Does logos have a aramiac translation of the old testament in a interlinear?
No - not as an interlinear
I think, 2 no's ... no aramaic (closest conceivably a DSS fragment), and ergo no interlinear.
The closest is the syriac, and a side-by-side (Antioch Bible).
I think, 2 no's ... no aramaic (closest conceivably a DSS fragment), and ergo no interlinear. The closest is the syriac, and a side-by-side (Antioch Bible).
Just to make you aware - an Aramaic translation of the bible has existed since the Second Temple period. It is known as the Targumim. The major Targum editions are Targum Onkelos to the Five Books of Moses, and Targum Jonathan to the Nevi'im (i.e. the Prophets). There are other Targumim which cover other books of the bible, but those are the principle editions.
And Logos do all of the Targumim:
https://www.logos.com/product/31386/the-aramaic-bible-series
As for Aramaic and the Dead Sea Scrolls, there were some significant finds at Qumran amounting to about 13% in total of all the scrolls discovered, but the vast majority of the Qumran documents are in Classic Hebrew or a form of Hebrew unique to Qumran alone.
Of the Aramaic documents found at Qumran, the notable ones are the Aramaic Enoch scroll and Aramaic Tobit scroll. The discovery of those 2 books in Aramaic confirmed theories long held about them as being originally written in either Aramaic or Hebrew before being translated into other languages (i.e. Ethiopic, or Geer to give it its formal name, or Syriac or Greek), theories which go back as far as the 19th century. R. H. Charles famously has always maintained that most of the books in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha were originally written in either Aramaic or Hebrew because no other theory adequately explains the numerous Hebraisms found within the other language translations. The finds at Qumran thus finally confirmed that he was right all along.
I’d not view the targums as an aramaic OT (the OP). Some are close, primarily Moses. And I use all the sources you mention.
Hi David. Thanks for sharing this interesting bit of information. A little off topic, but I was wondering what you thought of the theory that Matthew was not only the first Gospel but was written first Hebrew and then later translated into Greek (was it Augustine who said it?). Do you think that the discoveries at Qumran lend more credence to this theory about Matthean primacy?
As background, I was taught Q-documentary hypothesis in Seminary, but it has never really sat comfortably with me for a host of reasons...
Of the Aramaic documents found at Qumran, the notable ones are the Aramaic Enoch scroll and Aramaic Tobit scroll. The discovery of those 2 books in Aramaic confirmed theories long held about them as being originally written in either Aramaic or Hebrew before being translated into other languages (i.e. Ethiopic, or Geer to give it its formal name, or Syriac or Greek), theories which go back as far as the 19th century. R. H. Charles famously has always maintained that most of the books in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha were originally written in either Aramaic or Hebrew because no other theory adequately explains the numerous Hebraisms found within the other language translations. The finds at Qumran thus finally confirmed that he was right all along. Hi David. Thanks for sharing this interesting bit of information. A little off topic, but I was wondering what you thought of the theory that Matthew was not only the first Gospel but was written first Hebrew and then later translated into Greek (was it Augustine who said it?). Do you think that the discoveries at Qumran lend more credence to this theory about Matthean primacy? As background, I was taught Q-documentary hypothesis in Seminary, but it has never really sat comfortably with me for a host of reasons...
As I posted elsewhere on this site, I am both a supporter of the Griesbach hypothesis (that Matthew wrote first, then Luck, and Mark did a synthesis of both) and Professor George Howard's theory that the original Matthew was written in Hebrew, as per Papias' remark as preserved in Eusebius.
If you are interested in Howard's theory, his book Hebrew Gospel of Matthew can be downloaded for free in PDF format from the following link:
http://adamoh.org/TreeOfLife.lan.io/SDAcomms/Hebrew%20Gospel%20of%20MATTHEW%20by%20George%20Howard%20-%20Part%20One.pdf
I hope I'm not breaking any rules doing that.
As for your question regarding the usefulness of Qumran in lending support to Howard's theory, I would have to say that it does:
One of the first things that struck New Testament scholars when the scrolls were first published was the striking similarity between the language used by the sectarians in the Wadi Qumran and Matthew's language, particularly in Jesus' sermon on the mount and in his teaching about the Kingdom. Indeed, for some 20 years or so a theory circulated within scrolls study that was taken very seriously at the time was that the author of Matthew had some kind of direct contact with the Essenes and hence this was the reason why there was such a striking similarity between them.
Fast forward 40 years, and we now know that it is not only unlikely that Matthew had contact with the Essenes (and anyway the original hypothesis propounded by the original scrolls team that made a simple equation between the sectarians at Qumran and the Essenes has now been almost universally abandoned. We now believe that the relationship between the sectarians and the Essenes was far more complex) but also that it is not necessary to posit that he had contact with them. We can explain the similarity of terminology and language much more simply and plausibly by hypothesising that both Qumran and the circle of Christians that produce Matthews Gospel shared a common Jewish tradition history. This was undoubtedly some distinctive form of Apocalyptic Judaism which had a very pronounced Angelology and Demonology, and which had a schema which divided the spiritual world into two opposing factions. In Matthews Gospel, they are termed the "wicked" and the "just", whereas John's Gospel keeps faith with Qumran by calling them "Sons of Light" and "Sons of Darkness".
The language used to describe this spiritual world, as well as the language used to describe the life of the truly observant Jew, was very formulaic. There are over 200 phrases that the scrolls repeat again and again in almost every one of the truly sectarian documents in such a rigid shape and form with almost no deviation, that we can only conclude that they are technical terms. We find many of these phrases in Matthew also.
For example, in the scrolls we see a new stage in how the word "truth" is defined and understood, which amounts to a shift in meaning. Whereas in the Hebrew scriptures, the word "truth" (emet) denotes that which is genuine; that which is really "real"; that which is reliable and steadfast, in the scrolls it denotes the revelation of the secrets and mysteries of God. In 1QS, the word "righteousness" is paralleled with the word truth in such a way, that the original meaning of the root צְדָקָ to mean "conformity to a norm or standard" is re-emphasised: true righteousness is conformity to the revelations God has made known to the men of the community. And we see an identical paring of truth and righteousness in Matthew. He frequently parallels righteousness and truth (understood as the revelations which make up the Gospel) in such a way that it is clear that true righteousness amounts to the fullness of revelations made known by Messiah Jesus. Whereas Luke prefers to use the word "key" in connection with these revelations, Matthew prefers the word "treasure". To find Jesus' teaching about the Kingdom is to find true treasure. Similarly, Luke makes it clear that Jesus' teachings are the true "key" which unlocks the mysteries of God's plans for the world. And for both Gospel writers, to find this treasure; to find this key to the mysteries of God, is to find true righteousness.
Now, interestingly, when we reverse translate Greek Matthew back into Hebrew, and then compare the technical phrases found in Qumran with their counterpart in Hebrew Matthew, we find that Hebrew Matthew's technical phrases become even more strikingly similar to Qumran in form. Thus lending further credence to Howard's hypothesis that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew.
As I posted elsewhere on this site, I am both a supporter of the Griesbach hypothesis (that Matthew wrote first, then Luck, and Mark did a synthesis of both) and Professor George Howard's theory that the original Matthew was written in Hebrew, as per Papias' remark as preserved in Eusebius. If you are interested in Howard's theory, his book Hebrew Gospel of Matthew can be downloaded for free in PDF format from the following link: http://adamoh.org/TreeOfLife.lan.io/SDAcomms/Hebrew%20Gospel%20of%20MATTHEW%20by%20George%20Howard%20-%20Part%20One.pdf I hope I'm not breaking any rules doing that. As for your question regarding the usefulness of Qumran in lending support to Howard's theory, I would have to say that it does...
As for your question regarding the usefulness of Qumran in lending support to Howard's theory, I would have to say that it does...
David, thank you so much for taking the time to answer so fully and thoroughly, and for the link. It is very much appreciated. There is a lot to think about here. However, I may follow up with you at some point if that is ok?
Thanks again. Blessings.
[quote]David, thank you so much for taking the time to answer so fully and thoroughly, and for the link. It is very much appreciated. There is a lot to think about here. However, I may follow up with you at some point if that is ok?
Sure thing. Here.let me leave you my email address. So, if you have any questions, it will easier to contact me:
d.staveley @ ntlworld.com
I'll leave this discussion by making a quick comment about the current status of the Two Source Hypothesis (i.e. Q and Markan priority).
A hundred years ago, Markan priority had gained such an upper hand in biblical studies, it was for all intents and purposes the received wisdom which was almost on a par with the truth of the Gospel. Today, that strangle hold has been broken. At the 1984 Jerusalem Symposium on the Synoptic Problem, Chris Tuckett remarked that what was once the go-to theory for all scholars specialising in the Gospels, is now struggling to hold its own as a scientific theory.
There are many reasons for the demise of the solid status the Two Source Hypothesis once held. But one notable one which stands out head and shoulders above all the rest has to be the ground breaking work of Tyson, Talbert, and Moessner. on the study of Luke. They broke free from Conzelmann's huge influence in always studying Luke from the perspective of the Two Source Hypothesis, and they started studying him independently. This was/is something of a revolution in Lukan theory. Now, Luke is studied in his own right without recourse to Mark. This method was then also extended to the study of Acts, and this has similarly gone through its own revolution in terms of scientific method.
This effort from Tyson, Talbert, and Moessner has been very influential on scholars who specialise in the Synoptics because for the first time Luke is being studied scientifically,.with a very robust methodology totally independent from any supposed support from any other hypothesis. In other words, it stands alone without needing to assume that the Two Source Hypothesis is true. This has brought about a revival in the Griesbach Hypothesis (or the Two Gospel Hypothesis) and today, there are as many scholars who adhere to this hypothesis as there are those who still hold to the Two Source Hypothesis. Indeed, one might be so bold and and to go out on a limb and suggest that the Griesbach Hypothesis is in fact on the ascendancy right now, and is slowly over taking the Two Source theory in terms of the number of advocates.
If I were allowed to recommend only 1 book which would introduce you to the state of the topic today, and which would also contain very insightful reviews of all of the theories about the Synoptic problem currently in play today (i.e. The Two Source Hypothesis, the Two Gospel Hypothesis, and Boismard's Multiple Source theory), then I would not hesitate in recommending The Interrelations of the Gospels, edited by David L. Dungan, and published in 1990. This is a collection of papers presented at the 1984 Jerusalem Symposium on the Gospels. It is fair to all of the competing theories, whilst at the same time fearlessly highlighting their weaknesses. Reading it is like taking a crash-course in Gospel studies.
David - You should edit your last post to obscure your email address... spambots scour the web for addresses. One way is to simply place spaces around the "@" symbol: ie. fam @ gmail.com.
If you need a forum moderator to assist you, just ask.
