PDA

View Full Version : An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts



John Reece
05-31-2014, 08:37 PM
The beginning of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):



Part I

THE APPROACH

CHAPTER I

PREVIOUS WORK ON THE ARAMAIC OF THE GOSPELS AND ACTS

In his Worte Jesu, the most elaborate study of the Gospels hitherto undertaken, Gustaf Dalman includes a review of the work prior to and contemporary with his own; his account may be supplemented by Arnold Meyer's Jesu Muttersprache, in which Meyer also undertook to interpret and explain the Gospels from Aramaic originals.

To be continued...

Cow Poke
05-31-2014, 08:53 PM
Please excuse the Driveby, JR, but did you happen to see the discussion between the Pope and Netanyahu about what language Jesus spoke? :smile:

"Jesus was here, in this land. He spoke Hebrew," Netanyahu told Francis, at a public meeting in Jerusalem in which the Israeli leader cited a strong connection between Judaism and Christianity.

"Aramaic," the pope interjected.

"He spoke Aramaic, but he knew Hebrew," Netanyahu shot back.


:outtie:

John Reece
05-31-2014, 08:58 PM
Please excuse the Driveby, JR, but did you happen to see the discussion between the Pope and Netanyahu about what language Jesus spoke? :smile:

"Jesus was here, in this land. He spoke Hebrew," Netanyahu told Francis, at a public meeting in Jerusalem in which the Israeli leader cited a strong connection between Judaism and Christianity.

"Aramaic," the pope interjected.

"He spoke Aramaic, but he knew Hebrew," Netanyahu shot back.


:outtie:

Yes, I saw it.

John Reece
06-01-2014, 06:47 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


Among earlier scholars the two most outstanding names are those of Wellhausen and Nestle. In his Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien, the former presented a certain amount of linguistic evidence which led him to think that an Aramaic document had been used by the author of the common source of Matthew and Luke known as Q, and possibly also of Mark. Similar views were held by Nestle, and among others, by Blass, who believed that Acts i-xii was originally composed in Aramaic by Mark, and that Luke was using a translation of this work.

To be continued...

John Reece
06-03-2014, 06:41 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


The criticism which applies to this earlier work generally, and which was made by Dalman, is that it is defective on the linguistic side: Wellhausen, for instance, made no attempt to illustrate his observations of Aramaic construction or usage from the available sources of Palestinian Aramaic literature.

To be continued...

John Reece
06-04-2014, 11:23 AM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


In spite of this serious defect, however, much of the work of these earlier scholars is of permanent value. Not every Aramaism requires to be fully 'documented'; an Aramaic idiom may be so well known that illustrations of it are superfluous. And in other cases examples from the literature are not difficult to produce. In at least two instances of this kind from the work of Wellhausen and Nestle, Dalman did less than justice to the evidence, and the alternative explanations which he offers are much less satisfactory than those which he rejects.

To be continued...

John Reece
06-05-2014, 05:05 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


Wellhausen's brilliant conjecture that the Synoptic variants καθάρισον (Mt. xxiii. 26) and δότε ἐλεημοσύνην (Lk. xi. 41) go back to dakkau and zakkau respectively, and that in Luke the former 'cleanse', has been wrongly read as the latter, 'give alms', has survived criticism. The objection raised by Dalman, though with obvious hesitation, to the possibility of a confusion between the two words is unreal; and his alternative explanation that Luke is a kind of exposition of Matthew's Greek, the 'cleansing' of the vessels consisting of the distribution of their contents as alms, is forced.

To be continued...

John Reece
06-06-2014, 03:29 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


It may be that δότε ἐλεημοσύνην in Luke is less a mistranslation than a wrong but deliberate interpretation of the Aramaic, made all the more easy, if, as Wellhausen maintained, the two verbs were originally identical in orthography. But the genesis of Luke's reading is quite certainly to be found in a wrong understanding of Aramaic dakko 'cleanse' (dakkau is a Syriac form).

To be continued...

John Reece
06-07-2014, 01:06 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):

I missed a significant footnote at the end of the first sentence in post #7 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2218-An-Aramaic-Approach-to-the-Gospels-and-Acts&p=63195&viewfull=1#post63195):


Wellhausen's brilliant conjecture that the Synoptic variants καθάρισον (Mt. xxiii. 26) and δότε ἐλεημοσύνην (Lk. xi. 41) go back to dakkau and zakkau respectively, and that in Luke the former 'cleanse', has been wrongly read as the latter, 'give alms', has survived criticism.*


*.... Both verbs are fully attested for Jewish Palestinian Aramaic in these senses, zakki, 'to give alms', by Dalman himself from the Palestinian Talmud (p. 71, Worte Jesu).

To be continued...

John Reece
06-08-2014, 02:37 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


To Nestle's explanation that Luke's 'cities' in his form of Matthew's parable of the Talents (Lk. xix. 17 f. (http://biblehub.com/context/luke/19-17.htm)) has arisen as a result of a misunderstanding of ככרין 'talents' (כרכין being 'cities'), Dalman objected that karᵉkha is not the usual word for 'city' in Palestinian Aramaic.* There is, it is true, a more general word corresponding to πόλις, namely mᵉdhinta; but both for larger and smaller 'cities', and especially for the fortified towns of Palestine, for which πόλις is employed in both LXX and New Testament, karᵉkha is the usual word; in the Pseudo-Jonathan Targum of Num. xxiv. 19, karᵉkha is used of Rome.


*Worte Jesu, p. 53. The suggestion was made by Nestle in the Theologische Literaturzeitung for 1895, No. 22; it is repeated in his Philologica Sacra, p. 22, and endorsed by Meyer, op. cit., p. 137

To be continued...

John Reece
06-09-2014, 01:23 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


An observation of Nestle in his Philologica Sacra, unnoticed by Dalman, is worth recalling. Nestle cited from a privately circulated essay of Field (of the Hexapla) on the 'First Recorded Utterance of Jesus Christ' the latter's claim that ἐν τοῖς τοῦ πατρός μου in Lk. ii. 49 (http://biblehub.com/luke/2-49.htm) mistranslated Hebrew beth ʾabhi; this 'original Hebrew' of Luke should have been rendered ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾀ τοῦ πατρός μου: the LXX's rendering of beth occasionally by the neuter plural of the definite article, e.g. Gen xli. 51, Esther v.10, vi. 12, vii. 9, Job xviii. 19, was adduced in support of the conjecture, and Irenaeus's version of Jn. xiv. 2, ἐν τοῖς τοῦ πατρός μου, for the Greek text of John ἐν τῇ οἰκίᾳ τοῦ πατρός μου, was cited as a case of the opposite mistranslation.

To be continued...

John Reece
06-10-2014, 02:51 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


What Field claimed for Hebrew holds also for Aramaic: Aramaic beth ʾabba is ambiguous and may be rendered in either way; F. C. Burkitt actually renders the Old Syriac translation of ἐν τοῖς τοῦ πατρός μου in Lk. ii. 49 (http://biblehub.com/luke/2-49.htm), namely beth ʾabh(i), by 'at my Father's house'; this is a legitimate rendering of the Syriac, if it were not a translation of Lk. ii. 49 (http://biblehub.com/luke/2-49.htm); Burkitt's wrong translation, however, illustrates the ambiguity of Aramaic.

To be continued...

John Reece
06-11-2014, 01:59 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


Since Wellhausen and Nestle, and partly contemporaneous with their work, the studies of Dalman represent the most important contribution which has been made to the subject. Dalman rejected all theories of written Aramaic sources as unproven, and believed that it was in the Words of Jesus only that we had the right to assume an ultimate Aramaic original. Whether he was justified in so confining the range of his study remains to be considered. In his investigation of the Words of Jesus the exegetical interest is foremost: Dalman is less concerned to consider or estimate the extent of Aramaic influence on the language of the Gospels; he selected a number of the main conceptions, such as 'the kingdom of God', 'the World', 'the Father in Heaven', and sought to elucidate them in the light of their Jewish antecedents and parallels. The Words of Jesus which are discussed under these headings are themselves considered in their Jewish Aramaic form and context. The branch of Palestinian Aramaic to which Dalman attached most importance for his reconstruction of the Words of Jesus was the Aramaic of the Jewish Targums to the Pentateuch and the Prophets.

To be continued...

John Reece
06-12-2014, 01:19 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


Since Dalman, C. C. Torrey and C. F. Burney are the best known names; each attempted to prove the existence of Aramaic originals, the latter to the Fourth Gospel; Burney, in a subsequent work, undertook a study of the poetry of Jesus. Torrey goes so far as to claim in his first larger work [The Four Gospels] that Aramaic originals lie behind all four Gospels, and, on the basis of this view and of numerous conjectural reconstructions of Aramaic, has produced a new translation of Aramaic originals. Most of his examples of mistranslation, however, and several of Burney's, are open to grave objection. Torrey's attempt at a new translation of the Gospels before any adequate presentation of the philological evidence was premature. His second larger study [Our Translated Gospels], in which the evidence of language is presented more fully, would have been of greater value had it been undertaken for the Aramaic scholar, and not for 'popular' reading by those who are unacquainted with Aramaic or have no more that a slight working knowledge; the evidence is often over-simplified and incomplete.

To be continued...

John Reece
06-13-2014, 11:57 AM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


Burney's main approach was in this respect the right one; even if he failed to prove his theory of an Aramaic original for the whole of John; he investigated the grammar and syntax of the Gospel in the light of our knowledge of the Aramaic language.

To be continued...

John Reece
06-14-2014, 03:42 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


Both Burney and Torrey approach the study of the Aramaic of Jesus on the same linguistic assumptions as Dalman, that the Aramaic of the Targums of Onkelos and the Prophets is the best representative of the Aramaic of Jesus.

To be continued...

John Reece
06-15-2014, 12:15 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


Two important articles have recently appeared from the pen of the late A. J. Wensinck of Leyden. The second of these, 'The Semitisms of Codex Bezae', represents, in the principles of its approach to the Aramaic of the Gospels, as well as in some of its results, the most important advance in the subject in recent years. Wensinck no longer shared Dalman's view of the importance of Targumic Aramaic; and he extended his investigations to the text of Codex Bezae. Most other Aramaic scholars, in particular Torrey and Burney, have based their investigations either on the text of Westcott and Hort or on that of Tischendorf.

To be continued...

John Reece
06-16-2014, 06:49 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


Three main criticisms may be made of this earlier work of Dalman, Torrey, and Burney, and of the studies of their predecessors and contemporaries such as J. T. Marshall or Arnold Meyer. They apply to a less extent to the pioneer work of Wellhausen or Nestle.

To be continued...

John Reece
06-17-2014, 12:18 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


(1) While Dalman's criticism of the inadequacy of the linguistic approach of Wellhausen and Nestle is fully justified, the large claims he makes (accepted without criticism by succeeding workers in the field) for Targum Aramaic as the primary authority for the language of Jesus cannot now be justified. This criticism, together with suggestions for a fresh approach to the language of Jesus, is developed in the following chapters.

To be continued...

John Reece
06-18-2014, 12:57 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


(2) Hitherto most Aramaic scholars of the Gospels have confined themselves almost exclusively to the investigation of Aramaisms in one text only, that of Westcott and Hort or that of Tischendorf. The unexamined assumption of this textual approach to the subject is that no other text has the same claim to the confidence of scholars as the best single representation of the Apostolic autographs. Wensinck, alone among modern scholars, but following the tradition of Wellhausen, Nestle, and Blass, included in his investigations the text of Codex Bezae, and was able to claim, as a result of his comparison of the Bezan text with non-western texts of Luke, not only that there was much more evidence of Aramaic influence in Bezan Luke, but also that the isolation and establishment of Aramaisms in the text contributed substantially to the solution of the great textual problem. For if Aramaic influence is more extensive in one text rather than another, the presumption is that the 'Aramaized' text stands nearer to the kind of Greek which the Apostles wrote. Other great texts had passed through the process of διόρθωσις; their more polished Greek is the work of later editors.

To be continued...

John Reece
06-19-2014, 08:48 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


Has the Bezan text any claims to represent a more primitive type of text than that of the Vatican and Sinaitic Codices? If it has, then Wensinck's approach is justified, and the Bezan authority, as the best representative of the 'Western' text, should certainly be included in any investigation of the Aramaic of Jesus and the Gospels, including Luke-Acts. Moreover, in view of such a textual approach, the study of the Aramaic of the Gospels will not concern itself solely with estimating the extent of Aramaic influence, or with questions of source-criticism; it may also contribute to the textual criticism of the Greek Gospels. This textual approach is also discussed more fully in Chapter II.

To be continued...

John Reece
06-20-2014, 03:50 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


(3) The third criticism of earlier work, especially the more recent studies of Torrey and Burney, may be conveniently considered in the present chapter. Both Torrey and Burney attach much importance to conjectured mistranslations of Aramaic as proof of source. Mistranslation of an original is, it is true, the best proof of translation; but it is doubtful if it can ever have scientific value as evidence except in cases where we possess not only the translation but also the original work. Even then demonstrative proof is not always possible: not all Syriac scholars accept Burkitt's view that the Acts of Thomas was an original Syriac work and the Greek a translation, though we possess both Syriac and Greek and Burkitt based his hypothesis largely on alleged misrenderings of the Syriac by the Greek text. What is not always possible in the most favourable of circumstances becomes difficult in the extreme when there is no original with which to compare the 'translation'.

To be continued...

John Reece
06-21-2014, 11:03 AM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


When a strong case can be made out for the mistranslation of original Aramaic in the Gospels or Acts, such evidence must be stated fully. But there are two demands which we can justifiably make of all such conjectural evidence or proof: the mistranslation must at least be credible; and the conjectured Aramaic must be possible.

To be continued...

John Reece
06-22-2014, 12:25 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


Both offenses, incredible 'mistranslations' and impossible Aramaic, are among the worst features of recent work in the Aramaic of the Gospels. Nearly two generations after J. T. Marshall's elaborate failure to prove on internal evidence of 'mistranslation' the existence of 'an Aramaic Gospel', and the considered verdict on such work given by the great Oxford Semitist S. R. Driver, the same kind of mistakes continue to be made. All dialects of the language are ransacked for an expression or usage, however rare and unusual, to explain a difficulty. There are even cases where Aramaic words which do not exist, or are not at any rate found in the lexica or literature, have been invented; and such false coin continues to be circulated by the non-specialist.

To be continued...

John Reece
06-23-2014, 09:09 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


S. R. Driver's judgment of Marshall's work deserves to be quoted in full:


'In composition in a foreign language, it is better, surely, to be cautious of expressions than to be not scrupulous enough; and I cannot understand why Prof. Marshall could have postulated for his original Aramaic Gospel, words of which there could be the slightest doubt that they were properly and correctly used, and that they really and unquestionably bore the meaning which he attributes to them. But doubt attaches: they are not the ordinary and natural words that would be expected; sometimes they are words that do not exist at all; at other times they are either very rare words, the precise meaning of which is not readily determinable, or they are words which do not really express the idea required.'

To be continued...

John Reece
06-24-2014, 02:27 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


In Mk. vii. 3, C. C. Torrey has suggested that an original Aramaic 'the Jews do not eat at all (לגמר, ligmar) without washing their hands' has been misrendered 'the Jews do not eat without washing their hands πυγμῇ, with the fist (לגמד, ligmodh)'. But לגמד (= πυγμῇ) can only be pointed and read as Hebrew lᵉgomedh; the alleged Aramaic word gumda, 'fist', and from which ligmodh, πυγμῇ is formed occurs in none of the lexica. Moreover, gomedh never means 'fist'; gomedh, Aramaic garmidha, as likewise πυγμῇ when their [sic? ?they're? -JR] equivalent, mean 'cubit', 'ell', the length of the arm from elbow to finger tip.

To be continued...

John Reece
06-25-2014, 03:55 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


The most likely explanation of the unusual πυγμῇ νίψωνται is that given by John Lightfoot, who cited parallels from the Talmud on the ritual hand-washing before meals which is not to go beyond the wrist. Hand-washings were graded according to the degree of ritual pollution. When a strict ritualist came from the market-place, the greater pollution demanded a 'plunging' of the hand to the wrist in special water not less than forty seahs in quantity and contained in a special basin. The 'dipping' of the hand or the pouring of water on the hands for lesser degrees of ritual uncleanness did not require such elaborate precautions or preparations. The Talmudic phrases are 'to plunge to the wrist (ṭᵉbhal ʿadh happereq)' and 'to dip or lustrate to the wrist (nᵉṭal or mᵉshi ʿadh happereq)'. Mark's βαπτίσωνται in verse 4 corresponds to the first phrase, where the reference may be to the first type of ritual washing; πυγμῇ νίψωνται may correspond to the second phrase. We may thus take the Marcan expression as equivalent to the Talmudic phrase and meaning 'to wash the hand in ritual washing'.

To be continued...

John Reece
06-26-2014, 01:58 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


In Mk. xiv. 3 (http://biblehub.com/mark/14-3.htm) (cf Mt. xxvi. 6 (http://biblehub.com/matthew/26-6.htm)), Σίμωνος τοῦ λεπροῦ is said by Torrey to contain a mistranslation of גרבא, garabha, 'a jar-merchant'; the same consonants had been misresd as garba, λεπρός. The noun garba is the usual one for 'leper', and there is another word with the same consonants found in the Targum and meaning 'a wine-skin'. But no noun garabha meaning 'a jar-merchant' appears in any of the lexica.*


*Mt. xxvi. 6 (http://biblehub.com/matthew/26-6.htm) (D) has λεπρωσοῦ; the Aramaic equivalent adjective is garban, a word which might easily be confused with (Talmudic) gardan (Targumic gardai), 'a weaver'.



To be continued...

John Reece
06-27-2014, 06:00 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


Torrey's restoration of the Aramaic of Acts ii. 47 (http://biblehub.com/acts/2-47.htm) has been accepted by a number of scholars; in the Beginnings of Christianity J. de Zwaan speaks of this 'splendid observation of Torrey', and Foakes-Jackson agreed that 'an Aramaic original is at the back of this and other strange expressions'.

To be continued...

John Reece
06-28-2014, 03:01 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


Torrey rejects the ordinary LXX meaning of ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό, 'together' (Hebrew yaḥdau), and suggests that Luke's Greek phrase misrenders Aramaic laḥda; the adverb is found in the Palestinian Syriac version of Jn. xvii. 23 and in the Syriac versions of Jn xi. 52. In Judean dialects of Aramaic it means 'greatly' (σφόδρα), and is the Targum equivalent of mᵉʾodh: a compound of lᵉ, 'to' and ḥadh, 'one', lahda had been mistranslated ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό. The following was the correct translation: 'And the Lord added greatly day by day to the saved.'

To be continued...

John Reece
06-29-2014, 01:34 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


But, as Howard has pointed out, if Luke is translating Aramaic, then he gives the correct rendering of laḥda, namely, σφόδρα, in Acts vi. 7 (http://biblehub.com/acts/6-7.htm). A still more serious objection is the assumed equation of ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό with laḥda; the evidence of the Syriac versions is irrelevant; laḥda is there equivalent to a quite different phrase, εἰς ἕν. The Aramaic adverb laḥda could never be represented in Greek by ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό; the Aramaic for Luke's Greek adverbial phrase is kaḥda.*


*This adverb means both 'together' and 'at the same time', e.g. Isa. lxv. 25, Hebrew kᵉʾeḥādh (LXX ἅμα), Dan. ii. 35, Aramaic kaḥda (LXX ἅμα). This latter meaning would suit Acts ii. 47 (D): 'And the Lord was adding those who were being saved at the same time in the ecclesia'; the adverb refers back to verse 46―they continued in prayer in the temple, and were breaking bread from house to house, and at the same time, the Lord was adding those who were being saved in the ecclesia. Fresh light is shed on the peculiar Lucan expression προστιθέναι ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό by an exact parallel in the Manual of Discipline (ed. M. Burrows, 1951), Plate V, line 7, בהאספם ליחד, where the phrase means 'to join the congregation'. The relevant Qumran evidence has now been fully examined by M. Wilcox, op. cit., pp. 93 ff. This is the fullest treatment available of this idiomatic Lucan expession and the Qumran usage seems conclusive for the sense, 'to be united to the (Christian) fellowship' at Acts ii. 47.



To be continued...

John Reece
06-30-2014, 04:35 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


In Jn. i. 5 (http://biblehub.com/john/1-5.htm), Burney takes up the earlier suggestion of C. J. Ball that κατέλαβεν is a mistranslation of ʾaqbel, 'darkened', which had been misread as qabbel, 'received'. A similar mistranslation is suspected in Jn. xii. 35 (http://biblemenus.com/search.php?q=john+12%3A35&Bible.x=-669&Bible.y=-27&Bible=Lookup), ἵνα μὴ σκοτία ὑμᾶς καταλάβῃ. But whatever meaning is to be given to κατέλαβεν here, it is not simply 'received', and cannot therefore be equated with qabbel. It may be possible that an original Aramaic read la qabbleh qabhla, 'the darkness did not receive it', a characteristic Aramaic word-play. It is this idea which we find in verse 11. But we have still to account for κατέλαβεν as a rendering for qabbel. Is it perhaps Greek interpretation, the choice of the Greek verb being suggested by its idiomatic use for darkness or night 'overtaking' a person? We may compare xii. 35 (http://biblemenus.com/search.php?q=john+12%3A35&Bible.x=-669&Bible.y=-27&Bible=Lookup) or Diodorus, 20. 86, τῆς νυκτὸς καταλαβούσης.

To be continued...

John Reece
07-01-2014, 11:24 AM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


One of Burney's most valuable observations of this kind is that μονογενὴς θεός in Jn. i. 18 (http://biblehub.com/john/1-18.htm) mistranslates yᵉḥidh ʾᵉlaha, 'the only-begotten of God'. It has an attractive simplicity, is free from philological difficulties, and the Greek reading is unusual. Equally remarkable, however, would be the ignorance of the translator who made the blunder, unless we look on his 'version' as a deliberate theological interpretation of the Aramaic.

To be continued...

John Reece
07-02-2014, 09:41 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


Similar objections, mainly philological, may be made to most of the examples of 'mistranslations' of original Aramaic which have been adduced by Torrey and Burney. Nevertheless, it would be unfair to overlook a number of valuable suggestions, credible and sound in their proposed Aramaic, of both these scholars. Some of these are quite certainly the best and probably right explanations of the difficulty in the Greek. And it is only in such instances, where a case both credible and philologically sound can be made out for translation, that this precarious method of approach is justifiable. 'The fascinating pursuit of Aramaic originals may lead to a good percentage of successful guesses; but they are mere guesses still, except when a decided failure in the Greek can be cleared up by by Aramaic which explains the error, and this acts as corroboration.'

To be continued...

John Reece
07-03-2014, 06:54 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


Several of Burney's and Torrey's more convincing examples of mistranslation are considered in later chapters; especially valuable are the former scholar's examples of the mistranslated Aramaic particle dᵉ. The following two examples from the work of Torrey merit the description 'brilliant', and deserve to rank with Wellhausen's observation on Mt. xxiii. 26 (http://biblehub.com/matthew/23-26.htm) (Lk. xi. 41 (http://biblehub.com/luke/11-41.htm)).

To be continued...

John Reece
07-04-2014, 06:56 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


In Luke 1:39 (http://biblehub.com/luke/1-39.htm) he [Torrey] suggests that εἰς πόλιν Ἰούδα mistranslates either Hebrew ʾel mᵉdhinath yᵉhudhah or Aramaic liyᵉhudh mᵉdhinta, i.e. 'into the province, country of Judea', εἰς τὴν χώραν τῆς Ἰούδαίας; Semitic mᵉdhina may be either 'province' or 'city'. The objection the mᵉdhina cannot be shown to have the meaning 'city' when Luke wrote is without foundation so far as general Aramaic, uninfluenced by any local usage, is concerned. But there is a reason to think that mᵉdhina was specially and locally employed in Palestine for the 'the Province', i.e. Palestine itself. The definite form mᵉdhinta meant 'city' and the two forms and uses are as a rule distinguished. An Aramaic lᵉwath mᵉdhinath yᵉhudha might be translated either εἰς πόλιν Ἰούδα or εἰς τὴν χώραν τῆς Ἰούδαίας. A translator who was not a Palestinian Jew may not have been acquainted with the special Jewish Palestinian use of the word, and have rendered by the familiar 'city'.

To be continued...

John Reece
07-05-2014, 09:38 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):

In the following paragraph, Black continues his references to work by Torrey that Black has termed 'brilliant'.


In Lk. xi. 48 (http://biblehub.com/luke/11-48.htm) = MT. xxiii. 31 (http://biblehub.com/matthew/23-31.htm) it is surely remarkable that the parallel in Matthew to Luke's 'ye are building' should be 'you are children (of)'; and Aramaic ַאתון בנין אתון could be rendered either way. Moreover Luke's 'and ye are building' is obviously anticlimactic as compared with the clear point made by Matthew. An intentional word-play in the employment of two such similar sounding words may well have been original in the Aramaic of this saying from Q.

To be continued...

John Reece
07-06-2014, 05:40 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


Wilcox recalls two examples of alleged mistranslation in Acts ii. 47 (http://biblehub.com/acts/2-47.htm) and iii. 14 (http://biblehub.com/acts/3-14.htm), both of which possess a high degree of plausibility. The first is the Bezan variant κόσμον for λαόν, possibly arising from the confusion of עלמא for עמא in the original Aramaic (the confusion is also possible in Hebrew). Alternatively we may prefer to detect the influence on D of a Syriac version, where [....] and [....] have been similarly confused. Neither explanation can be more than plausible, for it is also possible to explain an alteration of λαόν to κόσμον as the work of a scribe seeking to magnify the impression made by those early converts on the 'whole world'.

To be continued...

John Reece
07-07-2014, 11:26 AM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


The second instance is the Bezan ἐβαρύνατε (d aggravastis) for ἠρνήσασθε at Acts iii. 14 (http://biblehub.com/acts/3-14.htm): here the original in Aramaic (or Hebrew) of ἠρνήσασθε (undoubtedly the 'true text') can only have been כברתון or כַּדֵּבִתון. It has been suggested that the variant ἐβαρύνατε has arisen by confusing the roots כפר and כבר or (so Torrey) כדב and כבד. Wilcox tends to favour Torrey's explanation, but suggests reading אכבדתון, Aphel, (= ἐβαρύνατε) instead of Torrey's כבדתון, which it is by no means certain could mean ἐβαρύνατε. The same doubt, however, attaches to Aphel which (like its Syriac equivalent) means 'to irritate' rather than 'to oppress' (βαρύνειν). Nevertheless, some such explanation of this curious variant does seem plausible, for it is difficult to imagine a scribe arriving at ἐβαρύνατε in any other way. Another suggestion is that from an original כדבתון (or כפרתון) a translator gave ἐβαρύνατε in addition to ἠρνήσασθε by way of an alternative pesher on the original, perhaps understanding the Aramaic word in a Hebrew sense; or he may have found a variant which had arisen by corruption, e.g. כבדתון, and understood it in the sense of 'oppressed'.

To be continued...

John Reece
07-08-2014, 02:43 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


This line of evidence, mistranslation of Aramaic, while it can have a secondary value only as necessarily conjectural, cannot therefore be ignored altogether. But it must be pursued with the greatest caution.

To be continued...

John Reece
07-09-2014, 03:10 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


The fulfillment of a third condition is desirable. The strongest argument in favour of a mistranslation is its inherent probability in its Aramaic context. Possible mistranslations should be studied, not as isolated phenomena, but, so far as that is possible, in their setting in the Aramaic saying or passage. The advice of S. R. Driver is again worth quoting in full: '. . . in order to judge of it [the translation and mistranslation of Aramaic] properly, we ought to have not single isolated phrases, but entire verses, or at least entire sentences, retranslated into Aramaic, and the origin of the variants in the parallel texts, examined and accounted for, one by one.'

To be continued...

John Reece
07-10-2014, 07:19 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):



CHAPTER II

THE LINGUISTIC AND TEXTUAL APPROACH

The Linguistic Approach

Aramaic was one of the great languages of the civilized East. It flourished mainly from the sixth to the third centuries B.C., during the period when oriental empires ruled the civilized world, when it was the international medium of governmental, cultural, and commercial intercourse from the Euphrates to the Nile, even in countries where there was no indigenous Semitic culture. It became the language of the Jews, when exactly is not known, but probably during and after the Exile.

To be continued...

John Reece
07-11-2014, 03:56 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


With the rise of the Empire of Alexander the Aramaic language was superseded throughout the civilized world by the Koine, but Greek never wholly displaced Aramaic among the Jews of Palestine or Babylon, or among peoples with a Semitic culture in Syria and Mesopotamia, where Greek was cultivated, but Aramaic in one of its main branches, Syriac, was still the chief spoken and written language of the people. Even as far west as Syrian Antioch, Syriac in the first century flourished along with Greek, and was as firmly established there as Jewish Aramaic was in Palestine.

To be continued...

John Reece
07-12-2014, 06:42 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


Four languages were to be found in first-century Palestine: Greek was the speech of the educated 'hellenized' classes and the medium of cultural and commercial intercourse between Jew and foreigner; Latin was the language of the army of occupation and, to judge from the Latin borrowings in Aramaic, appears also to some extent to have served the purposes of commerce, as it no doubt also did of Roman law; Hebrew, the sacred tongue of the Jewish Scriptures, continued to provide the lettered Jew with an important means of literary expression and was cultivated as a spoken tongue in the learned coteries of the Rabbis; Aramaic was the language of the people of the land and, together with Hebrew, provided the chief literary medium of the Palestinian Jew of the first century; Joseph wrote his Jewish War in Aramaic and later translated it into Greek.*


*Preface, § 1; cf. Antiquities, xii. 2. Dalman's important study of the three main languages of first-century Palestine, 'Die drei Sprachen', in his Jesus-Jeschua, should be consulted. These languages were, for the Jew, Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek, the first and the last in everyday use, especially in the cities. The results of Dalman's study for the general question of the language of Jesus may be regarded as firmly established: Jesus may have spoken Greek, but He certainly did speak and teach in Aramaic.

To be continued...

John Reece
07-13-2014, 04:38 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


If Jesus was a Galilean Rabbi, it is not unlikely that He made use of Hebrew as well as Aramaic, especially, as T. W. Manson has suggested, in His formal disputations with the Pharisees. M. H. Segal has gone so far as to claim that 'Mishnaic' Hebrew, the kind of Hebrew we find in the Mishnah, was actually a spoken vernacular in Judea in the time of Christ. In the Palestinian Talmud Aramaic and Hebrew are found together, sometimes in the form of a kind of Mischsprache; sentences half Hebrew, half Aramaic, are familiar to the reader of the Talmud, and this artificial language, rabbinical in origin, may well have been in use before as well as after the Fall of Jerusalem.

To be continued...

John Reece
07-14-2014, 08:11 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


The Gospels were written in a predominantly hellenistic environment, and they were written in Greek. But Greek was not the native language of their central Figure, nor of the earliest apostles, if it was not unfamiliar to them. Jesus must have conversed in the Galilean dialect of Aramaic, and His teaching was probably almost entirely in Aramaic. At the basis of the Greek Gospels, therefore, there must lie a Palestinian Aramaic tradition, at any rate of the sayings and teachings of Jesus, and this tradition must at some time have been translated from Aramaic into Greek. Some have thought that the Evangelists themselves were the translators of these Aramaic sources of the Gospels; they certainly must have utilized, if they did not themselves translate, early translation sources. The 'Aramaic problem' of the Gospels is to determine, by internal evidence, to what extent the Greek Gospels were written in or embody 'translation Greek' or how much Aramaic influence can be detected in them.

To be continued...

John Reece
07-15-2014, 03:25 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


The Aramaic study of the Gospels has been mainly concerned with this problem. But Aramaic, other than Jewish Palestinian, may have influenced the Evangelists' work and the early transmission of the Gospels in Greek. Syriac was widely spoken and written, especially in Antioch, the first great Christian centre, and there is a respectable tradition that St. Luke was a native of that city. If the third Evangelist was a 'Syrian of Antioch', he was probably bi-lingual, with Syriac as his second language. Moreover, Palestinian Jewish Aramaic was a dialect little known outside of Palestine; much of the Palestinian Aramaic Gospel tradition may have passed through the more familiar medium of Syriac before it was finally written down in Greek. The influence of Syriac, therefore, as well as Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, may have contributed to the shape of the Gospel in Greek.

To be continued...

John Reece
07-16-2014, 10:13 AM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


A Palestinian Aramaic approach to the Gospels has more formidable obstacles to overcome than a study of Syriac influence. In the case of the latter, there is no dearth of Syriac literature, most of it, it is true, later than the first century, but possessing a large scope and sufficient unity and linguistic integrity to make the grammatical, syntactical, and lexicographical problems comparatively simple. It is, moreover, a well-cultivated field of study. Palestinian Aramaic, on the other hand, presents us with a major problem.

To be continued...

John Reece
07-17-2014, 06:02 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


The literary remains of the Western dialect of Aramaic comprise the Aramaic of the Jewish colony of Elephantine (c. 500-400 B.C.), the Aramaic portions of Ezra (c. 500-450) and Daniel (c. 200 B.C.), the Aramaic of the Jewish Targums or paraphrases of the Pentateuch, Prophets, and Hagiographa, the the Aramaic portions of the Palestinian Talmud and Midrashim, Samaritan Aramaic (a Pentateuch Targum, a liturgy, &c.), and Christian Palestinian Syriac, consisting mainly of versions of parts of the Old and New Testaments. The latter are all much later than the second century A.D.: we possess no Aramaic writing of any extent belonging to the first century. Josephus's Jewish War in its original Aramaic has disappeared along with practically all contemporary Aramaic literature. Aramaic sources from a date after the second century B.C. and before the second century A.D. are known to lie behind some of the Apocalyptic and Pseudepigraphic writings of the Jews, but they no longer exist except in translation. We are dependent, therefore for our ideas of first-century Palestinian Aramaic on sources earlier than the second century B.C. and not all Palestinian, or later than the second century A.D., and mostly translations of Greek or Hebrew.

To be continued...

John Reece
07-18-2014, 02:39 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


In the almost complete absence of literary Aramaic writings contemporary with the Gospels, the question of the best use of the actual sources of knowledge available becomes important. Where, in extant West Aramaic literature, are we most likely to find the language most nearly representative of the Aramaic of first-century Palestine?

To be continued...

John Reece
07-19-2014, 01:21 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


Several answers have been given to this question (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2218-An-Aramaic-Approach-to-the-Gospels-and-Acts&p=79010&viewfull=1#post79010). In all of them the value of the older Aramaic so far as it goes is recognized. The chief matter of debate has come to be the comparative value of the later sources, which are so much more extensive than the older literature. Friedrich Shulthess found in Christian Palestinian Syriac the Aramaic dialect most closely akin to the Aramaic of the Gospels, and in this he had the support of two Cambridge scholars, Agnes Smith Lewis and Margaret Dunlop Gibson. Their view was rejected by Dalman, who found in the Aramaic of the canonical Jewish Targums to the Pentateuch and the Prophets the best representative of early Palestinian Aramaic.*


*Worte Jesu, p 72. In meeting a contemporary criticism that he was thereby making a rabbinical Schulsprache the model for a living language, Dalman conceded, in his second edition of the Worte Jesu (p. 372), a much greater importance to the Galilean Aramaic portions of the Talmud and Midrashim than to Targum Aramaic.


To be continued...

John Reece
07-20-2014, 02:57 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


Dalman distinguishes two dialects or forms of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, the first represented by Old Testament Aramaic and the Aramaic of the Targums of the Pentateuch and Prophets, the second by the popular Aramaic anecdotes of the Palestinian Talmud, together with parts of the Palestinian commentary on the Old Testament in the older haggadic Midrashim. The first he describes as 'Judean', and detects in it the literary type of Palestinian Aramaic which came from Jerusalem as a cultural centre and was employed in first-century Palestine as universal 'Schriftsprache'. The relevant portions of the Palestinian Talmud and Midrashim dated to a period when the centre of Jewish learning had been removed from Jerusalem to lower Galilee and were consequently composed in the Galilean dialect of Palestinian Aramaic.

To be continued...

John Reece
07-21-2014, 09:17 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


As the literary Aramaic of Judea as well as the dialect of his native Galilee may well have been used by Jesus, Dalman takes account of both 'Judaen' and 'Galilean' dialects in his reconstruction of the Words of Jesus. For his two dialects his literary sources are mainly Targumic and Talmudic Aramaic respectively. But they are not both of equal value or importance. It is the Aramaic of the Targums of Onkelos to the Pentateuch and Jonathan to the Prophets in which Dalman finds the nearest representative of first-century Aramaic. Galilean Aramaic, and the Aramaic of the lesser known Targums, the Pseudo-Jonathan Targum (Jerusalem Targum I) and the Fragment Targum (Jerusalem Targums II and III) to the Pentateuch, and the Targums to the Hagiographa, are all given a secondary place; Palestinian Syriac and Samaritan Aramaic are of still less importance.

To be continued...

John Reece
07-22-2014, 12:51 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


There are two main objections to this high valuation of the Aramaic of Onkelos and Jonathan for the language of Jesus. In the first place, it renders the Hebrew so literally in many places that it becomes 'hebraized' Aramaic. The name 'Onkelos' is itself a hebraization of the Greek name 'Aquila'. And Onkelos is in fact the 'Aquila' of the Aramaic versions, even if the abuse of Aramaic is not so flagrant as Aquila's distortion of Greek idiom. Secondly, it is well known that the Onkelos and Jonathan Targums were for a time in Babylon, and traces of Babylonian Aramaic influence have been left on their language.

To be continued...

John Reece
07-23-2014, 02:06 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


Dalman was well aware of these difficulties. Account had to be taken of 'Hebraisms' and the deflexion of Aramaic idiom by Hebrew usage. Nevertheless, when this had been done, the Aramaic, especially in the free paraphrase where the Hebrew is not closely followed, was still our most reliable guide to the early 'Judean' dialect. The extent of Babylonian influence Dalman did not estimate as large; this East Aramaic element in the language of the Targums does not substantially affect their essential Palestinian character.

To be continued...

John Reece
07-24-2014, 06:19 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


Recent Aramaic discoveries have given greater force to this second objection and shown that Dalman has over-estimated the value of Targumic Aramaic for the Aramaic of the Gospel period, while his judgement of the worth of the language of the lesser known Targums and of Palestinian Syriac and Samaritan Aramaic has been practically reversed, in the case of the last two in favour of the estimate of Schulthess, with perhaps some slight modification.

To be continued...

John Reece
07-25-2014, 03:51 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


In the same year as the appearance of the second edition of the Worte Jesu, fragments of a new Palestinian Pentateuch Targum were published. The new manuscripts formed the valuable find of Semitic documents made in the now famous Genizah or lumber-room of a synagogue in Old Cairo. They consist of five substantial fragments of a Palestinian Pentateuch Targum, not Onkelos, and differing widely in both text and language from that Targum. The manuscript fragments have been dated to a period roughly from A.D. 700 to 900.

To be continued...

John Reece
07-26-2014, 01:10 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


The Samaritan Pentateuch Targum provides the only parallel to the type of Targum text we find in the new manuscripts. The new Targum is often a free paraphrase with haggadic additions and occasionally presupposes an underlying Hebrew consonantal text differing from our Massoretic Text. Two of the fragments (D and E) contain a Targum of the same passage from Genesis (D, Gen. xxxviii, 16-26; E, Gen. xxxviii. 16-xxxix. 10), and a comparison of the two texts shows that variants are substantial. Variants of any consequence in the Onkelos Targum are practically unknown. In the new Palestinian Pentateuch Targum, we have to do with a type of Jewish Targum which has never, like the text of Onkelos, been finally edited and brought into conformity with the Massoretic Text, but which has itself been freely altered at different stages in its transmission.

To be continued...

John Reece
07-27-2014, 12:48 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


The Palestinian Pentateuch Targum fragments are evidence, that is to say, for a stage in the development of the Targum corresponding to the period in the history of the Hebrew text before its standardization as the official Massoretic Text, or to the history of the Qoran text when recensions in use in Basra, Kufah, Homs, and Damascus all differed in various degrees from one another. Onkelos corresponds to the standard text of the Qoran prepared in the Caliphate of Othman. That such a Targum as the new fragments contain ever circulated in Palestine when Onkelos was the official authoritative standard there is quite impossible: but we know that it was used in Palestine till as late as the tenth century; the inference is unavoidable that Onkelos as we know it was completely unknown in Palestine as late as the tenth century A.D.

To be continued...

John Reece
07-28-2014, 06:46 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


The Babylonian phase in the history of the Targum of Onkelos is obscure; all that appears to be certain is that the name Onkelos was first given to the Targum in the Babylonian Talmud and that the Babylonian Schools highly esteemed this Targum. In the light of the knowledge obtained by the discovery and valuation of the new Targum that Onkelos cannot have been known or officially used in Palestine as late as the tenth century, the presupposition is that the Onkelos Targum was introduced into Palestine from Babylonia in the ninth or tenth centuries at the earliest and became the official canonical Targum; and that the newly discovered fragments were collected and condemned to oblivion in the Genizah after the event.

To be continued...

John Reece
07-29-2014, 06:01 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


The bearing of this discovery on our estimate of the value of Onkelos for the first-century Palestinian Aramaic is evident and of great importance: 'In the Onkelos Targum we have to do with an official . . . Targum . . . which was composed in a language which was never actually spoken, and which had to take account of the condition that it must be intelligible in Palestine as well as Babylon. For this neither the actual Palestinian nor the Babylonian dialect could be employed.' The Onkelos Targum, that is to say, and the Prophetic Targum which is modeled on it, were largely composed in the artificial Aramaic of the Jewish Schools. It is purely a scholarly product, even if its ultimate basis was a Palestinian Aramaic Targum. It can therefore be regarded as a secondary authority only for the language of Jesus.

To be continued...

John Reece
07-30-2014, 06:15 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


The language of the Palestinian Pentateuch Targum is, on the other hand, first-century Aramaic. Not only does the large number of borrowings in it from Greek point to a period for its composition when Palestinian Aramaic was spoken in a hellenistic environment, but parts of its text can be dated with certainty to the first Christian century or even earlier (the comparatively late date of the manuscripts has nothing to do with the date of translation.). The Targum fragment A of Exod. xxi, xxii is a rendering and paraphrase made not later than the first century A.D.; it contains halachic material which, when compared with the regulations of the Mishnah, must be pronounced pre-Mishnaic, and may even be pre-Christian. Moreover, it was such an ancient Palestinian Aramaic Pentateuch Targum which formed the basis of the Peshitta Pentateuch. The date of the latter is not known, but it is certainly not later than the second century A.D. and is probably earlier.



To be continued...

John Reece
07-31-2014, 12:53 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


The closest affinities in language of this Targum are with Samaritan Aramaic and Christian Palestinian Syriac. The literary remains of both these Palestinian dialects are comparatively late, but their propinquity in language to that of the Palestinian Pentateuch Targum establishes their value as certainly greater than that of the Onkelos or Jonathan.

To be continued...

John Reece
08-01-2014, 04:41 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


In one of the instances where we find a transcription of an Aramaic word in the Gospels, the pronunciation of the word as preserved in the Gospel transcription agrees with the pronunciation in the new Targum, against that of the Onkelos Targum. The Gospel ῥαββουνί, ῥαββουνί (Mk. x. 51; Jn. xx.16) occurs several times in the new Targum fragments; thus in D, Gen xliv. 18, it is found twice fully vocalized as רַבּוּנִי; in other instances the vocalization of the word is not complete (D, Gen. xliv. 5; A, Exoc. xxi. 4, 5, 8). Dalmon gives two instances of the word, the first רַבּוֹנִי, so vocalized Onkelsos Gen. xxxiii. 11, the second רַבּוֹנַנָא, Onkelos Gen. xxiii. 6, both in the sense which the word has in all the Palestinian Pentateuch Targum occurences, of a human lord. In Jewish literature generally the word is usually reserved for the Divine Lord. Its use in the Palestinian Pentateuch Targum shows that it cannot have been uncommon in earlier Palestinian Aramaic for a human lord. The pronucitation of the noun in Onkelos contrasts with the correct Palestinian pronunciation of the new Targum, agreeing with the Gospel transcription.

To be continued...

John Reece
08-02-2014, 02:11 PM
Continuation of excerpts from "The Linguistic Approach" chapter of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


The Pseudo-Jonathan Targum, the Fragment Targum, and the Targum to the Hagiographa have been generally regarded as much later productions than Onkelos, and their language consequently of less importance for the Aramaic of an earlier period; Dalman did not ignore them altogether, but did not rate their evidence very highly. it is of much greater value than he thought: the basis of the so-called Jerusalem Targums is in fact Onkelos, but into them has been gathered some of the earlier halachic material of the Palestinian Pentateuch Targum. This Aramaic, when Onkelos has been subtracted, is evidence of the same kind of Palestinian Aramaic as is contained in the fragments of the Palestinian Targum from Genizah.

To be continued...

John Reece
08-03-2014, 03:12 PM
Continuation of excerpts from "The Linguistic Approach" chapter of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


The Targum to the Hagiographa never achieved any position of influence or authority in the synagogue; its redaction has consequently been less rigorous than in the case of Onkelos, and its Aramaic is thus more idiomatic as its rendering of the Hebrew is freer and more paraphrastic. It is also an ancient Aramaic composition. It has long been known that in the Book of Proverbs there existed an almost literal identity, of language as well as text, between Jewish Targum and the Peshitta. The explanation of this usually offered is that given by Strack: 'Der Targum zu den Sprüchen ist eine jüdische Bearbeitung des Peschittha-Textes;' such a view is as unconvincing as the circumstances implied, the indebtedness of the Synagogue to the Christian Church for its Targum is without parallel in the history of the relations of Judaism and Christianity. No conclusion as to the relation of the two texts can be possible without an investigation and comparison of them, but it may be that the exact opposite took place: the Syrian Church took over its version of Proverbs from the Jewish Synagogue, as it did in the case of the Pentateuch. In that event, the origins of the Targum to the Hagiographa must be earlier than the Peshitta.

To be continued...

John Reece
08-04-2014, 07:22 PM
Continuation of excerpts from "The Linguistic Approach" chapter of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


The Aramaic portions of the Palestinian Talmud and Midrashim, written in the dialect of Galilee, represent one of our most valuable sources for the language of Jesus. It is true that it belongs to a period fourth to sixth century, and that between then and the first century changes were bound to have taken place in the spoken and written language, but they can hardly have been far-reaching. The Aramaic of the Palestinian Talmud is especially valuable for the language of Jesus, not only because of its identity with the Galilean dialect spoken by Him, but, perhaps even more important, because it is not a translation Aramaic but original Aramaic composition and written in the simple, unliterary style of the popular anecdote. A number of these Aramaic anecdotes have been published by Dalman, but a great many more remain unexamined from this point of view in the vast text of the Talmud.

To be continued...

John Reece
08-05-2014, 11:32 AM
Continuation of excerpts from "The Linguistic Approach" chapter of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


The two remaining sources of knowledge for the Aramaic of Palestine are the literature of Aramaic-speaking Christians in Palestine and that of the Samaritans. It has already been seen that both these sources possess a greater value than Dalman believed. The remains of Palestinian Syriac are nearly all translations from the Greek, and for that reason their language, like that of all translation literature, must be used with caution and checked wherever possible with other sources. The Palestinian Syriac version of the Scriptures probably dates, in its origins, to a period before the fifth century, and may be even earlier. Friedrich Schulthess is responsible for a grammar and a lexicon of the language.

To be continued...

John Reece
08-06-2014, 12:20 PM
Continuation of excerpts from "The Linguistic Approach" chapter of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


A literary connection with Judaism has recently been claimed for the Palestinian Syriac, and, if this could be established, would bring back its origin to a still earlier date. The view is that of Dr. Baumstark, editor of the Oriens Christianus, who holds that the Palestinian Syriac version of the Pentateuch was not, as is generally assumed, an Aramaic version made de novo from the LXX, but that its ultimate basis, in text and language, was a Jewish Palestinian Pentateuch Targum, of the type of the Genizah Targum, which the early Church in Palestine took over from the Synagogue, and which has been progressively edited to conform with the LXX. The evidence for this view consists of a number of singular readings in the Palestinian Syriac Pentateuch which agree with the Jewish Targum only, and which certainly must derive ultimately from that source. There is, however, an alternative and much more probable explanation of this 'Targumic' element in the Palestinian Syriac Pentateuch: it may have come from the Targum by way of the Peshitta, where the direct influence of the Targum is unmistakable, and which has, in turn, deeply influenced the Palestinian Syriac version. The fact that the 'variants' noted by Baumstark as common in the Palestinian Syriac Pentateuch and the Targum do not occur in our Peshiṭta does not mean that they were absent from the form of the Syriac Old Testament used by the Palestinian Syriac translators or influencing their version. What we most probably have in such 'Targum' readings is that rara avis a pre-Rabbulan Peshiṭta variant. Whichever view is taken of the source of this element in the Palestinian Syriac Pentateuch, it does not diminish our respect for its antiquity.

To be continued...

John Reece
08-07-2014, 08:22 AM
Continuation of excerpts from "The Linguistic Approach" chapter of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


Except for the Samaritan Pentateuch Targum, the literature of the Samaritans is not earlier than the fifth century A.D. But its value as a source of knowledge of Palestinian Aramaic is considerable. Like the Aramaic portions of the Talmud of Palestine it is original Aramaic composition, and not a translation literature; but unlike the popular Aramaic stories in the Talmud, it is a literary Aramaic, containing poetry as well as prose. Schulthess regarded the language of the Samaritan Pentateuch Targum as a primary source for the language of Jesus; even more valuable are these literary works contained in the so-called Samaritan Liturgies. The chief obstacle to the use of Samaritan Aramaic as a source lies in the extreme difficulty of the texts. No lexicon of the language has so far been compiled; all that we possess for the Liturgy is the very slight glossary of Cowley at the end of his edition; the small grammar of Petermann is no longer adequate. The translation of the Liturgy done by Heidenheim is very inaccurate and will require to be done over again. A number of poems were published by Gesenius, and various studies have appeared, of which one of the most valuable is a translation of twelve hymns of the Samaritan poet Marqa (fourth century A.D.). Otherwise, the study of Samaritan is as good as a virgin field, the cultivation of which would greatly enrich our knowledge of Palestinian Aramaic.

To be continued...

John Reece
08-08-2014, 02:30 PM
Continuation of excerpts from "The Linguistic Approach" chapter of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


From this brief survey of the kind of material at the disposal of the scholar for the investigation of the Aramaic of Jesus and the Gospels, it will be seen that perhaps the greater part of the preliminary work in extending our knowledge of the Aramaic dialects of Palestine has still to be done; and it might appear that the task of determining the Aramaic word or construction used by Jesus or in the source of the Gospel writers might be at once too complicated, and any result too precarious in its foundations to have scientific value. To such difficulties on the Aramaic side are to be added the obstacles in the Greek Gospels themselves, for the Gospel writers did not only translate Aramaic, they also wrote Greek.

To be continued...

John Reece
08-09-2014, 02:31 PM
This is the last excerpt from "The Linguistic Approach" chapter of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


The outlook is, however, not so unpromising as it may appear on first impression. It is not necessary to be acquainted with the minutiae of the Palestinian dialects of Aramaic to be in a position to recognize a Semitism or Aramaism or to decide on the possible Aramaic words or construction used by Jesus; and there is sufficient evidence of translation Greek in the Gospels which our present knowledge of Aramaic is well able to confirm and illustrate. Provided the actual difficulties are not minimized and precautions taken against the rash use of doubtful sources, the task in not unrewarding, if the results are unspectacular.

To be continued...

John Reece
08-10-2014, 12:54 PM
This is the first excerpt from "The Textual Approach" chapter of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


The Textual Approach

It has not seemed necessary to the majority of Aramaic scholars of the New Testament to extend their investigations beyond the 'neutral' or 'true' text of Westcott and Hort to include the variants of the Bezan Codex. The reason for this neglect is sought in the general assumptions of the textual criticism of the Greek New Testament which have held the field, especially in English scholarship, since the work of Westcott and Hort. The most faithful representative of the original Apostolic text is to be found in the 'neutral' text of WH's theory, a text based on the combined authority of the two great fourth-century Uncials, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus.



To be continued...

John Reece
08-11-2014, 03:41 PM
Continuation of excerpts from "The Textual Approach" chapter of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


The text of the Bezan authority, Codex Cantabrigiensis, the chief representative of the so-called 'Western' family or group of families, was regarded as a type of text lying for the most part outside the main stream of the 'true' textual tradition; in general, in spite of the early attestation of some of its chief allies, the Old Latin and Syriac versions, it was a later, free and paraphrastic text, which had suffered so much from ignorant ill-usage that little confidence could be placed in it. In view of such a textual theory, it seemed gratuitous to look for Aramaism in any text other than that of WH.

To be continued...

John Reece
08-12-2014, 03:58 PM
Continuation of excerpts from "The Textual Approach" chapter of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


But Biblical Criticism has come to revise its estimate of both Western and non-Western texts of the Gospels in the light of fresh discoveries. The question whether the texts of the Vatican and Sinaitic Codices can still be regarded as the two best single representatives of the primitive Apostolic text may still be open, but they can no longer claim to be the sole representatives of the primitive Greek texts of the Gospels. The identification of the so-called 'Caesarean' text, combining features of the Bא text and of the families called 'Western', and the discovery of such a text in the Chester Beatty Papyri from Egypt, in a manuscript which can be assigned to the third century, have led to certain important modifications in textual theory. In the General Introduction to his edition of these papyri their editor, Sir Frederick Kenyon, writes (the italics are mine):


'It (this new type of text from a manuscript of the third century) points perhaps decisively, to the conclusion that the Vatican manuscript does not represent a text of original purity dominant in Egypt throughout the second and third centuries . . . and that the Vatican text represents the result, not of continuous unaltered tradition, but of skilled scholarship, working on the best available authorities. It may still be, in result, the best single representative of the original text; that problem remains open as before: but the claim made for it of an almost exclusive predominance and primitive purity is shaken.'

On the Bezan text Kenyon writes:


'Some of these [variant reading in D] may well be superior to some which eventually found a place in the Vatican recension; . . . all readings which can be shown to be of an early date must be considered on their merits, without being absolutely overborne by the weight of the Vatican manuscript.'

To be continued...

John Reece
08-13-2014, 01:39 PM
Continuation of excerpts from "The Textual Approach" chapter of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


Westcott and Hort's views of the primitive Greek text of the Gospels did not exercise so great an influence on continental scholarship as they did on that of England and America. This recent statement of Kenyon's confirms the critical judgment of scholars such as, most notably, Julius Wellhausen. Unlike Westcott and Hort, who stood at the one extreme in their valuation of D and Lagarde at the other (the latter would have made Codex Bezae the basis of a critical edition of the Gospels and Acts), Wellhausen recognized the claims of both texts, Bא and D, to be representative of the primitive text, wherever either had preserved unrevised and uncorrected the textual tradition of the earliest period. Each text was the result of an independent recension or of different recensions of earlier texts: each could therefore supplement the other; D's text had frequently escaped revision where the text of Bא had not, and vice versa. But the claims of the Bezan text to represent, and not infrequently, the primitive Apostolic text, in its purity, or more correctly in its impurity, were in every way as respectable as those of Bא.

To be continued...

John Reece
08-14-2014, 01:38 PM
Continuation of excerpts from "The Textual Approach" chapter of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


Next to the Chester Beatty discoveries, the work of A. C. Clark has done most to establish the claims of Codex Bezae to represent the primitive text. Attempts have been made by various scholars to account for the longer and more circumstantial text of D as a deliberate expansion of the 'true' text, and to study the methods of the 'paraphrast'. An entirely opposite estimate of the longer text of D has been proposed by Clark, who found in the Bezan Uncial, not only a text which is the better representative on the whole of the primitive text of both Gospels and Acts, but a fuller and more circumstantial text of which the Vatican recension represents a shorter edition and a deliberate scholarly abridgment.

To be continued...

John Reece
08-15-2014, 05:17 PM
Continuation of excerpts from "The Textual Approach" chapter of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


Clark's thesis has been more successfully maintained for the Bezan text of Acts than for the Gospels, and it is perhaps significant that, in recent consideration of it, Sir Frederick Kenyon, so far as the evidence for Acts is concerned, does not seem to be prepared to give any clear or final verdict: it is when the evidence for the Gospels is considered that the balance is felt to tilt against D in favour of the Vatican authority, and that Clark's view of the relations of the two texts is held to be untenable.

To be continued...

John Reece
08-16-2014, 12:24 PM
Continuation of excerpts from "The Textual Approach" chapter of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


It is in this latter connexion that the textual results of Wensinck's study of the Aramaisms in Western and non-Western texts of Luke are important. The Bezan Codex 'represents the Aramaic background of the Gospel tradition as utilized by St. Luke more faithfully than the non-Western manuscripts do. . . . D and the non-Western group represent two different stages of the influence of Aramaic tradition in the transmission of Lucan writings. D seems, from this point of view, to have a claim of precedence.' The results of Wensinck's inquiry for Luke's Gospel appear to run parallel to Blass's two-edition theory for Acts: Luke''s first primitive 'Aramaized' text, found predominantly in D, was later corrected by him and issued in a form such as we find in non-Western tradition. Whether this theory of two drafts of the Gospel made by Luke himself is the true explanation of the phenomena, the fact that D stands rearer the underlying Aramaic tradition is of the greatest importance; in Luke it is the more primitive type of text.

To be continued...

John Reece
08-17-2014, 02:43 PM
Continuation of excerpts from "The Textual Approach" chapter of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


In view therefore of the orientation which the Chester Beatty Papyri have obligated in textual theory, and the importance of Clark's hypothesis, together with Wensinck's investigations in Luke, it is no longer possible to approach the study of the Gospels and Acts, from whatever point of view, on the assumptions of the Westcott and Hort hypothesis, with its almost total rejection of the evidence of D.

To be continued...

John Reece
08-18-2014, 04:23 PM
Continuation of excerpts from "The Textual Approach" chapter of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


Yet this is what has been done, not only in recent as in former work on the Aramaic of the Gospels (Blass, Wellhausen, and Nestle excepted), but in the field of New Testament Criticism generally: the critical apparatus to St. Matthew's Gospel, prepared by S. C. E. Legg (for the Committee for the new Oxford edition of the Greek New Testament), still assumes the undisputed primacy of the Bא text. In the Aramaic approach, the textual problem is not even considered by Burney or Torrey, if reference is occasionally made to the 'Western' text. The basic text quoted by Dalman is that of Bא, and that of D is cited usually in brackets as a secondary authority.

To be continued...

John Reece
08-19-2014, 02:23 PM
Continuation of excerpts from "The Textual Approach" chapter of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


This still prevailing view in textual scholarship not only explains the neglect of Codex Bezae in the Aramaic approach to the Gospels, but it can also account for the failure to recognize what has for long been known to be a special feature of the text of D, namely its Semitisms, as in any way relevant to the problem of Aramaic sources behind the Gospels or Acts. Many of these Semitisms of D have been attributed to Aramaic influence, only they are described as 'Syriacisms', the result of the reaction of the Syriac allies of D on the Greek text; D is a 'syriacized' Greek text.

To be continued...

John Reece
08-20-2014, 03:30 PM
Continuation of excerpts from "The Textual Approach" chapter of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


The hypothesis of Syriac influence on Codex Bezae was worked out in detail by F. H. Chase, who, assuming the Westcott and Hort view of D, regarded it as a 'syriacized' descendant of the 'true' text: it was a type of Greek text current in a Syrian or Syro-Greek environment, such as Syrian Antioch, which had been assimilated in language and idiom as well as in text to an Old Syriac Gospel.

To be continued...

John Reece
08-21-2014, 03:19 PM
Continuation of excerpts from "The Textual Approach" chapter of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


Within the evidence which he adduces for his theory, Chase makes no distinction between textual affinity and linguistic influence. In the case of the former, there is no need to assume 'assimilation' to a Syriac version or Gospel to account for common variants in D and the Old Syriac; such variants prove nothing more than the employment by the Syriac translator of a 'Western' type of Greek text similar to that used by the Old Latin. But neither does evidence of a Syriac idiom or construction in D necessarily mean that its source was a Syriac version or Gospel, even where the same construction or idiom is found in the corresponding place in the version. The Syriacism may be centuries earlier; it may in fact come from the pen of the Evangelist himself. The fact that it is not found in non-Western manuscripts need not imply that the more respectable Greek, where the Syriacism in not present, was the work of the Evangelist; on the contrary, the Evangelist may himself have been guilty of the solecism, and the Syriac construction have been removed by later editors in the interests of a more polished Greek.

To be continued...

John Reece
08-22-2014, 04:04 PM
Continuation of excerpts from "The Textual Approach" chapter of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


Moreover―and this is the crux of the matter―many of the alleged 'Syriacisms' in D may not have been the result of Syriac influence at all. They may be Aramaisms and come from the Aramaic sources and background of the Gospels. Syriac and West Aramaic can be clearly distinguished as different dialects of Aramaic, but they have so much in common (the language is, after all, Aramaic) that what may be explained in Greek texts, where dialectical distinctions of Aramaic cannot always be detected, as a Syriacism may in fact prove to be an Aramaism.

To be continued...

John Reece
08-23-2014, 01:42 PM
Continuation of excerpts from "The Textual Approach" chapter of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


If the text of Codex Bezae has equal claims with WH to be investigated for Aramaisms, without any presuppositions being entertained about the best single manuscript source for the earliest text, its Aramaisms must likewise be first approached impartially and without any prejudice as to their source, whether Syriac or Jewish Palestinian.

To be continued...

John Reece
08-24-2014, 06:34 PM
Continuation of excerpts from "The Textual Approach" chapter of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


If it is not always possible to distinguish the source of an Aramaism, Syriac or Jewish, it is even more difficult at times to decide the source of a Semitism, which may be explained as either a Hebraism or an Aramaism; Wensinck, for instance, has recently challenged what has been hitherto regarded as one of the best established cases of Hebraism, Luke's καὶ ἐγέντο, claiming that it may also be Aramaic. Obviously it is impossible to exclude the evidence of such Semitisms in an Aramaic approach to the Gospels: their source in the majority of ambiguous cases will be Aramaic rather than Hebrew, if the preponderating Semitic influence in the Gospels is found to be Aramaic. The only Semitisms, therefore, which are excluded from consideration in this study are those which have been shown to be genuine and characteristic Hebraisms.

To be continued...

John Reece
08-25-2014, 03:49 PM
Excerpts from the "Recent Discoveries and Developments in Palestinian Aramaic" chapter of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):



CHAPTER III
RECENT DISCOVERIES AND DEVELOPMENTS IN PALESTINIAN ARAMAIC

Since the conclusions were reached which are set out in the foregoing chapters, there have been a number of new Aramaic discoveries, most notably in Qumrân, which are of great importance for the study of first-century Palestinian Aramaic. There have also been some significant developments in the study of the history of the Targums, which bear directly on the problem of first-century Aramaic. And this problem too has been further discussed in other connexions by several scholars.

To be continued...

John Reece
08-26-2014, 09:37 AM
Continuation of excerpts from the "Recent Discoveries and Developments in Palestinian Aramaic" chapter of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


Apart from the immensely important new finds at Qumrân and the publication of other Aramaic texts, none of this new material necessitates any far-reaching modification in the views presented in Chapter II. The Qumrân Aramaic texts are naturally first-class evidence for the language of Jesus, since they are certainly mostly pre-Christian documents and possess a literary and linguistic value not less than that of the old Reichsaramäisch, with which they have their closest affinities. Any new discoveries or developments in the Überlieferungs-geschichte of the Targums require at the most some modification or supplementation of the conclusions of Chapter II. These modifications however, are so slight that I have left this chapter as it stands, supplementing it only by this new chapter on the subject of the linguistic approach.

To be continued...

John Reece
08-27-2014, 02:15 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the "Recent Discoveries and Developments in Palestinian Aramaic" chapter of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):



The New Discoveries

The most significant new discovery in recent years in the field of Palestinian Aramaic is Codex Neofiti I to which attention was first drawn by Professor Alejandros Díaz Macho of Barcelona in Estudios Biblicos, XV (1956), pp. 446-7. Dr. Díaz Macho wrote:

'I am happy to be able to say that a copy of the Jerusalem or Palestinian Targum of the whole Pentateuch has been identified. This Targum used to be called the Fragment Targum, for until now we only knew it in fragment form as contained in Cod. 110 of the National Library in Paris (published Ginsburger, Berlin, 1899) cod. 440 of the Vatican collection, or in some other manuscripts, as well as the fragments represented in the Rabbinical Bibles. Some new fragments have been published by Paul Kahle in his 'Masoreten des Westens' and by myself in Sefarad, XV (1955). Another two fragments of the Palestinian Targum which I came upon in New York will appear in the memorial publication in honour of Renée Bloch. The fragments seem to have their source in the 'Geniza' of Cairo. Such fragments of the 'Geniza' are valuable because their language is largely free of the distortion of the Targumic or Eastern (Oriental) Aramaic such as is found in all the manuscripts of Aramaic from Palestine which were copied by European scribes, themselves ignorant of Aramaic. Unfortunately such old fragments of the Palestinian Targum from Eastern sources is very scarce. And yet the fragments of such a Targum gathered together in European manuscripts preserve to some slight extent the said Aramaic paraphrase.

To be continued...

John Reece
08-28-2014, 04:03 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the "Recent Discoveries and Developments in Palestinian Aramaic" chapter of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


From this (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2218-An-Aramaic-Approach-to-the-Gospels-and-Acts&p=92922&viewfull=1#post92922) it will be seen how important it is that this summer I successfully identified in the Targumic School at Barcelona a complete copy of the Palestinian Targum of the Pentateuch. Thanks to the good offices of Father Juan Arias we have managed to obtain from the Vatican library a microfilm of 'Cod. Neofiti I'. It was enlarged and handed over to my collaborator and colleague J. G. Larraya for study; he was able immediately to identify it as an excellent copy of the whole Jerusalem Targum. This splendid MS. contains 450 folios. From now on we shall not be able to speak of the Fragment Targum. Sr. Larraya has sent a brief description of the MS. to Paris to be published for the memorial to Renée Bloch. Just now I only wish to stress the importance of the entire discovery and that the text of 'Cod. Neof. I' represents a critical examination and revision of the Palestinian Targum, distinct from that of MS. 110 of Paris and akin to that of MS. 1440 at the Vatican. The marginal comments of the new MS. show a large number of variant readings many of them rabbinical script, some of them coinciding with those on the texts of MS. 110 of Paris or 440 of the Vatican but others are not to be found in these sources. A quick glance at the Aramaic of 'Cod. Neof. I' has shown us that in quite a few cases it is more purely Palestinian than the Aramaic of MS. 110 of Paris, although its purity of Palestinian [form] is not so complete as in the MS. Bereshith Rabba Vat. 30.

The identification of the complete Palestinian Targum signifies an important step in our knowledge of the vocabulary and grammar of Palestinian Aramaic, Galilean Aramaic, the language spoken by our Lord'.

To be continued...

John Reece
08-29-2014, 05:36 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the "Recent Discoveries and Developments in Palestinian Aramaic" chapter of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


I have been in correspondence with Dr. Díez Macho and have also been able to obtain a microfilm of this important codex.

Díez Macho wrote to me on 18 March 1957:


'As for the MS. Neofiti I, I think, too, that it is an important MS. for the knowledge of Palestinian Aramaic. It contains the complete text of the Palestinian Targum with a critical apparatus of continuous variant readings written in the margins. The 450 folios are in excellent state of preservation and not a single verse is missing. Only the marginal notes in some pages are difficult to read (they are not only in cursive script but also written with poor ink). I am dealing now with the facsimile edition of this MS. In the next issue of Sefarad will appear a short note, similar to that which has already appeared in Estudios Biblicos, next issue. The Aramaic of Neofiti I is of the same kind as that of the Palestinian Targum of Masoreten des Westens, ii. But the recensions do not entirely agree. The MS. has been copied in Rome, probably in the fifteenth century, by an Italian Jew.'



To be continued...

John Reece
08-30-2014, 12:18 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the "Recent Discoveries and Developments in Palestinian Aramaic" chapter of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


An examination of two sample passages, Gen. xxiii. 16-xv. 1 and Exod. xxxiii. 3-xxxiv. 6 (four double columns), shows clearly that we have to do with a Targum differing widely from Onkelos, agreeing in a number of readings with the Pseudo-Jonathan Targum and with the Fragment Targum where extant for these verses and against the Onkelos text. For instance, the King of Bela (מלך בלע) at Gen. xiv. 2 is rendered 'the king of the city which swallowed up (בלע) its inhabitants' as in P-J contra Onkelos.

To be continued...

John Reece
08-31-2014, 05:21 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the "Recent Discoveries and Developments in Palestinian Aramaic" chapter of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


An illustration of the character and antiquity of this new Targum occurs in the halakha of Exodus xxii. 5, 6. According to the Mishnah these two verses refer to the damage done to a neighbor's field, etc. The Hebrew of verse 4, however, is ambiguous, and can be taken to mean that fire (not a beast) had strayed or spread into a neighbor's field. This is how the Geniza Targum understood the words, and thus both verses refer to damage wrought by fire. The Neofiti MS. agrees with the Geniza Targum, and, if anything, is even more explicit.

To be continued...

John Reece
09-01-2014, 04:18 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the "Recent Discoveries and Developments in Palestinian Aramaic" chapter of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


On this halakha Dr. Kahle writes (ibid.): '. . . this interpretation is in clear contrast to all the official Jewish authorities and can be understood in an old Jewish text only on the assumption that it goes back to very ancient times, before the oral law codified in the Mishnah had any validity. That such a translation is preserved in an old scroll of the Palestinian Targum is certainly of importance. It shows that written Targums must have existed in very ancient times.'

To be continued...

John Reece
09-02-2014, 03:11 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the "Recent Discoveries and Developments in Palestinian Aramaic" chapter of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


All interested in this important discovery look forward to the publication of Professor Díez Macho's edition, the publication of which, it is hoped, will not be much longer delayed; and he is to be congratulated on a first-class discovery, second only to the Qumrân scrolls, to a consideration of which I now turn.

To be continued...

John Reece
09-03-2014, 06:34 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the "Recent Discoveries and Developments in Palestinian Aramaic" chapter of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


In comparison with the extensive Hebrew discoveries, only a small number of Aramaic texts have so far come to light at Qumrân. They consist, for the most part, of small fragments, miscellaneous 'bits and pieces', sometimes containing no more than one word or even just a single letter, and only occasionally extending to several lines of a text, as, for instance, in the fragments from 'apocryphal works' (from the Book of Enoch, or the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs). Where, in one case, a longer text has existed, it has been preserved in so dilapidated a condition as to be at times barely legible. In view of this situation, the discovery at Qumrân of an entire scroll of twenty-two columns, with approximately thirty-five lines to each column, makes a welcome and significant addition to the Qumrân library, and, in particular, to its sadly decimated Aramaic contents.

To be continued...

John Reece
09-04-2014, 02:18 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the "Recent Discoveries and Developments in Palestinian Aramaic" chapter of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


The new Aramaic document is a kind of midrash on Gen. xii and xiv. The date is not absolutely certain, but, if we accept the general conclusions of the archaeologists, the scroll itself must have been written before A.D. 70. Affinities with the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha (especially the Book of Jubilees) support this early dating. Before a sufficient number of characteristic Aramaic idioms of a particular period can be adduced to identify the period of the scroll by linguistic criteria, we shall have to await publication of the whole text. The published folios, however, already yield one important philological fact: the scroll makes use of the Aramaic temporal conjunctions אדין and בדין (e.g., col. xxii, lines 2, 18, 20), found no less than 26 times in Daniel alone, but never in Targum Aramaic. In several other cases we meet with non-Targumic usage, e.g., חלתא (col. xxii, line 4) in the sense of 'valley'; Targumic חללא means 'cavern'; Syriac [....], the 'sheath' of a sword. The verb אתחלם (line 5) in the meaning 'grow strong' is attested in Syriac, but not in Targumic Aramaic. Linguistically the scroll would seem, therefore, to belong to the age of the 'old Aramaic'. Both from a linguistic and literary point of view, it is an invaluable witness to the Aramaic language and literature of the time of Christ.

To be continued...

John Reece
09-05-2014, 03:29 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the "Recent Discoveries and Developments in Palestinian Aramaic" chapter of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


Some parts of the text have a considerable literary merit, e.g., the description of Sarah's beauty at col. xx and the Parable of the Cedar at col. xix. The second (in Avigad and Yadin's English version) reads:

And I, Abram, dreamed a dream . . .
and lo! I saw in my dream one cedar tree
and one palm
. . . and men came and sought to cut down
and uproot the cedar and to leave the palm
And the palm cried out and said, 'Cut not
down the cedar . . . '
And for the sake of the palm the cedar was saved.

(The cedar is Abraham, the palm Sarah, through whose offer of herself Abraham was saved in Egypt.) These are probably the closest literary parallels we possess in Aramaic to the original (poetic) parables and poems of Jesus.

To be continued...

John Reece
09-06-2014, 04:30 PM
Beginning of excerpts from the "The Aramaic Targums and the Language of Jesus" section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):



The Aramaic Targums and the Language of Jesus

Since the publication of Kahle's views in Masoreten des Ostens and Masoreten des Westens, ii, and subsequently in his Schweich lectures, on the history and relationships of the Targums, a new edition of the Aramaic Targums has appeared, and other important studies have been published. Sperber's magnificent work has resulted in an edition of Onkelos and Jonathan which must remain a model of its kind: Sperber did not, however, concern himself with questions of the history and development of the Targum tradition. The same is true of other scholars, like Díez Macho, who edited fragments of the Targum to the Prophets, and in 1956 announced the discovery of the new Targum to the Pentateuch, Codex Neofiti. The question of the Überlieferungsgeschichte of the Aramaic Targum has been raised recently by E. Y. Kutscher, and Kahle's view challenged. Kutscher's arguments, however, which will be considered later, were anticipated by the work of a younger scholar, Dr. Gerald J. Kuiper, now Associate Professor of New Testament at the Theological Seminary, Johnson C. Smith University, Charlotte, North Carolina. Dr. Kuiper undertook, under my supervision, an investigation into the relationship between the different strands of the Targum tradition, and in particular the question of the relationship of the Pseudo-Jonathan Targum and Targum Onkelos. The results, which it is hoped will be published soon, have proved surprisingly interesting: Onkelos, while admittedly showing traces of Babylonian influence, appears nevertheless to have been an authoritative redaction of the same kind of Palestinian Targum tradition as is preserved, still in its fluid state, in the Fragment Targum, the Geniza Fragments, Pseudo-Jonathan, and Targum Neofiti I.

To be continued...

John Reece
09-07-2014, 03:17 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the "The Aramaic Targums and the Language of Jesus" section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


We need not, therefore, be so skeptical about the value of Dalman's Aramaic Grammar as Kahle was: at the same time, it must be admitted with Kahle that the more idiomatic and freer Aramaic of the pre-Onkelos Palestinian Targum tradition uninfluenced by the Babylonian dialect or the need to translate the Hebrew word by word, is a much better source of knowledge for the Aramaic of the New Testament period.

To be continued...

John Reece
09-08-2014, 04:19 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the "The Aramaic Targums and the Language of Jesus" section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


Work on the problem of the connexions and interrelationships of the different strands in the Palestinian Targum tradition is still in progress, and must inevitably be delayed until the (long awaited) publication of the editio princeps of Neofiti I, promised by Professor Díez Macho of Barcelona as part of the great modern Spanish Polyglot project. Nothing, so far, however, has led anyone to cast serious doubts on Kahle's view that what we have in the extant Palestinian Targum is a free, developing tradition with very substantial differences between the different manuscripts: indeed, this has, if anything, been confirmed by the text of the Neofiti manuscript, which seems to represent an entirely different and independent translation from anything we know of in the Geniza fragments or the Fragment Targum. The importance of this work cannot be over-emphasized, since it forms an essential preparation for an edition (or editions) of the Palestinian Targum (or Targums), without which the study of their vocabulary, grammar, syntax, etc., is premature. Professor Kahle himself was convinced of the need for a new edition of his Geniza fragments, and entrusted this task several years ago to his pupil Pater Georg Schelbert. My own pupil, Dr. Malcolm C. Doubles of Lebanon, Virginia, worked, under the joint supervision of myself and Dr. Kahle, on the problem of the Ginsburger edition of the Fragment Targum: that edition did much less than justice to the Vatican manuscripts of these fragments, and the full text of this is now available in Double's work. There is still an enormous amount of preparatory work to be done, but some rough pattern of relationships appears to be emerging. As Kuiper's work seems to point to Onkelos as an official redaction of one Palestinian tradition, so the close connexion of the Paris, Nürnberg, Leipzig, and Vatican manuscripts of the Fragment Targum seem to point to a likewise official rabbinical redaction undertaken in the Middle Ages, with the purpose of preserving something (in addition to the official Onkelos) from the previous Palestinian Pentateuch Targumic tradition. Neofiti I is still a vast open question, and its marginalia, some of which can be traced in the Fragment Targum, may further enrich our knowledge of the Palestinian Pentateuch Targum.

To be continued...

John Reece
09-09-2014, 09:13 AM
Continuation of excerpts from the "The Aramaic Targums and the Language of Jesus" section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


So far as the language of the Targums was concerned, Kahle was firmly convinced that Dalman was wrong in taking Onkelos and the related Targum to the Prophets as his main authorities for first-century Palestinian Aramaic, the so-called 'Jerusalem' Targums having been relegated to a secondary position: the latter, together with such close relatives as Samaritan and Christian Palestinian Syriac, seemed to Kahle to be much closer to the original language of Jesus and the best post-Christian sources for the reconstruction of the Aramaic of the verbi Christi. This he sought to demonstrate by his now well-known discovery that ribboni (my Lord) in Onkelos was pronounced rabbouni in the Geniza fragment targum, exactly as at John xx. 16 (cf. Mark x. 51). In view of this, Kahle held that a study of the grammar, syntax, and vocabulary of his Geniza fragments, and indeed of the whole of the Palestinian Targum tradition, so far as it was extant, was the next urgent task in Aramaic studies. This view was shared―and to a large extent reached independently through the study of Masoreten Westens, ii―by the late Professor A. J. Wensinck, who carried his work to the point of preparing, on the basis of existing editions of the Palestinian Pentateuch Targum, a lexicon of these texts to supplement Levy's Chaldäisches Lexicon (or the smaller lexica of Jastrow or Dalman).

To be continued...

John Reece
09-10-2014, 09:38 AM
Continuation of excerpts from the "The Aramaic Targums and the Language of Jesus" section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


No one will deny the urgency or the need for grammatical and lexicographical studies in those particular areas if we are to extend our knowledge of the Aramaic language, and particularly of the language as it was spoken and written in the New Testament period. The situation, however, has changed in some important respects since the publication of Masoreten des Westens (or The Cairo Geniza). There are the new Qumrân Aramaic texts to study, for the most part exhibiting a language closer to the old Reichsaramäisch, but also in their literary form and character, no less than in language, exhibiting literature which serves as a much closer prototype of the Aramaic portions and especially the original Aramaic poetry of the Gospels. There is also the inestimably valuable text (450 folios) of Neofiti, which will also have to be scrutinized by the philologist, once an edition is available. In fact, it is this last difficulty, applying to all the Palestinian Pentateuch Targums, which makes grammatical investigation or lexicographical studies at present difficult, if not impossible. Our first and most urgent needs are for editions of the Palestinian Pentateuch Targum (or Targums) similar to Dr. Sperber's splendid edition of Onkelos and Jonathan, which must also, however, not be overlooked in any full study of early Palestinian Aramaic.

To be continued...

John Reece
09-11-2014, 03:23 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the "The Aramaic Targums and the Language of Jesus" section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


It was characteristic of Kahle that he lost no opportunity of presenting positions with which he had once identified himself in the light of the latest developments in his field. Thus, just shortly before the second edition of his Cairo Geniza was published, he wrote a long article in Z.N.T.W. entitled 'Das palästinische Pentateuchtargum und das zur Zeit Jesu gesprochene Aramäische' in which he took cognizance of the new Qumrân discoveries, in particular of the so-called Genesis Apocryphon (or Genesis Midrash, as he himself preferred to describe it). The article (which forms most of chapter III of The Cairo Geniza brought inter alia an up-to-date report on work on the Targums and the scrolls by W. H. Brownlee, Naftali Weider, Díez Macho, etc. In the course of the article Dr. Kahle had occasion to criticize some of the methods of Professor E. Y. Kutscher of Jerusalem in his dating and localizing of the Genesis Midrash, and this criticism drew a lively rejoinder from Dr. Kutscher in which he not only replied to the points of Kahle's criticism but called in question Kahle's general position on the relation of the Palestinian Pentateuch Targum to Targum Onkelos, and on its value linguistically as a primary source of the language of Jesus. Kutscher's reply called forth in turn an equally lively riposte from Kahle.

To be continued...

John Reece
09-12-2014, 03:46 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the "The Aramaic Targums and the Language of Jesus" section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


The controversy centered mainly on the exception Kahle has taken to Kutscher's methods of determining the date of the Genesis midrash: he accepted Kutscher's conclusions that this text, composed in a literary Aramaic (of the type we find in Daniel, Ezra, etc.), was Palestinian, belonging to the first century B.C. or earlier. Kutscher's attempt to show that the language of the Palestinian Pentateuch Targum was not one of our best representatives of the spoken language of the time of Christ was unconvincing. It is true, the view that Onkelos is a purely Babylonian composition is doubtful, but the fact that it may have had its origin in Palestine does not mean that its language is, therefore, a pure spoken Aramaic of the time of Jesus: it is, in fact, as Kahle held, an artificially literal translation of the Hebrew, composed in its present and final redaction in a form of 'literary' Aramaic which is neither pure Palestinian nor pure Babylonian dialect.

To be continued...

John Reece
09-13-2014, 10:12 AM
Continuation of excerpts from the "The Aramaic Targums and the Language of Jesus" section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


In one point Kutscher challenged Kahle's claim that the Palestinian Pentateuch Targum alone knew the New Testament word rabboni (ῥαββουνί, Mark x. 51, John xx. 16). Kutscher is, of course, right in maintaining that the word does appear in rabbinical texts, and this Kahle never sought to deny: it was the pronunciation of the word in the Palestinian Pentateuch Targum as rabbo(u)ni in contrast to the rabbinical ribboni which was unique and adduced as proof by Kahle that it was this Palestinian Targum tradition which correctly preserved th accents of the living speech and dialect of Palestinian Aramaic. To prove that this was not so, Kutscher adduced one instance from one Mishnah codex where the pronunciation rabbouni is preserved, evidently as a 'Verbesserung': but all that this, in fact, proves is that at least one scribe knew of this particular pronunciation and objected to the probably artificial (Babylonian?) pronunciation ribboni. The instance from the Mishnah confirms rather than refutes Kahle's argument: it is a reminiscence of how the word was actually pronounced in Palestinian spoken Aramaic.

To be continued...

John Reece
09-14-2014, 03:01 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the "The Aramaic Targums and the Language of Jesus" section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


The problem of the original language (or languages) of Jesus has been reopened more than once in recent years. A. W. Argyle and others have sponsored the claims of the Koine as a 'second language' of Jesus. The Qumrân discoveries have also shed light on the problem: M. Wilcox writes (italics mine): 'With regard to the matter of language we ought to note that the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has now placed at our disposal information of a highly interesting and relevant nature. . . . The non-biblical texts show us a free, living language, and attest to the fact that in New Testament times, and for some considerable time previously, Hebrew was not confined to Rabbinical circles by any means, but appeared as a normal vehicle of expression.

To be continued...

John Reece
09-15-2014, 02:45 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the "The Aramaic Targums and the Language of Jesus" section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


It would seem from this description of Hebrew in the time of Christ as a 'free, living language' and 'a normal vehicle of expression' that Dr. Wilcox intends us to understand that Hebrew was in fact a spoken Palestinian language in New Testament times, and not merely a medium of literary expression only or a learned language confined to rabbinical circles (as well of course, as being the sacred tongue of the Hebrew Scriptures). If this is a correct estimate of the Qumrân evidence, where Hebrew certainly vastly predominates over Aramaic, then it may be held to confirm the view identified with the name of Professor Segal that Hebrew was actually a spoken vernacular in Judea in the time of Christ.

To be continued...

John Reece
09-16-2014, 02:15 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the "The Aramaic Targums and the Language of Jesus" section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


This view (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2218-An-Aramaic-Approach-to-the-Gospels-and-Acts&p=98854&viewfull=1#post98854)―or a closely similar one―has been argued in recent years by Professor H. Birkeland of Oslo, who set out, in a learned article, to challenge the usual view that Aramaic was the regular spoken language of first-century Palestine, and, therefore, the language of Jesus; according to Dr. Birkeland, Hebrew not Aramaic was the regular and normal language of the Jews in first-century Palestine, and certainly so, so far as the masses of the Jewish people were concerned; it was only the educated upper classes who spoke (or used) Aramaic and Aramaic Targums were intended for the benefit, not of the masses of the people who could understand the Hebrew Scriptures without an Aramaic paraphrase, but for the upper classes who understood Aramaic only.

To be continued...

John Reece
09-17-2014, 03:59 PM
This is the penultimate excerpt from the "The Aramaic Targums and the Language of Jesus" section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


This extreme position (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2218-An-Aramaic-Approach-to-the-Gospels-and-Acts&p=99219&viewfull=1#post99219) has found little if any support among competent authorities: the evidence of the Aramaic ipsissima verba of Jesus in the Gospels is impossible to explain if Aramaic was not his normal spoken language. Moreover, it is absurd to suggest that the Hebrew Scriptures were paraphrased for the benefit of the 'upper classes': these Scriptures were provided with a Targum for the benefit of the Aramaic-speaking masses who could no longer understand Hebrew. The use of the term 'Hebrew' to refer to Aramaic is readily explicable, since it described the peculiar dialect of Aramaic which had grown up in Palestine since the days of Nehemiah and which was distinctively Jewish (with a distinctive Hebrew script associated with it, and a large proportion of borrowings from classical Hebrew). It is these differences to which the letter of Aristeas is referring and not to two different languages, Hebrew and Aramaic (Syriac).*


*Cf. Birkeland, op. cit., p. 14. See also R. H. Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, ii, p. 95. The passage reads: 'They (the Hebrew Scriptures) need to be translated', answered Demetrius, 'for in the country of the Jews they use a peculiar alphabet, and speak in a peculiar dialect. They are supposed to use the Syriac tongue, but this is not the case; their language is quite different.' The reference is to the peculiar dialect of Aramaic spoken by the Jews, a dialect of West Aramaic; quite different from Syriac, the dialect of East Aramaic which was in regular use as the standard Aramaic language.

To be continued...

John Reece
09-18-2014, 03:34 PM
This is the final excerpt from the "The Aramaic Targums and the Language of Jesus" section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


While this extreme position (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2218-An-Aramaic-Approach-to-the-Gospels-and-Acts&p=99219&viewfull=1#post99219) must be rejected, there is nevertheless a case, certainly for a wider literary use of Hebrew in New Testament times. This much is certain from the Qumrân discoveries. It is also possible, however, (as Professor Segal argues) that Hebrew did continue as a spoken tongue: it seems unlikely, however, that this was outside the circles of the learned or the educated, i.e., in learned Pharisaic, priestly, or Essene circles. We must nevertheless allow possibly more than has been done before for the use of Hebrew in addition to (or instead of) Aramaic by Jesus Himself, especially on solemn festive occasions; there is a high degree of probability that Jesus began his career as a Galilaean rabbi who would be well versed in the Scriptures, and able to compose (or converse) as freely in Hebrew as in Aramaic.

To be continued...

John Reece
09-19-2014, 03:10 PM
Continuation of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):



PART II
SYNTAX, GRAMMAR, AND VOCABULARY

CHAPTER IV
STYLE AND STRUCTURE OF THE SENTENCE

Order of Words

A Semitism to which Wellhausen attached much importance was the position of the verb in the sentence or clause. In all Semitic languages the verb tends to be set first, except where the order of words is inverted for emphasis or in certain subordinate clauses. A number of arguments have been advanced to show that the order of words in the Gospels is not noticeably un-Greek, but when all due allowance has been made for them, the predominance of the initial position of the verb remains unusual. The judgment of an eminent Hellenist, E. Norden, is: 'Placing the verb first, next to parallelism of clauses―the two are very often combined―the surest Semitism of the New Testament, especially in those instances in which this position comes in a series of clauses.' Norden instances the second half of the Magnificat, and compares the distinctive position of the imperatives in the Lord's Prayer with the style of Jewish prayers, as in Isa. xxxvii. 17-20, Sir. xxxvi. 1-17.

To be continued...

John Reece
09-20-2014, 02:52 PM
Continuation of the "Order of Words" section of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


A. J. Wensinck claims that the Bezan text of Luke contains a large number of instances of Semitic word-order (not only the initial position of the verb), where non-Western manuscripts have a more idiomatic Greek order. The chief difficulty, however, is to be certain of what is not idiomatic Greek order. The most that Wensinck succeeds in showing is that D has an order that agrees with Semitic order and differs from that of non-Western manuscripts. Thus in Luke i. 14, WH read καὶ ἔσται χαρά σοι, D καὶ ἔσται σοι χαρά: the first order is un-Semitic and the order of D agrees with the Aramaic order, but there is nothing to suggest that it is not legitimately Greek as well as correct Semitic word-order. The result of Wensinck's observations is negative: the order of words in D in not un-Semitic, as it frequently is in WH, but it is likewise not un-Greek.

To be continued...

bibletranslator
09-21-2014, 08:34 AM
Not to derail you, but I just thought I'd say "Neat book, huh?" I picked it up about a decade ago, started reading it, and realized (having at that time not known Hebrew or Greek) that it was way beyond me. I got no farther than Part 1. It still sits on my shelf, waiting to be read with new and improved eyes! What are your thoughts so far?

(PS - great Hebrew signature you chose there... I translated that not too long ago. I love how the end of Psalm 31 quotes from it and expands on it a bit so that it is no longer about those who wait, but those who keep waiting--the Hiphil form there of a synonym)
חזקו ויאמץ לבבכם
כל־המיחלים ליהוה׃

John Reece
09-21-2014, 10:47 AM
Not to derail you, but I just thought I'd say "Neat book, huh?" I picked it up about a decade ago, started reading it, and realized (having at that time not known Hebrew or Greek) that it was way beyond me. I got no farther than Part 1. It still sits on my shelf, waiting to be read with new and improved eyes! What are your thoughts so far?

Yes! neat book indeed! I'm too old and feeble-minded to do anything but read it, transcribe it, and appreciate what I read and transcribe one day at a time. Thoughts? My mind is too weak and confused to remember them and/or to sort them out.


(PS - great Hebrew signature you chose there... I translated that not too long ago.

Ah, yes! It is a great text. It is the first verse of Hebrew I ever memorized ― actually, IIRC, I memorized it before I took my first, introductory course in Hebrew at Duke in the middle of the 20th century. When I decided to go to Duke, and before I did so, I was driving a taxicab in Arlington, VA, and got snowed in all alone in an apartment in Falls Church, VA during a blizzard with drifts so deep I could not get out of my apartment for several days ― actually, I did not even want to get out, given what I was doing. I had just bought an elementary Hebrew grammar and Hebrew Bible from the bookshop of the nearby (in Alexandria) Episcopal seminary, so I spent the whole time cramming my mind with enough Hebrew to read and memorize a few verses. When I got my taxicab on the road again, and when I stopped at the Hot Shoppe in Rosslyn for breakfast, I remember repeating the verse, that is my signature, over and over again. For those who do not read Hebrew, it is Psalm 27:14 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psa+27%3A14&version=ESV). The initial clause = also the final clause ― which is also the initial clause of Psalm 37:34 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psa+37%3A34&version=ESV), Wait for Yahweh/the LORD!


I love how the end of Psalm 31 quotes from it and expands on it a bit so that it is no longer about those who wait, but those who keep waiting--the Hiphil form there of a synonym)
חזקו ויאמץ לבבכם
כל־המיחלים ליהוה׃

:thumb:

And I love also the initial verset, which = the middle verset of my signature (except plural rather than singular), "Be strong, and let your heart take courage!"

Welcome, bibletranslator, to the Biblical Languages 301 forum of TheologyWeb. It's been rather slow here lately, so I hope you make yourself at home and share with us quite regularly.

We have one world-class biblical languages scholar here: robrecht, with whom I trust you will soon become acquitted, if you have not done so already.

I just hang around, trying not to be totally useless ― and/or to not make too much of a fool of myself ― in my weak-minded old age.

John Reece
09-22-2014, 04:25 PM
Continuation of the "Order of Words" section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


It is the proportion in the Gospels as compared with other Greek writings of the initial position of the verb mainly, and not any individual case of word-order, which is unusual and un-Greek: '. . . the predominance of initial position (of the verb) in Luke and John is remarkable.'

To be continued...

John Reece
09-23-2014, 01:38 PM
This is the last paragraph of the "Order of Words" section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


No doubt a large number of the instances of the verb in the initial position come from translation Greek sources, but no inference as to translation of Aramaic sources can be made from this Gospel Semitism. The main reason, I would suggest, is, not that we do not have here a genuine and important Semitism, nor that, to prove translation, more evidence of irregular Greek word-order would be required, but the difficulty of determining what order is un-Greek. It is only because the verb so frequently comes first that the Greek style, not the Greek word-order becomes such that no native Greek writer, uninfluenced by Semitic sources or a Semitic language, would have written it.

To be continued...

John Reece
09-24-2014, 12:14 PM
This is the first paragraph of the "Casus Pendens and Hyperbaton" section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):



Casus Pendens and Hyperbaton

Casus pendens is not specifically a Semitism. It is used with effect in classical Greek, and parallels to instances in the Gospels have been cited from the papyri and elsewhere. But the construction is much more frequent in Hebrew or Aramaic than in the Koine. Especially characteristic of Hebrew and Aramaic is the resumption of the subject or object by the personal pronoun; Burney illustrates from Daniel ii. 37, 38, iii. 22, iv. 17-19, Ezra v. 14. A typical example occurs in the Elephantine Papyri, 28, 15, 'My sons―they shall pay thee this money'; for an instance from the Palestine Talmud we may compare Kilʾaim ix. 4, f. 32b, line 47.

To be continued...

John Reece
09-25-2014, 08:09 PM
Continuation of the "Casus Pendens and Hyperbaton" section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


Burney rests his case for the Aramaic origin of the Johannine casus pendens on the over-use of the construction in the Fourth Gospel, as compared especially with the Synoptics. He found 27 instances in the former (another example from a saying of Jesus occurs in x. 25) and 21 in the latter; in Matthew 11, in Mark 4, and in Luke 6. This is certainly a remarkable proportion for John alone. (it is not, however, as Burney calculates, six times that of Luke). In a number of John's instances Lagrange believed that there was an emphasis intended which accorded with classical usage, but he recognized the resumptive pronoun after πᾶς as a Semitic locution.

To be continued...

John Reece
09-26-2014, 06:45 PM
Continuation of the "Casus Pendens and Hyperbaton" section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


Burney accounted for the frequency of the construction in John as due to translation of an Aramaic original. Lagrange thought that we had to do less with translation Greek than with a Semitic locution which would come naturally to those accustomed to this vigorous Semitic idiom. The distribution of the construction in John is interesting, and may be held to support the translation Greek hypothesis: in 22 cases out of all we have to do with examples from the sayings and speeches of Jesus; two of the six exceptions are from the Prologue (i. 12, 18), two from sayings of the Baptist, one in the Prologue (i. 33, iii. 32), one from a conversation of the disciples of John (iii. 26), and the sixth is spoken by a man healed at the pool of Bethesda (x. 11). All examples are from direct speech.

To be continued...

John Reece
09-27-2014, 03:51 PM
Continuation of the "Casus Pendens and Hyperbaton" section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


The distribution of the construction is even more significant in the Synoptics and Acts. In the Fourth Gospel the sayings and speeches of Jesus make up the larger part of the book. But in the Synoptics, narrative outweighs dialogue, yet there too the same high proportion of examples of this construction occurs in the Words of Jesus. It is true that a vigorous idiom of this kind is more natural in direct speech than in narrative, but the almost total absence of the idiom outside of direct speech in the Gospels and Acts cannot be due entirely to this fact. [....].

To be continued...

John Reece
09-28-2014, 02:57 PM
Continuation of the "Casus Pendens and Hyperbaton" section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


The construction appears most frequently in the Bezan Uncial (...). In this respect D has preserved the primitive text more faithfully than Bא; a typical instance is Mt. vi. 4, καὶ ὁ πατήρ σου ὁ βλέπων ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ ἀποδώσει σοι.

To be continued...

John Reece
09-29-2014, 03:50 PM
Continuation of the "Casus Pendens and Hyperbaton" section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


An extension of this hyperbaton consists of the displacement of the subject or object of a subordinate clause to become subject or object of another clause, usually the main clause of the sentence, thus giving special emphasis to it. An example from Aramaic occurs in Midrash Echa, i. 51, 'I am not going until I see that Menahem how he is faring.' Wellhausen noted the following instances of this hyperbaton in the Gospels: Mt. x. 25; Mk. vii. 2, xi. 32, xii. 34; Lk. ix. 31, xxiv. 7. Mk. vii. 2 reads καὶ ἰδόντες τινὰς τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ ὅτι κοιναῖς χερσίν ἐσθίουσιν '. . . and having seen that some of his disciples ate with defiled hands'; Lk. xxiv. 7 is, λέγων τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὅτι δεῖ παραδοθῆναι. Wellhausen gives Lk. iv. 3 (D) εἰπὲ οἱ λίθοι οὗτοι ἵνα γένωνται ἄρτοι, but no such reading appears to exist.


To be continued...

John Reece
09-30-2014, 02:59 PM
Continuation of the "Casus Pendens and Hyperbaton" section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


This idiom (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2218-An-Aramaic-Approach-to-the-Gospels-and-Acts&p=103368&viewfull=1#post103368) can account for the difficult and confused construction of Mark viii. 24, βλέπω τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ὅτι ὡς δένδρα ὁρῶ περιπατοῦντας. The only legitimate rendering of the Greek as it stands is that of the R.V.: 'I see men; for I see them as trees walking' . . . Codex Bezae, with a number of other authorities reads βλέπω τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ὡς δένδρα περιπατοῦντας, which gives, in a straightforward text, the kind of answer we would expect. But the more difficult text of Bא is probably original, and has led to corruption in D. W. C. Allen sought to explain the ὅτι as a mistranslated dᵉ which should have been represented by the relative οὕς, 'I see men whom I see as trees walking', the accusative participle περιπατοῦντας having then an accusative relative in its own clause with which to agree. But 'I see men whom I see as trees walking' is still an unusually complicated way of saying, 'I see men like trees walking', which seems clearly what is intended.

To be continued...

John Reece
10-01-2014, 01:23 PM
Continuation of the "Casus Pendens and Hyperbaton" section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


This simple statement (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2218-An-Aramaic-Approach-to-the-Gospels-and-Acts&p=103637&viewfull=1#post103637) would be expressed idiomatically in Aramaic with emphatic hyperbaton, 'I see men that like trees they are walking'. A translator who failed to recognize the idiom appears to have taken the participial present '(are) walking' as a true participle and made it agree with the accusative 'men'―βλέπω τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ὅτι ὡς δένδρα ὁρῶ περιπατοῦντας. An additional verb in the subordinate clause would be necessary in Greek to make sense.

To be continued...

John Reece
10-02-2014, 01:12 PM
Continuation of the "Casus Pendens and Hyperbaton" section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


Mark vii. 4 contains an example of an emphasizing hyperbaton along with a characteristic Semitic use of the preposition ἀπό (= min), namely, in a partitive sense: ἀπ᾿ ἀγορᾶς means '(anything) from the marketplace'; 'And (anything) from the marketplace, unless they sprinkle, they do not eat'. The Arabic Diatessaron has so understood the words (xx. 20), 'They used not to eat what was sold from the market, except they washed it.' The Arabic does not, of course, imply any variant text, but the Semitic idiom has been recognized and correctly rendered.

To be continued...

John Reece
10-03-2014, 12:39 PM
General conclusion of the "Casus Pendens and Hyperbaton" section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


The general conclusion to which the evidence of casus pendens and related hyperbaton points is that, while such constructions cannot be described as specifically Semitic, though in much more frequent use in Aramaic than in Greek, their preponderance in the sayings of Jesus supports the view that a translation Greek tradition is to be found there. No Greek writer would have included in one part only of his work what is, compared with instances in the surrounding narrative, a very high proportion of examples, unless he was reproducing an Aramaic tradition. Outside of the sayings, hyperbata are most frequent in dialogue and direct speech, and in Mark's Gospel. In Acts, casus pendens appears to be confined to speeches, and for the most part those of Peter and Stephen in the early chapters.

To be continued...

John Reece
10-04-2014, 01:19 PM
Beginning of "The Distribution of Asyndeton in the Gospels and Acts" section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


Asyndeton is, on the whole, contrary to the spirit of the Greek language. Most Greek sentences are linked by a connecting particle, and, where asyndeton is found, it is generally employed with rhetorical effect.

Asyndeton: The absence of conjunctions linking coordinate words or phrases (ἀσύνδετον, "not bound together").
Casus Pendens: Latin "hanging case". Term used most often of the nominative absolute, especially the pendent nominative, which is thought of as suspended or "hanging" apart from its clause.
Hyperbaton: The separation of words that naturally belong together, for emphasis or the movement of a word or clause from its normal and expected place (ὑπερβατόν, "transposed"). For instance, in Matthew 3:10 ἤδη is separated from its verb.

Definitions above are taken from Pocket Dictionary for the Study of New Testament Greek ― Defines over 1700 terms of Grammar, Word Study, Textual Criticism, Exegetical Method, and New Testament Criticism (InterVarsity Press, 2001), by Matthew S. DeMoss.

To be continued...

John Reece
10-05-2014, 01:14 PM
Continuation of "The Distribution of Asyndeton in the Gospels and Acts" section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


The high proportion of sentences in connected narrative and speeches set down ασυνδέτως is one of the striking features of the style of the Fourth Gospel. Occasionally this preponderance of asyndeton gives weight and solemnity to the discourse and appears to be nothing more that a feature of the author's style. But in the majority of cases there does not appear to be any rhetorical justification for the construction.

Asyndeton: The absence of conjunctions linking coordinate words or phrases (ἀσύνδετον, "not bound together").
Casus Pendens: Latin "hanging case". Term used most often of the nominative absolute, especially the pendent nominative, which is thought of as suspended or "hanging" apart from its clause.
Hyperbaton: The separation of words that naturally belong together, for emphasis or the movement of a word or clause from its normal and expected place (ὑπερβατόν, "transposed"). For instance, in Matthew 3:10 ἤδη is separated from its verb.

Definitions above are taken from Pocket Dictionary for the Study of New Testament Greek ― Defines over 1700 terms of Grammar, Word Study, Textual Criticism, Exegetical Method, and New Testament Criticism (InterVarsity Press, 2001), by Matthew S. DeMoss.

To be continued...

John Reece
10-06-2014, 03:01 PM
Continuation of "The Distribution of Asyndeton in the Gospels and Acts" section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


Asyndeton is highly characteristic of Aramaic, and C. F. Burney attributed the excessive use of the construction in John to the influence of an Aramaic original, illustrating from Biblical Aramaic. In the long Aramaic passage in the Palestinian Talmud, Kilʾaim, ix. 4, f. 32b, lines 38-48, there is one connecting particle only, (line 40). Especially prominent in this passage, and frequent in the Aramaic portions of the Palestinian Talmud generally, is the asyndeton opening ʾamar (participle) and ʾamᵉrin, 'he says, was saying', 'they say, were saying'; e.g. ʾamar, f. 32 lines 38, 39 (bis), 41, 44, 45, 46, 47; ʾamᵉrin f. 32b, line 71, and earlier at lines 11, 17, 23. It is one of the most characteristic of Aramaic asyndeton openings; it is not found, however, in Biblical Aramaic, which prefers the formula ענה ואמר, 'speaks up and says' or 'spoke up and said', and Burney illustrates from Syriac.

Asyndeton: The absence of conjunctions linking coordinate words or phrases (ἀσύνδετον, "not bound together").
Casus Pendens: Latin "hanging case". Term used most often of the nominative absolute, especially the pendent nominative, which is thought of as suspended or "hanging" apart from its clause.
Hyperbaton: The separation of words that naturally belong together, for emphasis or the movement of a word or clause from its normal and expected place (ὑπερβατόν, "transposed"). For instance, in Matthew 3:10 ἤδη is separated from its verb.

Definitions above are taken from Pocket Dictionary for the Study of New Testament Greek ― Defines over 1700 terms of Grammar, Word Study, Textual Criticism, Exegetical Method, and New Testament Criticism (InterVarsity Press, 2001), by Matthew S. DeMoss.

To be continued...

John Reece
10-07-2014, 12:36 PM
Continuation of "The Distribution of Asyndeton in the Gospels and Acts" section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


The frequent use of asyndeton in John is best explained as the result of Aramaic influence. But it is not necessary to seek the source of the Johannine asyndeton in an Aramaic original. The construction is one which would tend to predominate in Jewish or Syrian Greek. Unfortunately our materials for comparison are limited: most Jewish Greek of the period which may be compared with the Gospels is translation from Hebrew or Aramaic. The asyndeton construction is notably absent from Josephus, whose native language was Aramaic, but who shows considerable skill in his employment of Greek connecting particles. In the Shepherd of Hermas, however, which, if it is not influenced by Semitic idiom, there are parallels to the Johannine over-use of asyndeton, especially in speeches and in those formulae of narrated dialogue where so many of John's instances are found. .... The construction is more frequent in the Fourth Gospel than in Hermas. Noteworthy is the occurrence in the latter of the asyndeton formulae in narration as in John, all of them Aramaic in origin.

Asyndeton: The absence of conjunctions linking coordinate words or phrases (ἀσύνδετον, "not bound together").
Casus Pendens: Latin "hanging case". Term used most often of the nominative absolute, especially the pendent nominative, which is thought of as suspended or "hanging" apart from its clause.
Hyperbaton: The separation of words that naturally belong together, for emphasis or the movement of a word or clause from its normal and expected place (ὑπερβατόν, "transposed"). For instance, in Matthew 3:10 ἤδη is separated from its verb.

Definitions above are taken from Pocket Dictionary for the Study of New Testament Greek ― Defines over 1700 terms of Grammar, Word Study, Textual Criticism, Exegetical Method, and New Testament Criticism (InterVarsity Press, 2001), by Matthew S. DeMoss.

To be continued...

John Reece
10-08-2014, 01:49 PM
Continuation of "The Distribution of Asyndeton in the Gospels and Acts" section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


The Aramaic asyndeton λέγει, λέγουσι, occurs in all four Gospels, and Burney has discussed fully its incidence in John. He gives in addition 16 instances of asyndeton λέγει in Matthew; there are more than 4 more in the Bezan text, .... and one in the Vatican Codex, .... , where WH, which Burney is following, adopts the reading of אD, ἔφη. Burney gives no examples of asyndeton λέγουσι for Matthew; the following [3] additional examples are found: .... Mark has no instances of λέγει and one only of λέγουσι (viii. 19), but he has several examples of asyndeton ἔφη, .... Asyndeton ἔφη appears most frequently in Matthew: .... The Bא text of Luke has two instances of λέγει, ..... , but none of λέγουσι.

Note: Henceforth, for the most part, I will be replacing Black's tedious-to-transcribe verse citations with elisions. If anyone really needs to view such, perhaps a used copy may be found online or in a used book store. There is always available via local public libraries in the U.S.A. the services of the Interlibrary Loan Service.

Asyndeton: The absence of conjunctions linking coordinate words or phrases (ἀσύνδετον, "not bound together").
Casus Pendens: Latin "hanging case". Term used most often of the nominative absolute, especially the pendent nominative, which is thought of as suspended or "hanging" apart from its clause.
Hyperbaton: The separation of words that naturally belong together, for emphasis or the movement of a word or clause from its normal and expected place (ὑπερβατόν, "transposed"). For instance, in Matthew 3:10 ἤδη is separated from its verb.

Definitions above are taken from Pocket Dictionary for the Study of New Testament Greek ― Defines over 1700 terms of Grammar, Word Study, Textual Criticism, Exegetical Method, and New Testament Criticism (InterVarsity Press, 2001), by Matthew S. DeMoss.

To be continued...

John Reece
10-09-2014, 01:26 PM
Continuation of "The Distribution of Asyndeton in the Gospels and Acts" section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


In the synoptics asyndeton generally does not occur so frequently as in the Fourth Gospel. Blass drew attention to it in the passage Matthew v. 3-17 from the Sermon on the Mount, 'not only where there is no connection of thought, but also in spite of such connection'. Hawkins noted that it occurred more frequently in Mark than in Matthew and Luke, and Lagrange pointed out that it preponderated in the saying of Jesus in Mark: '. . . l'asyndeton se trouve surtout dans le language parlé et très spécialement dans le language de Jésus'.

To be continued...

John Reece
10-10-2014, 04:03 PM
Continuation of "The Distribution of Asyndeton in the Gospels and Acts" section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):

I am omitting a paragraph that introduces a list of more than a hundred occurrences of asyndeton in the Gospels and Acts.


.... The construction is more frequent in Mark ....

In the Matthaean parable of the Tares (xiii), to select one typical example in illustration from the Bezan text, no less than three asyndeta are found in verses 28 and 29: ὁ δὲ ἔφη αὐτοῖς, ἐχθρὸς ἄνθρωπος τοῦτο ἐποίησεν. λέγουσιν αὐτῷ οἱ δοῦλοι, θέλεις ἀπελθόντες συλλέξωμεν αὐτά; λέγει αὐτοῖς οὔ (Bא, οἱ δὲ δοῦλοι αὐτῷ λέγουσι, θέλεις οὖν ἀπελθόντες συλλέξωμεν αὐτά; ὁ δὲ θησίν οὔ). The best manuscript authorities have no connecting particle after ἄφετε in verse 30, but such an asyndeton is not unnatural with commands in Greek. Verse 28b has the Aramaic order (verb first), λέγουσιν αὐτῷ οἱ δοῦλοι. In verse 30, Epiphanius read δέσμας δέσμας (D, δέσμας; WH εἰς δέσμας), an Aramaic distributive.

To be continued...

John Reece
10-11-2014, 01:44 PM
Continuation of "The Distribution of Asyndeton in the Gospels and Acts" section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


Individual cases may be defended as Greek; the asyndeton in Paul's speech at Miletus (Acts xx. 17 f.), where there is no possibility of Semitic sources (though Semitic influence is not thereby excluded), is rhetorically effective. But when all allowances have been made for Greek uses of the construction, there remains in both the Gospels and Acts a very substantial number of non-Greek asyndeta.

To be continued...

John Reece
10-12-2014, 02:26 PM
Continuation of "The Distribution of Asyndeton in the Gospels and Acts" section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


A comparison of the instances in Mark with the parallels in Matthew and Luke shows that 'the smoother and more connected forms of the sentences in Matthew and Luke were altered from the rough and crude forms in Mark'. In view of the preponderance of asyndeton in Aramaic, it seems likely that, as in John, the explanation of the 'rough and crude' Marcan asyndeton is either that Mark wrote Jewish Greek as deeply influenced in this respect as the Greek of the Shepherd of Hermas, or else that he is translating Aramaic sources or employing such translations. It is probable that he did both: where Mark is reporting the words of Jesus, not as single isolated sayings but in a group of collected saying, he is most probably incorporating in his Gospel the translation Greek of a sayings-tradition: Mark xiii. 6-9, where asyndeton occurs no less than 4 times in 7 connected sentences, is an instance of translation Greek.

To be continued...

John Reece
10-13-2014, 02:51 PM
Continuation of "The Distribution of Asyndeton in the Gospels and Acts" section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


Asyndeton in Matthew and Luke, with the exception of Matthew's λέγει, λέγουσι, ἔθη in narrative, occurs almost exclusively in the sayings and parables of Jesus. With the exception of the two examples in the Magnificat (which is generally believed to have been modeled on a Semitic poem or to be a rendering of a Semitic original), it is not without significance that three or four longer passages from Luke, containing a number of asyndeta together, come from Q (in chapters vi, xi, xvii); the fourth (chapter xviii) is in a parable from Luke's special source. All the Lucan cases (the Magnificat excepted) are in sayings of Jesus. To appreciate the significance of the result, it must again be borne in mind that in the Synoptics narrative greatly outweighs the reported saying and parables of Jesus; the largest proportion of the latter is contained in Q, which in Matthew is about one-sixth of the whole Gospel and in Luke is even less.

To be continued...

John Reece
10-14-2014, 01:33 PM
Continuation of "The Distribution of Asyndeton in the Gospels and Acts" section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


That asyndeton should so preponderate in the Words of Jesus and be virtually absent in the longer narrative portions of the Synoptics, except in Mark's Gospel and in certain Jewish Greek formulae chiefly in Matthew, points to the conclusion that a sayings-tradition, cast in translation Greek and reflecting faithfully the Aramaic construction, has been utilized by the Evangelists. The examples outside the Words of Jesus do not necessarily imply Aramaic sources: they are no more numerous than are found in the Shepherd of Hermas and for the most part of the same type. Their greater frequency in Mark, however, as compared with the other two Synoptic Gospels, may point to an Aramaic narrative tradition about Jesus.

To be continued...

John Reece
10-15-2014, 01:47 PM
Continuation of "The Distribution of Asyndeton in the Gospels and Acts" section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


In the Fourth Gospel, where the construction has been examined by Burney, it again predominates in the sayings and speeches of Jesus, which form, however, the greater part of the work. A modification of Burney's hypothesis may be the best explanation of the excessive use of asyndeton in John: John may not be as a whole a translation of an Aramaic original, but, in the sayings and speeches of Jesus, as in the Synoptics, may contain translations of an Aramaic tradition, edited and rewritten by the author of the Gospel of Mark.

To be continued...

John Reece
10-16-2014, 02:50 PM
Final paragraph of "The Distribution of Asyndeton in the Gospels and Acts" section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


Except in Mark, the construction is most frequent in the Bezan text. The latter in Mark has, in this respect, been harmonized with Matthew and Luke, the 'rough and crude' asyndeton construction being removed by the insertion of the connecting particles in the parallels in the first and third Gospels.

To be continued...

John Reece
10-17-2014, 02:33 PM
The following is the beginning paragraph of "The Paratactic Construction" section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):



The Paratactic Construction

Parataxis [the linking of clauses or phrases together without utilizing conjunctions that mark subordinate relationships] is much more frequent in Aramaic than it is in Greek. In less literary Greek and in the papyri the construction is not uncommon, and this alone has been regarded as a sufficient justification for its frequency in the Gospels. In the first edition of his Einleitung Wellhausen attributed the over-use of simple parataxis in the Gospels to the influence of Aramaic; but in the second edition it is stated, 'the predominance of parataxis, not only in the sayings of Jesus, but also in the Marcan narrative, is in general no sure sign of Semitic conception'. This agrees in the main with Deissmann and Moulton; the latter states more positively, '. . . in itself the phenomenon proves nothing more than would a string of "ands" in an English rustic's story―elementary culture, and not the hampering presence of a foreign idiom that is being perpetually translated into its most literal equivalent'. C. F. Burney took a different view, especially with regard to the excessive use of the construction in the Fourth Gospel; he argued against Deissmann and Moulton that unliterary works or business documents and letters from Egyptian papyri are not in pari materia with St. John's Gospel, and he assigned Johannine parataxis, along with the related asyndeton construction, to the influence of an Aramaic original.

To be continued...

John Reece
10-18-2014, 01:37 PM
Continuation of "The Paratactic Construction" section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


So far as the Fourth Gospel is concerned, the perpetually recurring paratactic καί ["and"] is certainly an overstraining of Greek literary usage. Milligan thought it 'impossible to deny that the use of καί in the LXX for the Hebrew וְ influenced the Johannine usage'. Lagrange, who was very cautious in questions of Aramaic influence in the Gospels, was of the opinion that, in view of the slight trace of LXX influence in John, the source of the Johannine paratactic καί was Aramaic.

To be continued...

John Reece
10-19-2014, 01:47 PM
Continuation of "The Paratactic Construction" section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


A detailed study of the relative frequency of καί and δέ co-ordinating independent clauses has been undertaken by R. A. Martin for the Book of Acts: 'Syntactical Evidence of Aramaic Sources in Acts i-xv' in New Testament Studies, xi, pp. 38-59. On the basis of this and similar evidence for Luke-Acts, Mr. Martin has concluded (p. 59):


'It is apparent from the above study that the style of Luke-Acts is not consistent with respect to the use of καί and δέ; the use of prepositions; and the separation of the article from its substantive. Further, in some of the subsections of Acts i-xv and Luke i and ii the usage, on the one hand, is strikingly parallel to that of the translation Greek of the Old Testament, and, on the other, differs significantly from the other subsections of Act i-xv, Luke i and ii, the subsections of Acts xvi-xxviii and of original Greek writings such as Plutarch, Polybius, Epictetus, Josephus and the papyri.

The most natural explanation for this phenomenon is that Semitic sources can be detected as lying behind those subsections of Luke i and ii and Acts i-xv which have the greatest preponderance of translation Greek frequencies for these three syntactical phenomena.'

To be continued...

John Reece
10-20-2014, 04:29 PM
Conclusion of "The Paratactic Construction" section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):

Black's study of the paratactic construction in the Gospels is more intensive, extensive, and exhaustive than I care to transcribe. I therefore will omit much if not most of it; likewise henceforth with regard to other sections.


....

Three important points emerge generally from this study of parataxis [the linking of clauses or phrases together without utilizing conjunctions that mark subordinate relationships] in the Gospels and Acts:

1. Considerable importance must be attached to the observation that, in the parables, where we have the best examples in the Words of Jesus of continuous narrative, parataxis, except in Mark, is the exception, the idiomatic Greek hypotactic construction almost the rule. We have not always literal translations of Aramaic therefore in the Words of Jesus as they have been translated from the Evangelists, but in this respect at any rate, literary compositions.

2. The high proportion, nevertheless, of instances of parataxis in the Gospels and Acts cannot be set down as unliterary Greek only; Aramaic influence must have been a contributory factor.

3. The less literary paratactic construction, regular in Aramaic, preponderates in the Bezan text. It cannot be explained away as 'Latinism', but must be recognized as a feature of the more primitive text. The unliterary paratactic construction is, however, by no means confined to D; in not a few instance it occurs in WH were D has hypotaxis [the subordinate relationship of clauses (ὑποτάσσω, "place under") ― the opposite of parataxis]. No single manuscript has a complete monopoly on the construction.

To be continued...

John Reece
10-21-2014, 02:43 PM
Beginning of Chapter V, "The Aramaic Subordinate Clause" section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):



CHAPTER V

THE ARAMAIC SUBORDINATE CLAUSE

THE ד CLAUSE

The translation and mistranslation of the ambiguous Aramaic particle dᵉ is one of the best known of Gospel Aramaisms. Burney has given an account of the meaning of the participle: it is a relative, the sign of the genitive, and a conjunction; it may be equivalent to ὅτι, 'because', or ὅτι recitativum, or ἵνα; it may also have the force of ὅτε or ὥστε, the latter use not noted by Burney. In view of so wide an ambiguity, the particle was almost bound to give rise to misunderstanding or to different interpretations in any rendering into Greek.

To be continued...

John Reece
10-22-2014, 01:12 PM
Continuation of Chapter V, "The Aramaic Subordinate Clause" section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):


An examination of the instances which have been adduced for the mistranslation of this ambiguous Aramaic particle (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2218-An-Aramaic-Approach-to-the-Gospels-and-Acts&p=110073&viewfull=1#post110073) in the Gospels leads to the observation of three classes: (1) there are a few instances where, along with one translation of the dᵉ, there is an alternative translation or interpretation in the form of a Synoptic variant; (2) in a number of other examples an alternative rendering or interpretation of the underlying Aramaic exists in the form of a textual variant, either in Greek manuscripts or in one or more ancient versions; (3) the third class consists of the remainder of examples which have neither Synoptic nor textual attestation for the alternative rendering which consideration of the Aramaic dᵉ suggests. Examples are discussed under the usual headings, the first two classes, to which naturally more weight is to be attached, being given first..

To be continued...

John Reece
10-23-2014, 01:05 PM
Continuation of THE ד CLAUSE section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):



I. Relative dᵉ rendered by ὅτι

(i) With Synoptic Variants

Burney pointed out that an ambiguous Aramaic dᵉ could account for the Synoptic variants ὅτι βλέπουσιν and οἱ βλέποντες in Matthew xiii. 16 and Luke x. 23 respectively. The Lucan version gives the more natural and probably original meaning of the saying in Aramaic. But Matthew need not be regarded as 'mistranslation'. It may represent a deliberate interpretation of the Aramaic designed to emphasize that it was because the disciples' eyes were open to see, as contrasted with the blindness of the crowds, that they merited the Lord's blessing.

To be continued...

John Reece
10-24-2014, 03:39 PM
Continuation of THE ד CLAUSE section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):



I. Relative dᵉ rendered by ὅτι

(i) With Synoptic Variants

In Mark ix. 38 (dialogue) a clause ὃς οὐκ ἀκολουγεῖ ἡμῖν (μεθʾ ἡμῶν), omitted by Bא, is inserted by D (after δαιμόνια) along with A and a few other Uncials of the Byzantine text; the relative has also the support of the Old Latin. The Bא text has the clause in the form ὅτι οὐκ ἠκολούθει ἡμῖν, which differs only slightly from the parallel in Luke ix. 49, ὅτι οὐκ ἀκολουθεῖ μεθ᾿ ἡμῶν. The Synoptic variants, the Marcan relative and the Lucan conjunction, go back to the same Aramaic, dᵉla ʾathe bathrenan. Not only is the dᵉ ambiguous and capable of being rendered by either relative or conjunction, but the tense of the Aramaic verb may be represented by either a present or an imperfect. The observation supports the authenticity of the relative clause in Mark, and indeed it is difficult to account for that clause unless it is Marcan. It may be the true Marcan clause, representing the Greek rendering of the Aramaic of Mark's source; the clause in the Bא text of Mark may be a harmonization with Luke, this form of the clause being Luke's received translation of the ambiguous Aramaic. There is, however, no reason why both clauses should not be Marcan, and Luke's clause derive from no other source than a Greek Mark.

To be continued...

John Reece
10-25-2014, 02:35 PM
Continuation of THE ד CLAUSE section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):



I. Relative dᵉ rendered by ὅτι

(ii) With Textual Variants

Moulton accepted Wellhausen's explanation of Mark iv. 41 (dialogue), τίς ἄρα οὗτός ἐστιν ὅτι καὶ ὁ ἄνεμος καὶ ἡ θάλασσα ὑπακούει αὐτῷ; (cf. Mt. viii. 27; Lk. viii. 25). Wellhausen had suggested that ὅτι had been employed as a translation of dᵉ to avoid an un-Greek ῷ . . . αὐτῷ. Both scholars failed to note the important variant reading of the Old Latin (ff2, i. q), 'cui et ventus et mare obaudiunt'. The Old Latin assumes that the Latin translator is himself here correcting and altering.

To be continued...

John Reece
10-26-2014, 02:02 PM
Continuation of THE ד CLAUSE section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):



I. Relative dᵉ rendered by ὅτι

(ii) With Textual Variants

While an underlying dᵉ clause is clearly the explanation of Mark's Greek and the Old Latin variant, the former is again not necessarily to be regarded as a mistranslation and the latter the correct rendering. It is true that the Old Latin gives the more natural sense of the Aramaic. But the Marcan Greek is a possible, if artificial and forced, interpretation of the clause; the translator may have been influenced by the desire to give a Greek equivalent of every word found in his Aramaic.

To be continued...

John Reece
10-27-2014, 01:59 PM
Continuation of THE ד CLAUSE section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):



I. Relative dᵉ rendered by ὅτι

(ii) With Textual Variants

Matthew vi. 5, καὶ ὅταν προσεύχησθε, οὐκ ἔσεσθε ὡς οἱ ὑποκριταί, ὅτι φιλοῦσιν, is given in the Vulgate as 'non eritis sicut hypocritae qui amant . . . ' The Arabic Tatian also reads a relative, but no importance can be attached to it, for it may be no more than the translator's interpretation of the ambiguous Syriac dᵉ in the Peshiṭta. But it is worthy of note that a Semitic translator, confronted with dᵉ in this connection, does not hesitate to render it as a relative. Both readings are defensible.

To be continued...

John Reece
10-28-2014, 12:39 PM
Continuation of THE ד CLAUSE section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):



I. Relative dᵉ rendered by ὅτι

(ii) With Textual Variants

The text of John v. 39 in WH reads ἐραυνᾶτε τὰς γραφάς, ὅτι ὑμεῖς δοκεῖτε ἐν αὐταῖς ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἔχειν· καὶ ἐκεῖναί εἰσιν αἱ μαρτυροῦσαι περὶ ἐμοῦ. One Old Latin manuscript, b, has a double rendering of the verse: its main clause agrees with the Greek (ἐραυνᾶτε, scrutate, is an imperative), but there are two versions of the subordinate clause: (1) quoniam putatis vis in ipsis vital aeteram habere, a literal equivalent of the Greek; (2) the second form alone appears in several other Old Latin texts (a, e, ff2, q) and in both forms in the Armenian versions.

To be continued...

John Reece
10-29-2014, 01:09 PM
(After skipping past 5 paragraph of citations in papyrus fragments, examples from the Fourth Gospel, and Acts:) Continuation of THE ד CLAUSE section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):



I. Relative dᵉ rendered by ὅτι

(ii) With Textual Variants

Wilcox has argued for an Aramaic ד clause of purpose underlying Act xiii. 28b (D) ἵνα εἰς ἀναίρεσιν, viz. דלקטלא, 'in order to put to death', the infinitive being translated as a noun. The conjecture is a plausible and defensible one: the only objection which may be made is that this Aramaic infinitive of purpose seems to be very rare: it has not so far been attested in the Targumic Aramaic. The more regular and natural Aramaic original here would be בדיל לקטליה 'in order to put him to death', and this was perhaps the text translated by D.

To be continued...

John Reece
10-30-2014, 02:00 PM
Continuation of THE ד CLAUSE section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):



I. Relative dᵉ rendered by ὅτι

(iii) Without Synoptic or Textual Attestation

The most convincing of the remaining examples is John i. 16, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ πληρώματος αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς πάντες ἐλάβομεν, which Burney would render: 'Full of grace and truth was He of Whose fullness we have all received'; in an original Aramaic the dᵉ in this clause would be most naturally understood as a relative.

To be continued...

John Reece
10-31-2014, 03:06 PM
Continuation of THE ד CLAUSE section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):



1. Relative dᵉ rendered by ὅτι

(iii) Without Synoptic or Textual Attestation

Burney cited John i. 4 as an example of the opposite kind of mistranslation, the Aramaic conjunctive dᵉ rendered by a relative. Burney's Aramaic for ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν is dahᵃwa beh ḥayyin, 'Because in Him was life'. There is, however, no equivalent here of the Greek ἦν. To represent it in Aramaic by hᵃwa, as we are bound to do, unless some good reason can be given for its presence in the Greek and absence in the Aramaic, gives an Aramaic which can only be rendered, 'That which was in Him was life'. Schaeder accounted for the ἦν as an addition made by the Greek translator of the Aramaic once the initial mistake had been made of taking the dᵉ conjunction as a relative. The explanation fails to convince, though it is less drastic than the proposal of Bultmann to remove ὃ γέγονεν as a gloss. The Greek writer or translator of the Prologue clearly means 'That which was in Him was life'. But the original Aramaic may nevertheless have been 'Because in Him was (hᵃwa) life': γέγονεν and ἦν look very like alternative renderings of the Aramaic verb, combined, by the Greek writer, in an entirely new and individual interpretation.

To be continued...

John Reece
11-01-2014, 12:47 PM
Continuation of THE ד CLAUSE section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):



1. Relative dᵉ rendered by ὅτι

(iii) Without Synoptic or Textual Attestation

A much more convincing example of this kind of mistranslation was observed by Wellhausen in Luke ix. 31, ἔλεγον τὴν ἔξοδον αὐτοῦ ἣν ἤμελλεν πληροῦν ἐν Ἰερουσαλήμ. Wellhausen maintained that the correct rendering of the Aramaic should have been ὅτι. Even with ὅτι, however, the construction of the sentence is an unusually clumsy one in Greek and certainly not normal. Wellhausen's observation might have commended itself more widely had he underlined more the emphatic hyperbaton, the accusative after the main verb in the subordinate clause, removed to its present position solely for sake of emphasis: 'They were saying that he was about to accomplish his departure (demise) in Jerusalem.'

To be continued...

John Reece
11-02-2014, 01:24 PM
Continuation of THE ד CLAUSE section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):



2. Relative dᵉ rendered by ἵνα

The frequent use (and misuse) of ἵνα in the Gospels, especially in the Gospel of St. John, has been attributed by Burney to the influence of Aramaic. The extension of the use of ἵνα in the Koine, even to the extent of usurping ὥστε, goes a long way to explaining Johannine usage, but the excessive use of ἵνα in John is unparalleled; for statistics, see Burney.

To be continued... (after skipping over 5 paragraphs of analyses of examples)

John Reece
11-03-2014, 12:59 PM
Continuation of THE ד CLAUSE section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):



3. Temporal dᵉ rendered by ἵνα or ὅτι

Strictly speaking, dᵉ is not a temporal conjunction, but, as a relative or relating particle after such antecedents as 'time', 'day', 'hour', or adverbs of time, it becomes the equivalent of 'when'. The conjunction dᵉ standing alone without any such antecedent and meaning 'when' is a much rarer use. An example is to be found in Vayyikra Rabba, 10:1 'Antoninus went put to the house of our Rabbi. He found him when he was sitting (dᵉyathebh) with his disciples before him.

To be continued... (after skipping over 4 paragraphs of critical analyses of examples in John cited by Burney)

John Reece
11-04-2014, 12:58 PM
Continuation of THE ד CLAUSE section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):



4. The Indeclinable and Ambiguous dᵉ

There is one Synoptic variant where the parallels are capable of explanation in the light of the indeclinable and ambiguous Aramaic particle. It occurs in the passages Mark xiv. 68 (Matthew xxvi. 70; Luke xxii. 57, 60) and Mark xiv. 71 (= Matthew xxvi. 74; Luke xxii. 60). Torrey suggested that Mark's οὔτε οἶδα οὔτε ἐπίσταμαι σὺ τί λέγεις was a mistranslation of an Aramaic which should have been rendered, 'I neither know nor am I acquainted with him of whom you speak': the last clause reads, in Torrey's Aramaic, diʾamar ʾant, where the di is ambiguous. Mark has rendered it by a neuter. In the Lucan parallel, Peter replies οὐκ οἶδα αὐτόν.

Such a sense suits context and circumstances much more appropriately than the Marcan reading; it is a curious statement for Peter to make, that he did not know nor understand what the serving-maid said. Where there not indications to the contrary elsewhere, one might suspect an attempt to white-wash Peter. Mark is certainly interpreting his tradition, and here wrongly.

To be continued... (after skipping over 2 paragraphs of critical analyses of examples in John cited by Burney)

John Reece
11-05-2014, 12:33 PM
Continuation of THE ד CLAUSE section of the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):



5. Consecutive dᵉ rendered by ἵνα

In view of the establishment of the 'ecbatic' ἵνα in the Koine, it may appear entirely unnecessary to appeal to Aramaic. But the latter may well have been a contributory factor in the extension of the use of ἵνα even to the extent of taking the place of ὥστε.

Cases in question in the Gospels all come from dialogue: Mark vi. 2 (D), xi. 28; Luke i. 43; John ix. 2. Mark vi. 2 reads in D: 'And what is the wisdom given to this man, that (ἵνα) even such miracles are done (γίνωνται) by his hand.' It is always possible, of course, to defend the final sense of the ἵνα, but in all of the above cases a final use goes against the natural meaning required by the context.

To be continued...

John Reece
11-06-2014, 04:08 PM
Continuation of excerpts from the out-of-print third edition of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by Matthew Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Black):



The Circumstantial Clause

One of the commonest of Semitic subordinate clauses, characteristic of both Hebrew and Aramaic, is the so-called Circumstantial Clause, by which circumstances are described which are attendant on and necessary to the understanding of the main verb, but subordinate to it. It is introduced in both Hebrew and Aramaic by Waw followed by a noun or pronoun and verb, in that order. Its translation may vary with the requirements of the context, but it is usually best rendered by 'now', 'while', 'when'. An example in Aramaic is Midrash Echa, i. 4, 'Now he was aware (wᵉhuʾ hᵃwa yadhaʿ) of the name of that man, (so) he came and sat by the gate'; id. i. 31,' . . . Ben Batiah walked in front of him, with his garments rent' (umanoi bᵃziʿin).

ETA: I am finding the transcription of this book to be ― on balance, when weighed against the tedium required of me ― insufficiently rewarding; so, I think that I will
discontinue the transcription.

Anyone who wishes to finish reading the entire book can find a copy in a library or a used book store.