The Mishnah (Part 2)
The first of the six orders of the Mishnah is called Zera’im (Seeds). It is divided in eleven treatises. The first of these treatises is called Berakot (Blessings). It is concerned mostly with the rules for daily prayer, and begins with a discussion of when the Shema’ is to be said in the evening. For those who don’t know, the Shema’ is Deut 6:4, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” It is named from the first word of the verse in Hebrew. The following discussion is taken from the Wikisource Mishnah (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Mishnah/Seder_Zeraim/Tractate_Berakhot/Chapter_1).
“From when may one recite the Shema in the evening?From the time when the Kohanim go in to eat their terumah.Until the end of the first watch – so says Rabbi Eliezer.And the Sages say: Until midnight.Rabban Gamliel says: Until the column of dawn rises.It once happened that [Rabban Gamliel’s] sons came from a house of feasting.They said to [their father]: "We have not recited the Shema."He said to them: "If the column of dawn has not risen, you are obligated to recite it."“[This is true] not only in this case; rather, in all cases where the Sages said that [some precept can be performed only] until midnight — the precept is [still in force] until the break of dawn.“[For example:] Burning the fats and organs [of the sacrifices, on the Temple altar] — this precept [can be performed] until the break of dawn.“[Another example:] All [sacrifices] which may be eaten for one day — the precept [of eating them can be performed] until the break of dawn.If that is so, why did the Sages say, "until midnight"?To distance a person from sin.”
This is an excellent example of the style of the Mishnah. The original question is posed, and answers are provided. As answers are given, additional questions arise, and these also are dealt with. Some of the connections between topics seem tenuous, but the connections reflect connections developed over the course of the rise of rabbinic Judaism.
The second treatise of the first order is called Pe’ah (Corner) because it deals with the passages concerning the corners of the field, such as Lev 19:9-10. “When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge [corner] neither shall you gather the gleanings after the harvest.” (ESV). Since these passages also deal with the cause of the poor (that is, the corners are not to be reaped so that they are left for the poor), the treatise also goes on to deal with the causes and rights of the poor. This treatise begins as follows: These are the things that have no measure:
The Peah of the field, the first-fruits, the appearance [at the Temple in Jerusalem on Pilgrimage Festivals],acts of kindness, and the study of the Torah.These are things the fruits of which a man enjoys in this world,while the principle remains for him in the World to Come:Honoring father and mother,acts of kindness,and bringing peace between a man and his fellow.But the study of Torah is equal to them all.
Note in this how the study of the Torah is exalted relative to the importance of other works.
Author Bio:Dr. Shaw was born and raised in New Mexico. He received his undergraduate degree at the University of New Mexico in 1977, the M. Div. from Pittsburgh Theological Seminary in 1980, and the Th.M. from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1981, with an emphasis in biblical languages (Greek, Hebrew, Old Testament and Targumic Aramaic, as well as Ugaritic). He did two year of doctoral-level course work in Semitic languages (Akkadian, Arabic, Ethiopic, Middle Egyptian, and Syriac) at Duke University. He received the Ph.D. in Old Testament Interpretation at Bob Jones University in 2005. Since 1991, he has taught Hebrew and Old Testament at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, a school which serves primarily the Presbyterian Church in America and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, where he holds the rank of Associate Professor.
Showing posts with label Aramaic Thoughts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Aramaic Thoughts. Show all posts
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Friday, November 02, 2007
The Mishnah Part 1
The Mishnah (Part 1)
According to Jewish teaching, the Law delivered to Moses consisted of two parts. The written law, now contained in the Torah, or Pentateuch, was one of those parts. The other consisted of oral teaching, which was then passed by tradition from one generation to the next. This oral instruction explained and clarified what had been written. This material developed over time, but was finally codified and written down around the end of the second century AD or the beginning of the third century (there is debate among authorities as to precisely when the Mishnah was reduced to writing). This was composed in Hebrew but differing somewhat from the Hebrew of the Old Testament. Hence, it is called Mishnaic Hebrew. Though the Mishnah was written in Hebrew, it formed the foundation of the later Talmud, which is essentially extended comment on, and discussion of, the material in the Mishnah, and which was written in Aramaic.
The Mishnah is made up of six parts called “orders” (the Aramaic word is seder in the singular or sedarim in the plural). These orders are further subdivided into treatises, the treatises into chapters, and the chapters into paragraphs. The first order is called zera’im (seeds), and it is divided into eleven treatises. The second order is called mo’ed (festivals), from the Hebrew word for “appointed times” (see both Gen 1:14, where the ESV translates it “seasons;” and Lev 23:2, where the ESV translates is “appointed festivals”). This second order is made up of twelve separate treatises. The third order is called nashim (women), and is divided into seven treatises.
The fourth order of the Mishnah is called either nezikin (injuries) or yeshu’ot (deeds of help) and contains ten treatises. The fifth order is called qodashim (holy things) and contains eleven treatises. The final order of the Mishnah is called tohorot (purifications) and is made up of twelve treatises.
The Mishnah is available in English translation. Perhaps the most widely known version is that of Herbert Danby. It is still available, but is quite expensive. A newer version is that of Jacob Neusner. In a certain sense, Danby’s version was done for the uninitiated. The translation is paraphrastic and reads like literature. Neusner’s is more literal and shows the Mishnah for what it is—a compilation of Jewish teachings. The introduction to Neusner’s version is helpful in sorting some of this out. Neusner has also published The Mishnah: An Introduction, and Learn Mishnah. These two works provide a way into approaching and beginning to appreciate the Mishnah without it becoming a daunting task.
Over the next few weeks I hope to present the reader a brief survey of the content of the Mishnah in preparation for a look at the Talmud.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Author's Bio:
Dr. Shaw was born and raised in New Mexico. He received his undergraduate degree at the University of New Mexico in 1977, the M. Div. from Pittsburgh Theological Seminary in 1980, and the Th.M. from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1981, with an emphasis in biblical languages (Greek, Hebrew, Old Testament and Targumic Aramaic, as well as Ugaritic). He did two year of doctoral-level course work in Semitic languages (Akkadian, Arabic, Ethiopic, Middle Egyptian, and Syriac) at Duke University. He received the Ph.D. in Old Testament Interpretation at Bob Jones University in 2005. Since 1991, he has taught Hebrew and Old Testament at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, a school which serves primarily the Presbyterian Church in America and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, where he holds the rank of Associate Professor.
According to Jewish teaching, the Law delivered to Moses consisted of two parts. The written law, now contained in the Torah, or Pentateuch, was one of those parts. The other consisted of oral teaching, which was then passed by tradition from one generation to the next. This oral instruction explained and clarified what had been written. This material developed over time, but was finally codified and written down around the end of the second century AD or the beginning of the third century (there is debate among authorities as to precisely when the Mishnah was reduced to writing). This was composed in Hebrew but differing somewhat from the Hebrew of the Old Testament. Hence, it is called Mishnaic Hebrew. Though the Mishnah was written in Hebrew, it formed the foundation of the later Talmud, which is essentially extended comment on, and discussion of, the material in the Mishnah, and which was written in Aramaic.
The Mishnah is made up of six parts called “orders” (the Aramaic word is seder in the singular or sedarim in the plural). These orders are further subdivided into treatises, the treatises into chapters, and the chapters into paragraphs. The first order is called zera’im (seeds), and it is divided into eleven treatises. The second order is called mo’ed (festivals), from the Hebrew word for “appointed times” (see both Gen 1:14, where the ESV translates it “seasons;” and Lev 23:2, where the ESV translates is “appointed festivals”). This second order is made up of twelve separate treatises. The third order is called nashim (women), and is divided into seven treatises.
The fourth order of the Mishnah is called either nezikin (injuries) or yeshu’ot (deeds of help) and contains ten treatises. The fifth order is called qodashim (holy things) and contains eleven treatises. The final order of the Mishnah is called tohorot (purifications) and is made up of twelve treatises.
The Mishnah is available in English translation. Perhaps the most widely known version is that of Herbert Danby. It is still available, but is quite expensive. A newer version is that of Jacob Neusner. In a certain sense, Danby’s version was done for the uninitiated. The translation is paraphrastic and reads like literature. Neusner’s is more literal and shows the Mishnah for what it is—a compilation of Jewish teachings. The introduction to Neusner’s version is helpful in sorting some of this out. Neusner has also published The Mishnah: An Introduction, and Learn Mishnah. These two works provide a way into approaching and beginning to appreciate the Mishnah without it becoming a daunting task.
Over the next few weeks I hope to present the reader a brief survey of the content of the Mishnah in preparation for a look at the Talmud.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Author's Bio:
Dr. Shaw was born and raised in New Mexico. He received his undergraduate degree at the University of New Mexico in 1977, the M. Div. from Pittsburgh Theological Seminary in 1980, and the Th.M. from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1981, with an emphasis in biblical languages (Greek, Hebrew, Old Testament and Targumic Aramaic, as well as Ugaritic). He did two year of doctoral-level course work in Semitic languages (Akkadian, Arabic, Ethiopic, Middle Egyptian, and Syriac) at Duke University. He received the Ph.D. in Old Testament Interpretation at Bob Jones University in 2005. Since 1991, he has taught Hebrew and Old Testament at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, a school which serves primarily the Presbyterian Church in America and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, where he holds the rank of Associate Professor.
Friday, June 22, 2007
Aramaic Thoughts -Idioms in the Bible- Part 9
Idioms in the Bible - Part 9
Mark 16:17 says, “And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast our demons; they will speak in new tongues.” Lamsa identifies the concluding clause as an idiom meaning, “You will learn foreign languages wherever you go.” In our day, Lamsa’s claim sounds questionable, due to the widespread influence of the charismatic and Pentecostal movements. There is also further question about the concluding verses of Mark’s gospel.
First, most modern versions have a footnote on Mark 16:9-20 like this one from the ESV; “Some manuscripts end the book with 16:8; others include verses 9-20 immediately after verse 8. A few manuscripts insert additional material after verse 14; one Latin manuscript adds after verse 8 the following: But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. Other manuscripts include this same wording after verse 8, then continue with verses 9-20.” What is the reader to make of this information? Do these verses belong in the gospel of Mark, or do they not?
These are not questions that admit of easy answers. In brief, there are three primary views. The first, and perhaps oldest, view is that the 12 verses (Mark 16:9-20) were part of the gospel originally written by Mark, and hence are to be retained. This is the view reflected in the KJV (Incidentally, the Syriac Peshitta includes these verses). This is due in large part to the fact that the manuscripts and texts available to the translators of the KJV all had that material included in the Gospel of Mark. The second view is that Mark ended at 16:8, and that the last twelve verses were added by someone who felt that the ending was too abrupt, and who thus compiled an ending from the concluding material of the other gospels and from the beginning of Acts. This is perhaps the most recent view to appear. The third view is that the last twelve verses are not original, but were later added because the original ending of Mark was somehow lost. This is the view that was adopted in the original edition of the RSV, where Mark 16:9-20 was placed in a footnote. It is perhaps the most commonly held view today.
The debate on the issue was begun in the latter part of the 19th century, due to the fact that a number of manuscripts of the New Testament had been found that did not include the material, or had other material in its place. The New Testament textual scholars Westcott and Hort adopted the view that these verses were spurious in their influential edition of the Greek New Testament. This decision affected both the English Revised Version of 1881 and the American Standard Version of 1901. Westcott and Hort’s view was vigorously attacked by the conservative scholar John Burgon in The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to Saint Mark Vindicated Against Recent Critical Objectors and Established.
(We will continue this discussion in next week’s column.)
'Aramaic Thoughts' Copyright 2002-2007 © Benjamin Shaw. http://www.studylight.org/col/at/
Mark 16:17 says, “And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast our demons; they will speak in new tongues.” Lamsa identifies the concluding clause as an idiom meaning, “You will learn foreign languages wherever you go.” In our day, Lamsa’s claim sounds questionable, due to the widespread influence of the charismatic and Pentecostal movements. There is also further question about the concluding verses of Mark’s gospel.
First, most modern versions have a footnote on Mark 16:9-20 like this one from the ESV; “Some manuscripts end the book with 16:8; others include verses 9-20 immediately after verse 8. A few manuscripts insert additional material after verse 14; one Latin manuscript adds after verse 8 the following: But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. Other manuscripts include this same wording after verse 8, then continue with verses 9-20.” What is the reader to make of this information? Do these verses belong in the gospel of Mark, or do they not?
These are not questions that admit of easy answers. In brief, there are three primary views. The first, and perhaps oldest, view is that the 12 verses (Mark 16:9-20) were part of the gospel originally written by Mark, and hence are to be retained. This is the view reflected in the KJV (Incidentally, the Syriac Peshitta includes these verses). This is due in large part to the fact that the manuscripts and texts available to the translators of the KJV all had that material included in the Gospel of Mark. The second view is that Mark ended at 16:8, and that the last twelve verses were added by someone who felt that the ending was too abrupt, and who thus compiled an ending from the concluding material of the other gospels and from the beginning of Acts. This is perhaps the most recent view to appear. The third view is that the last twelve verses are not original, but were later added because the original ending of Mark was somehow lost. This is the view that was adopted in the original edition of the RSV, where Mark 16:9-20 was placed in a footnote. It is perhaps the most commonly held view today.
The debate on the issue was begun in the latter part of the 19th century, due to the fact that a number of manuscripts of the New Testament had been found that did not include the material, or had other material in its place. The New Testament textual scholars Westcott and Hort adopted the view that these verses were spurious in their influential edition of the Greek New Testament. This decision affected both the English Revised Version of 1881 and the American Standard Version of 1901. Westcott and Hort’s view was vigorously attacked by the conservative scholar John Burgon in The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to Saint Mark Vindicated Against Recent Critical Objectors and Established.
(We will continue this discussion in next week’s column.)
'Aramaic Thoughts' Copyright 2002-2007 © Benjamin Shaw. http://www.studylight.org/col/at/
Friday, June 08, 2007
Aramaic Thoughts--Idioms in the Bible - Part 8
Aramaic Thoughts
Week of June 3 - 9, 2007
Idioms in the Bible - Part 8
I may have written on this one before, but there is so much misinformation out there about it that it’s worth addressing again. Matt 19:24 reads, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle." Lamsa, on the basis of the Peshitta, translates it "for a rope to go through the eye of a needle." The Greek text reads kamelos (camel), though a few texts of minor importance read kamilos (rope). The Syriac reads lgm (rope), while the Syriac word for camel is gml. The reader can easily see how, given the subject matter, someone could think "rope" was intended instead of "camel." Thus Lamsa explains this as an idiom meaning "with great difficulty (The rich man must give up something.)." However, the point is not that this is something accomplished only with difficulty, but something impossible. Jesus makes it clear with his statement recorded in vs 26, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are impossible." If the word were "rope," one could see how with a big enough needle or a small enough rope it could be done. But with a camel, it is flat impossible. Jesus is engaging in the common Semitic practice of engaging in hyperbole (deliberate overstatement) to make a point in a forceful manner.
Mark 5:25-34 tells the story of the healing of the woman with the issue of blood. In that story, the woman has heard about Jesus, and determines that she might be able to be healed if she can only touch his garment. Lamsa considers this expression an idiom that means "an urgent need." It is true that, "Seizing the edge of someone’s robe was a gesture of fervent entreaty in Biblical and Near Eastern tradition" (Keener, Matthew, 303), and this may be all that Lamsa means. But the matter of literal touching is essential to the story. The woman would have been made unclean by her irregular flow of blood (see Lev 15:25-30). Thus her touching of anyone would have made that person unclean as well. She would have been a social outcast, and her act here is an act of sheer desperation, and an apparent certainty that Jesus not only can but will help.
The centrality of a literal touching continues, however, when her touch effects what she has hoped for, Jesus sensed that power had gone out from him. He then asks who touched him. To this question the disciples respond with astonishment. What does Jesus mean, asking who touched him? The crowd was pressing so close that it was impossible to avoid being touched. Thus there is a play on the sense of "touch," both the physical touch originally intended by the woman and the "psychical" touch Jesus felt as her faith drew upon his supply. In all this, the reality of touching is central, and without that reality, the story loses its power.
'Aramaic Thoughts' Copyright 2002-2007 © Benjamin Shaw. http://www.studylight.org/col/at/
Week of June 3 - 9, 2007
Idioms in the Bible - Part 8
I may have written on this one before, but there is so much misinformation out there about it that it’s worth addressing again. Matt 19:24 reads, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle." Lamsa, on the basis of the Peshitta, translates it "for a rope to go through the eye of a needle." The Greek text reads kamelos (camel), though a few texts of minor importance read kamilos (rope). The Syriac reads lgm (rope), while the Syriac word for camel is gml. The reader can easily see how, given the subject matter, someone could think "rope" was intended instead of "camel." Thus Lamsa explains this as an idiom meaning "with great difficulty (The rich man must give up something.)." However, the point is not that this is something accomplished only with difficulty, but something impossible. Jesus makes it clear with his statement recorded in vs 26, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are impossible." If the word were "rope," one could see how with a big enough needle or a small enough rope it could be done. But with a camel, it is flat impossible. Jesus is engaging in the common Semitic practice of engaging in hyperbole (deliberate overstatement) to make a point in a forceful manner.
Mark 5:25-34 tells the story of the healing of the woman with the issue of blood. In that story, the woman has heard about Jesus, and determines that she might be able to be healed if she can only touch his garment. Lamsa considers this expression an idiom that means "an urgent need." It is true that, "Seizing the edge of someone’s robe was a gesture of fervent entreaty in Biblical and Near Eastern tradition" (Keener, Matthew, 303), and this may be all that Lamsa means. But the matter of literal touching is essential to the story. The woman would have been made unclean by her irregular flow of blood (see Lev 15:25-30). Thus her touching of anyone would have made that person unclean as well. She would have been a social outcast, and her act here is an act of sheer desperation, and an apparent certainty that Jesus not only can but will help.
The centrality of a literal touching continues, however, when her touch effects what she has hoped for, Jesus sensed that power had gone out from him. He then asks who touched him. To this question the disciples respond with astonishment. What does Jesus mean, asking who touched him? The crowd was pressing so close that it was impossible to avoid being touched. Thus there is a play on the sense of "touch," both the physical touch originally intended by the woman and the "psychical" touch Jesus felt as her faith drew upon his supply. In all this, the reality of touching is central, and without that reality, the story loses its power.
'Aramaic Thoughts' Copyright 2002-2007 © Benjamin Shaw. http://www.studylight.org/col/at/
Monday, April 02, 2007
Aramaic Thoughts
Reflections on the Dangers of Aramaic: Or a Little Knowledge is a Dangerous Thing
Benjamin Shaw. http://www.studylight.org
I did not see the movie The Passion of the Christ. But my understanding is that the dialogue was done entirely in Aramaic, with subtitles. This arrangement apparently sprang from both Gibson's desire for realism or authenticity, and from his conviction that Aramaic was the daily spoken language of Palestine in the first century. The problem with that view is that it is not accurate. This conclusion seems difficult for Americans to accept, though a resident of any major city in the world would understand immediately.
Aramaic would have been one of the daily spoken languages in first-century Palestine. It would have been commonly used in Jewish households and in the synagogues, for example. But Palestine in the first century was much like the same area of the world today—truly multi-cultural and multi-lingual. Someone walking down the street or in the marketplace in a city such as Jerusalem or Nazareth would have certainly heard Aramaic. But he would also have heard Greek, which was the lingua franca of the Mediterranean world in the first century. He may have heard Persian or Egyptian. He would probably have heard Latin, especially if he passed near some Roman soldiers. He may even have heard some Western European languages, depending on where the Roman soldiers were from. Daily conversations were a smorgasbord of languages.
Acts 2 gives us some sense of the reality of the situation when it says, "Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. … Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians" (Acts 2:5, 8-11). The text goes on to say that each of these heard the disciples extolling the virtues of God in their native languages. This was Pentecost, and hence there were people in Jerusalem who would not have been there at other times of the year. Even so, first-century Palestine even in those cities or parts of cities populated almost exclusively by Jews was really multi-lingual.
It is important to remember this because in the past century there has appeared on the religious scene a mindset that understanding Aramaic, because it was the language that Jesus spoke, will give someone special insight into the meaning of the New Testament. This is essentially a gnostic conceit. That is, the gnostics (an elastic term if there ever was one) were of the opinion that there was a secret knowledge that admitted one to truths inaccessible to the unwashed masses. This is wrong.
'Aramaic Thoughts' Copyright 2002-2007 © Benjamin Shaw. http://www.studylight.org
Benjamin Shaw. http://www.studylight.org
I did not see the movie The Passion of the Christ. But my understanding is that the dialogue was done entirely in Aramaic, with subtitles. This arrangement apparently sprang from both Gibson's desire for realism or authenticity, and from his conviction that Aramaic was the daily spoken language of Palestine in the first century. The problem with that view is that it is not accurate. This conclusion seems difficult for Americans to accept, though a resident of any major city in the world would understand immediately.
Aramaic would have been one of the daily spoken languages in first-century Palestine. It would have been commonly used in Jewish households and in the synagogues, for example. But Palestine in the first century was much like the same area of the world today—truly multi-cultural and multi-lingual. Someone walking down the street or in the marketplace in a city such as Jerusalem or Nazareth would have certainly heard Aramaic. But he would also have heard Greek, which was the lingua franca of the Mediterranean world in the first century. He may have heard Persian or Egyptian. He would probably have heard Latin, especially if he passed near some Roman soldiers. He may even have heard some Western European languages, depending on where the Roman soldiers were from. Daily conversations were a smorgasbord of languages.
Acts 2 gives us some sense of the reality of the situation when it says, "Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. … Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians" (Acts 2:5, 8-11). The text goes on to say that each of these heard the disciples extolling the virtues of God in their native languages. This was Pentecost, and hence there were people in Jerusalem who would not have been there at other times of the year. Even so, first-century Palestine even in those cities or parts of cities populated almost exclusively by Jews was really multi-lingual.
It is important to remember this because in the past century there has appeared on the religious scene a mindset that understanding Aramaic, because it was the language that Jesus spoke, will give someone special insight into the meaning of the New Testament. This is essentially a gnostic conceit. That is, the gnostics (an elastic term if there ever was one) were of the opinion that there was a secret knowledge that admitted one to truths inaccessible to the unwashed masses. This is wrong.
'Aramaic Thoughts' Copyright 2002-2007 © Benjamin Shaw. http://www.studylight.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)