Whether the Marcan Aramaisms prove actual translation from an original Aramaic document, as distinct from the virtual translation of a writer who, though using Greek as his medium of expression, is casting his words in the Aramaic mould which is more familiar to him, is a question which still remains open. The present writer, comparing the evidence for an Aramaic Marcan document with that which he himself adduces in this volume for an Aramaic Fourth Gospel, feels that the case for the former is not of equal cogency with that for the latter. To a large extent, as is natural, the evidence for the two works runs upon identical lines; and here the argument for Jn. is materially strengthened by the parallel usages of Mk. There is, however, a still larger mass of evidence which can be cited for Jn. to which no adequate analogue exists in Mk. Examination of the usages discussed in the present volume will be found to yield the following results: Usages common to Jn. and Mk. Parataxis (p. 56). Frequency of Historic Present (p. 87). Frequency of Imperfect ἔλεγεν, ἔλεγον (p. 92). Sparse use of dé, and preference for κaí (p. 69). πpós 'with' (p. 28). Usages of Jn. found more rarely in Mk. Asyndeton* (p. 49). Casus pendens+ (p. 63). kać linking contrasted statements and yet' (p. 66). One case in Mk. (p. 76). Two cases in Mk. (p. 77). Ti mistranslation of relative. ... * Allen quotes Asyndeton as characteristic of Mk. (St. Mark, pp. 18 f.), but his instances bear no comparison with the frequency of the usage in Jn. The present writer has noted only Mk. 616, 720, 1210, 1311. To these may be added an Aramaism of which one case occurs in each, viz. : Anticipation of Genitive by Possessive Pronoun (p. 85). Usages characteristic of Jn. not found in Mk. Frequency of Personal Pronouns (p. 79). Frequency of Emphatic Demonstratives οὗτος, ἐκεῖνος (p. 82). iva mistranslation of 'when' (p. 77). = pxoμal Present as Futurum instans (p. 94). οὐ . . . ἄνθρωπος = 'no one' (p. 99). ἵνα μή employed to the exclusion of μήποτε (pp. 69, 100). To these may be added an Aramaism of which one case only occurs in Jn., viz. : Anticipation of direct Object of verb by Pronoun (p. 86). Two cases of a construction which is Hebraic rather than Aramaic, viz.: Change of construction after Participle (p. 96). The Marcan usages noted above which find parallels in Jn. do not exhaust the Aramaisms of Mk. Others are cited by Allen (cf. St. Mark, pp. 48 ff.) and by Wellhausen (Einleitung2, pp. 7 ff.), of which the most noteworthy are the frequent use of the adverbial Toλλά =, and of the auxiliary pέaтo, -avтo = "; but they are not equally impressive because-though they fit in with the theory of translation from an Aramaic original-they are the kind of Aramaisms which might naturally be introduced by a writer of Greek whose native tongue was Aramaic. We may also note the fact that the Kown construction iva conjunctive 'that' which characterizes Mk. (though to a less extent than Jn.) is a usage which an Aramaic-speaking writer of Greek would naturally tend to exaggerate. On the other hand, the use of iva in place of a relative, which can scarcely be understood except on the theory of mistranslation, while frequent in Jn. (cf. pp. 75 f.), occurs but once in Mk. What is needed to substantiate the theory of an Aramaic original for Mk. is some cogent evidence of mistranslation; and this has not as yet been advanced. In contrast, the writer believes that the evidence which he has collected in = Chap. VII in proof of mistranslation in Jn. must be recognized, on the whole, as exceedingly weighty. Granted, however, the possibility of an Aramaic original for the Fourth Gospel, the question naturally arises-What evidence do we possess sufficient to enable us to prove this theory, and in a measure to reconstruct the original text? The evidence is naturally drawn from our knowledge of Palestinian Aramaic at or about the period at which the Gospel is presumably to be dated.* The following are the main sources of our knowledge: B.C. 1. The Aramaic sections of the O.T., viz. Jer. 10", Ezr. 4—618, 712-26, Dan. 246-728. The Ezra-sections, if they are what they profess to be, date from the middle of the fifth century B.c.t The Book of Daniel is dated with approximate certainty under the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes, 168–167 B. C. The dialect of 26-728 is W. Aramaic, and is practically identical with that of the Ezra-sections, exhibiting affinities to the dialects of the Palmyrene and Nabataean inscriptions which date from the third century B.C. to the second century A.D. This source is therefore of great value as closely approximating to what must have been the type of Aramaic spoken in Palestine in the first century of the Christian era. 2. The Targums or Aramaic paraphrases of the O.T. The synagogue-practice of expounding the Hebrew text of the O.T. by an Aramaic paraphrase is undoubtedly very ancient. Both the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds understand the term be in Neh. 88-R.V. 'And they read in the book, in the law of God distinctly (marg. with an interpretation); and they gave the sense, so that they understood the reading'-as referring to the use of * On this subject the standard work is Dr. G. Dalman's Grammatik des jüdischpalästinischen Aramäisch. Cf. especially pp. 5-40. This may usefully be supplemented by the discussion in the same writer's The Words of Jesus, pp. 79–88. + Ezr. 46-23, though inserted into a section which relates the efforts of the Samaritans to thwart Zerubbabel's rebuilding of the Temple in the latter part of the sixth century B. C., really relates to the interruptions caused by the Samaritans and other enemies of the Jews to the project of the rebuilding of the city-walls, probably shortly before the twentieth year of Artaxerxes (444 B. C.) when Nehemiah intervened and secured the support of the Persian king. Cf. Driver, Introd. to Lit. of O.T.9 p. 547. Cf. Driver, Introd. to Lit. of O.T.9 pp. 503 ff. * * an Aramaic paraphrase; and this view, though disputed, has something to be said in its favour.+ If, however, the practice of * Cf. Bab. Megilla 3a; Nedarim 376; Jerus. Megilla 74 d. The same explanation is given in Midrash Bereshith Rabba, par. xxxvi. 12. + Cf. Berliner, Targum Onkelos, ii, p 74, who compares the use of words of the Persian king's rescript in Ezr. 418, when aby nanby IT TT: ::: in the TT:: PP, i. e. most naturally, 'The letter which ye sent unto us hath been read before me in translation', i. e. translated from Aramaic into Persian. The principal rival explanation (offered by Dr. Bertholet) is 'divided' (sc. into sections), i. e. ' section by section'; and on this explanation the following words bay Diy 'and giving the sense' may refer to an Aramaic paraphrase. The synagoguecustom as known to us was to read a verse of the Law in the Hebrew and follow it by the Aramaic paraphrase. In the Prophets three verses might be read together and followed by the Aramaic rendering. Even in pre-exilic times (cf. 2 Kgs. 1826) Aramaic was the lingua franca of international communication. It must have been widely used, along with Babylonian, in the Neo-Babylonian kingdom. Cuneiform tablets of the late Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, and Achaemenian periods bear Aramaic dockets; and scribes or secretaries were employed for the purpose of writing Aramaic upon parchment along with those whose business it was to write Babylonian in cuneiform upon clay tablets (cf. the writer's Judges, pp. 255, 495). Probably Aramaic was the exclusive medium of intercourse between the exiled Jews and their captors, and was used by them in commercial dealings with foreigners. Thus the Jews who returned from exile must have come back with a knowledge of Aramaic at least as thorough as was their knowledge of Hebrew, and must have found that in Palestine Aramaic had established itself and gained ground owing to the mixture of races and the decay of national feeling among the Jews who had remained in Palestine. The fact that Hebrew of a more or less classical character remained the literary language of the Jews to within at least a century before the Christian era does not of course imply that it was widely and generally spoken by the Jews up to that period. That it was understood and spoken in the earlier post-exilic period is implied by the fact that e. g. the prophecies of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, which were intended for a popular audience, are written in Hebrew; and by the allusion in Neh. 1324, which shows, however, at the same time, how easy the condition of affairs made it for the less precise Jews to drop Hebrew and adopt another language. All that we can say, then, with any certainty, is that after the return from exile Hebrew and Aramaic must for a time have been used concurrently by the Jews. Religious, national, and literary feeling strove for the retention of Hebrew; but external influence making itself felt in the exigences of daily life favoured the advance of Aramaic, and gradually led to its general adoption. Literary and cultivated Jews read Hebrew, and no doubt spoke it to some extent among themselves at least for some time after the return. The mass of the people who did not read books came more and more to speak Aramaic exclusively and to lose the knowledge of Hebrew. using a Targum is not to be carried so far back as the days of Ezra, the fact that it became customary long before the Christian era is at any rate not in dispute. The date at which written Targums first came into existence cannot certainly be determined.* It is related that in the fourth century A.D. Samuel ben Isaac once entered a synagogue, and seeing a scribe reading the Targum from a book, admonished him thus: This is forbidden thee; for that which is received orally must only be delivered orally, and only that which is received in writing may be read from the book' (Jerus. Megilla iv. 1). There is, however, considerably older evidence for the existence of written Targums-for private reading and not for public worship. The Mishna + states that portions of the text of the Bible were 'written as a Targum' (Yadaim iv. 5); and there exists a Tannaitic tradition that a Targum of the Book of Job existed in the days of Gamaliel the Elder (the grandson of Hillel and instructor of St. Paul; cf. Acts 53⁄4ff., 223), and after being withdrawn from use by his orders, reappeared in the days of his grandson Gamaliel II.§ The Targum of Onkelos on the Pentateuch, which became the official Targum of the Babylonian schools, must have been committed to writing and finally redacted at least as early as the third century A. D., since its Masora dates from the first half of that century. Two Palestinian Amoraim of the third century advised their congregation to read the Hebrew text of the Parasha (section of the Pentateuch read as lesson) twice in private and the Targum once, according to the practice of public worship. Joshua ben Levi commended this practice to his sons (Berakhoth 8 b), while Ammi, a pupil of Johanan, made it a rule * See on this subject Berliner, Targum Onkelos, ii, pp. 88 ff., and the admirable article 'Targum' by Dr. W. Bacher in the Jewish Encyclopaedia. † The Mishna (i.e. 'Repetition' of the Law, or in a wider sense its Exposition) was compiled towards the end of the second century A. D. The Tannaim ('Teachers') were the Rabbinic authorities of the first two centuries of the Christian era whose work is embodied in the Mishna. They were succeeded by the Amoraim ('Speakers' or 'Interpreters'), third to fifth centuries A. D., who chiefly concerned themselves with the exposition of the Mishna. The outcome of this work was the Gemara, 'Supplement' or 'Complement' of the Mishna, which, together with the latter, forms the Talmud. § Cf. the passage from Tosefta Shabbath, ch. xiv, quoted by Berliner, op. cit. p. 89. |