Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
What is a targum OT and why was it used in the 1st century
2 views
Skip to first unread message
servant
Oct 12, 2021, 12:31:08 PM10/12/21
to
A recent thread concerned the possible use of aramaic in writing some of
the first gospels. One poster asserted there was no aramaic OT; but did
correctly mention a greek OT in use in the 1st century. Aramaic was the
native language of 1st century jews who brought it back from excile where
they had mostly forgotten the use of hebrew.
The greek translation,ie. known in its short name as lxx was done some 300
years before Christ by jews. Jews then lived all over the middle east and
parts of europe. There were more jews living outside palistine then in it.
The most widespread 2nd language used in the middle east/europe region was
greek, including among the jews who adopted the lxx.
The lxx was the OT used by Christ and the apostles when mentioning and
quoating the OT in the NT. Christ and several of the apostles came from
the northern part of palistine,ie. judea. There was a greek colony city
there and many jews also used greek as a result.
But there was another solution to the not knowing hebrew problem in worship
and scripture use in 1st century palistine. Jews worshiped daily in
synagogs whichh included reading a portion of the OT.
As someone who knew hebrew read it; another person would provide an ongoing
aramaic translation after each verse. These were known as targums and came
in time to be written down.
There are several variations known and some still exist. OT scholars and
pious jewish bible students read them along with the greek and hebrew
versions for a fuller grasp of the hebrew bible.
So yes, there was an aramaic OT in use in the 1st century for the general
population and one in greek for those jews who knew it.
the first gospels. One poster asserted there was no aramaic OT; but did
correctly mention a greek OT in use in the 1st century. Aramaic was the
native language of 1st century jews who brought it back from excile where
they had mostly forgotten the use of hebrew.
The greek translation,ie. known in its short name as lxx was done some 300
years before Christ by jews. Jews then lived all over the middle east and
parts of europe. There were more jews living outside palistine then in it.
The most widespread 2nd language used in the middle east/europe region was
greek, including among the jews who adopted the lxx.
The lxx was the OT used by Christ and the apostles when mentioning and
quoating the OT in the NT. Christ and several of the apostles came from
the northern part of palistine,ie. judea. There was a greek colony city
there and many jews also used greek as a result.
But there was another solution to the not knowing hebrew problem in worship
and scripture use in 1st century palistine. Jews worshiped daily in
synagogs whichh included reading a portion of the OT.
As someone who knew hebrew read it; another person would provide an ongoing
aramaic translation after each verse. These were known as targums and came
in time to be written down.
There are several variations known and some still exist. OT scholars and
pious jewish bible students read them along with the greek and hebrew
versions for a fuller grasp of the hebrew bible.
So yes, there was an aramaic OT in use in the 1st century for the general
population and one in greek for those jews who knew it.
Ollie Smth
Oct 12, 2021, 5:33:43 PM10/12/21
to
Nic
Oct 12, 2021, 5:54:48 PM10/12/21
to
caste system, are you familiar with the word caste?
Do you have faith that the explanation from the bible is your belief or
caste?
Think of it like this, do you believe that human life is born into sin
and carries that debt for all his life?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruzFvTpen9c--Moving Along Ms. Cline
servant
Oct 13, 2021, 10:54:40 AM10/13/21
to
The mentioned poster tries in vain to acquit himself, rather exposes more
about himself then he would like:
Another poster added:
>> thanks for those notes
>
The poster suggest the above info is in someway "improper",personal attack
language snipped , we suggest he means incorrect in fact as the more
accurate word use and meaning..
>Definition of Targum
>
>an Aramaic translation or paraphrase of a portion of the Old Testament
Yup, correct as mentioned above.>
>that they did not have the OT as in ALL of it. Only a portion. In the temple
>Hebrew was the only language allowed for the OT.
Sure, the targum sections of the OT were not in one volume but followed the
jewish division of the OT which is different then ours. They had the parts
of the OT in hebrew on different scrolls too, not one large scroll.
The link uses these jewish OT divisions for the different targums and
variations in the list of contents.
Yup, hebrew as used by priests, the targum real time translation was used
for the great majority of jews not understanding the hebrew they heard the
priests using.
>For a proper understanding of the Targum see;
>
>https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14248-targum
>
>And yes, there were portions of some book that were originally written in a
>version of an Aramaic language,
The various targums include all but the last 3 books of the hebrew bible
divisions as we know it version.
That is one reason some scholars say they were witten after the end of the
hebrew jewish bible after return from excile when jews used aramaic as the
daily language. They suggest they were added later because even in the
current hebrew version part of them is in aramaic.>
>And not every person whose words are recorded in the OT who gave praise to
>God was Jewish.
Relevance?
The link does not refute anything from the outline about the targumms
above.
about himself then he would like:
>> thanks for those notes
>
The poster suggest the above info is in someway "improper",personal attack
language snipped , we suggest he means incorrect in fact as the more
accurate word use and meaning..
>Definition of Targum
>
>an Aramaic translation or paraphrase of a portion of the Old Testament
Yup, correct as mentioned above.>
>that they did not have the OT as in ALL of it. Only a portion. In the temple
>Hebrew was the only language allowed for the OT.
Sure, the targum sections of the OT were not in one volume but followed the
jewish division of the OT which is different then ours. They had the parts
of the OT in hebrew on different scrolls too, not one large scroll.
The link uses these jewish OT divisions for the different targums and
variations in the list of contents.
Yup, hebrew as used by priests, the targum real time translation was used
for the great majority of jews not understanding the hebrew they heard the
priests using.
>For a proper understanding of the Targum see;
>
>https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14248-targum
>
>And yes, there were portions of some book that were originally written in a
>version of an Aramaic language,
The various targums include all but the last 3 books of the hebrew bible
divisions as we know it version.
That is one reason some scholars say they were witten after the end of the
hebrew jewish bible after return from excile when jews used aramaic as the
daily language. They suggest they were added later because even in the
current hebrew version part of them is in aramaic.>
>And not every person whose words are recorded in the OT who gave praise to
>God was Jewish.
Relevance?
The link does not refute anything from the outline about the targumms
above.
0 new messages