Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS: http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.592283
Title: The Palestinian Targum : textual and linguistic investigations in Codex Neofiti I and allied manuscripts
Author: Cowling, Geoffrey John
Awarding Body: University of Aberdeen
Current Institution: University of Aberdeen
Date of Award: 1968
Availability of Full Text:
Access from EThOS:
Full text unavailable from EThOS. Please try the link below.
Access from Institution:
Abstract:
This investigation had two main aims: a) to determine the nature of the original text of the Palestinian targum and its probable date of composition; b) to elucidate the present textual situation, the relationship of the extant manuscripts and their relative value. Very little evidence supports the widely-accepted pre-Christian date of composition. Oral Aramaic translations are first spoken of in the late second century AD. There is no evidence for the existence of the Palestinian targum - or any standard translation other than the Greek - before the late third century at the earliest. The original text did not contain many (if any) of the interpolated commentaries and stories found in the late manuscripts. The language is 'translation Aramaic' but is basically that of fourth to sixth century Galilee, although some features (particularly orthography) resemble those in earlier works. Some features of the syntax are explicable only if we assume that the translation was made not from the Hebrew but from a Greek version. The best text is to be found in Manuscripts A and E of the Cairo Geniza : the distinctive readings of this latter text are also to be found - amongst others - in the margin of Neofiti I. The later manuscripts B and F of the Cairo Geniza, Vatican 440 and Leipzig I witness to the same text, but show influence from the Targum Onkelos and have much more added material. Manuscript C is a less reliable member of the same group. Manuscript D and Neofiti I have suffered (probably independently) considerable revision which has removed much of the original features; and have acquired much additional matter. The text of Neofiti I is substantially the one quoted by R. Nathan (c. 1100 AD). The margin of Neofiti I may have two alternatives to words in the translation and up to three alternate versions of the interpolated material. One set of these variants shows frequent agreement with Pseudo-Jonathan and the Talmudic literature.
Supervisor: Not available Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID: uk.bl.ethos.592283  DOI: Not available
Share: