Comments on: How would you like to date Targum Neofiti?

By: Patrick Barton

Patrick Barton — Sun, 13 Mar 2011 22:17:42 +0000

The neofiti and Pseudo Jonathan appear to be expansions moreso than just Aramaic translations.

This is why,IMO,the terms “Son”,”logos”,”name of My Word” are often appearing where they didn’t in Massoretic or LXX texts.

It’s not that unusual,Nehemiah 8:1-8 appears to be a possible example of this activity by the priesthood and I assume it was penned several centuries before Christ.

By: robert r. cargill

robert r. cargill — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 19:40:27 +0000

you handled that one better than i would have

By: how not to read the targums « XKV8R: The Official Blog of Dr. Robert R. Cargill

Sat, 18 Dec 2010 04:24:19 +0000

[...] Bible. (See the critique made by Dr. Christian Brady, Dean and Aramaic targum scholar at Penn State here, and Scott Bailey’s treatment of Driscoll’s errors here.) Dr. Brady points out that [...]

By: Chris Brady

Chris Brady — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 20:16:32 +0000

Dear Mr. Brown,

I can’t help but wonder if you were trying to make a point by addressing me as “Mr” rather than “Dr,” although you do allude to my education and degrees in the body of your message. I am very happy for folks to address me as “Chris” or “Christian,” as they are comfortable (although most of my students address me as “Dean”). I am not overly concerned with titles.

Given that you are not, however, satisfied that I know my trade and training I suggest you begin your investigation with Philip S. Alexander, “Jewish Aramaic Translations of Hebrew Scriptures.” In Mikra: Text Translation,
Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum: Section 2, Vol. 1, 217-254. Edited by M. J. Mulder and H. Sysling. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988. From there you can follow the footnotes and turn to any introduction to targumic or rabbinic literature (such as Jack Neusner’s Intro to Rabbinic Literature with a section on the targumim by Paul Flesher).

It is certainly admirable to question sources, but if doubt my credentials and expertise I am not sure why you would trust others such as Alexander, Neusner, Flesher, Shinan, etc.

By: Coleman Brown

Coleman Brown — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 23:43:13 +0000

Mr. Brady,
I appreciate your study on the matter; however, I have one problem with your blogging. As a researcher, shouldn’t you provide documentation to give your argument some credibility? I know that your credibility comes through your various degrees and extensive research, but I believe your claim is not credible until I see some documentation in your blogging.

Though Driscoll’s claim may be wrong and unsubstantiated according to your research, please provide documentation supporting your claim in order to give credibility to your argument. As you know, people believe what is on the internet more often now, which means they believe it without the proper citation. So, please give credibility to your argument by providing sustenance supporting your claims versus arguing a point without giving credit where credit is due.

By: Chris Brady

Chris Brady — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 14:15:31 +0000

Not true Rob. There is enough linguistic evidence to show that TgNeof is mid-2nd Century CE at the earliest and possible later. Note, there is a 400 year swing between Driscoll’s date and the (general) date upon which Targumic and Aramaic scholars have reached consensus. There is, however no evidence to support a BCE dating.

No doubt the evidence is not as clear cut as a tidy colophon saying “This was translated in ______” thus the “most likely” caveat, etc. But to say that Driscoll’s dating (which, to give him credit, was most likely his unwittingly repeating someone else’s error) is as well supported is incorrect.

By: Rob Kashow

Rob Kashow — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 04:23:37 +0000

“The first is the date. TgNeof is most likely late second century CE not BC(E) as Driscoll states.”

This statement is in error just as much as Driscoll’s. Their simply is not enough evidence for one to hold a determinative position either way.

By: Brady, Driscoll & Targum Neofiti « The Rosh Pina Project

Brady, Driscoll & Targum Neofiti « The Rosh Pina Project — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 11:21:30 +0000

[...] you for noticing my blog and posts. You need to go back to my first post on Driscoll’s misuse of TgNeof to see the most problematic aspect of Driscoll’s argument. He [...]

By: Paul Flesher

Paul Flesher — Wed, 26 May 2010 11:55:13 +0000

Shepherd is rather out of date on his scholarship, by several decades. The earliest date that most scholars who work on the Targums would give today for Targum Neofiti and the Palestinian Targums in general is third century CE, or perhaps late second century. For the problems with Kahle’s and Diez Macho’s early dating, see the important article by: York, Anthony D., “The Dating of Targumic Literature.” JSJ 10 (1979): 49-62.

By: Michael L Brown

Michael L Brown — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 18:03:29 +0000

John (Ronning),

I just ordered your new book on the Targums and John’s Gospel, and based on the endorsements, I’m very much looking forward to receiving it.

As the index indicates (accessed at Amazon), however, you appear not to be aware of my use of these traditions in Jewish apologetics. The relevant volume in the five-volume series Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus is Vol. 2, Theological Objections (Baker), specifically sections 3.1-2. Perhaps you’ll find confirmation for some of your thinking there as well, and again, I look forward to getting your monograph.