[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
orion why not xasayya=essaioi?
Recently, I reread some pre-Qumran discussions. The supposed
relevance of Aramaic Bible translations has at times been overestimated.
And, with the lack of any appropriate example, the supposed relevance of
the dual Greek endings to Aramaic evanesces. A devastating critique is
available in J.B. Lightfoot's appendix on Essenes (parts 1 & 2) in his St.
Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (London, 1904; and
reprinted in his Dissertations on the Apostolic Age). Further, some cited
as supporters of this Syriac/Aramaic proposal--J.J. Scaliger, H.
Ewald--changed their minds. With the Qumran mss, more data is now
available, and several of the pre-Qumran argments against Hebrew 'asah
(e.g., 1743 doubt that Jews at the time knew Hebrew) can now be seen as
Four proposed single examples have all been questioned both as
relevant and as interpreted: a Palymrean one (J. Milik, 10 Years; see J.
Kampen HUCA 1986; G. Vermes, Post-Biblical Jewish Studies  28-9 [his
1960 RQ article did not even mention 'asah]); a Greek and Aramaic
inscription from Afghanistan (J. Asiatique 246 ); an early Egyptian
inscription (Donner and Rollig KAI no. 269); and a disputed reading in
4QLevi (accepted by Stone, Greenfield and Cross; but not by Kugler, Puech
Another translation of Quod probus 75: "They were a sect of Jews,
and lived in Syria Palestine, over 4000 in number, and called Essaei,
because of their saintliness, for hosios=saintly, is the same word as
Essaeus. Worshippers of God, they..." (F. Conybeare).
For private reply, e-mail to stephen goranson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To unsubscribe from Orion, e-mail to email@example.com with
the message: "unsubscribe Orion." For more information on the Orion Center
or for Orion archives, visit our web site http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il.