18.07.2013 Views

The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context

The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context

The Aramaic Bible: Targums in their Historical Context

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

150 <strong>The</strong> <strong>Aramaic</strong> <strong>Bible</strong>: Tar gums <strong>in</strong> <strong>their</strong> <strong>Historical</strong> <strong>Context</strong><br />

<strong>The</strong>re are some important l<strong>in</strong>guistic phenomena that support this<br />

conclusion.<br />

In the sketch that follows, I make three methodological assumptions<br />

that may well be challenged, but that I th<strong>in</strong>k are defensible: (1) to<br />

consider only the consonantal form of the text of Onqelos and<br />

Jonathan for a basis of l<strong>in</strong>guistic study; (2) to consider the present<br />

state of Onqelos and Jonathan as represent<strong>in</strong>g, by and large, the orig<strong>in</strong>al<br />

text; that is, I make no presupposition <strong>in</strong> favor of a Proto-Onqelos;<br />

and (3) to take the orig<strong>in</strong> of Onqelos and Jonathan as preced<strong>in</strong>g 200<br />

CE as a given, based on the existence of variant read<strong>in</strong>g traditions<br />

from Nehardea, which ceased to exist <strong>in</strong> 256 CE. That places these<br />

<strong>Targums</strong> <strong>in</strong> the context of Middle <strong>Aramaic</strong>, not <strong>in</strong> Late <strong>Aramaic</strong>.<br />

First of all, let us exam<strong>in</strong>e the system of <strong>in</strong>dependent personal pronouns,<br />

as <strong>in</strong> the follow<strong>in</strong>g chart:<br />

Qumran Palmyrene Syriac Onq/Jon<br />

'nth 'nt 'a(n)t 'at<br />

'nwn him hnwn/'nwn '<strong>in</strong>nun<br />

'nhn' ?? (ana)hnan 'anahna<br />

Onqelos and Jonathan's 2nd masc. s<strong>in</strong>g, pronoun is closer to that of<br />

Palmyrene and Syriac (and Babylonian) than the more archaic form<br />

of Qumran <strong>Aramaic</strong>, while the 3rd masc. pi. form is more like the<br />

Qumran <strong>Aramaic</strong> form than the /z-<strong>in</strong>itial forms of the other two<br />

dialects, which use the aleph-<strong>in</strong>itial form as a direct object only. <strong>The</strong><br />

1st common plural pronoun of Qumran <strong>Aramaic</strong> and Onqelos/<br />

Jonathan is a common survival from an older period.<br />

We can also exam<strong>in</strong>e the demonstrative pronouns. All the post-<br />

Official <strong>Aramaic</strong> dialects go <strong>their</strong> own way <strong>in</strong> this system:<br />

Qumran Palmyrene Syriac Onq/Jon<br />

dn dnh hn' dyn/hdyn<br />

dh dh hd' d'/hd'<br />

'In 'In hlyn 'lyn/h'lyn<br />

Onqelos and Jonathan's system here <strong>in</strong> one respect follows the<br />

Western Qumran dialect, <strong>in</strong> another that of Syriac. Onqelos and<br />

Jonathan use the forms without prefixed ha- <strong>in</strong> a nom<strong>in</strong>ative function;<br />

this series matches the Qumran series. But it uses the /za-bear<strong>in</strong>g<br />

forms <strong>in</strong> the attributive function (except <strong>in</strong> the frozen form yoma den,<br />

'today'). In the Middle <strong>Aramaic</strong> period only Syriac and Hatran use the

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!