TheWestern KaraimTorah Volume 1 TheLanguagesof AsiaSeries SeriesEditor AlexanderVovin (ehess/crlao,Paris,France) AssociateEditors José Andrés Alonso de la Fuente ( JagiellonianUniversity,Kraków,Poland) Aleksandra Jarosz (NicolasCopernicusUniversity,Toruñ,Poland) EditorialBoard Mark Alves (MontgomeryCollege) Ákos B. Apatóczky (KároliGáspárUniversityof theReformedChurchin Hungary) Gilles Authier (ephe –ÉcolePratiquedesHautesÉtudes,Paris) Anna Bugaeva (TokyoUniversityof Science/NationalInstituteforJapanese LanguageandLinguistics) Bjarke Frellesvig (Universityof Oxford) Guillaume Jacques (Centrederechercheslinguistiquessurl'Asieorientale) Juha Janhunen (Universityof Helsinki) Henryk Jankowski (Universityof AdamMickiewicz,Poznañ) Ross King (Universityof BritishColumbia) Marc Miyake (BritishMuseum) Mehmet Ölmez (IstanbulUniversity) Toshiki Osada (Instituteof NatureandHumanity,Kyoto) Pittawayat Pittayaporn (ChulalongkornUniversity) Elisabetta Ragagnin (Ca’FoscariUniversityof Venice) Pavel Rykin (RussianAcademyof Sciences) Marek Stachowski ( JagiellonianUniversity,Kraków,Poland) YukinoriTakubo (NationalInstituteforJapaneseLanguageandLinguistics) JohnWhitman (CornellUniversity) WuYing-zhe (InnerMongoliaUniversity) volume 24/1The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/la TheWesternKaraimTorah ACriticalEditionof aManuscriptfrom1720 Volume 1 By Micha³Németh leiden | boston This is an open access titledistributed under the terms of the ccby-nc-nd4.0 license, which permits any non-commercialuse,distribution, and reproductionin any medium, provided no alterations are made and the original author(s) and source are credited. Further information and the completelicense text canbefound at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ The terms of the cc license apply only to the original material.The use of materialfrom other sources (indicated bya reference) such as diagrams, illustrations, photos and text samples may require further permissionfrom the respective copyright holder. Cover illustration:The first page of the Book of Exodus(folio 87recto of manuscript ADub.iii.73). Courtesy of the owner. The Libraryof CongressCataloging-in-Publication Data isavailable online athttp://catalog.loc.gov lc recordavailable at http://lccn.loc.gov/2020052227 The research upon which this publication is based has been awarded funding fromthe European Research Council (ERC) underthe European Union’sHorizon 2020 research andinnovation programme(grant agreement number 802645) and from the National Science Centre of Poland (NarodoweCentrum Nauki; grant agreement number 2015/17/B/HS2/01498). Typeface forthe Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. issn 2452-2961 isbn 978-90-04-42658-0 (hardback, set) isbn 978-90-04-46403-2 (hardback, volume1) isbn 978-90-04-46404-9 (hardback, volume 2) isbn 978-90-04-44737-0 (e-book) Copyright 2021 byMicha³ Ne´meth.Published by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden,The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill nv incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, BrillNijhoff, BrillRodopi, Brill Sense, Hotei Publishing, mentisVerlag,Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh andWilhelmFinkVerlag. Koninklijke Brill nv reserves the right to protect this publication againstunauthorized use. This book isprinted on acid-free paper and produced in asustainable manner. . .. ...... .... . .. ... .. ... .. . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .... ... .. .. ... .. . . Contents Preface ix Acknowledgements xi Listof TablesandFacsimilia xii AbbreviationsandEditorialSymbols xix volume 1 Introduction 1 1 The Antecedents of Manuscript ADub.iii.73 1 2 Manuscript ADub.iii.73 4 2.1 GeneralDescription 4 2.2 TheOriginsof ManuscriptADub.iii.73 8 3 ManuscriptTKow.01 13 4 SubsequentWesternKaraimTranslationsoftheHebrewBible 14 4.1 IntroductoryRemarks 14 4.2 SubsequentWesternKaraimTranslationsof theTorah 15 4.3 SubsequentWesternKaraimTranslationsof theNevi.imand Ketuvim 16 5 A Concise Linguistic Description of Manuscript ADub.iii.73 18 5.1 IntroductoryRemarks 18 5.2 SoundSystem 18 5.3 Morphology 21 5.4 Lexicon 24 6 Orthography,Transcription,andTransliteration 28 6.1 TheKaraimContent 28 6.2 TheHebrewContent 35 TranscriptionandTranslation IntroductoryRemarks 39 TranscriptionandTranslation 42 viii contents volume 2 LexicographicalAddenda 993 Bibliography 1105 Facsimilia 1124 Preface MorethaneightyyearsagoTadeuszKowalski(1889–1948),thefounderof mod­ern Polish Oriental Studies, expressed the opinion that the most urgent task facing Karaim studies at that time was to catalogue existing Western Karaim Biblical texts and critically edit them so that they could enter scholarly circu­lation and pave the way for a philology-based analysis of the linguistic past of Karaim (Kowalski 1936: 15–20). For decades this task remained a desideratum notonlybecauseof itsscholarlysignificance,butalsoforthereasonthatthese sourcesareextremelyvaluableculturally.KaraimsarefollowersofKaraiteJuda­ism,andtheessenceoftheirreligionlies,unlikemainstreamRabbinicJudaism, in its recognition of the Hebrew Bible alone as the supreme authority in reli­gious law and theology. For many decades, however, there existed no Karaim translationof theTanakhthattheycouldactuallyuseinreligiouspractice.This is because existing translations were (almost without exception) written or printedinHebrewscript,butduetothegradualextinctionoftheirculture,over theyearsmostmembersofKaraimcommunitieslosttheabilitytoreadHebrew scriptandasaconsequencewereunabletoaccessthecontentof theirsources. This process began during the 1920s and 1930s and swiftly gained momentum after theSecondWorldWar. As aconsequence, Karaims were—and still are— forcedtousenon-Karaim,mostlyPolish,Lithuanian,orRussiantranslationsof the Hebrew Bible, which has accelerated their ethnic, cultural, and linguistic assimilation. Seen in this light, the task of preparing critical editions of these texts should therefore not only be perceived as a research task, but also as an opportunity to restore a fundamental component of Karaim identity. Indeed, it was with this aim in mind that in the years 2012–2016 a total of 31 Biblical texts (out of agroupof 460Karaim manuscripts)werediscoveredand catalogued by a research team led by the present author—including manu­script ADub.iii.73, which is presented in this volume. It contains the oldest WesternKaraimtranslationof theTorahweknowof todayandwasdiscovered shortly after midnight on 27 February 2014.1 Theprincipalfocusof thepresentvolumeistoprovideacriticaleditionand concise linguistic description of manuscript ADub.iii.73. Additionally, to gain a better understanding of the manuscript’s philological and historical back­ground we have outlined the history of Western Karaim translations of the 1 Financial support for the archival work and preparation of the catalogue was provided by the Polish National Science Centre (research project 2011/03/D/HS2/00618). For a summary of theproject, see Németh (2016b). Torah.Theedition isalso supplementedwith aglossary inwhich wehave doc­umented those words and meanings attested in ms. ADub.iii.73 that are not includedinstandardKaraimdictionaries.Thelexicographicaladdendaandthe facsimilia are presented in the second volume of this book. Acknowledgements Thisvolumewouldnothaveseenthelightof dayhaditnotbeenforthepatron­age I was granted by several institutions. The manuscript was discovered and described within the framework of the research project entitled A catalogue of Karaim manuscripts and printed sources (project no. 2011/03/D/HS2/00618) financed by the Polish National Science Centre. The transcription, the Eng­lish translation, the glossary, and the major part of the apparatus was created within the framework of the research project entitled The oldest known West­ern Karaim Bible Translation. A critical edition of a Torah from 1720 (project no. 2015/17/B/HS2/01498) financed by the Polish National Science Centre in the years 2016–2019.The latter project alsoallowed me to compare this source with mss. JSul.iii.01 and bsms 288. Finally, this project has received funding from the European Research Council (erc) under the European Union’s Hori­zon 2020 research and innovation programme within the framework of the project entitled (Re)constructing a Bible. A new approach to unedited Biblical manuscriptsassourcesfortheearlyhistoryof theKaraimlanguage(grantagree­ment . 802645) scheduled for the years 2019–2014. The research conducted withintheframeworkof thelatterprojectledtothediscoveryof moreBiblical manuscriptsandmadeitpossibletocomparethetextofADub.iii.73withthose sources. It also made possible to revise the English translation on the basis of the content of the Hebrew Torah, and benefit from a series of consultations with experts. IwouldliketoextendmyheartfeltgratitudetoMarekPiela(Kraków)forhis assistance in Hebraistic matters. I also wish to express my thanks to Mateusz Urban (Kraków) for helping me improve the English translation of the Torah and to Jason Lowther (Kraków) for proofreading the introductory part of the book. Of course, any errors remaining are my own responsibility. WithoutanyhesitationIshouldalsoacknowledgemydebttoAdamDubiñ­ski (Warsaw), and Anna Sulimowicz-Keruth (Warsaw) who selflessly provided me with unlimited access to the manuscripts in their possession. I will never forget the days (and nights) spent searching through their bookshelves. Finally,Iameternallygratefultomybelovedwifeforherpatienceandunder­standing during the long years it has taken me to turn this book into reality. Without her support this volume would remain today no more than a pipe dream of mine. Kraków, a.d.2021 TablesandFacsimilia Tables 1 Interpretative translation of Hebrew passages and additions to the original 11 2 Late Middle North-Western Karaim vowels 19 3 Late Middle North-Western Karaim consonants 19 4 Transcription of the analysed Biblical texts 30 5 Transliteration of Hebrew 36 Facsimilia Folio 1 recto 1125 Folio 14 recto 1138 Folio 27 recto 1151 Folio 1 verso 1126 Folio 14 verso 1139 Folio 27 verso 1152 Folio 2 recto 1126 Folio 15 recto 1139 Folio 28 recto 1152 Folio 2 verso 1127 Folio 15 verso 1140 Folio 28 verso 1153 Folio 3 recto 1127 Folio 16 recto 1140 Folio 29 recto 1153 Folio 3 verso 1128 Folio 16 verso 1141 Folio 29 verso 1154 Folio 4 recto 1128 Folio 17 recto 1141 Folio 30 recto 1154 Folio 4 verso 1129 Folio 17 verso 1142 Folio 30 verso 1155 Folio 5 recto 1129 Folio 18 recto 1142 Folio 31 recto 1155 Folio 5 verso 1130 Folio 18 verso 1143 Folio 31 verso 1156 Folio 6 recto 1130 Folio 19 recto 1143 Folio 32 recto 1156 Folio 6 verso 1131 Folio 19 verso 1144 Folio 32 verso 1157 Folio 7 recto 1131 Folio 20 recto 1144 Folio 33 recto 1157 Folio 7 verso 1132 Folio 20 verso 1145 Folio 33 verso 1158 Folio 8 recto 1132 Folio 21 recto 1145 Folio 34 recto 1158 Folio 8 verso 1133 Folio 21 verso 1146 Folio 34 verso 1159 Folio 9 recto 1133 Folio 22 recto 1146 Folio 35 recto 1159 Folio 9 verso 1134 Folio 22 verso 1147 Folio 35 verso 1160 Folio 10 recto 1134 Folio 23 recto 1147 Folio 36 recto 1160 Folio 10 verso 1135 Folio 23 verso 1148 Folio 36 verso 1161 Folio 11 recto 1135 Folio 24 recto 1148 Folio 37 recto 1161 Folio 11 verso 1136 Folio 24 verso 1149 Folio 37 verso 1162 Folio 12 recto 1136 Folio 25 recto 1149 Folio 38 recto 1162 Folio 12 verso 1137 Folio 25 verso 1150 Folio 38 verso 1163 Folio 13 recto 1137 Folio 26 recto 1150 Folio 39 recto 1163 Folio 13 verso 1138 Folio 26 verso 1151 Folio 39 verso 1164 Folio 40 recto 1164 Folio 60 recto 1184 Folio 80 recto 1204 Folio 40 verso 1165 Folio 60 verso 1185 Folio 80 verso 1205 Folio 41 recto 1165 Folio 61 recto 1185 Folio 81 recto 1205 Folio 41 verso 1166 Folio 61 verso 1186 Folio 81 verso 1206 Folio 42 recto 1166 Folio 62 recto 1186 Folio 82 recto 1206 Folio 42 verso 1167 Folio 62 verso 1187 Folio 82 verso 1207 Folio 43 recto 1167 Folio 63 recto 1187 Folio 83 recto 1207 Folio 43 verso 1168 Folio 63 verso 1188 Folio 83 verso 1208 Folio 44 recto 1168 Folio 64 recto 1188 Folio 84 recto 1208 Folio 44 verso 1169 Folio 64 verso 1189 Folio 84 verso 1209 Folio 45 recto 1169 Folio 65 recto 1189 Folio 85 recto 1209 Folio 45 verso 1170 Folio 65 verso 1190 Folio 85 verso 1210 Folio 46 recto 1170 Folio 66 recto 1190 Folio 86 recto 1210 Folio 46 verso 1171 Folio 66 verso 1191 Folio 86 verso 1211 Folio 47 recto 1171 Folio 67 recto 1191 Folio 87 recto 1211 Folio 47 verso 1172 Folio 67 verso 1192 Folio 87 verso 1212 Folio 48 recto 1172 Folio 68 recto 1192 Folio 88 recto 1212 Folio 48 verso 1173 Folio 68 verso 1193 Folio 88 verso 1213 Folio 49 recto 1173 Folio 69 recto 1193 Folio 89 recto 1213 Folio 49 verso 1174 Folio 69 verso 1194 Folio 89 verso 1214 Folio 50 recto 1174 Folio 70 recto 1194 Folio 90 recto 1214 Folio 50 verso 1175 Folio 70 verso 1195 Folio 90 verso 1215 Folio 51 recto 1175 Folio 71 recto 1195 Folio 91 recto 1215 Folio 51 verso 1176 Folio 71 verso 1196 Folio 91 verso 1216 Folio 52 recto 1176 Folio 72 recto 1196 Folio 92 recto 1216 Folio 52 verso 1177 Folio 72 verso 1197 Folio 92 verso 1217 Folio 53 recto 1177 Folio 73 recto 1197 Folio 93 recto 1217 Folio 53 verso 1178 Folio 73 verso 1198 Folio 93 verso 1218 Folio 54 recto 1178 Folio 74 recto 1198 Folio 94 recto 1218 Folio 54 verso 1179 Folio 74 verso 1199 Folio 94 verso 1219 Folio 55 recto 1179 Folio 75 recto 1199 Folio 95 recto 1219 Folio 55 verso 1180 Folio 75 verso 1200 Folio 95 verso 1220 Folio 56 recto 1180 Folio 76 recto 1200 Folio 96 recto 1220 Folio 56 verso 1181 Folio 76 verso 1201 Folio 96 verso 1221 Folio 57 recto 1181 Folio 77 recto 1201 Folio 97 recto 1221 Folio 57 verso 1182 Folio 77 verso 1202 Folio 97 verso 1222 Folio 58 recto 1182 Folio 78 recto 1202 Folio 98 recto 1222 Folio 58 verso 1183 Folio 78 verso 1203 Folio 98 verso 1223 Folio 59 recto 1183 Folio 79 recto 1203 Folio 99 recto 1223 Folio 59 verso 1184 Folio 79 verso 1204 Folio 99 verso 1224 Folio 100 recto 1224 Folio 120 recto 1244 Folio 140 recto 1264 Folio 100 verso 1225 Folio 120 verso 1245 Folio 140 verso 1265 Folio 101 recto 1225 Folio 121 recto 1245 Folio 141 recto 1265 Folio 101 verso 1226 Folio 121 verso 1246 Folio 141 verso 1266 Folio 102 recto 1226 Folio 122 recto 1246 Folio 142 recto 1266 Folio 102 verso 1227 Folio 122 verso 1247 Folio 142 verso 1267 Folio 103 recto 1227 Folio 123 recto 1247 Folio 143 recto 1267 Folio 103 verso 1228 Folio 123 verso 1248 Folio 143 verso 1268 Folio 104 recto 1228 Folio 124 recto 1248 Folio 144 recto 1268 Folio 104 verso 1229 Folio 124 verso 1249 Folio 144 verso 1269 Folio 105 recto 1229 Folio 125 recto 1249 Folio 145 recto 1269 Folio 105 verso 1230 Folio 125 verso 1250 Folio 145 verso 1270 Folio 106 recto 1230 Folio 126 recto 1250 Folio 146 recto 1270 Folio 106 verso 1231 Folio 126 verso 1251 Folio 146 verso 1271 Folio 107 recto 1231 Folio 127 recto 1251 Folio 147 recto 1271 Folio 107 verso 1232 Folio 127 verso 1252 Folio 147 verso 1272 Folio 108 recto 1232 Folio 128 recto 1252 Folio 148 recto 1272 Folio 108 verso 1233 Folio 128 verso 1253 Folio 148 verso 1273 Folio 109 recto 1233 Folio 129 recto 1253 Folio 149 recto 1273 Folio 109 verso 1234 Folio 129 verso 1254 Folio 149 verso 1274 Folio 110 recto 1234 Folio 130 recto 1254 Folio 150 recto 1274 Folio 110 verso 1235 Folio 130 verso 1255 Folio 150 verso 1275 Folio 111 recto 1235 Folio 131 recto 1255 Folio 151 recto 1275 Folio 111 verso 1236 Folio 131 verso 1256 Folio 151 verso 1276 Folio 112 recto 1236 Folio 132 recto 1256 Folio 152 recto 1276 Folio 112 verso 1237 Folio 132 verso 1257 Folio 152 verso 1277 Folio 113 recto 1237 Folio 133 recto 1257 Folio 153 recto 1277 Folio 113 verso 1238 Folio 133 verso 1258 Folio 153 verso 1278 Folio 114 recto 1238 Folio 134 recto 1258 Folio 154 recto 1278 Folio 114 verso 1239 Folio 134 verso 1259 Folio 154 verso 1279 Folio 115 recto 1239 Folio 135 recto 1259 Folio 155 recto 1279 Folio 115 verso 1240 Folio 135 verso 1260 Folio 155 verso 1280 Folio 116 recto 1240 Folio 136 recto 1260 Folio 156 recto 1280 Folio 116 verso 1241 Folio 136 verso 1261 Folio 156 verso 1281 Folio 117 recto 1241 Folio 137 recto 1261 Folio 157 recto 1281 Folio 117 verso 1242 Folio 137 verso 1262 Folio 157 verso 1282 Folio 118 recto 1242 Folio 138 recto 1262 Folio 158 recto 1282 Folio 118 verso 1243 Folio 138 verso 1263 Folio 158 verso 1283 Folio 119 recto 1243 Folio 139 recto 1263 Folio 159 recto 1283 Folio 119 verso 1244 Folio 139 verso 1264 Folio 159 verso 1284 Folio 160 recto 1284 Folio 180 recto 1304 Folio 200 recto 1324 Folio 160 verso 1285 Folio 180 verso 1305 Folio 200 verso 1325 Folio 161 recto 1285 Folio 181 recto 1305 Folio 201 recto 1325 Folio 161 verso 1286 Folio 181 verso 1306 Folio 201 verso 1326 Folio 162 recto 1286 Folio 182 recto 1306 Folio 202 recto 1326 Folio 162 verso 1287 Folio 182 verso 1307 Folio 202 verso 1327 Folio 163 recto 1287 Folio 183 recto 1307 Folio 203 recto 1327 Folio 163 verso 1288 Folio 183 verso 1308 Folio 203 verso 1328 Folio 164 recto 1288 Folio 184 recto 1308 Folio 204 recto 1328 Folio 164 verso 1289 Folio 184 verso 1309 Folio 204 verso 1329 Folio 165 recto 1289 Folio 185 recto 1309 Folio 205 recto 1329 Folio 165 verso 1290 Folio 185 verso 1310 Folio 205 verso 1330 Folio 166 recto 1290 Folio 186 recto 1310 Folio 206 recto 1330 Folio 166 verso 1291 Folio 186 verso 1311 Folio 206 verso 1331 Folio 167 recto 1291 Folio 187 recto 1311 Folio 207 recto 1331 Folio 167 verso 1292 Folio 187 verso 1312 Folio 207 verso 1332 Folio 168 recto 1292 Folio 188 recto 1312 Folio 208 recto 1332 Folio 168 verso 1293 Folio 188 verso 1313 Folio 208 verso 1333 Folio 169 recto 1293 Folio 189 recto 1313 Folio 209 recto 1333 Folio 169 verso 1294 Folio 189 verso 1314 Folio 209 verso 1334 Folio 170 recto 1294 Folio 190 recto 1314 Folio 210 recto 1334 Folio 170 verso 1295 Folio 190 verso 1315 Folio 210 verso 1335 Folio 171 recto 1295 Folio 191 recto 1315 Folio 211 recto 1335 Folio 171 verso 1296 Folio 191 verso 1316 Folio 211 verso 1336 Folio 172 recto 1296 Folio 192 recto 1316 Folio 212 recto 1336 Folio 172 verso 1297 Folio 192 verso 1317 Folio 212 verso 1337 Folio 173 recto 1297 Folio 193 recto 1317 Folio 213 recto 1337 Folio 173 verso 1298 Folio 193 verso 1318 Folio 213 verso 1338 Folio 174 recto 1298 Folio 194 recto 1318 Folio 214 recto 1338 Folio 174 verso 1299 Folio 194 verso 1319 Folio 214 verso 1339 Folio 175 recto 1299 Folio 195 recto 1319 Folio 215 recto 1339 Folio 175 verso 1300 Folio 195 verso 1320 Folio 215 verso 1340 Folio 176 recto 1300 Folio 196 recto 1320 Folio 216 recto 1340 Folio 176 verso 1301 Folio 196 verso 1321 Folio 216 verso 1341 Folio 177 recto 1301 Folio 197 recto 1321 Folio 217 recto 1341 Folio 177 verso 1302 Folio 197 verso 1322 Folio 217 verso 1342 Folio 178 recto 1302 Folio 198 recto 1322 Folio 218 recto 1342 Folio 178 verso 1303 Folio 198 verso 1323 Folio 218 verso 1343 Folio 179 recto 1303 Folio 199 recto 1323 Folio 219 recto 1343 Folio 179 verso 1304 Folio 199 verso 1324 Folio 219 verso 1344 Folio 220 recto 1344 Folio 240 recto 1364 Folio 260 recto 1384 Folio 220 verso 1345 Folio 240 verso 1365 Folio 260 verso 1385 Folio 221 recto 1345 Folio 241 recto 1365 Folio 261 recto 1385 Folio 221 verso 1346 Folio 241 verso 1366 Folio 261 verso 1386 Folio 222 recto 1346 Folio 242 recto 1366 Folio 262 recto 1386 Folio 222 verso 1347 Folio 242 verso 1367 Folio 262 verso 1387 Folio 223 recto 1347 Folio 243 recto 1367 Folio 263 recto 1387 Folio 223 verso 1348 Folio 243 verso 1368 Folio 263 verso 1388 Folio 224 recto 1348 Folio 244 recto 1368 Folio 264 recto 1388 Folio 224 verso 1349 Folio 244 verso 1369 Folio 264 verso 1389 Folio 225 recto 1349 Folio 245 recto 1369 Folio 265 recto 1389 Folio 225 verso 1350 Folio 245 verso 1370 Folio 265 verso 1390 Folio 226 recto 1350 Folio 246 recto 1370 Folio 266 recto 1390 Folio 226 verso 1351 Folio 246 verso 1371 Folio 266 verso 1391 Folio 227 recto 1351 Folio 247 recto 1371 Folio 267 recto 1391 Folio 227 verso 1352 Folio 247 verso 1372 Folio 267 verso 1392 Folio 228 recto 1352 Folio 248 recto 1372 Folio 268 recto 1392 Folio 228 verso 1353 Folio 248 verso 1373 Folio 268 verso 1393 Folio 229 recto 1353 Folio 249 recto 1373 Folio 269 recto 1393 Folio 229 verso 1354 Folio 249 verso 1374 Folio 269 verso 1394 Folio 230 recto 1354 Folio 250 recto 1374 Folio 270 recto 1394 Folio 230 verso 1355 Folio 250 verso 1375 Folio 270 verso 1395 Folio 231 recto 1355 Folio 251 recto 1375 Folio 271 recto 1395 Folio 231 verso 1356 Folio 251 verso 1376 Folio 271 verso 1396 Folio 232 recto 1356 Folio 252 recto 1376 Folio 272 recto 1396 Folio 232 verso 1357 Folio 252 verso 1377 Folio 272 verso 1397 Folio 233 recto 1357 Folio 253 recto 1377 Folio 273 recto 1397 Folio 233 verso 1358 Folio 253 verso 1378 Folio 273 verso 1398 Folio 234 recto 1358 Folio 254 recto 1378 Folio 274 recto 1398 Folio 234 verso 1359 Folio 254 verso 1379 Folio 274 verso 1399 Folio 235 recto 1359 Folio 255 recto 1379 Folio 275 recto 1399 Folio 235 verso 1360 Folio 255 verso 1380 Folio 275 verso 1400 Folio 236 recto 1360 Folio 256 recto 1380 Folio 276 recto 1400 Folio 236 verso 1361 Folio 256 verso 1381 Folio 276 verso 1401 Folio 237 recto 1361 Folio 257 recto 1381 Folio 277 recto 1401 Folio 237 verso 1362 Folio 257 verso 1382 Folio 277 verso 1402 Folio 238 recto 1362 Folio 258 recto 1382 Folio 278 recto 1402 Folio 238 verso 1363 Folio 258 verso 1383 Folio 278 verso 1403 Folio 239 recto 1363 Folio 259 recto 1383 Folio 279 recto 1403 Folio 239 verso 1364 Folio 259 verso 1384 Folio 279 verso 1404 Folio 280 recto 1404 Folio 300 recto 1424 Folio 320 recto 1444 Folio 280 verso 1405 Folio 300 verso 1425 Folio 320 verso 1445 Folio 281 recto 1405 Folio 301 recto 1425 Folio 321 recto 1445 Folio 281 verso 1406 Folio 301 verso 1426 Folio 321 verso 1446 Folio 282 recto 1406 Folio 302 recto 1426 Folio 322 recto 1446 Folio 282 verso 1407 Folio 302 verso 1427 Folio 322 verso 1447 Folio 283 recto 1407 Folio 303 recto 1427 Folio 323 recto 1447 Folio 283 verso 1408 Folio 303 verso 1428 Folio 323 verso 1448 Folio 284 recto 1408 Folio 304 recto 1428 Folio 324 recto 1448 Folio 284 verso 1409 Folio 304 verso 1429 Folio 324 verso 1449 Folio 285 recto 1409 Folio 305 recto 1429 Folio 325 recto 1449 Folio 285 verso 1410 Folio 305 verso 1430 Folio 325 verso 1450 Folio 286 recto 1410 Folio 306 recto 1430 Folio 326 recto 1450 Folio 286 verso 1411 Folio 306 verso 1431 Folio 326 verso 1451 Folio 287 recto 1411 Folio 307 recto 1431 Folio 327 recto 1451 Folio 287 verso 1412 Folio 307 verso 1432 Folio 327 verso 1452 Folio 288 recto 1412 Folio 308 recto 1432 Folio 328 recto 1452 Folio 288 verso 1413 Folio 308 verso 1433 Folio 328 verso 1453 Folio 289 recto 1413 Folio 309 recto 1433 Folio 329 recto 1453 Folio 289 verso 1414 Folio 309 verso 1434 Folio 329 verso 1454 Folio 290 recto 1414 Folio 310 recto 1434 Folio 330 recto 1454 Folio 290 verso 1415 Folio 310 verso 1435 Folio 330 verso 1455 Folio 291 recto 1415 Folio 311 recto 1435 Folio 331 recto 1455 Folio 291 verso 1416 Folio 311 verso 1436 Folio 331 verso 1456 Folio 292 recto 1416 Folio 312 recto 1436 Folio 332 recto 1456 Folio 292 verso 1417 Folio 312 verso 1437 Folio 332 verso 1457 Folio 293 recto 1417 Folio 313 recto 1437 Folio 333 recto 1457 Folio 293 verso 1418 Folio 313 verso 1438 Folio 333 verso 1458 Folio 294 recto 1418 Folio 314 recto 1438 Folio 334 recto 1458 Folio 294 verso 1419 Folio 314 verso 1439 Folio 334 verso 1459 Folio 295 recto 1419 Folio 315 recto 1439 Folio 335 recto 1459 Folio 295 verso 1420 Folio 315 verso 1440 Folio 335 verso 1460 Folio 296 recto 1420 Folio 316 recto 1440 Folio 336 recto 1460 Folio 296 verso 1421 Folio 316 verso 1441 Folio 336 verso 1461 Folio 297 recto 1421 Folio 317 recto 1441 Folio 337 recto 1461 Folio 297 verso 1422 Folio 317 verso 1442 Folio 337 verso 1462 Folio 298 recto 1422 Folio 318 recto 1442 Folio 338 recto 1462 Folio 298 verso 1423 Folio 318 verso 1443 Folio 338 verso 1463 Folio 299 recto 1423 Folio 319 recto 1443 Folio 339 recto 1463 Folio 299 verso 1424 Folio 319 verso 1444 Folio 339 verso 1464 xviii tables and facsimilia Folio 340 recto Folio 340 verso Folio 341 recto 1464 1465 1465 Folio 341 verso Folio 342 recto Folio 342 verso 1466 1466 1467 Folio 343 recto 1467 AbbreviationsandEditorialSymbols Abbreviations abl. ablative affr. affricate anat. anatomy Ar. Arabic Aram. Aramaic arch. archaic aux. auxiliary BGr. Biblical Greek BHeb. Biblical Hebrew Brus. Belarusian C ms. bsms 288, see Referenced primary sources. ca. circa coll. collective conj. conjunction dat. dative deriv. derivative Deu Deuteronomy (Biblical book) dial. dialectal E the Eupatorian print of the Tanakh, see Referenced primary sources. EKar. Eastern (= Crimean) Karaim ESlav. Eastern Slavonic Est Esther (Biblical book) Exo Exodus (Biblical book) fin. final position fric. fricative gen. genitive Gen Genesis (Biblical book) Gr. Greek H ms. JSul.iii.01, see Referenced primary sources. Heb. Hebrew inf. infinitive init. initial position K manuscript ADub.iii.73, see Referenced primary sources. Kar. Karaim Kirg. Kirghiz Micha³ Németh - 978-90-04-44737-0 Downloaded from Brill.com03/08/2021 01:13:52PM via free access Kmk. Kumyk Krè. Karachay-Balkar Lat. Latin Lev Leviticus (Biblical book) liqu. liquid lit. literally M ms. Gaster Hebrew ms 170, see Referencedprimarysources. Mam.Kipch. Mamluk Kipchak med. medial position Med.Heb. Medieval Hebrew MNWKar. Middle North-Western Karaim Mod.EKar. Modern Eastern Karaim Mod.Heb. Modern Hebrew Mod.NWKar. Modern North-Western Karaim Mod.SWKar. Modern South-Western Karaim Mod.WKar. ModernWesternKaraim MPol. Middle Polish MSWKar. Middle South-Western Karaim ms. manuscript mss. manuscripts MTkc. MiddleTurkic nas. nasal n.d. no data non-voc. non-vocalised text Num Numbers (Biblical book) NWKar. North-Western Karaim ocs Old Church Slavonic OKar. Old Karaim OPol. Old Polish P Gustaf Peringer’s linguistic material; see Referencedprimarysources. PBHeb. Post-Biblical Hebrew Pers. Persian phras. phraseme pl. plural pl. t. plurale tantum plos. plosive Pol. Polish poss. possessive postp. postposition PSlav. Proto-Slavonic R ms. F305-01, see Referencedprimarysources r° recto Russ. Russian Rut Ruth (Biblical book) Sept. Septuagint sg. singular st. standard suff. suffix SWKar. South-Western Karaim Tar. Taranchi Tkc. Turkic Tksh. Turkish Ukr. Ukrainian V theVilnianprintoftheGenesis,see Referencedprimary sources. v° verso WKar. Western Karaim Yid. Yiddish EditorialSymbols EditorialSymbolsUsedintheTranscription abc transcription of the Karaim text written by the main copyist Hebrewtext ... […] lacunae or illegible text [abc] damaged or missing text [123] verse numbers added by the editor {abc} insertion by the main copyist {abc} insertion by another hand .abc. deletion .abc def.123 passage referred to in one footnote Hebrewpassagereferredtoinonefootnote ... .... 123. EditorialSymbolsUsedintheTranslation abc translation of the Karaim text written by the main copyist abc 1. translation of a Hebrew or Aramaic text (except for the incipits: these are not translated); 2. untranslatable term […] equivalent of lacunae or illegible text [abc] equivalent of a reconstructed passage [†abc] uncertain translation [123] verse numbers added by the editor |abc| insertion by the editor motivated by the structure of the English text {abc} equivalent of an insertion by another hand .abc. equivalent of a deletion .abc def.123 passage referred to in one footnote .abcdef .123 translation of a Hebrew passage referred to in one footnote EditorialSymbolsUsedintheApparatusandintheGlossary [abc] phonetic notation /abc/ phonological notation abcd < abc borrowing; internal development abc > abcd borrowing; internal development abcd ‹ abc derivation; semantic evolution abc › abcd derivation; semantic evolution abc ›‹ abcd contamination abc ~ abcd alternation *abc reconstructed form or meaning **abc not attested form or meaning Introduction 1 TheAntecedentsofManuscriptADub.iii.73 The translation of the Torah into Karaim has rather a long history—the ques­tion remains, however, of how far this story goes back. In one of his articles, Seraya Shapshal (1873–1961), a well-educated leader of the Crimean and Pol­ish Karaim communities, stated that the entire Tanakh was translated into Karaim around the 11th century (Šapšal 1918: 6). This opinion was for the most part shared by Musaev (1964: 8), who stated that the Bible was trans­lated into Karaim in the 11th–14th centuries. A. Zaj¹czkowski (1964: 793) and W. Zaj¹czkowski (1980: 161), in turn, wrote that the oral—and thus, as should bemadeclear,unwritten—traditionof translatingtheBibleintoKaraimdates back“ins12.odergarindas11.Jahrhundert”. Atthesametime,thelatterauthor stated that the oldest written translations of the Bible originate from the 16th century and that they were recorded in the south-western dialect of Karaim (theHalychdialect,ashetermedit),whereastheoldestNorth-WesternKaraim translationsweremadeinthefirsthalf of the18th-century,seeW.Zaj¹czkowski (1980: 162). Although the latter information is in accordance with our present­day knowledge, we have still no evidence of the 16th-century South-Western Karaim Biblical texts referred to by W³odzimierz Zaj¹czkowski and Omeljan Pritsak (1959a: 323).1 One important manuscript worthy of mention here is Evr i Bibl 143, which containsa(probably)15th-centuryKipchakTurkictranslationof alargepartof theTorah—from Exo 21:11 up till Num 28:15. Even though it contains a transla­tionof theTorahintoKipchakTurkicwritteninHebrewscriptanditsCrimean provenance is very likely (as claimed by Harkavy & Strack 1875, see below), it still needs to be determined whether it was indeed written in Karaim and whether it belongs to the same translation tradition as the sources that are 1 It ought to be mentioned here that Grzegorzewski (1916–1918: 270–272, 279–287) published and commented on a copy of a South-Western Karaim translation of Psalms 142 and 143 (which are, obviously, not part of the Torah, but nevertheless are still a Biblical text) copied, so he claims, by Josef ha-Mashbir (born ca. 1650, died 13 Jan 1700, see JSul.ii.02: 52 ro). This, in theory, brings us closer to the 16th century. However, there are two circumstances that we must be aware of when reading Grzegorzewski’s edition. Firstly, Grzegorzewski provides no information about the manuscript he used; what we see is the text reprinted in Hebrew characters,only. Secondly,thenativedialectof Josef ha-MashbirwasactuallyNorth-Western Karaim, see the argumentation in Németh’s (2018a) article in which a critical edition of one of hisautographs isprovided (along with facsimilia). © Micha³ Ne´meth, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004447370_002 This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the cc by-nc-nd 4.0 license. discussed below. We find Jankowski’s (2018: 39–40) argumentation rather con­vincing, namely that there are grounds for classifying it as Chagatay. It was cataloguedinHarkavy&Strack(1875:167–168),butthenremainedalmostcom­pletely overlooked for more than 140 years. In 2017, Aleksandra Soboleva from the Vinogradov Russian Language Institute (Moscow) carried out a palaeo­graphic examination of this source and showed that the paper it was written ondatesbacktothe15thcentury(Grishchenko2018b:172).TheYevano-Karaitic type, Mashait style Hebrew script used in it is very similar to the 14th-century sample published by Birnbaum (1954–1957, plate 391) and Birnbaum et alii (2007: 720, 726: figure 35). It was also briefly presented by Shapira (2006: 270; 2018: 309), although without any linguistic commentary. Inthelastfewyears,thehistoryof thetranslationof theTanakhintoKaraim and the state-of-the-art of current archival and philological research has been quiteexpertlyaddressedinaseriesof worksbyJankowski(2009,2018;2019:x– xx), with special attention paid to the Eastern Karaim sources, and by Németh & Sulimowicz-Keruth (forthcoming in 2021) with special regard to Western Karaimtexts.Soasnottorepeattheinformationpresentedintheaboveworks, let us focus here onWestern Karaim translations of theTorah.2 Thefirstmentionof theoldesttranslationof theTorahintoWesternKaraim comes from the German theologian and Hebraist Johann Buxtorf der Ältere foundinthesecond,posthum-Chuma.sh ... . (1564–1629).Inthelexiconentry ous edition of his Bibliotheca Rabbinica printed in 1640, he mentions that the Karaites of Theodosia (Crimea) read the Pentateuch in a Turkic translation written in Hebrew script, see: … & .unt .ere Caraita: […] In Taurica vero Cher.one.o Theodo.ia habit­ antes, Turcice Sacros libros legunt, ut Arabi.antes Arabice, & in Per.ide Per.ice. Ubique tamen in peregrinis linguis exprimendis Hebraico char­ actere abuti con.ueverunt. buxtorf(1640: 444–445)3 Thisworkhasneverbeenquotedpreciselyinthescholarlyliterature.Insteadit wasreferredtoonthebasisofSchudt(1714:208)—whoreportedinbriefinGer­manwhatJohannesBuxtorfhadwritteninLatin—aswellasother17th-century 2 At the moment of writing we know of ca. 150 Karaim Biblical manuscripts. It is also for this reason that our focus is limited to the history of Western Karaim translations of the Torah only. 3 Thefirstedition—i.e.Buxtorf(1613)—lacksthislexiconentry. works, while in some descriptions on this topic it was overlooked entirely, see, for instance, A. Zaj¹czkowski (1939: 93), Szyszman (1952: 215, 218), Dubiñski (1959 [1994]: 64) or Jankowski (2009, 2018). According to the present day knowledge, the first documentation of a por­tion of the Torah—and, at the same time of any Biblical text translated into Karaim in general—is the letter sent by a Swedish Orientalist Gustaf Peri­nger Lillieblad (1651–1710) to the German Ethiopist Hiob Ludolf (1624–1704), in which he presented, in Hebrew letters, the first three verses of the Torah (see Tentzel 1691: 572–575). This historical fact was frequently quoted in the scholarly literature and the relevant fragment was commented on by many authors, see, e.g., A. Zaj¹czkowski (1939: 90–99), Szyszman (1952: 228), Dub­iñski(1991:219),orJankowski(2019:xii).Shortlyafteritspublication,Peringer’s letter was reprinted several times and all of its errors were flawlessly repeated by each publisher, see for instance Schupart (1701: 26) and Schudt (1714: 109– 111). Given its importance, let us present the text and add a brief commentary to it: OriginaltextafterTentzel(1691) (1) ]..... .... [ . ... .. . . .. .. .. . ... .. .. .. . .. .. . . ...... .... ..... . . . . . . . .. . ....... .. ... . . .. . (2) (3) ].... . [ . ..... . ... . ... .. . .... . . . ..... . .. .. . . .. ... .. . . ... .. ...... .... ..... .. . .. . . .. ... . ..... .. .. . .. ...... .. .. . .. ... ...... .... ..... .. .... ..... .. . . ... . (4) (5) (6) ]..... [ . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . . .... ..... . ... . .. . ..... .. . . ... . .. . (7) Transcription (1) [bre.ši.bara.]enkkaštan4jarattyTegri5 (2) ošol ol kökåarni ra6 ošol jerni. 4 5 wereconfusedduetotheirsimilarshapes. . and . ;lettersbaštan Aprintingerrorinsteadof wereconfusedduetotheirsimilarshapes. . and . ;lettersTenri Aprintingerrorinsteadof In our opinion the letter gimel should not be read as . here (as would be the case in East­ernKaraimtexts):theavailable17th-centuryNorth-WesternKaraimlinguisticmaterialshows that.,asaphoneme,hasbeeneliminatedfromthesoundsystembythattime(seefootnote34 below).ThisissupportedalsobyPeringer’smaterialitself,cf.thegenitivesuffix-nyn vs.OKar. *-ny. in derjanyn and su[v]larnyn (Gen1:2), and Tenri in Gen1:3. wereconfusedduetotheirsimilarshapes. . and . ;lettersda Aprintingerrorinsteadof (3) [wha.re.] Da ol jer edi veàac7 da noš8 da qarangylyq (4) edi jüzü üstüña derjanyn da küèli jel šuvul­ (5) daredi jüzü üstüña ol suklarnyn9. (6) [wayyomer]DaajttyTenribolsunjaryqdakoldu10 (7) jaryq. These verses are almost identical to those we know from JSul.iii.01 (= refer­encedasHinourapparatusbelow)andADub.iii.82(seethefacsimileofitsfirst page in Sulimowicz 1999, ill. 18), i.e. from South-Western Karaim translations of Genesis, as well as to those quoted by Kowalski (1929: 289). The beginning of the Book of Genesis is missing from ADub.iii.73 due to damage, but the 19th-century addition that contains it (see our edition below) is, again, almost identicaltoPeringer’smaterial.Acomprehensivecriticaleditionandlinguistic analysis of this short text was recently published by Németh (2020a). 2 ManuscriptADub.iii.73 2.1 GeneralDescription Accordingtoourcurrentknowledge,manuscriptADub.iii.73containstheold­est datable Western Karaim translation of any Biblical text. Readers were first introduced to this translation by the present author in an article from 2014 (Németh 2014b) and the results of linguistic and philological analyses of the texthavebeenpresentedovertheyearsinaseriesof publications(seeNémeth 2014a, 2014b, 2015c, 2015d, 2016a, 2019; Stachowski 2015). ThemainpartofthemanuscriptiswritteninahistoricalvarietyofKaraim— Middle North-Western Karaim.11 It consists of two parts: the first contains a translation of the Torah (folios 1 ro–343 ro),12 whereas the second comprises the Karaim translation of four of the five books of The Five Megillot, namely: 7 8 9 shapes. In Jankowski (2019: xii) it is mistakenly decipheredas köklärnin. wereconfusedduetotheirsimilarshapes. . and . ;letters10Ascribalerrorinsteadof boldu 11 Our proposed periodisation of Karaim is based on phonological, morphonological, and historical criteria established over the course of several years. Philologically, it is groun­ded on a thorough examination of nearly forty manuscripts selected from a larger group ofca.500itemscopiedinthe15th–20thcenturies.ItwasfirstpresentedinNémeth(2015b) and has been refined twice since: in Németh(2018b) and Németh (2020b:57). 12 Folio343vofeaturesalistoftheincipitsofthe54parashot. wereconfusedduetotheirsimilarshapes. . and . ;lettersveàan Aprintingerrorinsteadof wereconfusedduetotheirsimilarshapes. . and . ;lettersboš Aprintingerrorinsteadof wereconfusedduetotheirsimilar . and . ;letterssuvlarnyn Aprintingerrorinsteadof the Book of Ruth (344 ro–349 vo),13 the Book of Lamentations (350 ro–360 ro), Ecclesiastes (360 vo–374 vo), and the Book of Esther (375 ro–388 vo).14 The 388 folios are 175×140mm in size and contain predominantly 21 lines of text. The text of theTorah and of The Five Megillot is preserved almost in its entirety. The only passages of the original manuscript of the Torah that are missing (due to damage) are verses Gen 1:1–1:17, the final fragment of Gen 5:25, Gen 5:26–6:9,andthebeginningof Gen6:10.Thesepassagesweresupplementedin the 19th century by another hand in South-Western Karaim and were added to the manuscript as folios 1 ro–2 vo. As far as the text of The Five Megillot is concerned, only the last folio of the original manuscript was damaged (Est 9:28–Est 10:3). It was reproduced most likely in the 20th century by another hand in Modern North-Western Karaim and was added to the manuscript as its last page. In autumn 2014, the present author managed to find this miss­ing last page of the Book of Esther lying loose among other Karaim religious texts. I have catalogued this page as ADub.iii.67.3 not knowing at the time it was added to the catalogue that it actually belongs to ADub.iii.73. Folios 3–387 were copied in dark brown iron gall ink. The additions on the first two folios are in light brown ink, whereas the last fragment on folio 388 is in black ink. Conservation work was carried out on the manuscript on two occasions: the first most probably took place in the latter half of the 20th cen-tury byunknownpersons, while thesecondwasperformedin2015byEl¿bieta Jab³oñskaandMa³gorzataPronobis-Gajdzis.15Thetextisclearlylegibledespite the effects of ink corrosion (halted thanks to the conservation treatment) vis­ibleonmostof the folios. Themargins of thefirst17foliosaredamaged,which resultedinthelossof text.Withtheexceptionof afewpassages,theentiretext is vocalised. The main part of the manuscript was copied by Simcha of Kukizów ben Chananel of Dera¿ne. He was born most likely inTrakai in the light of the fact that he was among those migrants from Trakai who established the Karaim community of Kukizów in 1688. In a document edited by Mann (1931: 886) we 13 TheBookofRuthfromthismanuscriptwascriticallyeditedinNémeth(2015c). 14 The folio numbers presented in Németh (2014b: 110) and Németh (2015c: 51) differ from these here because the former were provided on the basis of the folio numbers added to themanuscriptinpencilbyoneofitsownersorreaders.Today,afterhavingreadthewhole manuscriptpagebypage,wecansaythatthreepageswereskippedduringthenumbering process. 15 El¿bieta Jab³oñska and Ma³gorzata Pronobis-Gajdzis are members of the Department of Paper and Leather Conservation of the Faculty of Fine Arts of the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruñ, Poland. For a report of the conservation treatment financed by the MinistryofCultureandNationalHeritageof theRepublicof Poland,seePronobis-Gajdzis (2015). see his statement that he received 100 Polish zlotys support from the king’s .... ...... . treasuryforthejourney.Inthatdocumenthereferstohimselfas ‘young and small’, which suggest that he was born not later than ca. 1670.16We are also aware that Simcha came from a well-educated family: Chananel, his father, was the hazzan of the community in Dera¿ne.17 Simcha had two chil­dren: Moshe (died 06 February 1738) and Deborah (died also in the 30-ies); his wife Chana passed away on 11 January 1717 (see JSul.ii.02: 52 ro). He became hazzaninKukizówaround1709,succeedinginthatofficeMordechaibenNisan (born ca. 1650, died ca. 1709),18 and is known for composing several piyyu­tim in Hebrew (see Mann 1931: 1270, fn. 645) as well as for writing numerous Karaiminterpretationsof Hebrew piyyutim:thepresentauthorhasdiscovered 18 such works and critically edited them in Németh (2020b: 215–373). He was the creator of anothercopyof theTorah,namely ms. TKow.01 (seebelow)and, moreover, from ms. JSul.i.11 (copied in 1878) we know that he translated the BookofLamentationsintoKaraim.19Heisknowntohavediedon20AdarSheni 5483a.m.—ca. 27 March 1723a.d. according to the Gregorian calendar—and was buried in Kukizów (see, JSul.ii.02: 52 ro, and JSul.iii.05: 164 ro).20 The text was first written without vocalisation signs. The vocalisation was addedtothetextbythecopyist,buttheunvocalisedfragmentsoramendments in Gen 37:8, Exo 38:12, Num 15 (237 ro) show us that this was done after the respective portions of text were written. Additionally, in the unvocalised frag­mentinExo38:12a cantillation signwasused,whichsuggeststhatcantillation signs were added to the text prior to its vocalisation. 16 ThefacsimileofthisdocumentwaspublishedbyMuchowski&Tomal(2016:381–382). 17 See,ms. JSul.i.45(101ro)whereintheintroductiontotheKaraimtranslationofthe piyyut (religioussong)startingwiththewords .. . . . . ... . . . .. .. . mele.ramwya.i.wereadthefollow­ . ... . ing: .. .... .... .. .... ...... .... ..... ... . ... . .... . . .... .... ... . ... .. ... . . .... . . ..... .... ...... ... . ....... ... . ‘And, if you prefer, say its peshat [i.e., the peshat of the Hebrew original] which the pure hakham translated, our master, ourteacher,thegreatandhonourablesage,hishonour,theRav,RabbiSimchathehazzan of theholycommunityofYefehYa.ar[i.e.,of Kukizów],mayhissoullodgeinEden,theson of Chananel,the aged, thehazzan of theholy communityof Dera¿ne,whosehonourable reposeisEden,mayherestinpeace’.TheKaraimincipitof this piyyut is Bijidunjanynbijik dajalgyzTenri,see Németh (2020b: 226). 18 MordechaibenNisanandhisson,Nisan,weremurderedprobablyin1709ontheirwayto the Crimea, seeMann (1931: 739, fn. 1067b),Tuori (2013: 73). 19 TheBiblicalbookinquestionwascopiedonfolios28ro–52roanditistheintroductorypas­sageinHebrewonfolio28rowhich providesthe informationthatSimcha benChananiel was its translator. 20 The fact that he was burried in Kukizów is also recorded in the manuscripts edited by Muchowski &Tomal& Sulimowicz &Witkowski &Yariv (2017: 33, 45). Aswelearnfromthecolophononfolios342vo–343ro,themaintextwascre­ated by Simcha ben Chananel between 25 March and 31 May 1720, and in the colophonsthatclosethetranslationof Exodus,Leviticus,NumberandDeuter­onomy—seefolios157vo(line14),207vo(line5),278vo(line2),342vo(line5), respectively—he clearly states that the text of the Pentateuch he copied is his owntranslation(peshat).Thisexplainswhyof allthemanytranslatorsof piyy­utim mentioned in 19th-century sources Simcha ben Chananel was the only individualassignedthetitleof translator,or divinetranslatorandha-Torani.In light of the above we may suppose that he was also the translator of the four books of Ketuvim on folios 344 ro–388 vo.21 Finally, he is also known to be a prominent copyist: in 1710, he copied Appirion, Shelomo ben Aharon’s opusmagnum (see, Poznañski 1916: 98). One of the other two copyists who contributed to the manuscript was the eminent clergymen and copyist Jeshua Josef Mordkowicz (1802–1884). We identify him as the copyist of folios 1 ro–2 vo based, firstly, on the handwrit­ing: it is identical to that of the manuscripts whose authorship we know for certain,suchase.g.JSul.iii.01andADub.iii.82.Secondly,theadditionsinques­tion aremadeinMordkowicz’s nativedialect.Moreover,JSul.iii.01includesan annotation in which Mordkowicz quotes Simcha ben Chananel’s translation, which suggests that the analysed manuscript, or perhaps ms. TKow.01, was in Mordkowicz’s possession.22 The differences between Mordkowicz’s additions to Genesis and the respective passages in TKow.01 suggest that Mordkowicz rather did not useTKow.01 in his work. Severalother individuals alsocontributedtothe manuscript, yettheir iden­tity remains unknown. We do not know the name of the person who copied 21 InNémeth(2020b),IhaveidentifiedmorethanahundredtranslatorsofHebrewliturgical poetry.IntheHebrewheadingsthatintroduceeachtranslationof aHebrewliterarywork, thecopyistsusuallytendedtomentionthenameof thetranslatorsusingallthehonorifics they earned in their life. As far as Simcha ben Chananel is concerned, two such headings are worth mentioninghere (the context is provided inNémeth 2020b: 306, 342): 1. .. .. .... .... .. .... ...... .... ...... .... . .. .... ... . ... . ‘And, if you prefer, say its peshat [i.e., of the Hebrew piyyut] which the above-mentioned hakham, the translator, his honour, the Rav, Rabbi Simcha translated, may he rest in peace’ (JSul.iii.69:295 vo); 2. .. .. .... ..... .... ... .... ..... ...... ..... ....... ... . ... . ‘Andthis is the peshat of a piyyut for the parashat Re.eh which the above-mentioned divine translatorand ha-Torani translated, may herest inpeace’ (JSul.iii.79: 179 vo). 22 See: .. .. ... .. ... .. . ... . .... ... . .... ... ..... .... . ‘Another translation of the words ba.b.a. from the translation of the Rav, Rabbi Simcha, the son of the hon­ourableChananelmaythememoryof therighteousandholybeablessing’(JSul.iii.01:93 vo:Exo30:34).IwouldliketothankAnnaSulimowicz-Keruthfordrawingmyattentionto this annotation. the text of folio 388 or who added the vocalisation to the last folios of Deu­teronomy, but both were apparently speakers of North-Western Karaim. Fur­thermore, over the course of time, several people made their own marginal additions to the manuscript (in both North-and South-Western Karaim), but due to the brevity of these annotations, it is difficult to establish their author­ship, too. Naturally, the latter additions were very likely made by some of the owners of themanuscript.Onfolio341rowefindaHebrewannotationof Zechariaben Shalom(died1771?)23fromwhichwelearnthatheboughtthebookonthe28th of Tevet 5528, i.e. on18 January 1768accordingto theGregorian calendar, from a person called Josef ben Jehuda. Secondly, on text leaves 155 vo, 156 ro, 205 vo, 206 ro, and 276 vo we see an oval seal with the Hebrew inscription, or rather ‘Mordechai,sonofthehonouredribbiZechariaof .... ... ..... .. . ,exlibris blessed memory’ and, thirdly, the original folio 385 vo (i.e., ADub.iii.67.3) con­tains the signature of a person called Shalom ben Zecharia (the signature is ‘I’).Thelattertwoindividualswereverylikelythesons .. . introducedwithHebr. of the above-mentioned Zecharia ben Shalom who bought the manuscript in 1768. On folio 205 vo one of the unidentified owners listed the dates of birth of his children born between 1789 and 1795. As we mentioned above, it is very likely that the manuscript later entered into the possession of Jeshua Josef Mordkowicz, hazzan in Kukizów until 1821 and in Halych in the years 1866–1884. This is all the more probable in light of Kowalski’s (1929: xix, 289) observation that some manuscripts from Kukizów ended up in Halych after the community’s disappearance in 1831. Today, it is partof theprivatearchiveof thedescendantsof theprominentPolishturkolo­gist Aleksander Dubiñski (1924–2002). 2.2 TheOriginsof ManuscriptADub.iii.73 The colophons enumerated above tell us that the Torah was translated in less than 70 days (including Sabbaths). There are no translations of the Torah for whichwecangiveaprecisedatethatareolderthantheanalysedmanuscript— in any of the Karaim dialects—which would allow us to perform a reliable analysis of whether Simcha ben Chananel made use of other existing trans­lations in his work. However, it seems very probable that Simcha’s translation 23 He was most likely the same Zecharia ben Shalom to whom a lament for the dead (so­called kinah) written on the 13th of Sivan 5531a.m. (i.e. 26 May1771) was dedicated. It was written by Jeshua ben Mordechai Mordkowicz (hazzan in Halych until 1796), see JSul.i.37.14. was created on the basis of already existing texts. In fact, Peringer’s report by itself issufficientforustohypothesisetheexistenceof comprehensiveKaraim translationsof theToraholderthan1720thatourtranslator—who,afterall,was a clergymen—had known or had at his disposal.24 Moreover, the vast number of similarities between this manuscript and bsms 288 copied in 18th-century Crimea is enough to demonstrate that a common tradition of Bible transla­tion must have existed among the Karaims. Likewise, the Book of Ruth in ms. JSul.iii.02(theoldestdatableKaraimBiblicaltranslationcopiedintheCrimea severaldecadesbeforeADub.iii.73)whichstandsveryclosetotheprintededi­tion from 1841 (= referenced as E in our apparatus below) also shares a large number of textual similarities with the Book of Ruth as copied in the second part of ADub.iii.73 (see Németh 2016a: 205–206). In contrast, the Krymchak targum of the Book of Ruth presented by Ianbay &Erdal(1998)is vastlydiffer­ent from the existing Karaim translations. Apart from the rich textual similarities between ADub.iii.73 and transla­tions made more or less at the same time (but separately, in distant Karaim communities), we also find many errores significativi that reveal its close rela­tionship with other manuscripts. For example, one very interesting parallel betweenADub.iii.73andbsms288isthatversesLev15:7andNum3:8are(mis­takenly?)missingfrombothmanuscripts(Num3:8ismissingfromR,too).Not counting the damaged parts, there are altogether nine verses that were omit­tedbySimchabenChananel(Exo14:18,Exo37:15,Exo39:17,Exo40:34,Lev15:7, Num 3:8, Num 32:41, Num 33:49, Deu 1:14), but all of them are present in ms. JSul.iii.01.Thelatterinformationisveryimportantinthiscaseasweknowthat JSul.iii.01wascopiedinHalychbyapersonwho,aswehaveshownabove,used Simcha’s translation in his work. Infact,therearenumerousfactssuggestingthatmostof theWesternKaraim Biblicalmanuscriptsknowntous—if notallof them—canbetracedbacktoa 24 We know of two Crimean Karaim sources containing a translation of the Torah that date from as far back as the 18th century, but neither of them can be dated accurately: bsms 288 (= referenced as C in our apparatus below), which Aqtay (2016: 38) assumes to have been copied in the second half of the 18th century, and Bachè. 116 of which all we know is that it dates from the 18th century (see Jankowski 2019: xix). All the other Crimean Karaim manuscripts Jankowski referred to in his works (2009, 2018; 2019: x–xx) as well as ms. F305-92 (not listed by Jankowski), are more recent than ADub.iii.73. Poz­nañski(1916:88)mentionedaCrimeanmanuscriptfrom1672thatcontainedtheProphets and Writings, but the fate of this source is unknown. Finally, the Eastern Karaim ms. JSul.iii.02(copiedbefore1687,butafter1648)doesnotcontainanyportionsof theTorah, either. commonroot.Scribalerrors,mistranslations,allkindsof peculiaritiesrepeated in numerous manuscripts show quite clearly that Karaim manuscripts draw from a common translation tradition. For instance, we have identified alto­gethereightmistranslationsthatarerepeated in numerousmanuscripts(orin atleastoneadditionalone),see:Gen2:8,Gen4:15,Gen15:9,Exo27:8,Lev24:11, Lev 24:16, Deu 17:8, Deu 28:20. It is very important to note that the translationedited in this book contains a great number of interpretative additions to the standard text of the Hebrew Bible as well as interpretative translations of certain passages or entire verses that were very likely authored by Simcha ben Chananel himself. This is espe­cially evident in the poetic passages of the Torah, such as in the respective parts of Genesis 49, Exodus 15, Leviticus 26, Numbers 23–24, or Exodus 32–33. The ca. 90 verses that contain interpretative supplementations to the Hebrew Torah,25 the 7 verses that were changed entirely, and the 16 verses in which certain passages have been translated interpretatively are potentially valuable sourcematerial for exegetes, seeTable 1.26 For instance, a very interesting phe­nomenon is the addition of the principle of the Golden Rule to Lev 19:18 and Lev 19:34. Another feature shared by Karaim Biblical translations is the avoidance of anthropomorphisms in descriptions of God. A good illustration of this tend­encyistheuseof theexpressionbolušluguTenrinin‘God’shelp’torenderBHeb. . . ... ... ‘God’ (Gen 21:20), rendering BHeb. . . ... .. ‘Yahweh’ with še.inasy Adona­ jnyn ‘the divine Presence of the Lord’ (Gen 4:4) or with hašga.asy Adonajnyn ‘the providence of the Lord’ (Exo 17:7), replacing BHeb. .. . . ... ‘face’ with aqyl ‘mind’ or qyblalar ‘directions’ (Gen 32:31, Exo 33:14). We also see bujruq ‘com­ mand’ used to render BHeb. . . . .. ‘foot’, BHeb. . . . ... .. ‘finger’, or BHeb. . .. . ‘palm’ (Exo 24:10, Exo 31:18), hyššym ‘wrath’ used to render BHeb. ‘hand’orBHeb. . . . .. . . ... ‘face’ (Exo 3:20, Lev 17:10), and on küè ‘right strength’ used for BHeb. . .. . . . ‘right hand [of God]’ (Exo 15:6). Although an exhaustive description of this particular translation technique was given by Zaj¹czkowski (1929), based on 25 Furthermore,oneadditiontothetextoftheTorahisfoundinGen6:3,i.e.inthefragment originally damaged and supplemented by Jeshua Josef Mordkowicz. This interpretative translation was later taken into consideration by Mordkowicz in his JSul.iii.01 (6 vo): it is added to it as an alternative translation of the respective passage, but, interestingly, it is absent there in ADub.iii.82(7 ro)which was also copied byJeshua Josef. 26 In the available scholarly literature, only limited attention has been paid to the transla­tion techniques applied by the Karaim translators and their exegetic implications. This topic has been touched upon in the following publications: Henderson (1826: 331–339), Zaj¹czkowski (1929; 1931–1932: 191–292; 1947), Dubiñski (1965a, 1965b), Altbauer (1979– 1980), and Olach (2017: 235–238). table1 InterpretativetranslationofHebrewpassagesandadditionstotheoriginal Biblicalbook Interpretative additions to theoriginal text Interpretative transtionsof entire verse la­s Interpretative transla­tions of short passages Genesis 15:1, 20:16, 27:13, 27:33, 27:45, 4:23, 4:24 28:22, 31:32, 32:23, 37:2, 37:13, 37:27, 37:32, 38:29, 40:4, 42:1, 43:14, 45:12, 45:19, 46:4, 49:16 Exodus 12:42, 15:2, 15:4, 15:8, 15:13, 15:11, 17:16, 24:11 9:30, 25:37, 33:13, 37:16 15:14, 15:15, 18:8, 19:13 (× 2), 19:19, 19:24, 20:22, 21:6, 32:5, 32:34, 33:13 Leviticus 9:23, 10:1, 10:3, 13:45, 20:14, 8:6, 19:18, 19:34 23:17, 23:40, 24:8, 24:12, 26:34, 26:39, 27:34 Numbers 4:6, 9:13, 11:22, 20:12, 21:24, Deuteronomy 23:22, 23:23 (× 2), 24:8, 25:4 6:9, 7:9, 11:20, 12:7, 12:18, 15:17, 15:20, 16:10, 30:6, 30:14 32:5, 33:3 7:10 (× 2), 29:19, 30:3, 30:18, 33:2, 33:11, 33:12, (× 3), 30:20, 32:10 (× 4), 32:12, 32:37, 32:39, 32:41, 33:19, 33:21, 33:26, 33:27, 33:29 33:6, 33:9, 33:10, 33:18, 33:21, 33:24, 33:25, 33:26 ms.ADub.iii.73wecansupplementZaj¹czkowski’sresearchwiththefollowing list of equivalents: 1. aèuv ‘anger’ = BHeb. . . . ‘nose’ (Exo 15:8); 2. bujrugum ‘my command’ = ‘I’, see: . . .. . . . ‘and I have come down’ (Exo 3:8); 3. jeliTenrinin ‘the wind of God’ = BHeb. .... . . . ... . .. ‘Spirit of God’ (Gen 1:2); 4. qajjamlyq ‘eternity’ = BHeb. . .. . ‘palm’ (Exo 20:3, Deu 5:7); 5. qulluguAdonajTenrijnin‘theserviceof Lord,yourGod’ =BHeb. . . ... .. ‘Yah­ weh’ (Deu 11:22); 6. sondragy jaratylmyšlar ‘hindmost creation’ = BHeb. .... . . ‘back’ (Exo 33:23). Moreover,wehaveobserved,albeittoalimitedextent,thesametendencywhen it comes to descriptions of the prophet Moses, see: 7. naviligi ašyra Mošenin ‘by/through the prophecy of Moses’ = BHeb. .. . . .... .. . . ‘by/under the hand of Moses’ (Lev 8:36, Num 27:23, Num 33:1). Giventhatthistendencyissomewhatlesspronounced,butstillpresent,inthe Crimean translations, the question arises of whether it is also characteristic of ms. Evr i Bibl 143, the provenance and language of which still awaits clarifica- tion.Wesee,forinstance,BHeb. .. . . .. .. . .... . . ... ‘facetoface’(Exo33:11)translated verbatimas jüzjüzgä‘facetoface’inEvriBibl143(20ro)orbsms288(86ro),but then BHeb. . .. .. .. . . . .. ... ‘and [there was] under the feet’ (Exo 24:10) is rendered, on the one hand, as ajagy tibinä ‘under his feet’ in Evr i Bibl 143 (6 ro) and, on the other, as tibinä hörmätlärini. ‘under his honours’ in bsms 288 (77 ro). It seems, however, that the analysed tendency is at least as old as Evr i Bibl 143. Even though a thorough analysis of this linguistic monument is still to be pre­pared27, we can also quote some examples where such anthropomorphisms fromthatsourceareavoided.See,forinstance,BHeb. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. ... .. . . ... ... ‘writ­ ten with the finger of God’ (Exo 31:18) translated as jazylganlar Ta.ry küèibilä ‘written with the strength of God’ (Evr i Bibl 143: 17 vo) or the translation of verse Exo 33:23 in which the words ‘hand’, ‘back’, and ‘face’ are translated by means of similes, see: . .. .. .. . ....... ... .. ... . . . ........ ...... ..... . ..... . . ...... ‘And I will turn myhandaway,andyou willseemyback,butmyface willnotbe seen’(English translationbyFriedman2003:176)translatedas: Daketirgäjmänbulutymnyda körgäjsänartyndagylarymnydaalyndagymkörünmägäjlär‘AndIwilltakeaway my cloud, and you will see that which is behind me, and that which is in front of me will not be seen.’ (Evr i Bibl 143: 20 vo). The translation technique presented above brings the Karaim translations textually and exegetically closer to the Septuagint (see Zaj¹czkowski 1929: 9– 10). In this light, another interesting case is the translation of Heb. . . .. .. ‘flame = plague, pestilence’ in Deu 32:24 with the word quš ‘bird’. This point is worth mentioningbecausethisisthewaythiswordisrenderedintheSeptuagint—we find BGr. ...... ‘birds’ in the respective verse and this could have entered the KaraimtextviaSlavonictranslations,cf.ocs......‘birds(gen.)’inDeu32:24. On the other hand, the Karaim translation may have well been influenced by Med.Heb. . . .. .. ‘1. glow, flame, spark; 2. bird (of prey)’ (Jastrow 1903: 1502; Klein 1987: 631) or, albeit less likely, it might also be a mistranslation: we find Kar. uèqun ‘spark’ in this verse in other Karaim manuscripts, hence if Simcha ben ChananelusedotherKaraimmanuscriptsasabasisforhiswork,hecouldhave (mis)interpreted uèqun as ‘bird’, given that uèqun is a -qun derivative of uè-‘to fly’ (see A. Zaj¹czkowski 1932: 81; Berta 1996: 402). 27 Theplanisforthistobedonewithintheframeworkofthe KaraimBibleprojectreferenced in the Acknowledgements. 3 ManuscriptTKow.01 Chronologically speaking, the next Western Karaim Torah translation created after manuscript ADub.iii.73 is that described by Kowalski (1929: 289) as a manuscript copied in 1723 in Dera¿ne (referenced as TKow.01 in this book). Kowalski’sclaimthatthemanuscriptwascreatedinDera¿nein1723washighly puzzling in the light of the fact that this community was destroyed during theKhmelnytskyUprising(1648–1649)andthehistoricalevidenceprovingthe community’s alleged existence way until the second half of the 18th century28 is highly scarce and dubious (for a discussion, see Németh 2018a: 84–85). The re-discovery of this manuscript confirmed that our doubts were well founded: In 1929 it was in the possession of Dr. Zacharjasz Nowachowicz (1883– 1960), an inhabitant of Halych, but then the fate of this manuscript remained unknown for decades—until 15 November 2019 when it was re-discovered (among other manuscripts, further information is provided below) by the present author and Anna Sulimowicz-Keruth in the private archive of the inheritors of the late Polish orientalist Tadeusz Kowalski (1889–1948). Its ana-lysis showed that also this manuscript was copied by Simcha ben Chananel: according to his annotation written on the inside of the front cover he fin­ishedcopyingthis workonthe first dayof theparashatVayeshevinthemonth Kislev 5483a.m., i.e. on 7 December 1722a.d. This allows us to state, in the light of the copyist’s biography, that the manuscript was actually copied in 1722 in Kukizów, not in 1723 in Dera¿ne. The place of the manuscript’s cre­ation was misinterpreted by Kowalski on the basis of the fact that, in the annotationmentionedabove,Simchareferredtohimself as“Simchathesonof Chananel of Dera¿ne”, but it is Chananel who lived in Dera¿ne, not the copy­ist. A large part of this manuscript is vocalised, see: Gen 1:1–Exo 4:4, Exo 15:1–9, Exo 15:19–25, Exo 21:1–25:12, Lev 16:1–18:30, Num 15:15–24, Num 15:41–17:3, Deu 1:1–2:10, Deu 2:5–12, Deu 3:23–4:5, Deu 4:19–8:15, Deu 27:15–28:1, Deu 28:16–44 (and a few more fragments of Lev 26, Deu 28 and Deu 32 vocalized selectively accordingtoSouth-WesternKaraimstandardsbyanotherhandusingdifferent quill pen). On the basis of the originally vocalized fragments we can say that itsvocalicsystemreflectspreciselythesamephonologicalphenomenathatwe see in ADub.iii.73 (seeour description below).Since we know thatthe copyist passed away three months after finishing copying the main text, it seems jus­ 28 Threeauthorsclaimedso(based,mainly,ontheverysamearguments):Ba³aban(1927:50),Zaj¹czkowski (1934a: 182),and Šabarovœkyj (2013: 153–154). tified to say Simcha ben Chananel was unable to add the vocalisation to the entire text because of his advanced age. Although there are many differences between the two manuscripts copied by Simcha ben Chananel—see, e.g., jaratty, jaratajyq in ADub.iii.73 vs. qyldy, qylajyq in TKow.01 (Gen 1:25, Gen 1:26, respectively)—these discrepancies are nottoosignificant.Thepresenceofsomeof thescribalerrorsinthesetwoman­uscripts only (see, e.g., Gen 10:18, Gen 17:8, Gen 22:18, Gen 31:49, Exo 2:10; Exo 27:8)alsospeakinfavourof treatingthesetwomanuscriptsastextsgoingback to the same source. Importantly, altogether (or: only) 16 interpretative addi­tions to the original text of ADub.iii.73 were repeated, in an unaltered form, inTKow.01(thoseinGen37:13,Gen37:32,Exo15:4,Exo15:8,Exo1515,Lev20:14, Num 23:23 (× 2), Num 24:8, Deu 12:7, Deu 12:18, Deu 30:14 (× 1), Deu 32:10 (× 4), Deu 32:41, Deu 33:18). Giventhatms.TKow.01wasre-discoveredshortlyafterthesubmissionofthis volume to the publisher, I had no possibility to perform an in-depth compar­isonofmanuscriptsADub.iii.73andTKow.01.Nevertheless,damagedpassages, uncertain readings, possible mistranslations, and Jeshua Josef Mordkowicz’s South-Western Karaim additions to Genesis were thoroughly compared with TKow.01. For more information on how this manuscript was utilized in our work, see our remarks on page 39. 4 SubsequentWesternKaraimTranslationsoftheHebrewBible 4.1 IntroductoryRemarks Before we continue our discussion, it is ought to be said that at the moment of writing the present author is aware of the existence of ca. 150 Karaim Bib­lical sources (including Eastern Karaim texts which are not the primary focus of this work) kept in many collections all around Europe, the most important being Polish, and Lithuanian private archives of Karaim families, the Wrob­lewski Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences in Vilnius, the Insti­tute of Oriental Manuscripts of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and the National Library of Russia in Saint Petersburg. A few other manuscripts are kept in the holdings of other institutions, such as the John Rylands Library in Manchester, the Cambridge University Library, and the Edinburgh University Library. There is, however, no comprehensive catalogue of these texts. The data presented in this volume is hence based on the present writer’s archival research (for years conducted in close collaboration with Anna Sulimowicz-Keruth), personal correspondence, and the works of Steinschneider (1871), Harkavy&Strack(1875),Poznañski(1909–1910;1912–1919;1916;1918–1920),Kow­alski (1929), A. Zaj¹czkowski (1931; 1931–1932; 1964),29 KarRPS (1974), Dubiñski (1979; 1985), W. Zaj¹czkowski (1980), Medvedeva (1988), Sklare (2003), Walfish (2003),Shapira(2006),Jankowski(2009),Walfish&Kizilov(2011),Olach(2013), Vasileva (2003, 2014), A. Sulimowicz (2015a; 2015b), Aqtay (2016), Iºik (2018), andJankowski(2018;2019:x–xx).Additionally,thereisa numberof editionsof KaraimBiblicaltexts,seethepublicationsof Grzegorzewski(1916–1918),Danon (1921),Kowalski(1929),A. Zaj¹czkowski (1931–1932;1934b),J. Sulimowicz(1972; Daniel 9:9–11, only), Firkovièius (1994), Jankowski (1997), Firkovièius (2000), Csató(2011;Psalm91,only),Olach(2013),Shapira(2013),Németh(2014b), Sha­pira (2014), Németh (2016a), Olach (2017), Jankowski & Aqtay & Cegio³ka & Çulha & Németh (2019), and Kobeckaite (2019). Is should be also mentioned here that the process of emergence of the Western Karaim Bible translating traditionanditsevolutioninpost-partitionPolandwasdiscussedinNémeth& Sulimowicz-Keruth (forthcoming in 2021). 4.2 SubsequentWesternKaraimTranslationsof theTorah According to our current knowledge, chronologically the next manuscripts were created in mid-19th century Halych by the aforementioned Jeshua Josef Mordkowicz(born1802inHalych,died1884inHalych),thehazzaninKukizów (from ca. 1821 until the destruction of that community around 1831) and later also in Halych (from 1866 until his death), a prominent teacher and copyist of dozens of manuscripts, including copies of the whole Tanakh. As far as the translations of the Torah are concerned, he was the creator of manuscripts ADub.iii.82, JSul.iii.01 (as we mentioned above), and of the manuscript par­tiallyeditedanddescribedbyOlach(2013)—allof thembeingwritteninSouth Western Karaim. Towards the turn of the 20th-century numerous copies of the Torah were produced in the territory of present-day Lithuania in Modern North-Western Karaim. For the time being, we can say that one of the most prolific copy­ists of those times was Zevulun ben Ananiah Rojecki (born between 1842 and 1844 probably in Naujamiestis, died 1923 probably in Panevežys, buried at the Karaim cemetery in Naujamiestis), hazzan in Panevežys from the end of the 19thcenturyuntiltheinterwarperiod.30Asfarastranslationsof theFiveBooks 29 WilhelmRadloff’seditionoftheBookofJobismostlikleyaghostpublicationeventhough there isa reference made to it inZaj¹czkowski (1931: 31). 30 See him mentioned by Poznañski (1916: 99), although his surname is mistakenly de­ .BrieflyreferredtobyKizilov(2015:177)andPileckaRawacki ,i.e...... . cipheredthereas (2016:8).HisgraveislocatedattheKaraimcemeteryinNaujamiestis.Hisshortbiography, prepared by A. Sulimowicz-Keruth, is presented in Németh & Sulimowicz-Keruth (forth­coming in2021). of Moses are concerned, he copied manuscripts F305-01 (Torah, Former Prophets), F305-02 (Genesis, Haftarah), F305-74 (Genesis, Exodus), F305-03 (Exodus), F305-130 (Exodus, Leviticus), F305-04 (Leviticus), F305-05 (Num­bers), F305-129 (Numbers), F305-06 (Deuteronomy), and F305-128 (Deutero-nomy). Our preliminary analysis shows that the text of the Book of Genesis in F305-01 (= referenced as R in our apparatus below) stands very close to the printededitionof 1889editedbyZacharjaszMickiewiczandElijahuRojecki(= referenced asVin our apparatus below). Lastly, Szymon Firkowicz (1897–1982) copied F305-127 in 1926–1927. 4.3 SubsequentWesternKaraimManuscriptsof theNevi.imandKetuvim Apart from the translations of the Torah, a few other Western Karaim Biblical manuscripts were created before the end of the 18th century. Besides the Haf­tarotcopiedinADub.iii.73,firsttobelistedhereistheBookof Estherfoundin ms. JSul.iii.65(folios5ro–12ro,13vo–16vo),theoldestknownKaraimtextfrom Halych written in Middle South-Western Karaim (its linguistic and palaeo­graphiccharacteristicssuggeststhatthetextwasmostlikelywritteninthelate 18th century). It was discovered in the form of handwritten additions bound together with the last volume of Siddur (1737). Secondly, to the latter group belong ms. F305-41, a collection of religious works partially copied in the 18th century (1 ro–65 vo). Among others, it contains a selection from various books of Nevi.im read during Pesach (30 ro–47 vo), the Book of Lamentations (48 ro– 55 vo), and some passages from the Book of Hosea (48 ro–55 vo)—translated into North-Western Karaim. Finally, another 18th-century source to be men­tionedhereistheNorth-WesternKaraimtranslationof theBookof Proverbs— created in Saloèiai in 1798 by a person called Shelumiel ben Shemuel—which was presented by Firkovièius (2000). Thanks to the activity of Jeshua Josef Mordkowicz, South-Western Karaim received a full textual coverage of the Hebrew Bible. Besides the above-men­tioned translations of the Torah, he translated and copied the entire Nevi.im and Ketuvim: see manuscripts ADub.iii.83 (Latter Prophets, Twelve Minor Prophets), ADub.iii.84 (Ketuvim, except 1–2 Chronicles), F305-104 (Hallel), TKow.02 (Former Prophets, 1–2 Chronicles), TKow.03 (Ketuvim, except 1–2 Chronicles), and TKow.04 (Ketuvim, except 1–2 Chronicles). The latter three sources were discovered in the private archive of Tadeusz Kowalski in years 2019–2020. As far as our knowledge goes, TKow.02 contains the only exist­ing South-Western Karaim copy of the Former Prophets and 1–2 Chronicles. Additionally, we should also say that the hectographed edition of the Book of Jeremiah mentioned by Kowalski (1929: lxxviii) was also based on one of Mordkowicz’s autographs (see ADub.iii.87) and was published in 28 copies in Halych in 1927. In fact, we know of only a few South-Western Karaim Biblical texts that were not copied by Mordowicz, namely: JSul.i.04 (Book of Job) and JSul.i.50.06 (Book of Esther) which are, by the same token, the oldest known Lutsk Karaim texts, two other manuscripts that contain passages from the BooksofProverbs(JSul.i.38.13andJSul.i.54.02),andsixfragmentarilypreserved translations of the Book of Psalms (mss. JSul.i.38.15, JSul.i.38.16, JSul.i.38.17, JSul.i.38.18, JSul.i.38.20, and JSul.i.40.05). Finally, in JSul.i.11 (28 ro–52 ro) we find the translation of the Book of Lamentations that we mentioned above, copied in South-Western Karaim by Zecharia ben Chanania Rojecki (born ca. 1849, died ca. 1902) who was, as a matter of fact, a native speaker of North-Western Karaim; he copied this work in South-Western Karaim probably to meet the needs of the members of the Karaim community of Lutsk—of which Zecharia Rojecki was the spiritual leader (probably in the years 1878– 1902). On the other hand, it was Zevulun Rojecki who translated and copied the entireTanakhintoNorth-WesternKaraim.Thiswasdonemostlikelyinthelast decades of the 19th century. Apart from the works mentioned above, he cre­ated manuscripts F305-90 (Latter and Minor Prophets, Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Five Megillot), F305-34 (Jonah), F305-42 (Psalms, Proverbs), F305-79 (Psalms, Proverbs,Ruth,Songof Songs,Ecclesiastes;oneespeciallyimpressiveexample of Zevulun Rojecki’s calligraphic skills), F305-75 (Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes), F305-07 (Five Megillot, Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah, 1– 2Chronicles), and F305-91 (Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah, 1–2Chronicles). The contemporaries of Zevulun Rojecki have created several other copies of Biblical texts in the territory of present-day Lithuania. We should mention here, in approximate chronological order, manuscripts ADub.iii.85 (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Joel, Psalms, Job, Proverbs), JSul.iv.20 (passages from the books of Psalms and Proverbs), ADub.iii.88 (Isaiah), RAbk.iv.05 (Job, Song of Songs), JSul.i.51 (Esther), ADub.iii.70 (Job), ADub.iii.69 (Psalms), and JSul.i.54.01 (Proverbs). Finally, preliminary research shows that numerous other, most likely 19th­and20th-centuryWesternKaraimBiblicalmanuscriptsarestoredinTheWrob­lewskiLibraryof theLithuanianAcademyof SciencesinVilnius,buttheirexact content, age, place of creation, and the identity of their copyists is still to be determined, see, arranged by accession numbers, for instance, manuscripts F305-08(somebooks of Ketuvim),F305-09 (Esther),F305-11(Haftarot,Jonah), F305-18, F305-19, F305-20 (Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes), F305-31 (Proverbs), F305-36 (Psalms, Proverbs), F305-37, F305-38 (Hallel, Daniel), F305-39, F305­41 (second part: excerpts from Deuteronomy, Jeremiah, Ecclesiastes), F305­43, F305-44, F305-52, F305-56, F305-58, F305-60, F305-67 (Jeremiah, Song of Songs), F305-84, F305-89, F305-94, F305-95, F305-131, F305-135 (excerpts from Leviticus), F305-136, F305-142, F305-146 (Ruth), F305-148 (Hallel), F305-149, F305-153, F305-154, and F305-157. 5 AConciseLinguisticDescriptionofManuscriptADub.iii.73 5.1 IntroductoryRemarks The language of the manuscript exhibits Kipchak Turkic linguistic features and should be classified as Late Middle North Western Karaim (except the syntax which is heavily influenced by Hebrew).31 Unlike many existing East­ern Karaim Biblical sources, ADub.iii.73 shows no traces of Oghuzic influ­ence. 5.2 SoundSystem Thephonologicalpeculiaritiesof thismanuscripthavealreadybeendescribed in a series of earlier publications, see Németh (2014a, 2014b, 2015c, 2020b: 56– 99). Here, only its most important features will be highlighted. Eight vowel phonemes can be distinguished on the basis of the text, see Table 2. We have no philological evidence that would allow us to distinguish betweenopen/e/(or/ä/)andaclosed/e/inthetranscription,althoughwecan hypothesise the existence of the distinction between e used predominantly in word-initial syllables and e (ä) in non-first syllables in Early Middle Western Karaim, see our argumentation in Németh (2020b: 59–64). The lack of ortho­graphic distinction between these two sounds (both tzere and segol were used torenderboththefirstsyllabicandthenon-firstsyllabicE-typevowel)andthe unknownextentof externallinguisticinfluenceontheMiddleWesternKaraim sound system (cf. the strong influence of Slavonic idioms which either did not distinguishbetweenthesesoundsintherespectivetimeperiodorhadadiffer­entphonotacticdistributionof E-typevowels)forcesustobemorecautiousin formulating decisive conclusions on this matter.32 31 An excellent description of Hebrew influences on the syntax of Western Karaim Biblical texts can be found in Olach (2013:50–212). 32 Examples of Ukrainian phonetic and phonotactic influence on Lutsk Karaim (spoken roughlyinthesameregionwherems.ADub.iii.73wascreated)werepresentedbyNémeth (2011a).Forthedescriptionof E-typevowelsintherespectiveSlavoniclanguages,see,e.g., for Polish: Klemensiewicz & Lehr-Sp³awiñski & Urbañczyk (1955: 85–90), Stieber (1962: 42), Smoliñska (1983: 32–33), Siciñska (2013: 111–114); for Belarusian: Wexler (1977: 160, 178);forUkrainian:Ševeåov(2002:181–185,713ff.),Žovtobrjuch&Rusanivœkyj&Skljarenko (1979: 310–311, 327–329). table 2 Late Middle North-Western Karaim vowels Functionallyfrontvowels Functionallybackvowels Highvowels i ü y u Lowvowels e ö a o Unrounded Rounded Unrounded Rounded table 3 Late Middle North-Western Karaim consonants Bilabial Labio­dental Dental Alveolar Palatal/ pre-velar Velar/ uvular Laryngeal – + – + – + – + – + – + – + ´´¡¡´´ ¡¡´´ Plos. p . b b´ t t´ d d´ . .k,q g Affr. c? è c. .æ .? v? v? ž? z? ´ .? Fric. f fs zš sœŸ .g h hNas. m . n ñ .? Liqu. ³ l å Trill r à Glide w . j ´ Amongtheopenquestionsweshallalsomentionthatwedonotknowwhat was the actual phonetic value of the original front labials in non-initial posi­tions in the time the manuscript was written. In word-initial position ö and ü remainedunchangeduntilthepresentday,butinotherpositionsthesesounds evolved into o and u with the preceding consonant being palatalized (i.e., 'o and 'u). There were, however, no clear orthographical means to distinguish not determine with certainty whether the letter yodh indicated the frontness of ö,üorthepalatalityof consonantsinfrontof 'oand'u(see,also,ourremarks inNémeth2000b:64–76).Intheinterestsof clarity,weuse ö and ü inthetran­scription,ineveryposition,withoutsayinganythingconclusiveregardingtheir phonetic value in non-initial position. Additionally, it is only the position in front of 'a (< *e) where the palatality of theprecedingconsonantwasdistinctlyindicatedbyanadditional yodh.The writingsystemallowsa clear distinctionbetween a and e,as wellasbetween a .and... .Thesepairswerewrittenwith.'u and ü ,orbetween'o and ö between ifwrittenword-initially,andwecan-aleph .,respectively,withanadditional... . introduction and 'a. The sound e was rendered with the vowel points tzere (.) and (rarely) . segol (. . a .,whereas .. . .and. ... ,i.e.,. yodh)usuallycombinedwiththeletter waswritteneitherwithapattach(.)orqamatz(.),seeTable4.Thedistinction .. betweenaand'a,inturn,wasdenotedwiththeletter yodh,i.e.,theconsonants withthe vowel points pattach or qamatz were additionally followed bythe let­ter yodh to denote 'a. Hence, in order not to use a transcription that would suggest far-fetching phonetic interpretation, we denote the palatality only of thoseconsonantsthatstandinfrontof 'a(withtheexceptionof afewSlavonic loanwords). Theconsonantalsystemof thesourceispresentedinTable3.33Foradiscus­sionregardingthereconstructionof eachsound,seetherespectivechaptersof Németh (2020b: 76–106).34 Interestingly, ms. ADub.iii.73 documents the process of the harmony shift as a result of which the original vowel harmony evolved into a consonant harmony in North-Western Karaim (see, e.g., Stachowski 2009, Németh 2014a, 2020b:61–76).Thisprocessaffectedthefinalsyllablesfirstandgraduallyexpan­dedtowardstheonset.Asaresultof it,thenumberandfrequencyof useof the ¡´ ¡´ ¡´ ¡´ palatal or palatalized consonants increased considerably: it is most probably the palatalized consonants ., b´, ´d, ., z, h ´ ´ , æ, . ´ , ., v, œ, Ÿ, s ´ , ., ñ, å, and à that , t , c came into existence during this period. Our previous remarks and conclusions, based on a detailed analysis of sev­ eral chapters and a general overview of the entire manuscript, remain valid in all respects: the manuscript providesus witha vastnumber of formsvocalised accordingtotheoriginalvowelharmonyemployedinterchangeablywithforms 33 In the table the following notation is used: C? = sound of uncertain phonological status and/or phonetic value | C = newly emergingsound (in italic letters). 34 The following remarks are due: the Turkic phonotactics give us grounds to assume that, phoneticallyspeaking, g,k,lmusthavebeenpalatalizedinfrontof e,i,ö,andüasaninher­itedcoarticulativefeature(see,e.g.,Räsänen1949:148ff.).Inloanwords,theSlavonicvelar k isregularlyrenderedwiththeletter kaf (in186instances)—unlikethenativelexicon,in which the letter qof is used in the respective phonetic environment, which suggests that perhaps there was a articulatory difference between them (velar k vs. uvular q?). For this reason,wedistinguishbetween k and q inthetranscription andTable3.Velar g appeared inloanwords,only.Thesound f´ ispotentiallypossible,butwefoundnowordattestedthat woulddisplay it. Inourview,thevoicedvelarnasal . was most likelyeliminatedfromthe phonological system of North-Western Karaim by the time this manuscript was created, butcouldhaveexistedasthepositionalallophoneof /n/;inLateModernWesternKaraim (from the second half of the 19th century on) . and its palatal counterpart .´ could have appeared in a limited set of words as a result of the -ll->-.l-, -åå->-.´å-, -jj->-.´j-dissim­ ilative tendency. The velar plosive g could have appeared in loanwords. Finally, the value of . isuncertain:itwaseitheralaryngealor,morelikely,avelarfricative.Itonlyappeared inHebrewwordsanditmaywellbethatitmergedwith . inWesternKaraim(andmerely served an orthographic purpose). written according to the rules of consonant harmony and with word forms in whichweseetracesof bothvowelandconsonantharmonies,see,forinstance, bedenelerden (Lev 1:14) ~ bedeñaåard´an (Lev 14:30) ‘of the turtledoves’ or töàa­èiåariña ‘to the judges’ (Num 25:5) ~ töreèilerijizge ‘to your judges’ (Deu 1:16). Themanuscriptishighlyheterogeneousinthisrespect,whichmighthavebeen duetothepossibleuseof differentmanuscriptsasreferencesinthetranslator’s work, see, for instance, the second part of the manuscript, i.e. the Haftarah, which is consistently vocalised according to the regular consonant harmony knownfromModernNorth-WesternKaraim.Anotherinterestingphenomenon to observe is the considerable difference between the way in which the text is vocalised before and after folio 280 vo. Finally, it is worth mentioning that some of the phonetic and phonotactic phenomena known from Modern Western Karaim are attested in the edited manuscript, which supplies us with valuable data on the chronology of these changes, see: 1. thedissimilationofgeminatedsonorants,e.g. in arttyrmanmen ‘Iwillnot continue’ (Gen 8:21) < arttyrmammen, enli ‘fifty’ (Gen 6:15) < elli; 2. the syncope of high vowels, e.g. in eksilerinede ‘for the two of them’ (Exo 26:24) < ekisilerinede; 3. thespirantizationofthe q > . insyllable-closing position,whichappears to be documented in the form .... . . .. . . .. qyr.kün ‘a period of forty days’ (Num 14:33): in Németh (2018b: 156) we referred to the use of the letter . .( qophwitha raphe ) toindicatefricativenessbasedonlate18th-century passages of ms. RAbk.iv.15. This is the only example of its use in the manuscript edited in this volume. 4. the labialization of e, i > ö, ü in front of v, see, e.g., èöplöv ‘gathering’ (Lev 19:9)<èöplev,ölèov‘measure,weight’(Gen24:22)<ölèev,thelabialization of y, i > u, ü after m, see, e.g. sajlanmuš ‘chosen one’ (Num 11:28) < sajlan­myš, tirilmüš ‘sojourning’ (Gen 17:8) < tirilmiš, the labialization of e > ö in frontof asyllablethatcontainsö,e.g.onökövlen‘(coll.)twelve’(Gen42:13) < onekövlen, ököv‘(coll.)two’(Num13:23)< eköv, ökövlen‘(coll.)two’(Deu 32:30) < ekövlen, önökövlen ‘(coll.) twelve’ (Gen 42:32) < onekövlen. 5.3 Morphology As far as the morphology is concerned, mention should first of all be made of those threeMiddleWesternKaraim categories thatbecame non-productivein ModernWestern Karaim and received almost no attention in the scholarly lit­erature. Firstly, there is the -p edi-past tense, first described for Karaim by Németh (2015) as plusquamperfectum ii on the basis of 7 examples. It consists of the -p converbial form used with the -dy past tense form of e-‘to be’. ADub.iii.73 includes an additional five more forms to be listed: ajtybedi ‘had said’ (Deu 9:25), alybedim ‘lit. I had taken’ (Gen 12:19), barybedi ‘lit. had gone’ (Gen 24:62), beklebedi‘hadclosed’(Gen20:18),qalybedi‘lit.hadceased’(Gen18:11).Itiswell­known from otherTurkic languages, see, e.g., Juldašev (1963: 188–198). Secondly,themanuscriptcontains14examplesof -a-d-~-a-dyr-verbalforms thatexpresscontinuativepresent(conveyingcontinuative,durativeanditerat­iveshadesofmeaning)usedtodenoteanactionthattakesplaceatthemoment of speechorimmediatelyafterit.Itcomprisesthe-aconverbialformusedwith the -dyr-suffix and its abbreviated variant -d, which etymologically go back to Tkc. tur-‘to stand’. This category was first described for Karaim in Németh (2019) based on a thorough morphological and semantic analysis of, among others,thefollowingexamples:aladese‘if hetakes’(Gen27:46), arttyradeœak‘if wegoon’(Deu5:25),biledesej‘if youknow’(Gen47:6),bošatmajdesej‘ifyouwill not forgive’ (Exo 32:32), èejpajdyr biz ‘we are destroying’ (Gen 19:13), ijedesej ‘if youaresending’(Gen43:4),ijmejdesej‘if youarenotsending’(Genesis43:5,Exo 8:17), klemejdesej ‘if you are not willing’ (Exo 4:23, Exo 7:27, Exo 9:2, Exo 10:4), körüñadi eœa ‘if it seems’ (Num 22:34), qajtarmajdesej ‘if you do not give back’ (Gen 20:7), qyladeœaj ‘if you deal’ (Num 11:15), tujaqlajdy esede ‘if it parts the hoof’(Deu14:8).Itiswell-knownfromotherTurkiclanguages,see,e.g.,Tenišev (1988: 443). Thirdly,we have found two examples of the -a-jez-approximative construc­tion used to convey the meaning that an action is nearly or almost done. It is composed of the -a converbial form used with the auxiliary Turkic verb jaz­‘to miss (Germ. verfehlen)’ which in both cases evolved into jez-(most prob­ably as a result of an assimilative change), see keltirejezdij ‘you have almost brought’(Gen20:9)and jatajezdi ‘hasalmostlain’(Gen26:10).Itiswell-known from other Turkic languages (see, e.g., Juldašev 1965: 109–111), and its detailed description will appear in Németh (2021). The following morphological peculiarities are also important to mention: Asfarastheparticipialformsareconcerned,thelistof examplesdocument­ing the Mod.WKar. -myš suffix in Zaj¹czkowski’s study (1932: 101–102) can be supplemented with four more examples: körmemüš ‘not seen’ (Deu 22:1, Deu 22:4), sajlanmuš ‘chosen’ (Num 11:28), ünd´almiš ~ ünd´almüš ‘1. convocation; 2. representative’ (Lev 23:3, Lev 23:27), berilmüšåar ‘given’ (Num 3:9). The use of the suffix suggests that it might have been a productive category at the time the text of the manuscript was composed. Additionally, we can add one fur­therexampletothe listof wordswiththeunproductiveMod.WKar. participial -r suffixpresentedbyA.Zaj¹czkowski(1932:99–100),namely bürkünür ‘purify­ing’ (Num 8:7). Interestingly, the construction comprising the -gan participle of the verb usedwiththepossessivesuffixandthe-dalocative—whichwasusedtoexpress an action taking place simultaneously with the action expressed by the verbal stem—isoftenusedin thismanuscriptincombination withthesegment -èoq, the exact role of which needs clarification, see, for instance, èygarganlaryn­daèoq ‘as they were bringing them out’ (Gen 19:17). This phenomenon was briefly discussed in Németh (2015c: 91–92)on the basisof one form attested in Rut (1:19). Our interpretation was that MNWKar. -èoq is a segment which was believed by the copyist to be a particle as a result of misinterpreting the mor­phologic boundaries of the converbial suff. -gaèoq. The latter category forms transgressives indicating an action that ended immediately before or exactly at the moment the action expressed by the main verb took place and it is also abundantly used in manuscript ADub.iii.73, see, for example, kelgeèoq ‘as he came; having come’ (Gen 12:14). We know that the suffix -gaèoq is a complex suffix consisting of the segment -gaè and the intensifying particle -oq,35 but given the fact that both -gaè and -oq were already non-productive in Middle Western Karaim, it is very likely that the copyist misinterpreted -gaè-oq as the dative-gausedwithèoqandthatinhisidiolectthelattersegmentacquiredthe meaning of an intensifyingor corroborativeparticle (importantly,Simcha ben Chananelistheonlyuserof thisconstructionweknowof).Asaresult,heused thissegmentwiththeabove-mentionedtemporalconstructions,i.e. èygargan­larynda ‘as they were bringing them out’ > èygarganlaryndaèoq ‘(precisely at thatmoment)astheywerebringingthemout’.Regardlessof theetymology,the contextinwhichtheexampleslistedbelowappearsupportsthesemanticinter­pretation of this construction, see: èygarganlaryndaèoq ‘as they were bringing them out’ (Gen 19:17), èyqqanymdaèoq ‘as I go out’ (Exo 9:29), ešitkenindeèoq ‘when he heard’ (Gen 24:30, Gen 39:15), ešitkenlerindeèoq ‘when they heard’ (Gen34:7),ešit.anijizd´aèoq‘whenyouheard’(Deu5:23),ijgenindeèoq‘whenhe will let you go’ (Exo 11:1), juvuganyjyzdaèoq ‘when you come near’ (Deu 20:2), kelgenimdeèoq ‘as soon as I come’ (Gen 44:30), körgenindeèoq ‘when she/he 35 Thecomponent -gaè isthoughttobepresentintheWKar. -a-dogoè < *-a-dur-gaè conver­bialsuffix(forA.Zaj¹czkowski’sopiniononthisissue,seeNémeth2013:140).Theexistence of theWKar. specifyingparticle -oq shouldnotbedoubted,cf.NWKar. alajoq ‘inthesame way,bythesametoken’*-sajedi > -sajdy ~ -syjdy shortening process, see e.g. qyjnasajdylar ‘lit. if they had oppressed’ (Exo 1:12). Intheeditedmanuscript,however,wealsofind-sajediformsattestedthathave not been described so far (see, e.g., Musaev 1964: 291–293), see, for instance, ajtsajedi ‘lit. if he had said’ (Gen 31:8), bersejedi ‘lit. if he had given’ (Exo 16:3), bolsajedi ‘lit. if it had been’ (Num 22:28), bujurulsajedi ‘lit. if it had been com­manded’ (Exo 34:34), ölsejedi ‘lit. if he had died’ (Gen 38:29), tynlasajedij ‘lit. if youhadlistened’(Gen23:13),&c.Thisallowsustointerprettheemergingglide -j-as an epentetic sound employed to avoid hiatus (a.e and e.e). The interrogative particle appears in the forms -mu ~ -mo ~ -mö—the lat­ ‘isithis küèümö .......... . tervarianthavingbeenhithertonotdocumented,see strength?’ (Num 11:23) and .......... . .... tüvülmö ‘is it not?’ (Gen 29:25). ´ Thesyncope of thefuturetense marker -r-is very frequent, see,e.g., arttyry­men (Gen 3:16) ~ arttyryrymen ‘I will multiply’ (Gen 17:20). The1stand 2nd personmarkersare documented in the form -men ~ -.an ~ -min ~ -myn and -sen ~ -œan ~ -sin ~ -syn, see, e.g. etemen ‘I do’ (Exo 13:15), eter­.an ‘I will do’ (Gen 17:21), etamin ‘I do’ (Deu 8:19), bošatyrmyn ‘I will forgive’ (Gen18:28), eteœan‘lit.you are doing’(Exo 14:15).This showsthat theevolution of thesemorphemesinNorth-WesternKaraimwasmostlikelytwofold.Onthe one hand, as we see here, the MNWKar. -men, -sen evolved into -men ~ -.an, -sen ~ -œan, on the other, however, the personal markers known from present­day Western Karaim evolved as a result of the -men, -sen > -myn ~ -.iñ, -syn ~ -œiñ process. The latter set of person markers can hardly be explained phonet­ically by an evolution from -men ~ -sen via a -.an ~ -œan stage. 5.4 Lexicon The text is rich in Hebrew terms, loanwords, calques, and collocations. These arepredominantlyreligioustermscharacteristicof Biblicaltexts(orotherreli­giousworkstextuallybasedontheTanakh),althoughthereisalsoasmallgroup of words that are known to appear in other religious (or even secular) works, too. This can be illustrated by the following material (only those Hebraisms areenumeratedbelowthatarenotlistedinKarRPS):.aceret ‘solemnassembly’ (Num 29:35),36 .a.bar ‘mouse’ (Lev 11:29), a.lama ‘amethyst’ (Exo 28:19), aja ‘a bird of prey (probably the falcon)’ (Lev 11:14), anafa ‘heron’ (Lev 11:19), anaqa ‘gecko’ (Lev 11:30), arbe ‘a kind of locust’ (Lev 11:22), aron ‘1. Ark; 2. coffin’ (Exo 25:21),ašam‘guiltoffering’(Lev6:10),ašera‘Asherah,idolpole’(Exo34:13),avnet ‘girdle’ (Exo 28:4), .aznija ‘black vulture’ (Lev 11:13), bethamiqdaš ‘temple’ (Deu 33:19), bikur(im) ‘firstfruit’ (Lev 2:14, Lev 23:17), bohaq ‘a kind of skin-disease’ (Lev 13:39), cadiq ‘just, righteous’(Gen 18:25), cara.at ‘leprosy’ (Lev 13:12), cav ‘a kind of a lizard’ (Lev 11:29), cicit ‘tassel’ (Num 15:38), èylèal ‘a species of locust orcricket’ (Deu28:42), da.a ‘abird of prey’ (Lev11:14), daja ‘abirdof prey’ (Deu 14:13),dišon‘antelope’(Deu14:5),du.ifat‘hoopoe’(Lev11:19),efa‘ephah(agrain measure)’ (Lev 19:36), efod ‘ephod’ (Exo 28:4), El Šadaj ‘God Almighty’ (Exo 6:3), erez ‘cedar’ (Lev 14:4), .esron ‘one tenth, tenth part’ (Lev 14:10; used as a plural of .isaron, see Lev 14:21), galgal ‘globe, celestial sphere’ (Gen 10:7; from Medieval Hebrew), gibea. ‘bald on the forehead’ (Lev 13:41), gidhanaše ‘sinew of the thigh’ (Gen 32:33), .agav ‘grasshopper (?)’ (Lev 11:22), .ala ‘cake’ (Exo 29:23), .alaf ‘slaughteringknife’(Gen22:6), .argol ‘akindof locust;cricket(?)’ (Lev11:22), .asid ‘pious’ (Deu33:8), .asida ‘stork’ (Lev 11:19), .atat ‘sinoffering’ (Exo 30:10), .azir ‘pig’ (Lev 11:7), .erem ‘thing devoted’ (Lev 27:28), hin ‘hin (a liquid measure)’ (Exo 30:24), .oled ‘mole’ (Lev 11:29), .omer ‘homer (a name of a dry measure)’ (Lev 27:16), .omet ‘a kind of lizard’ (Lev 11:30), .ošen ‘breast­plate’ (Exo 28:22), .ošen mišpat ‘brestplate of judgement’ (Exo 28:15), janšuf ‘long-eared owl’ (Lev 11:17), jašfe ‘jasper’ (Exo 28:20), jecer ‘character; inclin­ation’ (Gen 8:21), jecer hara. ‘evil inclination’ (Deu 30:6), jovel ‘jubilee’ (Lev 25:12), kaporet ‘Kaporet (the cover of the Holy Ark)’ (Exo 25:17), keruv ‘cherub’ (Exo 25:19), kipurim ‘atonement’ (Exo 30:10), kohen gadol ‘Hight Priest’ (Exo 29:30),kos‘littleowl’(Lev11:17),kova.‘akindoflizard’(Lev11:30),lešem‘jacinth’ (Exo 39:12), leta.a ‘lizard (?)’ (Lev 11:30), levona ‘frankincense’ (Exo 30:34), log ‘log(aliquidmeasure)’(Lev14:10), ma.arav‘west’(Gen12:8), maca‘unleavened bread’ (Lev 2:5), maceva ‘1. pillar; 2. tombstone’ (Gen 28:18), mamzer ‘bastard’ (Deu23:3), maror ‘bitter herb’(Exo12:8), mašija. ‘Messiah’(Gen 49:10), micne­fet ‘turban’(Exo28:4), mi.nesajim‘dualtrausers’(Exo28:42),milu.imi‘tobeset’ (Exo 25:7), milu.imii ‘of ordination’ (Lev 8:28), miqlat ‘refuge’ (Num 35:11), mis-pa.at ‘scab’ (Lev 13:7), miškan ‘tabernacle’ (Exo 26:7), mišne ‘copy’ (Deu 17:18), musaf ‘addition,additionalthing’(Num29:39), nahar ‘Euphrates’(Gen36:37), nasi‘prince’(Gen17:20),navi‘prophet’(Exo11:3),navi.a‘prophetess’(Exo15:20), nazir ‘nazirite; consecrated person’ (Num 6:2), neqeva ‘female’ (Deu 4:16), nes ‘sign’ (Num 26:10), nese. ‘drink offering’ (Gen 35:14), neteq ‘scab’ (Lev 13:32), 36 Onlyoneplaceofoccurrenceisindicatedforeachword,notallofthem. ohelmo.ed ‘tenof meeting’(Exo27:21),.omer ‘omer (adrymeasure)’(Exo16:16), paro.et ‘curtain, veil’ (Exo 26:31), pe.etet ‘sunken spot (in leprosy)’ (Lev 13:55), peres ‘bearded vulture’ (Lev 11:13), qa.at ‘pelican’ (Deu 14:17), qadašim ‘holy things,holies’(Lev22:4),qadeš ‘templeprostitute’(Deu23:18),qahal ‘assembly; community’(Lev4:14),qarban‘offering,sacrifice’(Exo29:18),qerea.‘bald’(Lev 13:40), qešita ‘qesitah (oldweightof unknownvalue)’(Gen31:19), qodeš ‘1.holy; 2. sanctity’ (Exo 26:33), ra.a ‘a bird of prey’ (Deu 14:13), ra.am(a) ‘carrion vul­ture’ (Lev 11:18, Deu 14:17), raqia. ‘firmament’ (Gen 1:20), sa.a ‘seah, a dry and liquid measure’ (Gen 18:6), safir ‘sapphire’ (Exo 24:10), sak ‘amout’ (Lev 27:23), sal.am ‘a kind of locust’ (Lev 11:22), sefer ‘1. book; 2. scroll’ (Deu 17:18), sukot ‘booths’(Lev23:40), Sukot ‘Sukkot’(Lev23:34), ša.atnez ‘shaatnez (clothwoven of wool and linen)’ (Lev 19:19), šabat ‘Sabbath’ (Exo 16:23), šabaton ‘the day of complete rest; complete rest’ (Exo 16:23), ša.af ‘seagull’ (Lev 11:16), šala. *‘cormorant’ (Lev 11:17), šatan ‘adversary’ (Num 22:32), Šavu.ot ‘Shavuot’ (Exo 34:22), šefela ‘lowland’ (Deu 1:7), še.ina ‘divine Presence (of God)’ (Gen 18:3), šelamim ‘(pl. t.) peace offering’ (Exo 24:5), ševo ‘agate’ (Exo 28:19), šitim ‘aca­cia’ (Exo 25:5), šmita ‘remission’ (Deu 15:2), šofar ‘trumpet’ (Exo 19:13), šoham ‘onyx’(Gen2:12),ta.aš*‘porpoise’(Exo25:5),ta.mas‘nighthawk(?)’(Lev11:16), tame ‘unclean’(Lev13:45), taršiš *‘beryl’(Exo28:20), temarim‘palmtrees’(Deu 34:3), tenufa ‘wave offering’ (Exo 29:24), teruma ‘heave offering, terumah’ (Exo 25:2), tinšamet ‘chameleon’ (Lev 11:30), tinšemet ‘white owl’ (Lev 11:18), totafot ‘frontlet’ (Exo 13:16), tumim ‘Thummim’ (Exo 28:30), urim ‘Urim’ (Exo 28:30), and vadaj ‘surely, certainly’ (Num 22:11). Additionally, an interesting phenomenon to observe is that the meaning of anumberof Karaimwordshasbeeninfluencedbythesemanticscopeof their Hebrew equivalents, see NWKar. avaz ‘voice’ › ‘1. voice, sound; 2. thunder; 3. ,’‘1.voice,sound;2.thunder;3.rumour ... . undertheinfluenceofBHeb. ’ rumour NWKar. avlamaq ‘hunting’ › Kar. avlamaq ‘1. hunting; 2. game, quarry’ under the influence of Heb. . . . .. ‘1. hunting; 2. game’, NWKar. ber-‘to give’ › ‘1. to give; 2.toset,toput,toplace;3.tomake;4.toallow’undertheinfluenceofHeb. . .. . . ‘1. togive;2.topermit;3.todeliver;4.toput,toset;5.tomake’,NWKar.èerüv‘army, troops’ › ‘1. army,troops; 2. war; battle; 3. military service’ influenced by BHeb. . . . . . ‘1. military service; 2. host, fighting men’, NWKar. dunja ‘1. world; 2. people’ › ‘1. world; 2. people; 3. eternity, everlastingness’ as a calque of Heb. .... . . ‘1. eternity;2.world’,NWKar.issin-‘1.togethot,towarmoneself’›‘1.togethot,to warmoneself;2.toconceive(saidof animals),tocopulate’undertheinfluence of Heb. . . .. . ‘to be hot; to conceive, to breed’, NWKar. jaman ‘evil’ › ‘1. evil; 2. wretchedness’motivatedbyBHeb. . . . . . ‘1.evil,2.wickedness;3.misery,trouble’ , NWKar. jyjyn‘crowd,gathering;group;host’›‘1.crowd,gathering;group;host; 2. army; 3. military service’ influenced by BHeb. . . . . . ‘1. military service; 2. host, fightingmen’,NWKar. qoj-‘toput’›‘1.toput;tomake’influencedbyHeb. . .. . . ‘1. to give; 2. to permit; 3. to deliver; 4. to put, to set; 5. to make’, NWKar. quš ‘bird’ ‘1.fowl,bird; ... . whichisacalqueofBHeb. ’ ›‘1.bird;2.(any)flyingcreature 2. flying creature: fowl, insects’, NWKar. qyl-‘to do’ › ‘1. to do; 2. to work’ influ­ encedbyHeb. . . . .. . ‘1.todo,tomake;2.towork;3.toact’,andNWKar.söz‘word’ › ‘1. word; 2. matter; thing’ influenced by Heb. . .. . . . ‘1. word, speech; 2. matter, affair; 3. business’. The semantic changes shown above were, however, limited to Biblical texts, only. Good examples of entire expressions being calqued are NWKar. eki ingirler arasyna ‘attwilight’,lit.‘betweentwotwilights’