Abstract Jewish Neo-Aamaic translations of the Bible were orally transmitted from generation to generation by local teachers to disciples. The translations were adjusted for the various dialects (Zakho, Urmia, etc.), and even from one teacher to another according to their memory and knowledge, but certain principles remain more or less prevalent. Thus, the translations are normally quite rigid, reflecting the Hebrew syntax almost word forword. However, insome cases they deviate from this principle for euphemistic and other reasons, often following in the steps of the ancient Aramaic Targums. This may be a direct continuous tradition reflected in the translations of other Jewish languagesas well, but could be also via popular commentaries such as Rashi's.

Abstract Our understanding of the translation technique of the Peshitta of Jeremiah has been considerably advanced through a recent monograph by Gillian Greenberg. This proposed that the Peshitta of Jeremiah bears witness to a Hebrew text shorter than the Masoretic Text and that the Masoretic Text contains redactional expansions subsequent to the translation of the Peshitta. Some of the evidence used to support these conclusions is questioned here, and explanations differing from those of Greenberg are proposed for a number of other passages in Jeremiah.

[ AS 1 (2003) 163-64] ISSN 1477-8351 Preface In this issue of Aramaic Studies , we present the first group of selected papers from the international Conference Aramith, held at Halifax Hall, University of Sheffield, from July 23-25, 2002. The theme of the Conference was Aramaic Lexicography, and the program consisted of the following presentations: Siam Bhayro (Yale University), ‘Sergius translation of Galen’s Book of Simple Drugs ’; Roberta Borghero (University of Cambridge), ‘The Neo-Aramaic di- alect of Ashitha’; Sebastian Brock (University of Oxford), ‘Syriac Lex- icography: Reflections on resources and sources’; Eleanor Coghill (Uni- versity of Cambridge), ‘The Neo-Aramaic

Abstract The Samaritan Aramaic version of the Pentateuch in general, and its later manuscripts in particular, are replete with euphemistic expressions of all kinds, seeking to 'purify' the language from embarrassing utterances, especially where the original was too candid in expressing matters in which discreetness is required, according to contemporary standards. This study focuses on four fields in which euphemism is common in the Samaritan Targum: 1. the dignity of the ancestors, 2. taboo expressions, 3. fear of death, 4. abomination and disgust. The means by which euphemism is achieved is also scrutinized.