Announcement

Collapse

Biblical Languages 301 Guidelines

This is where we come to delve into the biblical text. Theology is not our foremost thought, but we realize it is something that will be dealt with in nearly every conversation. Feel free to use the original languages to make your point (meaning Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic). This is an exegetical discussion area, so please limit topics to purely biblical ones.

This is not the section for debates between theists and atheists. While a theistic viewpoint is not required for discussion in this area, discussion does presuppose a respect for the integrity of the Biblical text (or the willingness to accept such a presupposition for discussion purposes) and a respect for the integrity of the faith of others and a lack of an agenda to undermine the faith of others.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Continued from the last post above ↑

    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:
    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...

    Comment


    • #62
      Continued from the last post above ↑

      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:
      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...

      Comment


      • #63
        Continued from the last post above ↑

        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:
        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...

        Comment


        • #64
          Continued from the last post above ↑

          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:
          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...

          Comment


          • #65
            Continued from the last post above ↑

            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:
            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...

            Comment


            • #66
              Continued from the last post above ↑

              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:
              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...

              Comment


              • #67
                Continued from the last post above ↑

                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:
                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...

                Comment


                • #68
                  Continued from the last post above ↑

                  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:
                  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...

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Continued from last post above ↑

                    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:
                    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...

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Continued from last post above ↑

                      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:
                      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...

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Continued from last post above ↑

                        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:
                        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...

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Continued from last post above ↑

                          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:
                          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...

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Continued from last post above ↑

                            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:
                            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...

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Continued from last post above ↑

                              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:
                              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...

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Continued from last post above ↑

                                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:
                                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...
                                Last edited by John Reece; 08-12-2014, 11:02 AM.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X