Some of the highlights: learning of the abrupt discontinuity between JLA (OJA) and JPA; discussing a text of immediate concern to me with my colleagues, the other participants in the reading group, and getting many perspectives; hearing Michael Sokoloff talk--about anything to do with Aramaic; learning Aramaic from excellent grammars, so new they are not even hot off the presses; extending familiarity with the manuscript bases for Aramaic texts. Doug Gropp's statement that Aramaic study should begin with either Syriac or Jewish Literary Aramaic, as those are the two early Aramaic dialects with the greatest corpus. Then, and only then, should one go on to Biblical Aramaic, with its small corpus, or the intricate problems of Qumran Aramaic, with apparent dialectical inconsistency.
[...]
Final comment: There is a need for Aramaic scholars in the U.S., and for their continued production of materials such as editions of Targumim from manuscript sources, and Syriac editions/translations. I don't see many of the Seminar particpants fulfilling that goal; only two of us had done/would be doing editions. The more modest goal of NEH, that of enhancing teaching of Aramaic, is also a bit problematic, as there are extremely few places in the US (or North America) that do anything more than have an adjunct teach Biblical Aramaic every third or fourth year. Syriac is even worse. For any of us participants to hope for a career teaching Aramaic would probably be sheer folly. Neither Paul Flesher nor Eric Meyers, the co-directors, actually specialize in teaching Aramaic/Syriac; only Lucas Van Rompay does so, as part of his position teaching Eastern Christianity at Duke.
All too true. I've only taught Biblical Aramaic once since coming to St. Andrews nine years ago, although it was also taught once by an adjunct when I wasn't able to. I hope to be able to teach Syriac some day but haven't yet.
No comments:
Post a Comment