This thesis examines the citation of Ps 68(67).19 in Eph 4.8. Following an introduction that introduces the problem of the altered wording in the citation in Eph 4.8, chapter 2 comprises a History of Research that is organised around the possible sources for the author’s citation in Eph 4.8. One of several conclusions made is that the proclivity of NT scholars to attribute the source text to particular Jewish traditions has contributed to overlooking the import of Ps 68(67).19 within a normal pattern of christological reading of the Psalms in early Christianity. Following these opening chapters, the thesis is divided broadly into Part One and Part Two. The first is deconstructive in nature; the second is constructive. Part One examines textual traditions of Ps 68(67).19 within Justin Martyr, the Peshitta Psalter, and Targum Psalms. Each of these sources share the reading ‘give’ rather than ‘receive’, raising the question of the relationship between these traditions and Eph 4.8. Chapter 3 examines Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho, which contains two citations of Ps 68(67).19 that strongly resemble Ephesians. Nevertheless, as nearly all interpreters acknowledge, Justin never refers directly to ‘Paul’ or ‘Pauline’ letters in any of his writings. Is the parallel wording of Justin’s citations evidence for an early Christian tradition that was also available to Ephesians? I argue that although unmentioned by name, a reasonable case can be made that Justin is familiar with the Pauline corpus, including Eph 4.8. Chapter 4 considers the evidence of Peshitta Psalms, which agrees with the reading of Eph 4.8 in a strand of its copyist tradition. After examining scholarly construals of the Peshitta MS tradition, I consider direct evidence for the influence of Eph 4.8 upon some Peshitta MSS as intimated by Theodore of Mopsuestia. Chapter 5 examines Targum Psalms, focusing on translation techniques and the targumist’s tendency to add, alter, or modify his source in various ways. I argue that when the targumist’s techniques and tendencies are taken into consideration, the targum’s reading ‘give’ is better understood as a typical targumic insertion. The proclivity of many scholars to link Targum Psalms to Eph 4.8 is a classic example of ‘parallelomania’. Part Two turns to make a constructive case for the citation found in Eph 4.8. Chapter 6 is a close examination of the author of Ephesians’ approach to literary borrowing. I consider both his citations from the Jewish scriptures and his use of Colossians as evidence. Chapter 7 examines how early Christians read the biblical Psalms as prophecies. Following a survey of Jewish readings of the Psalms, this chapter surveys how early Christians read the Psalms in light of the death and resurrection- exaltation of Christ. Drawing insights from this, chapter 8 turns to consider the phrases ‘he ascended . . . he gave gifts’ in Eph 4.8. I argue that an ambiguity of the addressee in the text of Ps 68(67).19 allowed for the application of this text to Christ. Moreover, the ‘ascent’ language could easily be applied to the resurrection- exaltation and this association naturally led to the language of gift-giving in Eph 4.8. Chapter 9 considers how the citation of Ps 68(67).19 fits into the context of Ephesians 4, focusing on several important factors such as the language of descent in Eph 4.9–10. Part One and Part Two are followed by a short conclusion that summarises the thesis and draws out several conclusions and implications based upon this study.

This synoptic analysis of verses from Job chapters 37-39 in 11Q10, the Peshitta version (PJob) and the rabbinic targum (RJob) aims to identify the translators’ methods for handling the Hebrew text (HT) and to assess the apparent skills and knowledge brought by them to their task. Additionally, the study engages with recent discussion which challenges the nature of 11Q10 as targum. To this end, PJob and RJob provide accepted models of ‘translation’ and ‘targum’ alongside which to assess 11Q10. The following translation methods are identified, described, compared and contrasted in the three versions: selection,extension, alternative translation, expansion, substitution, adjustment of the consonantal HT, adjustment of the Hebrew word order or division, omission, and conjecture. PJob is confirmed as an attempt to transpose the difficult Hebrew of Job into Syriac. RJob is confirmed as a conservative translation with clear underpinnings in allusion to scripture and to rabbinic traditions attested elsewhere. Significant observations are made regarding an interpretative quality in 11Q10, and new light is cast on its richness and subtlety as an allusive translation. It is proposed that the translation displays deep knowledge of scripture and skill in applying this knowledge. It is further proposed that careful comparison with methods which have been identified in Onqelos is warranted. 11Q10 is identified as an important early witness to scripturally-based motifs which are also found in other intertestamental and rabbinic sources. It is argued that 11Q10’s nature suggests that its purpose was not simply to translate but to understand and subtly explicate the HT, and that it was intended for use alongside it, not as a replacement. The study refutes the categorization of 11Q10 as ‘translation’ rather than ‘targum’, and agrees with its orginal editors that its value lies in its unique witness to the early nature of targum.

The aim of this study is to develop a more effective translation technique analysis of the Peshitta to Ezekiel text that would contribute to the textual studies of Ezekiel. In order to help provide such an effective analysis on translation technique, the methodology employed is the comparative analysis of texts, which incorporates the theory from Cognitive Semantics called Frame Semantics. This theory views units of meaning in text or speech contexts at the level of semantic frames and is therefore most ideal in view of the idiomatic nature of the Peshitta translation. By applying this theory, the frames in the Hebrew source text of the translator were compared to those in the translator’s target Syriac text, to see whether there were correspondences between the two frames. In chapter 3, the GIVING frames evoked by נתן (nātan) were studied and it was found that most of the frames in the Hebrew text corresponded well with those in the Syriac target text. The exception is mainly those frames in which there might have been textual difficulties in the source text. Similar observations were made in chapter 4 for the ARRIVING frames evoked by the Hebrew verb בוא (bō). However, nouns associated with the frame MISDEEDS presented some problems, mainly as to their use in the Hebrew source text. The use of these nouns could have affected the translator’s understanding of such categories, leading to their inconsistent representation in the target text. Nevertheless, it can be indicated that the translator demonstrated a relatively good understanding of the use of the nouns in the Hebrew text. Overall, the translation of the Peshitta to Ezekiel was made at the approximate level of semantic frames, displaying a translation technique that should be very useful for the textual studies of the Book of Ezekiel. / PhD (Semitic Languages), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2013

The aim of this study is to develop a more effective translation technique analysis of the Peshitta to Ezekiel text that would contribute to the textual studies of Ezekiel. In order to help provide such an effective analysis on translation technique, the methodology employed is the comparative analysis of texts, which incorporates the theory from Cognitive Semantics called Frame Semantics. This theory views units of meaning in text or speech contexts at the level of semantic frames and is therefore most ideal in view of the idiomatic nature of the Peshitta translation. By applying this theory, the frames in the Hebrew source text of the translator were compared to those in the translator’s target Syriac text, to see whether there were correspondences between the two frames. In chapter 3, the GIVING frames evoked by נתן (nātan) were studied and it was found that most of the frames in the Hebrew text corresponded well with those in the Syriac target text. The exception is mainly those frames in which there might have been textual difficulties in the source text. Similar observations were made in chapter 4 for the ARRIVING frames evoked by the Hebrew verb בוא (bō). However, nouns associated with the frame MISDEEDS presented some problems, mainly as to their use in the Hebrew source text. The use of these nouns could have affected the translator’s understanding of such categories, leading to their inconsistent representation in the target text. Nevertheless, it can be indicated that the translator demonstrated a relatively good understanding of the use of the nouns in the Hebrew text. Overall, the translation of the Peshitta to Ezekiel was made at the approximate level of semantic frames, displaying a translation technique that should be very useful for the textual studies of the Book of Ezekiel. / PhD (Semitic Languages), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2013