Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [Synoptic-L] Arguments for indirect dependence

Expand Messages
  • David C. Hindley
    ... exist in the first century. See Aramaic Targums in Qumran , in Dict. NT Backgrounds (IVP 2000)
    Message 1 of 10 , Mar 4, 2001
      Randall Buth said:

      >> ... it now appears that a written Aramaic OT tradition did not
      exist in the first century. See "Aramaic Targums in Qumran", in Dict.
      NT Backgrounds (IVP 2000)<<

      Hello Randall,

      For some while I (we) have heard it said that many Jews of Palestine
      probably used Aramaic translations of their scriptures due to the
      common use of that language over native Hebrew (evidenced by
      archeological remains). I suppose this was based upon an analogy to
      the use of the LXX translation among Jews of the Greek Diaspora.

      Personally, I was always curious as to why there was so little early
      evidence for such targums (aside from the possibility that Neh 8:8
      refers to the use of a targum, the only direct evidence I know of are
      4Q156 [Leviticus, 2nd Cent BCE]; 4Q157 [Job, 1st Cent CE]; and 11Q10
      [Job, 1st Cent BCE]) if this were so. Sure it may be true that those
      who wrote the books found at Qumran may not have been "mainstream,"
      yet the existence of a very few examples does not tell me that they
      completely ruled out the idea of targums.

      Unfortunately, I do not have immediate access to _NT Backgrounds_.
      What do you think this relatively meager evidence means for the thesis
      that Hebrew was more than just an ecclesiastical language (like Latin
      was in the Middle Ages) in the 1st century CE?


      Dave Hindley
      Cleveland, Ohio, USA

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.