RE: [Synoptic-L] Arguments for indirect dependence
- Randall Buth said:
>> ... it now appears that a written Aramaic OT tradition did notexist in the first century. See "Aramaic Targums in Qumran", in Dict.
NT Backgrounds (IVP 2000)<<
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?
Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...