Randall Buth wrote:
> More importantly, we have aphorisms that are preserved in Hebrew and
> in Aramaic. The Aramaic ones are called "matla", (=mashal, that's
> "parable" to the Greek audience), yet they are preserved in Aramaic and
> not translated into Hebrew. Thus, some Aramaic parables are preserved,
> but there are no Aramaic story parables!
If I have understood your distinction correctly, it is very similar to the
distinction which I have made (based on the 3ST) between aphorisms in the
early sayings source, many of which go back to Jesus, and long parables not
in the early sayings source which in my opinion do not go back to Jesus. If
Jesus taught in aphorism/parables and not in "story parables", then this
would appear to remove a major objection to the idea that Jesus taught in
Aramaic. Perhaps the earliest evidence for this idea comes in the Greek
words GEENNA, MAMWNAS and SATON, which apparently derive from Aramaic (or is
this also silly?) and which occur within aphorism/parables that probably go
back to Jesus.
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...