email@example.com (GARY D. COLLIER) writes asking:
> 1. So what is the possible Aramaic wording?
> 2. Does the LXX typically translate the Hiphil in this fashion?
> 3. What sources do you recommend for further study on Aramaic
> background to the Gospels?
I'll have to pass on your first question, since I am not expert in
First-Century Palestinian Aramaic. My conjecture for an underlying Hiphil in
Mat. 5:32 comes from Hebrew grammar and the knowledge that Hebrew and Aramaic
have a similar syntax of verbal forms (Gesenius, _Hebrew Grammar_, 2nd ed.,
#53,a,d; R. Meyer, _Gramatica del Hebreo Biblico_, CLIE, n.d. #2:3; #3:2d).
On question 2: tanslation of the hiphil in the LXX by POIEIN plus
infinitive (and some other forms) is fairly common. The following showed up
by going through words beginning with alpha under POIEIN in a concordance of
the LXX: AKOUSTON POIEIN for the hiphil of $AMA`, meaning "cause to hear"
(Deut. 30:13), ALGEIN POIEIN for the hiphil of KA'AB, meaning "cause to be in
pain" (Job 5:18), A(MARTEIN POIEIN for the hiphil of XA+A' meaning "cause to
sin"(Isa. 29:21), POIEIN ANAPAUMA for the hiphil of NUTh meaning "cause to
rest" (Isa. 28:2). For a construction with POIEIN plus an aorist infinitive
passive, as in Mat. 5:32, see 1Chr 15:19 which the LXX renders AIMAN, ASAF
KAI AIQAN EN KUMBALOIS CALKOIS TOU AKOUSQHNAI POIHSAI which, literally
translated means something like "Heman, Asaph, and Ethan, with brass cymbals
to make [the congregation] hear (or to make them [the cymbals] be heard)."
The Hebrew translated by AKOUSQHENAI POIHSAI is the hiphil of $AMA` "hear".
The hiphil is translated other ways, too, in the LXX, but there is enough
here to indicate, on the construction with POIEIN, that the underlying
Aramaic form for POIEI AUTHN MOICEUQHNAI in Mat. 5:32 may well be a Semitic
causative. I think that Gregory is correct in saying that Fouth-Century
texts of the Peshitta, etc. could tend to reflect then current attitudes on
this matter rather than what might have been the underlying Aramaic of the
Gospels. If one employed them, in reference to the matter at hand, it would
have to be done judiciously.
On the question about bibliography, Larry has already given some
references, and Gary has mentioned Black's and Fitzmyer's works. These
latter are probably the preferred works on the subject. I'll just mention a
couple of things besides these. W. F. Howard has supplied a section in
Moulton's grammar (II: 411-485) entitled "Semitisms in the New Testament"
which treats the subject. The work is somewhat old (Ca. 1928) and has been
criticized on several counts by some (e.g. overstating his case), but it does
deal with Semitic influence in the NT from a grammarian's and linguist's
point of view. And Douglas Stuart's _Old Testament Exegesis_, has some
bibliographical reference on Aramaic lexicons and grammars and texts that
certainly would be useful to someone wanting to work toward a full
understanding of Aramaic.
David L. Moore