Thanks for this suggestion! We have occasionally looked at and commented upon the Aramaic of the Babylonian Talmud when it has helped to illustrate a connection with other dialects of Aramaic. We’ll continue to do so from time to time as we read the rabbinic literature of the Targums. Most Sincerely, Scott Callaham

An English translation of Targum Neofiti appears in the volumes of The Aramaic Bible series: litpress.org/Products/5476/The-Aramaic-Bible-Volume-1A-Targum-Neofiti-1-Genesis These volumes are available on Logos Bible software. See for example: www.logos.com/product/42155/the-aramaic-bible-volume-1a-targum-neofiti-1-genesis The most comprehensive electronic tool for the study of the Targums is the Targums Add-On in Accordance Bible Software, which contains texts and English translations for all of the Jewish Targums: www.accordancebible.com/product/targums-add-on-aramaic-english-and-samaritan-targums-wordmap-onkelos-glossary-and-stevenson-aramaic-grammar-april-2020/ Most Sincerely, Scott Callaham

Please see this earlier Daily Dose of Aramaic episode for a rundown on Jewish Aramaic dialects: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jV7NaYV9jNd8ntE Most Sincerely, Scott Callaham

The vowels in the Hebrew Bible come to us through preservation of reading tradition by the Masoretes. Vowel markings in Targum Onkelos are present in the earliest manuscripts in Babylonian pointing. On Daily Dose of Aramaic I have occasionally shown Babylonian pointing, but we have used Tiberian vowel pointing for audience familiarity. Vowels in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan appear in printed records of one of the early manuscripts (the “editio princeps”). There is only one manuscript of Targum Neofiti, and except for a few words here and there, it does not have vowel markings. My pronunciation on Daily Dose of Aramaic is reconstructed with the aid of some Palestinian Targum manuscripts that have written vowels. Most Sincerely, Scott Callaham

A review of BHQ would indeed make a fine episode of DDA sometime. Thanks for the suggestion! For now, let me refer you to a resource that offers a comparative BHQ/BHS review of the volume that appeared in this video: David Marcus, “How BHQ Differs from BHS in the Book of Ezra-Nehemiah,” pages 169-176 in Sôfer Mahîr: Essays in Honour of Adrian Schenker Offered by Editors of Biblia Hebraica Quinta (Boston: Brill, 2006). Most Sincerely, Scott

@@dailydoseofaramaicthank you, I appreciate your response! And thanks for making a video about the readers.

@@dailydoseofaramaic I just looked up that book. Very expensive! And I am nowhere close to a theological library. (and I noticed I responded with two different YT channels, oh well!).

The dialect of the Jerusalem (or “Palestinian”) Talmud is Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, which is also the dialect of Targum Neofiti and the Fragment Targums. As for the Babylonian Talmud, its dialect is Jewish Babylonian Aramaic. We have referred briefly to a Talmud passage before for illustrative purposes, though at present we are working through biblical passages in various Targums. May you continue to advance in your knowledge of Aramaic! Most Sincerely, Scott Callaham

@@dailydoseofaramaic Thanks. Currently learning Syriac through the Peshitta New Testament. ;)

@stizelswik3694 The Second Person of the Holy Trinity, not Jesus (the Second Person incarnated), so no mother.

I appreciate the sensitivity, but "Palestinian Targum" is the term that scholars, Jewish, Christian, and non-religious, use for this material and to use a different nomenclature would be confusing in an already complicated landscape of manuscripts, language, and traditions. However, the term "Palestine" did not arise only in the 2nd C CE when the Romans renamed the region, but rather dates back at least to the 4th C BCE, and is probably found in Egyptian and Assyrian texts as well (though debated). Further, it is likely cognate with the Hebrew translated as "Philistines." So the attestation of "Palestine" and its cognates is very ancient indeed. Language does change over time and today the term "Palestine" has particular connotation in popular culture, to be sure. Scholarship can and should be slow to change terminology so that there can be consistency of meaning and understanding. In Targum studies in particular, we have been debating and seeking greater consistency with respect to textual traditions and even linguistic identification (e.g., Jewish Literary Aramaic). With a broader historical understanding and providing some consistency in nomenclature, it seems to me best to continue using the terminology most widely used and accepted by scholarship today.