Search

This thesis argues in favour of a corpus-based lexical analysis of the Peshitta by identifying language contact (Aramaic-Greek-Syriac) and corpus contact (LXX-P, T-P) on the one hand, and inner-Syriac developments on the other. Using case studies from Peshitta Genesis, the thesis responds to proposals of Septuagint or Targumic influence upon the Peshitta, and demonstrates that language contact and corpus contact represent two different processes that do not always follow the same route, and should therefore be distinguished. Ultimately, it asks about the contribution of Syriac lexemes for an understanding of the language of the Peshitta. The first chapter, Echoes of Greek Vocabulary and Septuagint in the Peshitta, examines the use of Greek loanwords in P-Gen and evaluates them in the larger context of the Greek and Syriac languages and the contact between them. The second part examines three types of relationship: places where P seems to follow all or part of a verse from LXX (Gen 4:8); where P and LXX both follow the presumed Hebrew text (Gen 31:19); and where P and LXX diverge significantly (Gen 38:14). The chapter contributes to the argument against a direct textual influence of LXX on P Genesis. The second chapter, Targums and Targumic Features in the Peshitta, examines the degree of relatedness between the vocabulary of P and T versions of the book of Genesis. It does not primarily aim to prove or disprove the textual dependence between P and T but instead examines examples where Syriac and Aramaic, as used in P and T, share common features and instances where they differ. In addition to lexicographical contributions, the chapter shows that Targumic features that sometimes appear in P do not necessarily reflect usage in T. The third chapter, Inner-Syriac Developments and the Peshitta, assesses the book of Genesis within the larger P corpus from the perspective of inner-Syriac developments. It illustrates issues of Syriac lexicography and demonstrates nuances of the meaning of Syriac lexemes used in P. Finally, the chapter explains that a corpus-based approach helps to situate better the use of lexemes in P within the history of Syriac language and lexicography., Vice-Chancellor's Award (University of Cambridge)

In this paper the author presents and critically assesses scholarly theories tackling the issue of the Septuagint's origin. The most prominent theories shape the course of research into the Septuagint's origin. The basic questions which these theories aspire to answer are: the wayof emergence of the translation, the reason for, and the origin of the translation, and the place of its origin. There are two basic theories dealing with the way of emergence of the translation: these are the Urtext theory and the Targum theory. The first one still represents the basis of textual criticism methodology. Other theories predominantly tackle the question of what led to the translation in the first place. Two most dominant theories in this respect are the theory of liturgical use and the theory of codification. The former is more widely spread and has its different variations. The third question focuses on the location of the translation. Historical sources and the majority of scholars claim that the translation originated in Alexandria. One of the opposing theories claims the Judaean origin of the Septuagint. There is a significant number of opinions which fit somewhere in between the two. At the very end of the paper two research principles (criteria) have been more thoroughly investigated and presented. The first - internal criticism is based on the analysis of the translation itself, while the second deals with the research of external sources which can shed additional light on the topic.

Genesis 49 shows the scene that takes place at the deathbed of the patriarch Jacob. In the face of his upcoming death, Jacob calls on all of his sons that they may listen to and accept his words of valediction. The patriarch addresses each of them individually. This piece of text serves an example of the biblical poetry in which metaphors play an important role. In the Hebrew text there are words and phrases that raise many doubts and questions. Not only contemporary translators and biblical scholars contend with these difficulties, but ancient and medieval commentators did as well. The Aramaic Targums testify to the early Jewish exegesis and interpretation of Gen 49. This article presents the paraphrase and discusses a few selected verses of the Aramaic version of Torah (Tg. Onq., Tg. Neof., Frg. Tg(s)., Tg. Ps.-J.). Based on the above examples, the development of principal Jewish views on eschatology (49:1-2) and of Messianic expectations in context of Jacob’s blessing of the tribe of Judah (49:8-12) is portrayed. The last part of this article comprises the rendering and the meaning of the Targumic animal metaphors based on the examples of Issachar (49:14-15) and of Benjamin (49:27) that significantly differ from the Hebrew text.

This essay enquires into the reception of the story of Cain and Abel (Gen 4) in late ancient Judaism (Genesis Rabbah, Targum Onkelos, Targum Neofiti, and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan) with regard to the way Cain is portrayed differently from how he is depicted in the Hebrew text. The perspective from which his portrayal in the Jewish literature of late antiquity will be viewed is that of vulnerability or fragility, asking the question whether the reception of Cain in Jewish antiquity allow for such vulnerability in the interpretation of the story, or does he remain a villainous character who refused to be redeemed. The question of the redemption of Cain is formulated within a her-meneutic of vulnerability as a framework to deal with the perpetration of apartheid. The following aspects of the story are discussed: the birth of Cain, his occupation, the sacrifice, Cain's reaction to the sacrifice, the deity's questioning of Cain, the conversation in the field, the murder, the blood of Abel, Cain's curse, his response, and his punishment. The study concludes that although the reception portrays Cain as a villain par excellence, there are aspects in the representations that provide glimpses of redemption for Cain, implying a particular vulnerability.

U članku je proučena mesijanska recepcija Post 3,15 i 49,10 u targumima Onkelos, Pseudo-Jonatan i Neofiti I. Najprije su predstavljeni dotični targumi unutar problematike njihova datiranja. Targum Onkelos, premda nastoji ostati vjeran hebrejskom tekstu, ipak u Post 49,10 tumači tekst u mesijanskom smislu. Targumi Pseudo-Jonatan i Neofiti I mesijansko tumačenje daju i u Post 3,15. Kod njih se pojavljuje pojam »kralja pomazanika«, koji ima svoje posebno značenje u kontekstu cjeline svakog od tih dvaju targuma, gdje je vidljivo da se očekuje kralj pomazanik koji će u posljednjim danima izvojevati pobjedu nad zlom, a njegovo će kraljevstvo biti uzvišeno. Taj kralj pomazanik dobiva i naslov spasitelja koji će svoj narod vratiti iz progonstva. Osobito je Post 49,10 stavljen u kontekst otkrivanja »tajne« koja je skrivena za posljednja vremena. Na temelju tih tekstova vidljivo je da je mesijansko iščekivanje u židovstvu između I. i V. stoljeća bilo vrlo živo., This article examines the messianic reception of Gen 3:15 and 49:10 in targums of Oneklos, Pseudo-Jonathan, and Neophytes I. Firstly, it presents the aforementioned targums and the problem of their dating. Although the targum Oneklos tries to remain faithful to the Hebrew text, it interprets Gen 49:10 in the messianic sense. On the other hand, targums Pseudo-Jonathan and Neophytes I interpret even Gen 3:15 in the messianic sense. They introduce the term »anointed king« that has a special meaning within the whole context of each of these targums, where it is evident that the anointed king is expected, who will be victorious over evil in the last days and his kingdom will be exalted. This anointed king is also called the saviour who will deliver his people from exile. It is especially evident when it comes to Gen 49:10 that this verse has been read in the context of revealing the »secret« that has been hidden until the last times. On the basis of these texts it is evident that the messianic expectation has been very much alive in Judaism between the 1st and the 5th century.