An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts

[John Reece]

Continued from post #114 above ↑

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:

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]

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. The initial clause = also the final clause ― which is also the initial clause of Psalm 37:34, 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׃

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.

[bibletranslator]

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]

Continued from the last post above ↑

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:

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...

[John Reece]

Continued from the last post above ↑

Continuation of An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1967), by 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]

Continued from the last post above ↑

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:

While this extreme position 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]

Continued from the last post above ↑

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:

This extreme position 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]

Continued from the last post above ↑

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:

This view―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]

Continued from the last post above ↑

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:

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]

Continued from the last post above ↑

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:

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]

Continued from the last post above ↑

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:

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]

Continued from the last post above ↑

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:

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]

Continued from the last post above ↑

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:

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]

Continued from the last post above ↑

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:

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]

Continued from the last post above ↑

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:

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...