Aramaic

==Old Aramaic==
[[File:20131205 Istanbul 067.jpg|thumb|One of the [[Bar-Rakib inscriptions]] from [[Sam'al]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.jtsa.edu/Documents/pagedocs/JANES/1986%2018/Younger18.pdf |title=Panammuwa and Bar-Rakib: Two Structural Analyses | first=K. Lawson Jr. | last=Younger |year=1986 |access-date=10 October 2018 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304002734/http://www.jtsa.edu/Documents/pagedocs/JANES/1986%2018/Younger18.pdf |archive-date=4 March 2016}}</ref> The inscription is in the [[Samalian language]] (also considered a dialect).]]
{{Main|Old Aramaic}}

Aramaic's long history and diverse and widespread use has led to the development of many divergent varieties, which are sometimes considered [[dialect]]s, though they have become distinct enough over time that they are now sometimes considered separate [[language]]s. Therefore, there is not one singular, static Aramaic language; each time and place rather has had its own variation. The more widely spoken [[Eastern Aramaic languages]] are largely restricted to [[Assyrian people|Assyrian]], [[Mandaeans|Mandean]] and [[Mizrahi Jewish]] communities in [[Iraq]], northeastern [[Syria]], northwestern [[Iran]], and southeastern [[Turkey]], whilst the severely endangered [[Western Neo-Aramaic]] language is spoken by small Christian and Muslim communities in the [[Anti-Lebanon mountains]], and closely related western varieties of Aramaic<ref>{{cite book | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dVUiAAAAQBAJ&dq=mount+lebanon+western+aramaic+arnold&pg=PA347 | title=Arabic as a Minority Language | isbn=9783110805451 | last1=Owens | first1=Jonathan | date=12 March 2013 | publisher=Walter de Gruyter }}</ref> persisted in [[Mount Lebanon]] until as late as the 17th century.{{sfn|Arnold|2012|pp=685–96}}
The term "Old Aramaic" is used to describe the varieties of the language from its first known use, until the point roughly marked by the rise of the [[Sasanian Empire]] (224 AD), dominating the influential, eastern dialect region. As such, the term covers over thirteen centuries of the development of Aramaic. This vast time span includes all Aramaic that is now effectively extinct. Regarding the earliest forms, Beyer suggests that written Aramaic probably dates from the 11th century BCE,{{sfn|Beyer|1986|p=11}} as it is established by the 10th century, to which he dates the oldest inscriptions of northern Syria. Heinrichs uses the less controversial date of the 9th century,{{sfn|Heinrichs|1990|p=x}} for which there is clear and widespread attestation.

The central phase in the development of Old Aramaic was its official use by the [[Neo-Assyrian Empire]] (911–608 BC), [[Neo-Babylonian Empire]] (620–539 BC), and [[Achaemenid Empire]] (500–330 BC). The period before this, dubbed "Ancient Aramaic", saw the development of the language from being spoken in Aramaean city-states to become a major means of communication in diplomacy and trade throughout [[Mesopotamia]], the [[Levant]], and [[Egypt]]. After the fall of the Achaemenid Empire, local vernaculars became increasingly prominent, fanning the divergence of an Aramaic [[dialect continuum]] and the development of differing written standards.

===Ancient Aramaic===
{{see also|Samalian language}}
"Ancient Aramaic" refers to the earliest known period of the language, from its origin until it becomes the lingua franca of the [[Fertile Crescent]]. It was the language of the Aramean city-states of [[Damascus]], [[Hama]]th, and [[Arpad, Syria|Arpad]].{{sfn|Fales|2012|pp=555–73}}

There are inscriptions that evidence the earliest use of the language, dating from the 10th century BC. These inscriptions are mostly diplomatic documents between Aramaean city-states. The alphabet of Aramaic at this early period seems to be based on the [[Phoenician alphabet]], and there is a unity in the written language. It seems that, in time, a more refined alphabet, suited to the needs of the language, began to develop from this in the eastern regions of Aram. Due to increasing Aramean migration eastward, the Western periphery of Assyria became bilingual in Akkadian and Aramean at least as early as the mid-9th century BC. As the [[Neo-Assyrian Empire]] conquered Aramean lands west of the [[Euphrates]], [[Tiglath-Pileser III]] made Aramaic the Empire's second official language, and it eventually supplanted Akkadian completely.

From 700 BC, the language began to spread in all directions, but lost much of its unity. Different dialects emerged in Assyria, Babylonia, the [[Levant]] and [[Egypt]]. Around 600 BC, Adon, a [[Canaan]]ite king, used Aramaic to write to an Egyptian [[Pharaoh]].{{sfn|Beyer|1986|p=14}}

===Imperial Aramaic===
{{Main|Imperial Aramaic}}
{{Aramaeans}}
Around 500 BC, following the [[Achaemenid Empire|Achaemenid]] (Persian) conquest of Mesopotamia under [[Darius I]], Aramaic (as had been used in that region) was adopted by the conquerors as the "vehicle for written communication between the different regions of the vast empire with its different peoples and languages. The use of a single official language, which modern scholarship has dubbed Official Aramaic or [[Imperial Aramaic]],{{sfn|Gzella|2012a|pp=574–86}}{{sfn|Folmer|2012|pp=587–98}}{{sfn|Gzella|2012b|pp=598–609}} can be assumed to have greatly contributed to the astonishing success of the Achaemenids in holding their far-flung empire together for as long as they did".<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |encyclopedia=Encyclopædia Iranica |volume=2 |year=1987 |title=Aramaic |pages=251–52 |last=Shaked |first=Saul |publisher=Routledge & Kegan Paul |location=New York |url=http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/aramaic- |access-date=10 October 2018}}</ref> In 1955, Richard Frye questioned the classification of Imperial Aramaic as an "official language", noting that no surviving edict expressly and unambiguously accorded that status to any particular language.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Frye |first1=Richard N. |title=Review of G. R. Driver's 'Aramaic Documents of the Fifth Century B. C.' |journal=Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies |volume=18 |issue=3/4 |year=1955 |page=457 |doi=10.2307/2718444 |last2=Driver |first2=G. R. |jstor=2718444}}</ref> Frye reclassifies Imperial Aramaic as the lingua franca of the Achaemenid territories, suggesting then that the Achaemenid-era use of Aramaic was more pervasive than generally thought.

Imperial Aramaic was highly standardised; its orthography was based more on historical roots than any spoken dialect, and the inevitable influence of [[Persian language|Persian]] gave the language a new clarity and robust flexibility. For centuries after the fall of the Achaemenid Empire (in 330 BC), Imperial Aramaic – or a version thereof near enough for it to be recognisable – would remain an influence on the various native [[Iranian languages]]. Aramaic script and – as ideograms – Aramaic vocabulary would survive as the essential characteristics of the [[Pahlavi scripts]].<ref>{{cite journal |author1-link= Wilhelm Geiger |first1= Wilhelm |last1= Geiger |first2= Ernst |last2= Kuhn |year= 2002 |title= Grundriss der iranischen Philologie: Band I. Abteilung 1 |location= Boston |publisher= Adamant |page= 249}}</ref>

One of the largest collections of Imperial Aramaic texts is that of the [[Persepolis Administrative Archives]], found at [[Persepolis]], which number about five hundred.<ref>{{cite journal |first= John A. Matthew |last= Stolper |title= What are the Persepolis Fortification Tablets? |journal= The Oriental Studies News & Notes |issue= winter |year= 2007 |pages= 6–9 |url= https://persepolistablets.blogspot.com/2007/01/what-are-persepolis-fortication.html |access-date= 10 October 2018}}</ref> Many of the extant documents witnessing to this form of Aramaic come from [[Egypt]], and [[Elephantine]] in particular (see [[Elephantine papyri]]). Of them, the best known is the ''[[Story of Ahikar]]'', a book of instructive aphorisms quite similar in style to the biblical [[Book of Proverbs]]. Consensus {{As of|2022|lc=y}} regards the Aramaic portion of the Biblical book of Daniel (i.e., 2:4b–7:28) as an example of Imperial (Official) Aramaic.{{sfn|Collins|1993|pp=710–12}}

Achaemenid Aramaic is sufficiently uniform that it is often difficult to know where any particular example of the language was written. Only careful examination reveals the occasional loan word from a local language.

A group of thirty Aramaic documents from [[Bactria]] have been discovered, and an analysis was published in November 2006. The texts, which were rendered on leather, reflect the use of Aramaic in the 4th century BC Achaemenid administration of Bactria and [[Sogdia]].<ref>{{cite book |title= Ancient Aramaic Documents from Bactria |series= Studies in the Khalili Collection |last1= Naveh |first1= Joseph |last2= Shaked |first2= Shaul |isbn= 1874780749 |publisher= Khalili Collections |location= Oxford |year= 2006|page=}}{{page needed|date=July 2021}}</ref>

=== Biblical Aramaic ===
[[Biblical Aramaic]] is the Aramaic found in four discrete sections of the [[Bible]]:

* [[Book of Ezra|Ezra]]<ref>{{bibleref2-nb|Ezra|4:8–6:18|NKJV}} and {{bibleref2-nb|Ezra|7:12–26|KJV}}</ref> – documents from the Achaemenid period (5th century BC) concerning the restoration of the temple in Jerusalem.
* [[Book of Daniel|Daniel]]<ref>{{bibleref2-nb|Daniel|2:4b–7:28|NKJV}}</ref> – five tales and an apocalyptic vision.{{sfn|Hasel|1981|pp=211–25}}
* [[Jeremiah 10:11]] – a single sentence in the middle of a Hebrew text denouncing idolatry.
* [[Book of Genesis|Genesis]]<ref>{{bibleref2-nb|Genesis|31:47}}</ref> – translation of a Hebrew place-name.

Biblical Aramaic is a somewhat hybrid dialect. It is theorized that some Biblical Aramaic material originated in both Babylonia and Judaea before the fall of the Achaemenid dynasty.

Biblical Aramaic presented various challenges for writers who were engaged in early [[Biblical studies]]. Since the time of [[Jerome of Stridon]] (d. 420), Aramaic of the [[Bible]] was named as "Chaldean" (Chaldaic, Chaldee).{{sfn|Gallagher|2012|pp=123–41}} That label remained common in early [[Aramaic studies]], and persisted up into the nineteenth century. The "''[[Chaldean language (misnomer)|Chaldean misnomer]]''" was eventually abandoned, when modern scholarly analyses showed that Aramaic dialect used in Hebrew Bible was not related to [[ancient Chaldeans]] and their language.{{sfn|Nöldeke|1871|pp=113–31}}{{sfn|Kautzsch|1884a|pp=17–21}}{{sfn|Kautzsch|1884b|pp=110–13}}