Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Pere Casanellas <pere.casanellas AT retemail.es>]

Thanks to Randall Buth and Henry Churchyard for his commentaries on
"Position of accent in Aramaic".

On the word "abba", Randall Buth wrote:

<<Good question, possibly abBA, and this was part of colloquial 2nd temple
Hebrew too. 
<<Some think that 2nd-temple colloquial Hebrew already had a penultimate
accenting dialect(s). 'abba' is special because the -a was a special
adverbial/vocative and probably not originally the aramaic article "the".
(cf. also, arabic 'baba' and the non-existence of an address 'ha-av' "the
father" in Hebrew.)>>

And Henry Churchyard:

<<"Abba" is apparently originally a children's hypocoristic, and such words
are often phonologically exceptional in languages, and I'm not
sure what the etymological origin of the final vowel in this form is, so I
decline to predict how "Abba" would be stressed according to the
Biblical Aramaic rules.>>

I have been surprised of these statements since when I read some years ago
the article "abba" on the Anchor Bible Dictionary I was more o less
convinced that "abba" was not an hypocoristic but a determinative form. The
article in the ABC, written by John Ashton, says:

<<_Abba_. A form of the Aramaic word for "father" found in Gal 4:6; Rom
8:15; and Mark 14:36 alongside the Greek _ho pater_ as an address to God.
The presence of ho _pater_ in every case (instead of the vocative pater)
shows that the NT writers saw _abba_ as a determinative form: _'abba'_,
"the father"; cf. Matt 11:16; Luke 10:21. Such forms are frequently used in
Aramaic and Hebrew when a vocative is required: another example is
_talitha_ (Aram. _talyeta'_ [...]), rendered to _korasion_ in Mark 5:41.
Accordingly the explanation of _abba_ as the determinative form of _ab_
("father") is almost certainly correct.
        <<Alternatively the form has been explained as a rare vocative (in 
which
case it could just as well be Hebrew as Aramaic) or as derived from
children’s baby talk (cf. "Papa," "Daddy"). If the last explanation were
right, then the use of "abba" as an address to God in Mark 14:36 might be
thought to imply a special, indeed a unique, intimacy. This view was held
at one time by J. Jeremias, but he later came to regard it as "a piece of
inadmissible naivety" (1967: 63). Wrong as it is, it deserves mention not
only because of its extensive dissemination beyond the walls of academia
but also because its influence can be detected even in the work of
respected scholars such as J. G. D. Dunn (1975: 21–26; 1980: 22–23) and is
explicit in the most recent writing of M. J. Borg (1987: 45). Apart from
the intrinsic unlikelihood of the idea that Jesus ever addressed God as
"Daddy," the suggestion is ruled out of court by one important fact:
wherever _abba_ is found with the meaning "father" or "my father" (in
Mishnaic Hebrew or Targumic Aramaic), it is equally employed of the fathers
of grown-up sons. One instance cited by G. Vermes (1983: 42) is Judah’s
threat to his unrecognized brother, Joseph, in the Tg. Neof. version of Gen
44:18: "I swear by the life of the head of abba, as you swear by the life
of the head of Pharaoh your master. . . .” And as J. Barr (1988)
emphasizes, inferences concerning the meaning of words must be based upon
function, not upon origin or derivation.>> (John Ashton, "Abba", in
Freedman, David Noel, ed., _The Anchor Bible Dictionary_, (New York:
Doubleday) 1997, 1992.

I don't know if these arguments will convince also Randall Buth and Henry
Churchyard or not...

Regards,
_______________________________________

Pere Casanellas
E-mail: pere.casanellas AT retemail.es
         pcasanel AT pie.xtec.es
Phone (& fax): +34-934 179 000
Carrer Anna Piferrer, 11
E-08023 Barcelona
CATALONIA-SPAIN