[Synoptic-L] RE: 1st century targum? (was: Arguments for indirect dependence)
- shalom David,
>Randall Buth said:David Hindley ketav:
>> ... 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)<<
>. . .NB:
>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.
4Q156 may not be a targum at all but a piece from a day of atonement
Qumran had MANY Aramaic writings, previous unknown works plus pieces like
Tobit, "testament" material, Enoch.
Some Greek bible fragments are known of many books.
But no Aramaic, except for the very unique book of Job, in two copies in
(when it rains it pours.)
Job was probably translated in the Damascus/Edessa region and widely known
Jews in the land of Israel simply weren't using targums during the second
They accessed the Hebrew bible directly.
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...