 (Sin. gr. NF M167, fol. ?).
114
104
P .
105
P .
106
SC .
107
SCPḤ .
108
P nil.
109
P .
110
P .
111
P .
112
P .
113
P nil.
114
P nil.
On the Rare Usage of Object Suffixes in Christian Palestinian Aramaic
53
2 plural masculine + 1 singular
με προπέμψητε ‘you will send me’ 1 Cor 16:6 (CCR2B = Sin. syr. NF M38N, fol.
2r).
115
Af‘el
3 singular masculine + 3 singular masculine
‘he will find him’ Mt 24:46 (CSRP
de
= CCPA I 48; 64); (B);
(A 157
4
), but
(A 102
3
);
(C);
116
‘he loves him’ Lk 7:42 (A 155
4
); (A
183
1
, B, C).
117
Pūlel
1 singular + 2 singular masculine
‘I will rise you’ Cyril, XIV.4 (cit. Ps 29:1); (Lewis Lectionary 77; late MS);
Ps 29:1 (Horologion 209).
118
Šaf‘el
3 singular masculine + 2 plural masculine
‘he will entice you’ unknown homily (Tiflis, National Museum ? < olim
Oslo, Schøyen-Collection, MS 35, fol. 36va1 = Duensing 1906:77).
Imperative with Object Suffixes on Strong Verbs
Also in the Imperative the object suffix is affixed without an n-infix.
Pe‘al
2 singular masculine + 3 singular feminine
‘pluck it out’ Mt 18:9 (Sin. syr. NF M56N, fol. 9v);
119
Mt 5:29 (B); (A 37
4
);
120
‘cut if off’ Mt 5:30 (A 38
1
); (C); (B).
121
115
P .
116
S ; PḤ .
117
SCPḤ .
118
P .
119
SP
; Ḥ
.
Christa Müller-Kessler
54
2 singular masculine + 3 plural masculine
‘give them’ Mt 19:21 (Sin. syr. NF M56N, fol. 78r),
122
but
(B); only
(A, C).
123
Pa‘‘el
2 plural masculine + 3 singular masculine
‘take him out’ Num 5:3 (Sin. gr. NF M167, fol. ?).
124
2 singular masculine + 3 singular masculine
‘admonish him’ Mt 18:15 (Sin. syr. NF M56N, fol. 10v; CSRP
e
= CCPA IIA 57; A
36
2
, C); sic (B).
125
2 singular masculine + 1 plural
‘protect us’.
126
Verbs IIIy with Object Suffixes
Perfekt
Pa‘‘el
3 singular masculine + 1 plural
‘(the shadow of death) covered us’ Ps 43:19 (BL, Add 14.664; late MS).
1 singular + 3 singular masculine
‘I compared him’ unknown homily (Tiflis, National Museum ? < olim Oslo,
Schøyen-Collection, MS 35, fol. 36va17 = Duensing 1906:77).
3 plural masculine + 1 singular
‘they afflicted me’ Ps 16:9 (Horologion 199).
127
120
SP
; Ḥ
.
121
Ḥ
.
122
Syr nil.
123
SCPḤ = CPA
A 50
3
, C, but
B.
124
P .
125
SCPḤ .
126
This form cited by Schulthess, Grammatik des christlich-palästinischen Aramäisch, p. 87, cannot be traced.
127
Is the only example with -t- for suffixing an object suffix in CPA, is coming from a late MS (11
th
century),
and therefore, is not an established construction in CPA as specified by Ivri J. Bunis, “The Late Western
Aramaic Suffixing of Pronominal Direct Object via -t- < /yāt/”, in Aaron D. Hornkohl et al. (eds.),
On the Rare Usage of Object Suffixes in Christian Palestinian Aramaic
55
Af‘el
‘he brought him’ Mk 9:20 (A86
1
),
128
but
(C);
B);
(Sin. syr. NF M56N, fol. 71v/70r).
129
Imperfekt
Pe‘al
3 singular masculine + 3 singular masculine
‘he will shepherd him’ Mt 2:6 (A 168
3
); (C); - (B).
130
3 singular masculine + 2 singular masculine
‘he will call you’ Num 22:37 (Lewis-Gibson Collection = CCPA I 60).
131
1 singular + 3 singular masculine
‘I will drink him’ Mt 26:29 (Sin. syr. NF M11N, fol. 65v);
(A 114
2
);
(B, C), but
Mk 14:25 (Sin. syr. NF M56N, fol. 18v).
132
1 singular + 2 plural masculine
ὑμᾶς ... ἰδεῖν ‘I will see you’ 1 Cor 16:7 (CCR2B = Sin. syr. NF M38N, fol.
2r).
133
Af‘el
3 singular masculine + 3 singular masculine
σῴζειν αὐτόν ‘he will save him’ Hebr 5:7 (Damascus 82 = CCPA IIB 198).
134
Interconnected Traditions Semitic Languages, Literatures, and Cultures—A Festschrift for Geoffrey Khan. Volume 1:
Hebrew and the Wider Semitic World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2025), pp. 843-878, esp. 849.
P. 869: the clearly legible imperative plural imperative third plural masculine and single example with the
long ending -wn in
from Sin. syr. 3b in an unknown homily is from the Middle Period and is
dated far too late on the website (https://sinaimanuscripts.library.ucla.edu) into the 11th century, which
does not fit the scribal styles from the dated manuscripts.
128
PḤ ; S .
129
In the same verse, however, .
130
P .
131
P .
132
SPḤ .
133
P .
134
P .
Christa Müller-Kessler
56
1 singular + 2 plural masculine
‘he will deceive you’ Is 36:18 (T-S 12.742r = CCPA I 140).
135
Abbreviations
A = Paul de Lagarde, Bibliothecae syriacae. Evangeliarum Hierosolymitanum. Bibliothecae syriacae
(Göttingen: L. Horstmann, 1892), pp. 257-402.
Add 14.446 = Jan Pieter Nicolas Land, Anectoda Syriaca IV (Leiden: Brill, 1875), pp. 111-
134.
Add 14.450 = Jan Pieter Nicolas Land, Anectoda Syriaca IV (Leiden: Brill, 1875), pp. 134-
137.
Add 14.664 = Jan Pieter Nicolas Land, Anectoda Syriaca IV (Leiden: Brill, 1875), pp. 103-
113.
B = Agnes Smith Lewis and Margaret Dunlop Gibson, The Palestinian Syriac Lectionary of the
Gospels (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co, 1899).
C = ditto
CCPA I = Christa Müller-Kessler and Michael Sokoloff, The Christian Palestinian Aramaic
Old Testament and Apocrypha Version from the Early Period «A Corpus of Christian
Palestinian Aramaic» I (Groningen: STYX, 1997).
CCPA IIA = Christa Müller-Kessler and Michael Sokoloff, The Christian Palestinian Aramaic
New Testament from the Early Period. Gospels «A Corpus of Christian Palestinian
Aramaic» IIA (Groningen: STYX, 1998).
CCPA IIB = Christa Müller-Kessler and Michael Sokoloff, The Christian Palestinian Aramaic
New Testament from the Early Period. Acts and Epistles «A Corpus of Christian
Palestinian Aramaic» IIB (Groningen: STYX, 1998).
Cyril = Christa Müller-Kessler and Michael Sokoloff, The Catechism of Cyril of Jerusalem in the
Christian Palestinian Aramaic Version «A Corpus of Christian Palestinian Aramaic» V
(Groningen: STYX 1999).
Göttingen, SUB, Syr. 18 = Hugo Duensing, “Neue christlich-palästinische-aramäische
Fragmente”, «Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, phil.-
hist. Kl.» 1944/9 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1944), pp. 215-227.
Horologion = M. Black, A Christian Palestinian Syriac Horologion «Texts and Studies, N.S.» 1
(Cambridge: University Press, 1954).
Lewis Lectionary = Agnes Smith Lewis with Critical Notes by Professor Eberhard Nestle
D.D. and a Glossary by Margaret Dunlop Gibson, A Palestinian Syriac Lectionary
Containing Lessons from the Pentateuch, Job, Proverbs, Prophets, Acts, and Epistles «Studia
Sinaitica» VI (London: C. J. Clay & Sons, 1897).
Tiflis, National Museum, ? < olim Oslo, Schøyen-Collection MS 35 = Hugo Duensing,
Christlich-palästinisch-aramäische Texte und Fragmente nebst einer Abhandlung über den
Wert der palästinischen Septuaginta (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1906).
135
P .
On the Rare Usage of Object Suffixes in Christian Palestinian Aramaic
57
S C P Ḥ = Syriac New Testament versions are quoted according to George Anton Kiraz,
Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels (Leiden: Brill, 1996).
Sin. geo. NF 19 = Müller-Kessler, Christa, “The Early Jerusalem Lectionary Tradition in
Christian Palestinian Aramaic (5th-7th Century AD): Lections Containing
Unattested Old and New Testament Pericopes in Unpublished Palimpsests (Sinai,
Greek NF MG 32; Georgian NF 19, 71)”, Le Muséon 136 (2023), 201-263.
Sin. gr. NF M167, fol. ? = Christa Müller-Kessler, “Unparalleled Variant Readings for
Leviticus 26:26b-44 and Numbers 4:15b-5:6a in an Early Christian Palestinian
Aramaic Palimpsest from St Catherine’s Monastery (Greek NF M 167)”, Revue
Biblique 128 (2021), pp. 354-370.
Sin. syr. NF M11N = unpubl.
Sin. syr. NF M38N = Christa Müller-Kessler, “The Missing Quire of Codex Climaci rescriptus
Containing 1-2 Corinthians in Christian Palestinian Aramaic (Sin. syr. NF
M38N)”, in Claudia Rapp et al. (eds.), New Light on Old Manuscripts: The Sinai
Palimpsests and Other Advances in Palimpsest Studies «Veröffentlichungen zur
Byzanzforschung, 45; Denkschriften der philosophisch-historischen Klasse» 547
(Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, 2023), pp. 147-170.
https://doi.org/10.1553/978OEAW91575s147.
Sin. syr. NF M56N = unpubl.; identifications by Alain Desreumaux
(http://sinaipalimpsests.org)
Sin. syr. NF M59N = unpubl.
Christa Müller-Kessler
58
Summary
Taking all existing examples into account it points to the fact that the object suffixes in
CPA are nearly only restricted to Biblical translations. Although all the CPA Bible versions
are being totally dependent on the Greek Vorlagen the various CPA translators made still
use of them. Neither can this have been influenced or caused by the Hebrew Masoretic
version, or the Western Targums, or the various Syriac translations. Behind this
phenomenon one must assume a tendency to a more formal and archaic language use,
which was intentionally employed in contrast to the translation of the theological texts (e.g.
Catecheses of Cyril of Jerusalem), apocryphal (e.g. Dormition of Mary),
136
and the various
hagiographical text witnesses (vitae and martyrdoms), where the object suffixes cannot be
traced except for five exceptions, and one being even a paraphrased Bible citation. The
comparative material from the Syriac Bible transmissions does not proof anything
concerning any influence. One has to be bear in mind that the patristic text material as the
remaining Biblical text corpus in CPA is only transmitted in a fragmentarily fashion, but
the choice of texts genres and surplus material is now much better than in the time of
Theodor Nöldeke having only Lectionary A with its heavy Syriac influence in certain
pericopes at his disposal.
137
Later Friedrich Schulthess had to rely on the readings of the
first editors.
138
In the CPA grammar from 1991 only two further corrected readings could
be added.
139
In the end the result is nearly the same as in the two grammars with nearly
seventy years apart. The additional text material from the New Finds in the Monastery of
St Catherine from 1975 proofs to the same fact. The usage of object suffixes has to be
taken as a syntactical feature predominant in the Bible text witnesses.
Abstract: The question of when and why
object pronominal suffixes were employed
in Christian Palestinian Aramaic in the
various text translations from Greek cannot
be easily solved. The text material despite
the New Finds from the Monastery of St
Catherine on Mt Sinai remains fragmentary.
The study tries to put together the examples
which can be gleaned from the different
text genres to reach an understanding of
their distribution and usage.
Resumen: La cuestión de cuándo y por
qué se emplearon los sufijos pronominales
en arameo cristiano palestinense en las
diversas traducciones de textos del griego
no puede ser fácilmente resuelto. El
material textual, a pesar de los nuevos
hallazgos del Monasterio de Santa Catalina
en el monte Sinaí, sigue siendo
fragmentario. El estudio intenta reunir los
ejemplos que pueden extraerse de los
distintos géneros textuales para lograr una
comprensión de su distribución y uso.
136
Noteworthy is that also the early Syriac transmission of the witnesses of the Dormition of Mary do not hold
much in the way of object suffixes.
137
Nöldeke, “Beiträge zur Kenntniss der aramäischen Dialecte. II.”, pp. 505-506.
138
Schulthess, Grammatik des christlich-palästinischen Aramäisch, pp. 78-80.
139
Müller-Kessler, Grammatik des Christlich-Palästinisch-Aramäischen, pp. 259-262.
On the Rare Usage of Object Suffixes in Christian Palestinian Aramaic
59
Keywords: Object pronominal suffixes;
Christian Palestinian Aramaic; Monastery of
St Catherine; Mount Sinai; Palestinian
Manuscripts.
Palabras clave: Sufijos pronominales;
Arameo cristiano palestinense; Monasterio
de Santa Catalina; Monte Sinaí; Manuscritos
palestinenses.
