Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Luke would never have done THAT to Matthew.

Expand Messages
  • Dave Gentile
    Luke would never have done THAT to Matthew. This is perhaps one of the most often heard objections to the Mark-without-Q idea. It was in my mind 10 years
    Message 1 of 29 , May 23, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Luke would never have done THAT to Matthew.

      This is perhaps one of the most often heard objections to the "Mark-without-Q" idea. It was in my mind 10 years ago, and some version of this objection has been with me up until the last couple of weeks. Some reasonable and intelligible motivation for Luke acting like this was needed.

      One of the most initially attractive things about the "Q" hypothesis is that the material does look like a list of sayings of Jesus.

      My very small new proposal is that Luke believed that the gospel of Matthew was based on sayings of Jesus recorded by the disciple Matthew, just as Pappias would believe this at a later date. If Luke believes this (even though on other grounds I believe this is not true), and also regards Matthew as a whole as a contemporary work opposed to his viewpoint in many ways, particularly on the question of the inclusion of gentiles, then Luke has a reasonable and intelligible motive for his actions. He disregards most of Matthew, but pulls out of it what he believes to be authentic sayings of Jesus. To me, this possible explanation for Luke's behavior greatly strengthens the "Mark-without-Q" idea.

      It also allows "Mark-without-Q" to reasonably and intelligibly explain why the saying-like structure exists, something that attracts people to "Q" in the first place.

      Dave Gentile
      Riverside, IL
    • Jack Kilmon
      ... From: Dave Gentile To: Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2009 1:15 PM Subject: [Synoptic-L] Luke would never have
      Message 2 of 29 , May 24, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Dave Gentile" <gentile_dave@...>
        To: <Synoptic@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2009 1:15 PM
        Subject: [Synoptic-L] Luke would never have done THAT to Matthew.


        > Luke would never have done THAT to Matthew.
        >
        > This is perhaps one of the most often heard objections to the
        > "Mark-without-Q" idea. It was in my mind 10 years ago, and some version of
        > this objection has been with me up until the last couple of weeks. Some
        > reasonable and intelligible motivation for Luke acting like this was
        > needed.
        >
        > One of the most initially attractive things about the "Q" hypothesis is
        > that the material does look like a list of sayings of Jesus.
        >
        > My very small new proposal is that Luke believed that the gospel of
        > Matthew was based on sayings of Jesus recorded by the disciple Matthew,
        > just as Pappias would believe this at a later date. If Luke believes this
        > (even though on other grounds I believe this is not true), and also
        > regards Matthew as a whole as a contemporary work opposed to his viewpoint
        > in many ways, particularly on the question of the inclusion of gentiles,
        > then Luke has a reasonable and intelligible motive for his actions. He
        > disregards most of Matthew, but pulls out of it what he believes to be
        > authentic sayings of Jesus. To me, this possible explanation for Luke's
        > behavior greatly strengthens the "Mark-without-Q" idea.
        >
        > It also allows "Mark-without-Q" to reasonably and intelligibly explain why
        > the saying-like structure exists, something that attracts people to "Q" in
        > the first place.
        >
        > Dave Gentile
        > Riverside, IL


        Although this could be considered an alternative to the Q hypothesis, a
        couple things bother me. First and foremost, Q sayings are clearly Aramaic
        to translational Greek and the Matthean author, who does not appear to have
        been Aramaic competent, uses a Greek translation of these sayings. The
        Lukan versions of some of the Q material translates Aramaic idiom where
        Matthew does not indicating Luke was Aramaic competent and translatedthe
        Aramaic source himself. The very strong evidence, IMO, is that the "Jesus
        stuff" is from an Aramaic document separate from the Greek of the narratives
        that tie them together. The Matthean and Lukan "Jesus stuff" is clearly
        from a separate Aramaic source document which Luke translates in some cases
        more accurately than the Greek translation used by Matthew. Just one example
        is In the Lord's Prayer itself. First, let's look at the sentence of the
        Lord's Prayer
        (one almost certainly from the lips of Jesus) that says:

        "And forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors."

        Keep in mind that Luke, being from an Incula of Syrian Antioch, was
        competent in Aramaic as well as Greek. The author of Canonical Matthew, on
        the other hand, was neither competent in Aramaic nor Hebrew, IMO. Matthew,
        therefore, renders this petition as:

        KAI APHES EMIN TA OPHEILEMATA EMON
        and forgive us our DEBTS

        OS KAI EMEIS APHIEMEN TOIS OHIEILETAIS EMON
        as also we forgive our DEBTORS

        Matthew was working from a GREEK translation of the sayings source document
        (TA LOGIA) mentioned by Papias in Eusebius and was, IMO, synonymous with Q.
        In the Greek OPHEILEMATA refers to your Master Card bill <g>.

        NOW...let's look at it in Aramaic before moving on to Luke:

        I will phoneticize this rather than use standard text-critical
        transliteration scheme and I am going to use a capital X for the pharyngeal,
        back-of-the-throat het thingy because this sentence as it came from the
        mouth of Jesus will make you reach for the gargle if you are not middle
        eastern.


        wvoshVOX lan Xoy-ya-VAIN ayKAH-na dup XaNAN shva-XAN ull-Xaya-VAIN

        The Aramaic hoyBAYN for "debts" is an idiom *ONLY IN ARAMAIC* for "SIN."

        NOW let's look at how our Greek educated but Aramaic speaking physician
        writes this in his gospel:

        KAI APHES EMIN TAS AMARTIAS EMON
        and forgive us our SINS

        KAI GAR AUTOI APHIEMEN PANTI OPHEILONTI EMIN
        for also ourselves we forgive everyone indebted to us

        You will notice that Luke, writing for Greek speaking gentiles, uses the
        Greek word for SINS in the first part while retaining the Greek word for
        "debt" (in participial form) in the second part. So what is Luke telling us
        here?

        Luke is saying:

        "I am writing this in Greek for you because you speak Greek and not the
        native Aramaic of our Lord so you dont know that "debt" means "sin" to
        someone who speaks Aramaic so I am writing YOUR word for SIN to make you
        understand what it means."

        Luke is testifying here that 1. Jesus spoke Aramaic; 2. The Lord's Prayer
        was originally spoken in Aramaic; 3. He is translating the Aramaic to Greek
        for his gospel. 4. It came from an Aramaic source also used by Matthew. It
        was not copied from Matthew and edited.

        Until such time as the clear Aramaic interference, lexically and
        sytactically, in the Greek of "Q" material can be explained in a "no Q"
        hypothesis, Q still stands, IMO, as a souce document for both Matthew and
        Luke.

        "Mark without Q," however, is a different matter since there are about 16 Q
        sayings used in Mark.

        My second issue is 47 Q sayings in Thomas independant of the Gospels. I
        find the linguistic issue the most compelling since there is debate
        concerning the independance of Thomas from the synoptics.

        Regards,

        Jack


        Jack Kilmon
        San Antonio, TX
      • E Bruce Brooks
        To: Synoptic In Response To: Jack Kilmon On: Lord s Prayer From: Bruce The Aramaic Hypothesis (that our Greek NT is merely a translation of, or from, an
        Message 3 of 29 , May 24, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          To: Synoptic
          In Response To: Jack Kilmon
          On: Lord's Prayer
          From: Bruce

          The Aramaic Hypothesis (that our Greek NT is merely a translation of, or
          from, an original but now lost Aramaic NT) has its undeniable appeal. Jesus
          most likely spoke Aramaic, which is already a point in favor. So the thing
          is already halfway to home plate before it even comes to bat. The trouble I
          have with it, at least in the form that people who know Aramaic present it,
          is that its implications very often go against the evidence of the Greek NT,
          which at least we do possess.

          Did the Aramaic nature of all Christian writings continue as late as John of
          Patmos? Nobody who reads Torrey on Revelation will fail to be persuaded, at
          least for the moment, that this was the case. The linguistic argument seems
          irrefutable (and, for that matter, so does Torrey's explanation that other
          errors in Revelation are due to a mistaken reading or other displacement in
          a *Greek* Vorlage). It's just that the larger picture tends to lead in what,
          for me at least, is an uncomfortable and unconvincing direction.

          As one tiny example:

          JACK: First, let's look at the sentence of the Lord's Prayer (one almost
          certainly from the lips of Jesus) that says: "And forgive us our debts as we
          forgive our debtors."

          BRUCE: Almost certainly not. The LP is a creation of the later movement,
          like much of the rest of its ritual and indeed its theology. One strong
          point in favor, for those who take the Synoptic evidence seriously, is that
          there is no warrant in Mark for the existence of anything like the LP
          (though the phrases out of which somebody later crafted it are not hard to
          identify). Evidently, the LP existed for both Mt and Lk (leaving aside for a
          moment the touchy question of their mutual priority). Nobody much cares to
          date either Mt or Lk earlier than the Jerusalem Year 70. Then we have 40
          years in which the LP might have been innovated and become established in at
          least some Christian groups - evidently including those to which Mt and Lk
          were connected.

          Was the language of these churches still Aramaic at this point? Did Matthew,
          for example, access Mark in an Aramaic or a Greek version, assuming for the
          moment that both versions existed?

          These are among the points on which the denizens of the non-Aramaic outer
          darkness, such as myself, would appreciate some discussion, by those
          situated more within the circle of light.

          Bruce

          E Bruce Brooks
          Warring States Project
          University of Massachusetts at Amherst
        • Matson, Mark (Academic)
          Jack: What Q sayings are in Mark? The definition of Q is usually material in Matthew and Luke not in Mark. Or, put another way, how do you recognize Q
          Message 4 of 29 , May 24, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Jack:

            What "Q" sayings are in Mark? The definition of Q is usually material in Matthew and Luke not in Mark.
            Or, put another way, how do you recognize "Q" material in Mark? How do you define it?


            Mark A. Matson
            Academic Dean
            Milligan College
            http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm

            ________________________________

            Jack Kilmon wrote:


            "Mark without Q," however, is a different matter since there are about 16 Q
            sayings used in Mark.


            Jack Kilmon
            San Antonio, TX








            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Dave Gentile
            Jack, I m less familiar with the Lord s prayer example than some other ones but I will look into it. So, hopefully you ll allow me to substitute a similar
            Message 5 of 29 , May 24, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Jack,

              I'm less familiar with the Lord's prayer example than some other ones but I will look into it. So, hopefully you'll allow me to substitute a similar example for analysis.

              But first a bit of background. According to my suggestion the author of the gospel of Matthew claims to have sayings from Jesus recorded by interviewing the disciple Matthew. These would of course be in Aramaic.

              Now my current proposal is simply that the author of the gospel of Matthew makes this claim and that Luke ends up accepting that claim. However, I had also proposed (in the past) that in order to strengthen that claim the author of Matthew might actually have produced such a document but translated from Greek, not the other way around.

              I'm flexible on whether or not such a document actually existed, I'd have to look at more cases that are supposed to involve Aramaic mistranslations in order to decide for myself for sure. The proposal is simpler if no such document exists, but if there is enough evidence to demand it then such a document should be included in the proposal.

              So, on this hypothesis the author of Matthew is actually very good with Aramaic. (As we might expect a pro-Jewish author to be). Good enough in fact that he can used word similarities and such to say "See this is how Mark got it wrong". Matthew is writing because his latest version of Mark is simply too pro-gentile, too Pauline to tolerate. He wants a pro-Jewish-Christian gospel and wants to "correct" Mark and to do it in a way that people will find believable and will plausibly believe that Mark got it wrong. Matthew uses his knowledge of Aramaic at times to help accomplish this.

              My favorite example of this is how Matthew changes the salt sayings. I contend that Mark has created a complex pericope to point us to Leviticus 2:11f. New Jerusalem reads, "None of the cereal offerings which you offer to Yahweh must be prepared with leaven for you must never include leaven or honey in food burnt for Yahweh. You may offer them to Yahweh as an offering of first-fruits, but they will not make a pleasing smell if they are burned on the altar. You will put salt in every cereal offering that you offer, and you will not fail to put the salt of the covenant of your God on your cereal offering"

              Mark combined salt, fire, the sacrificial fires of Gehenna, themes of dedication to God, and themes of acceptability to God together in this one pericope, which is too coincidental if he did not intend us to look to Leviticus here. The interpretation of Mark's sayings is less important, but assuming they were written in a Jewish-Christian setting, I would read them this way:

              Where `their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched' everyone will indeed be salted (purified, made acceptable to God) by fire. The salt ( of the covenant or that makes sacrifices acceptable to God) is good. Now, if salt ( of the covenant, or that makes things acceptable to God) were to become salt-less (unacceptable to God) in nature, in whom will it be seasoned (restored)? Have (my) salt (that makes sacrifices acceptable to God) in you, and be at peace with one another.

              Where `their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched' everyone will indeed be salted with fire. [OPOU...PAS GAR PURI ALIAQHSETAI] The salt is good. [KALON TO hALAS] Now, if salt were to become salt-less in nature, [EAN DE TO hALAS ANALON GENHTAI] in whom will it be seasoned? [EN TINI AUTO ARTUSETE] Have (my) salt [hALA] in yourselves, and be at peace with each other.

              I've placed a period after the 3rd "Gehenna". The `worm and the fire' and `salted by fire' are linked by GAR.

              I translated EN TINI as "in whom", based on the repetition starting at the end of the previous pericope, of "in my name", "in your name", "in my name", "in the name of Christ".

              For the last salt, Mark writes hALA instead of hALAS. Why is unclear, but it seems that it is somehow to be understood differently than the hALAS salt. Danker has that it is "probably a back-formation from hALAT- " So hALA could be sort of a "case-less" salt. It could then intentionally be read either as "Have salt in you" (accusative) or "Have my salt, or the salt of the one of whom I speak, in you" (genitive).

              Now look at Matthew:

              Matthew 5:13 "You are the salt of the earth. But if salt were to become tasteless/foolish, in/by what/whom will it become salty? (EAN DE ALAS MWRANQH EN TINI ALISQHSETAI) It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men." Matthew changes "salt-less" to tasteless/foolish, and changes "seasoned" to "salty".

              Of interest here is Matthew's choice of the word "MWRANQH" (or "Moranthe"). It has been argued that Matthew got this from an Aramaic saying source which had a word with the root "TPL", and meant "becomes tasteless". The theory continues that Matthew then mistranslates it to mean "becomes insipid", and thus chooses to use the Greek word "MWRANQH", "foolish". However, I would argue that Matthew wrote "foolish", because he meant "foolish", that is he was deliberately re-writing Mark. If that was the case, then Matthew would have most likely been well aware of the similarly between "foolish" and "tasteless" in Aramaic, and probably used this fact to help justify his changing the gospel of Mark's "salt-less" to the gospel of Matthew's "foolish" and the re-contextualization of the salt saying.

              Now, let's suppose I've gotten Mark's message a little wrong here, it is still the case that he seems to be doing something pretty complex in pointing us to Leviticus. This takes a lot of cleverness even if Mark is free to create exactly the sentences he wants Jesus to say. But if Matthew's version was actually first, it would be nothing short of miraculous for Mark to be able to change the words found in Q and come up with something complex and intricate like this to fit his purpose.

              What I picture happening historically is this: Mark wrote the salt piece to say that the covenant is restored in Jesus. But later Christians were starting to take this as one of a number of "proof texts" of things like "As long as we have the "salt" of Jesus in us the OT law is unimportant". "All we need is Jesus". Matthew wants to change that so he uses his knowledge of Aramaic to help him justify his re-write of Mark.

              In short "Q" (or really a saying source) seems to be there because the author of Matthew wanted everyone to think such a source existed, but in reality Mark came first and Matthew's sayings are derivatives, sometimes clever derivatives, but derivatives.

              Dave Gentile
              Riverside, IL
            • Dave Gentile
              Jack, Regarding the Lord s prayer, I have two thoughts. First I could augment my proposal here. Again the idea is this: The author of the gospel of Matthew is
              Message 6 of 29 , May 24, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                Jack,

                Regarding the Lord's prayer, I have two thoughts. First I could augment my proposal here.

                Again the idea is this:

                The author of the gospel of Matthew is claiming to be producing the new gospel to correct Mark on the basis of an interview with the disciple Matthew. In reality these changes are the author's creation however. The author's claim of an eye-witness account is accepted both by Luke and later by Pappias.

                Such an interview would of course have been in Aramaic, so let's add this proposal. Suppose in the original autograph of the gospel of Matthew, in addition to the Greek text, the author provides an Aramaic version of certain key sentences. Such Aramaic additions could easily have been omitted in subsequent copies but a version with Aramaic inserts could easily have made its way to a contemporary like Luke.

                Now in reality these Aramaic bits would be translations from Greek done by the author of the gospel of Matthew, but that author would claim they are based on a conversation with the disciple Matthew and that the Greek is the translation.

                This could explain Luke's use of the word `sins'. It also would help answer Ron's question about how Luke knew which sayings of Jesus to copy (although I think this is answerable without the Aramaic text as well).

                So, this proposal is somewhere between my other ideas. We don't need a whole written list of sayings, just some Aramaic "footnotes" in the autograph of the gospel of Matthew.

                However, there is another simple solution here. The Lord's prayer was probably used ritually very early and heard by both Luke and Matthew. They easily could have heard it in both languages, and Luke could have known an Aramaic version of the Lord's prayer independent of Matthew, simply by being a ritual participant.

                At this point I'd say the second solution is the simpler and better solution. But if enough examples were accumulated where Luke seemes to have seen the Aremeic I might have to opt for the first solution.

                Dave Gentile
                Riverside, IL
              • Ron Price
                ... A Q saying in Mark is a saying in Mark which overlaps with (often as a subset of) a Double Tradition saying, but is not thought to have been the source
                Message 7 of 29 , May 25, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  Mark Matson wrote:

                  > What "Q" sayings are in Mark? The definition of Q is usually material in
                  > Matthew and Luke not in Mark.
                  > Or, put another way, how do you recognize "Q" material in Mark? How do you
                  > define it?

                  A "Q" saying in Mark is a saying in Mark which overlaps with (often as a
                  subset of) a Double Tradition saying, but is not thought to have been the
                  source of the latter.

                  For example, the Double tradition saying about Jonah and Solomon has texts
                  in Mt and Lk which are so close that they are clearly related by copying
                  (one copying the other, or both copying a common source). Mk 8:12 contains a
                  subset of the saying, and can therefore be said to be (part of) a "Q" saying
                  in Mark.

                  For an example of a complete "Q" saying in Mark, see e.g. Mk 8:35 // Mt
                  10:39 // Lk 17:33.

                  Ron Price

                  Derbyshire, UK

                  Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
                • Ron Price
                  JACK: First, let s look at the sentence of the Lord s Prayer (one almost certainly from the lips of Jesus) that says: And forgive us our debts as we forgive
                  Message 8 of 29 , May 25, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    JACK: First, let's look at the sentence of the Lord's Prayer (one almost
                    certainly from the lips of Jesus) that says: "And forgive us our debts as
                    we forgive our debtors."

                    BRUCE: Almost certainly not. The LP is a creation of the later movement,
                    like much of the rest of its ritual and indeed its theology.

                    RON: I agree with Jack here. The use of "debts" for "sins" clearly betrays
                    the saying's Aramaic and therefore probable early origin. It was only later
                    that this saying became associated with ritual. I trace the saying to an
                    Aramaic written source dated ca. 45 CE. Its form there shows no late
                    characteristics, and can almost certainly be attributed to Jesus.

                    Ron Price

                    Derbyshire, UK

                    Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
                  • Jack Kilmon
                    ... From: E Bruce Brooks To: Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 7:46 PM Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Luke would
                    Message 9 of 29 , May 29, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: "E Bruce Brooks" <brooks@...>
                      To: <Synoptic@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 7:46 PM
                      Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Luke would never have done THAT to Matthew.


                      > To: Synoptic
                      > In Response To: Jack Kilmon
                      > On: Lord's Prayer
                      > From: Bruce
                      >
                      > The Aramaic Hypothesis (that our Greek NT is merely a translation of, or
                      > from, an original but now lost Aramaic NT) has its undeniable appeal.
                      > Jesus
                      > most likely spoke Aramaic, which is already a point in favor. So the thing
                      > is already halfway to home plate before it even comes to bat. The trouble
                      > I
                      > have with it, at least in the form that people who know Aramaic present
                      > it,
                      > is that its implications very often go against the evidence of the Greek
                      > NT,
                      > which at least we do possess.

                      Actually, Bruce, I was not, nor ever would, pose that the NT was originally
                      written in Aramaic. It is true that some of the 19th and early 20th century
                      Aramaists did so as do some modern Messianics. It just is not true. Every
                      book of the NT was originally authored in Greek, BUT....those authors did
                      use source materials from Aramaic documents, Aramaic orality or Greek
                      translations of Aramaic sources. Most of the lexical and syntactic Aramaic
                      intereference in NT Greek is in the "Jesus' stuff," sayings, aphorisms and
                      parables. Those sayings designated as "Q" are in translational Greek and my
                      point was that the Aramaic subsurface of Q identify it, IMO, as a separe
                      document than the Greek narratives that glue the sayings together.




                      >
                      > Did the Aramaic nature of all Christian writings continue as late as John
                      > of
                      > Patmos? Nobody who reads Torrey on Revelation will fail to be persuaded,
                      > at
                      > least for the moment, that this was the case. The linguistic argument
                      > seems
                      > irrefutable (and, for that matter, so does Torrey's explanation that other
                      > errors in Revelation are due to a mistaken reading or other displacement
                      > in
                      > a *Greek* Vorlage). It's just that the larger picture tends to lead in
                      > what,
                      > for me at least, is an uncomfortable and unconvincing direction.

                      It is my opinion, after years of studying the Semitisms of 4G, that there
                      was an original Aramaic "proto-John," a smaller narrative, that was used in
                      Greek translation as a framework around which John of Patmos fleshed his
                      larger Greek Gospel. It is my opinion that this Aramaic "Ur-John" was
                      inimical to Simon/Kefa/Peter and *pre-dated Mark.* In fact, I think Mark
                      was originally a pro-Petrine response to "proto-John." At some point in the
                      redaction/editing processes of canonical John, I believe the final chapter
                      of Mark was "cut and pasted" to the ending of John (Chapter 21) for
                      harmonization purposes.

                      My reasong...if I may tangentialize a bit?

                      The reasoning?

                      Mark anticipates a first resurrection appearance in Galilee and John 21
                      without the "third appearance" editorial insert at 21:14 is that first
                      appearance.
                      In Mark, Peter denies Jesus three times (14:67-72). In John (21:15-17),
                      Peter affirms his love three times....the pro-Petrine redemption anticipated
                      in Mark. This completes what form critics have come to recognize as Markan
                      brackets (like the bracketed blind men at 8:22 and 10:46). In Mark, the
                      shepherd is struck down and the sheep scattered. In John 21 Peter becomes
                      the new shepherd..completing another incomplete Markan bracket. In Mark,
                      the first words spoken to a disciple are "follow me." In John 21 the LAST
                      words spoken are "follow me" (Jn 21:22) completing another Markan bracket.

                      If John 21 was originally the first resurrection appearance account of the
                      ending of Mark, Mark would become unified literarily if the appendage is
                      restored to Mark..less a few Johannine phrases. It does. As an Aramaicist,
                      I am, to the point of annoyance to some, the "follow the Aramaic" guy and
                      also find support in this from Burney. If John 21 was removed from Mark,
                      edited with a few Johannine signature phrases, we should see typically
                      Markan Aramaisms noted in Mark and John with none or little in Matthew and
                      Luke. I find this in Mark's frequent use of the historic present resulting
                      from Aramaic narrative participle also frequent in John 21. There is also
                      a connection between John and Mark's use of imperfects, the rare use of de
                      and frequent use of kai, the partitive APO in 21:10 used by Mark at 5:35,
                      6:43, 7:4 and 12:2.

                      I am claiming that the larger Greek Gospel of John was not authored by
                      Yohanan bar Zebedy.... who I think was killed along with James the
                      Righteous, Jesus' brother, in 62 CE and not his brother James, the Greater
                      as reported by the oft confused Papias. This conforms to Josephus...and
                      xx.ix.1 is NOT interpolated or edited....who records, "....so he (Ananus)
                      assembled the Sanhedrin of Judges and brought before them the brother of
                      Jesus, so-called Christ, whose name was James, AND SOME OTHERS, [some of his
                      companions] and when he had formed an accusation against THEM as breakers of
                      the law, he delivered THEM to be stoned...."

                      This is the event of Acts 12:3 to 12:12 and both John Zebedy and Peter were
                      among those others. Somehow, Peter (with someone's assistance) escaped but
                      John died with James. This may be another one of the reasons for the
                      hostility between the later Johannine community and the Petrine/Markan
                      community.

                      In short, if a "beloved disciple" wrote anything at all, it was the smaller
                      Aramaic proto-Gospel that I find still embedded, in Greek translation, in
                      the larger Greek Gospel and we are still left to our conjectures, as often
                      discussed here and on other forums, as to his/her identity. This smaller
                      work may have been the obviously Aramaic "signs source" or used in
                      association with it. The result is the Gospel of John has the heaviest
                      Aramaic interference, syntacticlly and lexically, than any other New
                      Testament work.




                      >
                      > As one tiny example:
                      >
                      > JACK: First, let's look at the sentence of the Lord's Prayer (one almost
                      > certainly from the lips of Jesus) that says: "And forgive us our debts as
                      > we
                      > forgive our debtors."
                      >
                      > BRUCE: Almost certainly not. The LP is a creation of the later movement,
                      > like much of the rest of its ritual and indeed its theology. One strong
                      > point in favor, for those who take the Synoptic evidence seriously, is
                      > that
                      > there is no warrant in Mark for the existence of anything like the LP
                      > (though the phrases out of which somebody later crafted it are not hard to
                      > identify). Evidently, the LP existed for both Mt and Lk (leaving aside for
                      > a
                      > moment the touchy question of their mutual priority). Nobody much cares to
                      > date either Mt or Lk earlier than the Jerusalem Year 70. Then we have 40
                      > years in which the LP might have been innovated and become established in
                      > at
                      > least some Christian groups - evidently including those to which Mt and Lk
                      > were connected.

                      Yes and no....if you will permit me....Yes, the LP is ritualized ascan be
                      seen in both the Matthean and Lukan versions...however....there was, IMO, an
                      original Yeshuine version from the Aramaic vox Iesu. I agree with
                      Fitzmyer's reconstruction of a short version, like Luke's, but an attenuated
                      Matthean version.


                      Luke's setting for the prayer is probably more historical than Matthew's.
                      Matthew inserts the Lord's Prayer as part of the Sermon on the Mount.
                      The 6th chapter of Matthew contains instructions on almsgiving (6:2-4),
                      prayer (6:5-15) and fasting (6:16:18). These instructions follow a
                      commonly used Jewish structural formula that can be found throughout
                      Rabbinical literature..."when you do........do not act like the
                      hypocrites/heretics/gentiles.....but do it like....." I think this chapter
                      was written originally without the Lord's Prayer and without the Mark 11:25
                      insert at 6:14. Without them, the chapter is balanced. This is one aspect
                      of Matthew that leads me to believe that the Lord's Prayer was to be
                      found in "Sayings/Q." It appears that the author of Matthew first wrote
                      M source material (from which the pericopae on almsgiving, prayer,
                      and fasting came), then he inserted the apostle Matthew's "sayings" from
                      which a shorter "Luke-style" prayer came and the prayer was edited and
                      extended to fit the liturgy of the Antiochene Christian community. The
                      Church historian Eusebius confirms Matthew's use of the original Aramaic
                      Jesus Sayings written probably by the Apostle Matthew. "Matthew
                      composed the sayings (ta logia) in the Hebrew language, and each translated
                      them (epmeneusen as best they could." (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.16). The insertion
                      of these "sayings" written by Matthew is where the Gospel got its name.
                      The author of Matthew then inserted the entirety of Mark using Mark 11:25
                      in the Sermon on the Mount to further editorialize the prayer's petition on
                      forgiveness of sins.

                      The context in Luke has Jesus praying "in a certain place" (11:1) and the
                      disciples ask Jesus for a prayer comparable to one given by John. This
                      is the more likely historical setting of the Lord's Prayer.

                      What was the original Lord's Prayer from the mouth of Jesus?

                      The Lord's Prayer in the "sayings" source was probably in its original form
                      but was expanded by Matthew for liturgical purposes and modified by Luke for
                      reasons of style and theology.

                      By removing the added ornamentations of Matthew and the changes in style by
                      Luke, a version of the Lord's Prayer very close to the actual "voice of
                      Jesus" could be reconstructed. The eminent biblical and Aramaic scholar,
                      Joseph A. Fitzmyer, does just this in "The Gospel According to Luke" op.cit.
                      I am sure you know how to phoneticize the qops, kops and hets.



                      Abba Father

                      yitQADdash sheMAK Holy is your name

                      Teteh MALkootak Your kingdom come

                      LaXMAna di MISteya Our daily bread/food

                      heb laNAH yoMA deNAH Give us today

                      wu-sheVAWK laNAH XobayNA Forgive us our debts

                      kedi shevawkNA leXayYA-bayNA As we forgive our debtors

                      we'AL ta`elinNA lenisYONa and do not lead us to the test.**

                      (Do not allow us to come to the test)


                      >
                      > Was the language of these churches still Aramaic at this point? Did
                      > Matthew,
                      > for example, access Mark in an Aramaic or a Greek version, assuming for
                      > the
                      > moment that both versions existed?

                      I do not think the Matthean author, in Syria, was competent in Aramaic OR
                      Hebrew. I believe he used Greek translations ofthe Aramaic source
                      documents. Just one proof of this, IMO, is the way he screws up the "cry
                      from the cross."


                      >
                      > These are among the points on which the denizens of the non-Aramaic outer
                      > darkness, such as myself, would appreciate some discussion, by those
                      > situated more within the circle of light.

                      I am sorry it took me a while to rspond. Its been one of those weeks.

                      shlama amek

                      Jack


                      Jack Kilmon
                      San Antonio, TX


                      >
                      > Bruce
                      >
                      > E Bruce Brooks
                      > Warring States Project
                      > University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                    • Jack Kilmon
                      Hi Mark: How about Mark 3:23-29; 4:21-22, 24-25, 30-32; 6:8-11; 8:34-35, 38; 9:39-40, 42, 50; 10:10-12, 31; 11:23, 25; 12:38-39; 13:11. Jack Jack Kilmon San
                      Message 10 of 29 , May 29, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi Mark:

                        How about Mark 3:23-29; 4:21-22, 24-25, 30-32; 6:8-11; 8:34-35, 38; 9:39-40,
                        42, 50; 10:10-12, 31; 11:23, 25; 12:38-39; 13:11.

                        Jack


                        Jack Kilmon
                        San Antonio, TX



                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: "Matson, Mark (Academic)" <MAMatson@...>
                        To: <Synoptic@yahoogroups.com>
                        Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 8:36 PM
                        Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Luke would never have done THAT to Matthew.


                        > Jack:
                        >
                        > What "Q" sayings are in Mark? The definition of Q is usually material in
                        > Matthew and Luke not in Mark.
                        > Or, put another way, how do you recognize "Q" material in Mark? How do
                        > you define it?
                        >
                        >
                        > Mark A. Matson
                        > Academic Dean
                        > Milligan College
                        > http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm
                        >
                        > ________________________________
                        >
                        > Jack Kilmon wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        > "Mark without Q," however, is a different matter since there are about 16
                        > Q
                        > sayings used in Mark.
                        >
                        >
                        > Jack Kilmon
                        > San Antonio, TX
                      • Maluflen@aol.com
                        JACK: I think this chapter was written originally without the Lord s Prayer and without the Mark 11:25 insert at 6:14. LEONARD: It is difficult for me to get
                        Message 11 of 29 , May 29, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          JACK:


                          I think this chapter
                          was written originally without the Lord's Prayer and without the Mark 11:25
                          insert at 6:14.

                          LEONARD:
                          It is difficult for me to get my poor head around the idea of Mark 11:25 as an insert at Matt 6:14, with its extremely Matthean hO PATHR hUMWN hO EN TOIS OURANOIS, rather than an obvious remnant of the Sermon on the Mount inserted at Mark 11:25, as part of Mark's abbreviated catechesis on prayer, which likewise borrows from Matt 7:7.?

                          Leonard Maluf
                          Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
                          Weston, MA


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Matson, Mark (Academic)
                          ________________________________ Jack Kilmon wrote: Actually, Bruce, I was not, nor ever would, pose that the NT was originally written in Aramaic. It is true
                          Message 12 of 29 , May 29, 2009
                          • 0 Attachment
                            ________________________________

                            Jack Kilmon wrote:

                            Actually, Bruce, I was not, nor ever would, pose that the NT was originally
                            written in Aramaic. It is true that some of the 19th and early 20th century
                            Aramaists did so as do some modern Messianics. It just is not true. Every
                            book of the NT was originally authored in Greek, BUT....those authors did
                            use source materials from Aramaic documents, Aramaic orality or Greek
                            translations of Aramaic sources. Most of the lexical and syntactic Aramaic
                            intereference in NT Greek is in the "Jesus' stuff," sayings, aphorisms and
                            parables. Those sayings designated as "Q" are in translational Greek and my
                            point was that the Aramaic subsurface of Q identify it, IMO, as a separe
                            document than the Greek narratives that glue the sayings together.


                            Jack,

                            Here I can only join with an Amen. I think the gospels were clearly written in Greek. But the traces of Aramaic material do show in a number of places.

                            Whether these are "sources" as we might imagine (e.g., written), or very strongly remembered oral remembrance I am not sure. It would be interesting to explore that.

                            Your comments on an Aramaic prot-John continues to intrigue me. But I can't jump into that right now.



                            Mark A. Matson
                            Academic Dean
                            Milligan College
                            http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm






                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Jack Kilmon
                            ... From: Dave Gentile To: Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 10:13 PM Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Luke would never
                            Message 13 of 29 , May 29, 2009
                            • 0 Attachment
                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: "Dave Gentile" <gentile_dave@...>
                              To: <Synoptic@yahoogroups.com>
                              Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2009 10:13 PM
                              Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Luke would never have done THAT to Matthew.


                              > Jack,
                              >
                              > I'm less familiar with the Lord's prayer example than some other ones but
                              > I will look into it. So, hopefully you'll allow me to substitute a similar
                              > example for analysis.
                              >
                              > But first a bit of background. According to my suggestion the author of
                              > the gospel of Matthew claims to have sayings from Jesus recorded by
                              > interviewing the disciple Matthew. These would of course be in Aramaic.
                              >
                              > Now my current proposal is simply that the author of the gospel of Matthew
                              > makes this claim and that Luke ends up accepting that claim. However, I
                              > had also proposed (in the past) that in order to strengthen that claim the
                              > author of Matthew might actually have produced such a document but
                              > translated from Greek, not the other way around.

                              You will probably read my response to Bruce on this issue before getting to
                              this. To repeat, I do not think the Mattheam hagiographer was Aramaic
                              competent and he used Greek translations of Aramaic sayings materials.




                              >
                              > I'm flexible on whether or not such a document actually existed, I'd have
                              > to look at more cases that are supposed to involve Aramaic mistranslations
                              > in order to decide for myself for sure. The proposal is simpler if no such
                              > document exists, but if there is enough evidence to demand it then such a
                              > document should be included in the proposal.

                              There are a number of categories for Aramaisms and certainly Aramaisms of
                              mistranslation is one of them. One of those can be found at Luke 14:26: (I
                              don't remember if we can use SGreek or SHebrew fonts here so I will
                              transliterate for Greek and phoneticize for Aramaic)

                              EI TIS ERXETAI PROS ME KAI SU ***MISEI**** TON PATERA
                              if someone comes to me and does not ***HATE** the father

                              hEAUTOU KAI THN MHTERA KAI THN GUNAIKA KAI TA
                              of himself and the mother and the wife and
                              the

                              TEKNA KAI TOUS ADELFOUS KAI TAS ADELFAS...you know the rest.
                              children and the brothers and the sisters
                              ...........

                              Now in Aramaic:

                              man DAthe l'WAty w'LA *****SAne***** l'ABuhy
                              whoever comes to me and not HATE his father

                              w'l'IMmeh w'l'atATteh
                              and his mother and his wife

                              w'laBENawhy w'l'achAWhy w'l'achUAty......
                              and his children and his brothers and his sisters....

                              This is a mistranslated idiom where the Aramaic word for "hate" (sana) means
                              to "set aside."

                              To SET ASIDE family when under the instruction of a Rabbi was the custom and
                              can be found in the Talmud. As such, this difficult saying of Jesus makes
                              sense.


                              >
                              > So, on this hypothesis the author of Matthew is actually very good with
                              > Aramaic. (As we might expect a pro-Jewish author to be). Good enough in
                              > fact that he can used word similarities and such to say "See this is how
                              > Mark got it wrong". Matthew is writing because his latest version of Mark
                              > is simply too pro-gentile, too Pauline to tolerate. He wants a
                              > pro-Jewish-Christian gospel and wants to "correct" Mark and to do it in a
                              > way that people will find believable and will plausibly believe that Mark
                              > got it wrong. Matthew uses his knowledge of Aramaic at times to help
                              > accomplish this.

                              If you read my response to Bruce, you know my position that the Matthean
                              author was NOT competent in Aramaic. There are anumber of examples that
                              lead me to this conclusion but one of these is Matthew's handling of the
                              "cry from the cross" as "Eli, eli..." There is often a temptation or need
                              to retranslate, paraphrase or dance around the "cry from the cross" but it
                              says what it says and he was talking to God feeling, at the moment,
                              abandonment. alohee, alohee, lamah shevawktanee. This is correct in the
                              Galilean phonology (the lamed voiced with a qamets qatan rather than gadhol)
                              of Western Judean Aramaic. No idiom, no mistake, no Lamsa invented "my
                              power,"and no "gone out of me." Just part of intense suffering, "MY God, MY
                              God. why have you forsaken me?" Mark's native language was Aramaic...so
                              obvious in his Greek...and I think he transliterated it correctly as "eloi"
                              for eLOhy..."God of me." Why did Matthew mess it up?

                              >
                              > My favorite example of this is how Matthew changes the salt sayings. I
                              > contend that Mark has created a complex pericope to point us to Leviticus
                              > 2:11f. New Jerusalem reads, "None of the cereal offerings which you offer
                              > to Yahweh must be prepared with leaven for you must never include leaven
                              > or honey in food burnt for Yahweh. You may offer them to Yahweh as an
                              > offering of first-fruits, but they will not make a pleasing smell if they
                              > are burned on the altar. You will put salt in every cereal offering that
                              > you offer, and you will not fail to put the salt of the covenant of your
                              > God on your cereal offering"
                              >
                              > Mark combined salt, fire, the sacrificial fires of Gehenna, themes of
                              > dedication to God, and themes of acceptability to God together in this one
                              > pericope, which is too coincidental if he did not intend us to look to
                              > Leviticus here. The interpretation of Mark's sayings is less important,
                              > but assuming they were written in a Jewish-Christian setting, I would read
                              > them this way:
                              >
                              > Where `their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched' everyone will
                              > indeed be salted (purified, made acceptable to God) by fire. The salt ( of
                              > the covenant or that makes sacrifices acceptable to God) is good. Now, if
                              > salt ( of the covenant, or that makes things acceptable to God) were to
                              > become salt-less (unacceptable to God) in nature, in whom will it be
                              > seasoned (restored)? Have (my) salt (that makes sacrifices acceptable to
                              > God) in you, and be at peace with one another.
                              >
                              > Where `their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched' everyone will
                              > indeed be salted with fire. [OPOU...PAS GAR PURI ALIAQHSETAI] The salt is
                              > good. [KALON TO hALAS] Now, if salt were to become salt-less in nature,
                              > [EAN DE TO hALAS ANALON GENHTAI] in whom will it be seasoned? [EN TINI
                              > AUTO ARTUSETE] Have (my) salt [hALA] in yourselves, and be at peace with
                              > each other.
                              >
                              > I've placed a period after the 3rd "Gehenna". The `worm and the fire' and
                              > `salted by fire' are linked by GAR.
                              >
                              > I translated EN TINI as "in whom", based on the repetition starting at the
                              > end of the previous pericope, of "in my name", "in your name", "in my
                              > name", "in the name of Christ".
                              >
                              > For the last salt, Mark writes hALA instead of hALAS. Why is unclear, but
                              > it seems that it is somehow to be understood differently than the hALAS
                              > salt. Danker has that it is "probably a back-formation from hALAT- " So
                              > hALA could be sort of a "case-less" salt. It could then intentionally be
                              > read either as "Have salt in you" (accusative) or "Have my salt, or the
                              > salt of the one of whom I speak, in you" (genitive).
                              >
                              > Now look at Matthew:
                              >
                              > Matthew 5:13 "You are the salt of the earth. But if salt were to become
                              > tasteless/foolish, in/by what/whom will it become salty? (EAN DE ALAS
                              > MWRANQH EN TINI ALISQHSETAI) It is no longer good for anything, except to
                              > be thrown out and trampled by men." Matthew changes "salt-less" to
                              > tasteless/foolish, and changes "seasoned" to "salty".
                              >
                              > Of interest here is Matthew's choice of the word "MWRANQH" (or
                              > "Moranthe"). It has been argued that Matthew got this from an Aramaic
                              > saying source which had a word with the root "TPL", and meant "becomes
                              > tasteless". The theory continues that Matthew then mistranslates it to
                              > mean "becomes insipid", and thus chooses to use the Greek word "MWRANQH",
                              > "foolish". However, I would argue that Matthew wrote "foolish", because he
                              > meant "foolish", that is he was deliberately re-writing Mark. If that was
                              > the case, then Matthew would have most likely been well aware of the
                              > similarly between "foolish" and "tasteless" in Aramaic, and probably used
                              > this fact to help justify his changing the gospel of Mark's "salt-less" to
                              > the gospel of Matthew's "foolish" and the re-contextualization of the salt
                              > saying.
                              >
                              > Now, let's suppose I've gotten Mark's message a little wrong here, it is
                              > still the case that he seems to be doing something pretty complex in
                              > pointing us to Leviticus. This takes a lot of cleverness even if Mark is
                              > free to create exactly the sentences he wants Jesus to say. But if
                              > Matthew's version was actually first, it would be nothing short of
                              > miraculous for Mark to be able to change the words found in Q and come up
                              > with something complex and intricate like this to fit his purpose.
                              >
                              > What I picture happening historically is this: Mark wrote the salt piece
                              > to say that the covenant is restored in Jesus. But later Christians were
                              > starting to take this as one of a number of "proof texts" of things like
                              > "As long as we have the "salt" of Jesus in us the OT law is unimportant".
                              > "All we need is Jesus". Matthew wants to change that so he uses his
                              > knowledge of Aramaic to help him justify his re-write of Mark.
                              >
                              > In short "Q" (or really a saying source) seems to be there because the
                              > author of Matthew wanted everyone to think such a source existed, but in
                              > reality Mark came first and Matthew's sayings are derivatives, sometimes
                              > clever derivatives, but derivatives.
                              >
                              > Dave Gentile
                              > Riverside, IL


                              My take on this is that Matthew edited the saying and Lukan use of Q is
                              closer to the original as is Mark. The Aramaic of both demonstrated the
                              assonance and paronomasia typical of Jesus' sayings:

                              shaPIRray MILcha in den ap MILcha TIPka b'MAna tiTEMilach?
                              Salt is good but if salt goes flat, with what willit be salted?


                              Jack

                              Jack Kilmon
                              San Antonio, TX
                            • Jack Kilmon
                              ... From: Matson, Mark (Academic) To: Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:11 PM Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Luke
                              Message 14 of 29 , May 29, 2009
                              • 0 Attachment
                                ----- Original Message -----
                                From: "Matson, Mark (Academic)" <MAMatson@...>
                                To: <Synoptic@yahoogroups.com>
                                Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 9:11 PM
                                Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Luke would never have done THAT to Matthew.


                                >
                                >
                                > ________________________________
                                >
                                > Jack Kilmon wrote:
                                >
                                > Actually, Bruce, I was not, nor ever would, pose that the NT was
                                > originally
                                > written in Aramaic. It is true that some of the 19th and early 20th
                                > century
                                > Aramaists did so as do some modern Messianics. It just is not true.
                                > Every
                                > book of the NT was originally authored in Greek, BUT....those authors did
                                > use source materials from Aramaic documents, Aramaic orality or Greek
                                > translations of Aramaic sources. Most of the lexical and syntactic
                                > Aramaic
                                > intereference in NT Greek is in the "Jesus' stuff," sayings, aphorisms and
                                > parables. Those sayings designated as "Q" are in translational Greek and
                                > my
                                > point was that the Aramaic subsurface of Q identify it, IMO, as a separe
                                > document than the Greek narratives that glue the sayings together.
                                >
                                >
                                > Jack,
                                >
                                > Here I can only join with an Amen. I think the gospels were clearly
                                > written in Greek. But the traces of Aramaic material do show in a number
                                > of places.
                                >
                                > Whether these are "sources" as we might imagine (e.g., written), or very
                                > strongly remembered oral remembrance I am not sure. It would be
                                > interesting to explore that.
                                >
                                > Your comments on an Aramaic prot-John continues to intrigue me. But I
                                > can't jump into that right now.
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Mark A. Matson
                                > Academic Dean
                                > Milligan College
                                > http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm


                                That's a complicated question, Mark. Jesus was an expert orator who wanted
                                his illiterate audience to remember his words. Of course, that is how all
                                information transmission was done in an oral society. Mnemonic devices such
                                as alliteration, paronomasia, assonance, rhyme and meter appear in back
                                translationsof "Jesus stuff" to his native Aramaic. These devices are very
                                effective for accurate transmission. If I were to say:

                                "Roses are red, violets are blue;
                                You better be good or the devil will get you"

                                ...you would remember it and pass it on fairly pristine. At some point, my
                                profound saying would be written down but it would still preserve the syntax
                                of orality The Mnemonic style of Jesus' sayings are recognizable, often in
                                a 2-4 beat rhyme, for example:

                                TUbayhon l'MISkeNA
                                d'DILihon-y MALkutha da'SHMAya

                                Readthis Aramaic as I have phoneticized it and feel the meter and rhyme.
                                Even if you donot know Judean Aramaic, you can easily remember it. This is
                                back translated from the Greek:

                                MAKARIOI hOI PTWXOI
                                hOTI AUTWN ESTIN hH BASILEIA TWN OURANWN

                                Not very poetic for:

                                "Blessed are the poor
                                for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven."

                                Since Matthew and Luke wrote in the last decade and a half of the 1st
                                century and used a written sayings source, it is very probable that each of
                                their sayings documents had separate literary lineage.

                                Mark, on the other hand, wrote his Gospel in his SECOND language (Greek)
                                but, IMO, using his own Aramaic notes...perhaps, as Papias claims, as
                                dictated by the Aramaic speaking Peter.

                                Jack

                                Jack Kilmon
                                San Antonio, TX
                              • Dave Gentile
                                Jack, As I said in a previous post to David M. I m also looking at Casey. I m not there yet, but let s assume I find enough evidence to convince me I need to
                                Message 15 of 29 , May 29, 2009
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Jack,

                                  As I said in a previous post to David M. I'm also looking at Casey. I'm not there yet, but let's assume I find enough evidence to convince me I need to posit an Aramaic connection between Matthew and Luke. That would just return me to my slightly older idea, as follows:

                                  1) Mark is early and evolves over time.

                                  2) The author of Matthew writes to revise Mark, and creates the myth of an interview with the disciple Matthew, and in fact to help pull it off even creates a list of things Jesus was reported to have said in Aramaic

                                  3) Luke accepts the idea of how the gospel of Matthew was created. He thinks Matthew's gospel is contemporary but based on a first hand interview. To create his gospel he uses an early copy of Mark, Matthew, and the Aramaic sayings list created by the author of Matthew.

                                  In this scenario we do have a saying source, but it is created in about the year 80 by a conservative reactionary and does not go back to the historical Jesus.

                                  How can we tell an authentic old source from a fake? One way is to look at how well things fit Matthew's sitz im leben, another is to look at the overlap texts. (Which I've done, but not written up, in general). Here I find a number of cases where Mark has created something intricate working with one of these "Q" sentences and a section of the Old Testament. Salt is an example. Let's think through the two scenarios. In one scenario Mark is first. He then needs to use his creatively to come up with something that points to the OT passage that fits his agenda. No problem. But if Matthew/Q is first, Mark would have to somehow figure out how to alter a Q saying to point to the OT passage he has in mind. What are the chances that Matthew/Q fed Mark the line to set that up?

                                  I also can not count it for much that we can translate the Greek sentence into something that sounds nice in Aramaic, when we are particularly when we are free to choose the translation.

                                  In posts to Ron, I pointed out how Mark's sending of the 12 points us to Exodus. The same questions apply here. Matthew/Q setting Mark up for this is implausible. The reverse works fine.

                                  Here is another example:

                                  Connected with the salt saying, Matthew has a saying about the lamp and the lamp stand (Mt. 5:14-16). And in Matthew we are told that the disciples are the light of the world. I think it can be argued, however, that in Mark we have another apparent fulfillment of Hebrew scripture by Jesus. In Mark 4:21-23 the lamp is almost personified. Rather that being brought in, the Lamp "comes" (Mh&ti e1rxetai o( lu&xnoj i3na u(po_ to_n mo&dion teqh~|). Then in Mark 10:35-40 the sons of Zebedee ask about places at Jesus's right and left, but are informed that they are reserved for the ones to whom they have been allotted. In Mark 15:27 we then have the bandits placed "one on his right and one on his left". From this in can be argued that Mark is evoking Zachariah 4:1-14. There we are told about a lamp on a lamp stand, and two olive trees, "one to the right and one to the left" and that these are the two anointed ones in attendance on the Lord of the whole world. Mark's point then would be that Jesus is the Lamp on the cross(the lamp stand), with the other crosses(olive trees), one to the right and one to the left of him, and the bandits then are the anointed ones in attendance on the Lord.

                                  In Mark 4:21-23 Jesus (the Lamp) does not come to be hidden but to be placed on the lampstand (the cross). In Mark 15 he then is placed on the cross (lamp stand) with attendants one to the left and one to the right, as in Zach.

                                  We've had some discussion before of this one on the list, and it was pointed out that the reader would not easily make this connection. But I would suppose that while the author of Mark was still in control of the text he could show people how Jesus (in Mark's text) fulfilled the text of Zachariah. One this text got away from its creator, however, this connection would not be easily seen.

                                  Crafting a fulfilled prophecy like this would take some creativity by itself, but it is highly improbable that Mark had to work from both a saying source and Hebrew scripture and was able to produce this. Far more likely is the hypothesis that the Lamp saying originates in Mark. And this supports the idea that both "salt" and "light" are intentional re-writes in Matthew.

                                  Next you've raised two example of your own. You claim Luke got "hate" from mistranslated Aramaic. My hypothesis would allow for that since Luke has the author of Matthew's AD 80 Aramaic document.

                                  Next you claim that Matthew messed up the cry from the cross. First of all I would not connect this to the historical Jesus. I don't think we know what he said. Even with Bruce's early Mark, I think we get only to some of his motives and general way of operating, but not actual quotes. Apparently Mark and Matthew differ on how they think this bit of Aramaic should be rendered in Greek. Given that I'm no expert at all on these matters, let's assume you are right that Mark's version is closer to a Greek transliteration of what someone from Galilee would have said. I would then just infer that Matthew speaks a slightly different variety of Aramaic. He has a different accent or dialect. In my scenario, Mark is the original creator of these words. Then when Matthew gets a hold of them, he alters them so that the Greek looks more the way he would say it. We might place him at more of a distance from Galilee than Mark, but I don't think it shows Matthew is in any way incompetent.

                                  From your examples, and so far from Casey, it looks to me more like Luke is the one (if anyone) who has a little trouble with some bits of Aramaic.

                                  Dave Gentile
                                  Riverside, IL
                                • Horace Jeffery Hodges
                                  Jack Kilmon wrote:   Roses are red, violets are blue; You better be good or the devil will get you.   This is, of course, not only poetic but also wise . .
                                  Message 16 of 29 , May 30, 2009
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Jack Kilmon wrote:
                                     

                                    "Roses are red, violets are blue;
                                    You better be good or the devil will get you."
                                     
                                    This is, of course, not only poetic but also wise . . . yet I think that an oral culture would very quickly 'improve' on it:
                                     

                                    "Roses are red, violets are blue;
                                    Better be good or the devil with you!"
                                     
                                    The original would be forgotten, and any attempt to get back to the actual words of the historical Kilmon would be frustrated . . . though nobody would realize this.
                                     
                                    Jeffery Hodges

                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • E Bruce Brooks
                                    To: Synoptic In Agreement With: Jeffery Hodges On: Rhyme as Mnemonic From: Bruce I think Jeffery s point is very well taken. Rhyme may be a mnemonic aid,
                                    Message 17 of 29 , May 30, 2009
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      To: Synoptic
                                      In Agreement With: Jeffery Hodges
                                      On: Rhyme as Mnemonic
                                      From: Bruce

                                      I think Jeffery's point is very well taken. Rhyme may be a mnemonic aid,
                                      though whole traditions including the Homeric seem to have gotten along
                                      nicely without it, but when present, it does not protect the maxim in
                                      question from literary abrasion and change. The most famous poem of the
                                      Chinese poet Li Bwo, a little thing of four short lines, can be shown by
                                      early copies to have been worn down and trivialized from what is more likely
                                      to have been its original form to the form in which millions can recite it
                                      at the present moment. In much the way that Jeffery's improvisation
                                      suggests. Quotations, rhymed as well as unrhymed, from the early Chinese
                                      classics in the later Chinese classics, are sometimes inexact, not to
                                      mention quotations in less exalted contexts. Mediterranean examples might be
                                      multiplied as well.

                                      For one reason and another, some types of material may survive repetition
                                      and transmission better than others, but there can be no guarantee, whether
                                      by genre or by form, of invariance under repetition and transmission. Life
                                      is simple, but not *that* simple.

                                      Bruce

                                      E Bruce Brooks
                                      Warring States Project
                                      University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                                    • Jack Kilmon
                                      ... From: Dave Gentile To: Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 12:54 AM Subject: [Synoptic-L] Re: Luke would never
                                      Message 18 of 29 , May 30, 2009
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        ----- Original Message -----
                                        From: "Dave Gentile" <gentile_dave@...>
                                        To: <Synoptic@yahoogroups.com>
                                        Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 12:54 AM
                                        Subject: [Synoptic-L] Re: Luke would never have done THAT to Matthew.


                                        > Jack,
                                        >
                                        > As I said in a previous post to David M. I'm also looking at Casey. I'm
                                        > not there yet, but let's assume I find enough evidence to convince me I
                                        > need to posit an Aramaic connection between Matthew and Luke. That would
                                        > just return me to my slightly older idea, as follows:
                                        >
                                        > 1) Mark is early and evolves over time.

                                        I agree with the caveat of my hypothesis that an Aramaic "proto-John"
                                        predated Mark. All of the Gospels evolved via editing and redaction over
                                        several centuries, IMO.

                                        >
                                        > 2) The author of Matthew writes to revise Mark, and creates the myth of an
                                        > interview with the disciple Matthew, and in fact to help pull it off even
                                        > creates a list of things Jesus was reported to have said in Aramaic

                                        We should factor in an earlier Aramaic gospel that was used by the Nazarene
                                        Jewish Community which they claimed was written by Matthew the disciple.
                                        Jerome translated some of it and since he called it "Gospel of the Hebrews
                                        as read by the Nazarenes" it would later be called either "Gospel of the
                                        Hebrews" or "Gospel of the Nazarenes" (9th century). How much confusion was
                                        there between the Aramaic Gospel of Matthew (supposedly the REAL Matthew)
                                        and the later pseudonymous Greek Gospel of Matthew and Papias' (who made a
                                        cottage industry of confusing things) statement that Matthew (the disciple)
                                        wrote the "logia" (not logoi)?


                                        >
                                        > 3) Luke accepts the idea of how the gospel of Matthew was created. He
                                        > thinks Matthew's gospel is contemporary but based on a first hand
                                        > interview. To create his gospel he uses an early copy of Mark, Matthew,
                                        > and the Aramaic sayings list created by the author of Matthew.

                                        I do not believe there was a list of sayings created by canonical Matthew, a
                                        Syrian Hellenistic Jew. There may well have been a list written by the
                                        disciple Matthew, that to which Papias refers.

                                        >
                                        > In this scenario we do have a saying source, but it is created in about
                                        > the year 80 by a conservative reactionary and does not go back to the
                                        > historical Jesus.

                                        I disagree. The author of Matthew used, IMO, a Greek translation of an
                                        Aramaic sayings source which Luke alsoused in its original Aramaic.

                                        >
                                        > How can we tell an authentic old source from a fake? One way is to look at
                                        > how well things fit Matthew's sitz im leben, another is to look at the
                                        > overlap texts. (Which I've done, but not written up, in general). Here I
                                        > find a number of cases where Mark has created something intricate working
                                        > with one of these "Q" sentences and a section of the Old Testament. Salt
                                        > is an example. Let's think through the two scenarios. In one scenario Mark
                                        > is first. He then needs to use his creatively to come up with something
                                        > that points to the OT passage that fits his agenda. No problem. But if
                                        > Matthew/Q is first, Mark would have to somehow figure out how to alter a Q
                                        > saying to point to the OT passage he has in mind. What are the chances
                                        > that Matthew/Q fed Mark the line to set that up?

                                        Very slim, IMO. I mentioned earlier Q sayings used by Mark with Mark
                                        (Matson) but we cannot dismiss that these are sayings from separate
                                        documents or orality that go back to Jesus. Does Matthew (5:13) and Luke
                                        (14:34) get this saying from Q or copy and append or redact it from Mark?
                                        Mark may have gotten it from Peter and Q may be the disciple Matthew's
                                        recollection. One thing, however, stands out to me at Mark 9:43, 45, 47 AND
                                        50 is the use of the Greek KALON (previously mentioned by you). This is an
                                        obvious usage by someone who speaks Aramaic but is writing in Greek. KALON
                                        is used in this cluster instead of the comparative and Aramaic did not have
                                        comparatives. It is a usage by someone who would normally say "TOB"
                                        (tet-vayt). That, IMO, was Mark. I will revise my previous Aramaic
                                        rendition from shaPIRray MILcha in den ap MILcha TIPka b'MAna tiTEMilach to
                                        "tov hy MILcha in den ap MILcha TIPka b'MAna tiTEMilach" Good is salt but if
                                        salt goes flat/bland, with what will it be salted...or how will it be
                                        renewed? In the first century, Salt was not in a purer form for the common
                                        folk but cut up in blocks from the Dead Sea with mineral contaminants. If
                                        it was a bland batch, it was no good. This convinces me that the second
                                        part used by Luke (14:35) "LA l'ar'a w'LA l'azabel AZla l'bar shaDEYN lah"
                                        (Not for the soil and not for the manure pile, it is thrown out). This
                                        gives me the MILcha-MILcha-TIPka-MIlach-LAra-AZla-LAH...meter I look for in
                                        "Jesus stuff." Since the non comparative KALON in Greek translation for TOV
                                        occurs in a cluster in Mark (9:43,45,47,50) and Mark loves brackets, it is
                                        possible the saying was copied from early Mark by Luke and from Q by
                                        Matthew.




                                        >
                                        > I also can not count it for much that we can translate the Greek sentence
                                        > into something that sounds nice in Aramaic, when we are particularly when
                                        > we are free to choose the translation.

                                        I agree that we must use a lot of caution when retroverting NT Greek to
                                        Aramaic,however, when there is recognizable Aramaic interference in the
                                        Greek and syntax...as discussed above...and when Greek variant words merge
                                        to ONE word in Aramaic, we are on better ground.


                                        >
                                        > In posts to Ron, I pointed out how Mark's sending of the 12 points us to
                                        > Exodus. The same questions apply here. Matthew/Q setting Mark up for this
                                        > is implausible. The reverse works fine.
                                        >
                                        > Here is another example:
                                        >
                                        > Connected with the salt saying, Matthew has a saying about the lamp and
                                        > the lamp stand (Mt. 5:14-16). And in Matthew we are told that the
                                        > disciples are the light of the world. I think it can be argued, however,
                                        > that in Mark we have another apparent fulfillment of Hebrew scripture by
                                        > Jesus. In Mark 4:21-23 the lamp is almost personified. Rather that being
                                        > brought in, the Lamp "comes" (Mh&ti e1rxetai o( lu&xnoj i3na u(po_ to_n
                                        > mo&dion teqh~|). Then in Mark 10:35-40 the sons of Zebedee ask about
                                        > places at Jesus's right and left, but are informed that they are reserved
                                        > for the ones to whom they have been allotted. In Mark 15:27 we then have
                                        > the bandits placed "one on his right and one on his left". From this in
                                        > can be argued that Mark is evoking Zachariah 4:1-14. There we are told
                                        > about a lamp on a lamp stand, and two olive trees, "one to the right and
                                        > one to the left" and that these are the two anointed ones in attendance on
                                        > the Lord of the whole world. Mark's point then would be that Jesus is the
                                        > Lamp on the cross(the lamp stand), with the other crosses(olive trees),
                                        > one to the right and one to the left of him, and the bandits then are the
                                        > anointed ones in attendance on the Lord.

                                        I do not think the lamp andlampstand saying was originally connected to the
                                        salt and saltiness saying, for reasons mentioned above. Matthew glued
                                        sayings together with a different agenda.


                                        >
                                        > In Mark 4:21-23 Jesus (the Lamp) does not come to be hidden but to be
                                        > placed on the lampstand (the cross). In Mark 15 he then is placed on the
                                        > cross (lamp stand) with attendants one to the left and one to the right,
                                        > as in Zach.
                                        >
                                        > We've had some discussion before of this one on the list, and it was
                                        > pointed out that the reader would not easily make this connection. But I
                                        > would suppose that while the author of Mark was still in control of the
                                        > text he could show people how Jesus (in Mark's text) fulfilled the text of
                                        > Zachariah. One this text got away from its creator, however, this
                                        > connection would not be easily seen.
                                        >
                                        > Crafting a fulfilled prophecy like this would take some creativity by
                                        > itself, but it is highly improbable that Mark had to work from both a
                                        > saying source and Hebrew scripture and was able to produce this. Far more
                                        > likely is the hypothesis that the Lamp saying originates in Mark. And this
                                        > supports the idea that both "salt" and "light" are intentional re-writes
                                        > in Matthew.
                                        >
                                        > Next you've raised two example of your own. You claim Luke got "hate" from
                                        > mistranslated Aramaic. My hypothesis would allow for that since Luke has
                                        > the author of Matthew's AD 80 Aramaic document.

                                        I have explained my view that the Matthean author used Greek translations.
                                        Luke may have taken the mistranslated idiom from Matthew and not from his
                                        Aramaic sayings source. Since Matthew missed the idiom, so did Luke.
                                        Alternately, the saying may have been harmonized later since Matthew was the
                                        "darling Gospel" of the early church.

                                        >
                                        > Next you claim that Matthew messed up the cry from the cross. First of all
                                        > I would not connect this to the historical Jesus. I don't think we know
                                        > what he said. Even with Bruce's early Mark, I think we get only to some of
                                        > his motives and general way of operating, but not actual quotes.
                                        > Apparently Mark and Matthew differ on how they think this bit of Aramaic
                                        > should be rendered in Greek. Given that I'm no expert at all on these
                                        > matters, let's assume you are right that Mark's version is closer to a
                                        > Greek transliteration of what someone from Galilee would have said. I
                                        > would then just infer that Matthew speaks a slightly different variety of
                                        > Aramaic. He has a different accent or dialect. In my scenario, Mark is the
                                        > original creator of these words. Then when Matthew gets a hold of them, he
                                        > alters them so that the Greek looks more the way he would say it. We might
                                        > place him at more of a distance from Galilee than Mark, but I don't think
                                        > it shows Matthew is in any way incompetent.

                                        Psalm 22 was a Psalm well known in the 1st century, even by rote, perhaps,
                                        by the quasiliterate. Jesus' pain filled refrain may have been a
                                        "mini-targum" in a moment of despair. The Hebrew was ELy, ELy LAmah
                                        AZabTAny. Judean Aramaic was aLOhy, aLOhy LAma shavawkTAny and Mark
                                        transliterates it to Greek perfectly because it was his language. This is
                                        too compelling, IMO, for originality. Matthew, IMO, screws up and uses the
                                        Hebrew ELy, ELy...with Mark's transliteration simply because Matthew did not
                                        understand Mark's ELOI for aLOhy.

                                        >
                                        > From your examples, and so far from Casey, it looks to me more like Luke
                                        > is the one (if anyone) who has a little trouble with some bits of Aramaic.

                                        I think it is clear that Luke was Aramaic competent and if he was from an
                                        incula of Antioch, it was native, even for an educated man. Mark, on the
                                        other hand, had Aramaic as a FIRST language which is obvious by his Greek.
                                        The Matthean author was Greek speaking, perhaps a tad of Aramaic, but not
                                        competent, IMO.

                                        Now I will say something that will probably get me in trouble. It is my
                                        opinion that the lack of Aramaic studies in NT and Jesus scholarship has
                                        left those fields very bland. Exegesis conducted in Greek is miles away
                                        from the historical Jesus. On the PLUS side, Aramaic studies could open up
                                        an entirely NEW wave of Jesus studies and open new vistas in fields that
                                        have gone, like the salt in the saying, without savour. Various authors,
                                        like Casey, Black and Fitzmyer have, IMO, broken the inertia.


                                        shlama amek

                                        Jack


                                        Jack kilmon
                                        San Antonio, TX
                                      • Jack Kilmon
                                        ... From: E Bruce Brooks To: Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 3:52 AM Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Luke would
                                        Message 19 of 29 , May 30, 2009
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          ----- Original Message -----
                                          From: "E Bruce Brooks" <brooks@...>
                                          To: <Synoptic@yahoogroups.com>
                                          Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 3:52 AM
                                          Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Luke would never have done THAT to Matthew.


                                          > To: Synoptic
                                          > In Agreement With: Jeffery Hodges
                                          > On: Rhyme as Mnemonic
                                          > From: Bruce
                                          >
                                          > I think Jeffery's point is very well taken. Rhyme may be a mnemonic aid,
                                          > though whole traditions including the Homeric seem to have gotten along
                                          > nicely without it, but when present, it does not protect the maxim in
                                          > question from literary abrasion and change. The most famous poem of the
                                          > Chinese poet Li Bwo, a little thing of four short lines, can be shown by
                                          > early copies to have been worn down and trivialized from what is more
                                          > likely
                                          > to have been its original form to the form in which millions can recite it
                                          > at the present moment. In much the way that Jeffery's improvisation
                                          > suggests. Quotations, rhymed as well as unrhymed, from the early Chinese
                                          > classics in the later Chinese classics, are sometimes inexact, not to
                                          > mention quotations in less exalted contexts. Mediterranean examples might
                                          > be
                                          > multiplied as well.
                                          >
                                          > For one reason and another, some types of material may survive repetition
                                          > and transmission better than others, but there can be no guarantee,
                                          > whether
                                          > by genre or by form, of invariance under repetition and transmission. Life
                                          > is simple, but not *that* simple.
                                          >
                                          > Bruce
                                          >
                                          > E Bruce Brooks
                                          > Warring States Project
                                          > University of Massachusetts at Amherst

                                          Bruce:

                                          Homeric Greek may have gotten along without rhyme as a mnemonic device but
                                          it used another device....song. Homeric Greek was sung. I remember a time
                                          from my youth when my professorial uncle was teaching me from a
                                          boustrephedon of the Iliad and as I look/hear back, it sounded an awful lot
                                          like Chinese...hence to your point. Aramaic gives indications, as well, of
                                          a tonal quality that may have been inherited. The rhyme and meter of Jesus'
                                          sayings in Aramaic are very "song-like." We of the literary age know very
                                          little, it seems, of the oral period that goes back into the dark mists of
                                          pre-history for hundreds of thousands of years versus our literary
                                          millennium, an infancy compared to orality. There is a possibility that
                                          Neandertal may have sung his language. Literists believe that orality was
                                          very inaccurate but how do they know? They have never experienced it.

                                          I once sat with a shaman of a tribe I stayed with for a while in the central
                                          Highlands of New Guinea. These are people whose language goes back 50,000
                                          years, unmolested by the west. The story he was telling of the history of
                                          this tribe was sung to me as a friend interpreted into Pidgin. It preserved
                                          names and events that I have no doubt have been similarly sung since the
                                          upper paleolithic. Oral cultures still exist in places not yet invaded by
                                          murderous modern literates.

                                          Jack


                                          Jack Kilmon
                                          San Antonio, TX
                                        • Bob Schacht
                                          ... Most oral cultures make claims like this, and they re mostly baloney. Clyde Kluckhohn showed this about Navajo history stuff by showing that one of the
                                          Message 20 of 29 , May 30, 2009
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            At 10:44 AM 5/30/2009, Jack Kilmon wrote:
                                            >I once sat with a shaman of a tribe I stayed with for a while in the central
                                            >Highlands of New Guinea. These are people whose language goes back 50,000
                                            >years, unmolested by the west. The story he was telling of the history of
                                            >this tribe was sung to me as a friend interpreted into Pidgin. It preserved
                                            >names and events that I have no doubt have been similarly sung since the
                                            >upper paleolithic. Oral cultures still exist in places not yet invaded by
                                            >murderous modern literates.

                                            Most oral cultures make claims like this, and they're mostly baloney. Clyde
                                            Kluckhohn showed this about Navajo "history" stuff by showing that one of
                                            the Navajo "sings" that was supposed to be traditional actually
                                            incorporated allusions to contemporary events.

                                            See also in this regard Ted Weeden's take down of recent orality
                                            hypotheses, available in the XTalk archives.

                                            Bob Schacht

                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          • E Bruce Brooks
                                            To: Synoptic Cc: WSW; SJS Agreeing With: Bob Schacht About: Oral Antiquity Claims From: Bruce BOB (Commenting on a claim of paleolithic antiquity for one
                                            Message 21 of 29 , May 30, 2009
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              To: Synoptic
                                              Cc: WSW; SJS
                                              Agreeing With: Bob Schacht
                                              About: Oral Antiquity Claims
                                              From: Bruce

                                              BOB (Commenting on a claim of paleolithic antiquity for one spectated tribal
                                              performance): Most oral cultures make claims like this, and they're mostly
                                              baloney.

                                              BRUCE: Many enthusiastic observers of tribal cultures make claims like this,
                                              and they are not only theoretically unjustified, they have very often been
                                              empirically refuted. The refutations don't seem to reach the romantic
                                              public, but they ought to weigh with the scholarly minority. Bob cited
                                              Klockhohn and the Navajo songs. There is much more where that came from. I
                                              supply a little of it in case anybody is still uncertain.

                                              1. Oceanic genealogy chants have been checked against actual records, and
                                              found to expand in a perfectly logical way (for one thing, when you conquer
                                              the neighbor tribe, it is standard practice to annex their ancestor list).
                                              They are not preserved intact. They respond to events, and to attitudes
                                              about events.

                                              2. Study of the whole inventory of Chippewa song has shown that there is a
                                              standard replacement rate in that inventory. Thus, few of the songs have
                                              actually been in the repertoire more than a few decades. However impressive
                                              their *content* may seem to be, their age *as compositions* can be shown to
                                              be slight.

                                              3. Linguists sometimes show contempt for seemingly simple languages, say
                                              Japanese. It has the classic five vowels of the typewriter, how could it
                                              possibly change? Alas, research has shown that the Japanese vowel system has
                                              drastically altered, from an 8-vowel system a thousand years ago
                                              (consisting, as I see it, of three cardinal vowels plus all but one of the
                                              possible two-element combinations) to a much shaken-down 5-vowel system
                                              today. The seemingly perfect Latinate vowel equilibrium in the modern
                                              language is the result of evolution, not the preservation of a pristine and
                                              perfect system. One result was that there was no -e in Nara Japanese, rather
                                              two sequences which later led to -e, namely the sequences -ai and -ia.

                                              The joke in this field is that Karlgren, in reconstructing certain rhymes in
                                              Li Bwo's Chinese, ignored Chinese dialect evidence suggesting -ia or -ai,
                                              and based himself instead on Japanese, which as he thought contained -e in
                                              those places. Nobody who has spent time with the Manyôshû would be inclined
                                              to make that mistake, but nothing is easier than not to read the Manyôshû,
                                              and Karlgren did in fact make that mistake. What the early Japanese users of
                                              Chinese characters for their phonetic value were actually doing was very
                                              accurately transcribing the -ia and -ai sounds of contemporary Chinese. But
                                              this Karlgren did not know, and so generations of Chinese historical
                                              phonologists have been walking off the cliff at the point where Karlgren
                                              left a misleading sign for them. (And so have the Japanese linguists, who
                                              ought to know better. Their preferred reconstruction for those vowels,
                                              following the revered Karlgren, has been, get this, e and ë, and don't press
                                              them to say what they think they mean phonetically by "ë"). Even in these
                                              sober and grownup fields, sometimes it pays to read the poem before you do
                                              something else with it.

                                              And so it goes. Everything, including folklore and the language in which it
                                              is sung or spoken, changes.

                                              4. One might think that esoteric memorized art traditions, with music and
                                              family discipline to reinforce them, might be immune, if only through
                                              extremely focused cultural effort, from this change process. Well, that
                                              proposition too is testable. Japanese court music exists in old notation,
                                              but the court musicians actually learn it by rote (syllable by syllable, in
                                              their childhood), and transmit if from father to son. What is the result,
                                              after about a thousand years of simmering on the oral stove? The result is
                                              differential: all has changed, but not by the same amount. The wind parts
                                              (which are difficult, and were largely the province of professionals) have
                                              been recognizably preserved - not identically, but recognizably. The string
                                              parts (which are easier, and were often played by noblemen) have decayed to
                                              mere rumtum, what we now call faking. Almost all the art once resident in
                                              this stratum of the composition has vanished. I (on koto) and my teacher
                                              Robert Garfias (on hichiriki) once demonstrated the difference to a meeting
                                              of the American Musicological Association. Fascinating stuff. And also
                                              minatory stuff; good for curbing ill-founded enthusiasms.

                                              There are implications for the growth and mutation of the classical Chinese
                                              court poetry corpus, back another thousand years, but this is not quite the
                                              place to expound them. The moral for the present subject is what Bob says it
                                              is.

                                              Bruce
                                            • Jack Kilmon
                                              ... From: Bob Schacht To: Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 4:24 PM Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Luke would never
                                              Message 22 of 29 , May 31, 2009
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                ----- Original Message -----
                                                From: "Bob Schacht" <r_schacht@...>
                                                To: <Synoptic@yahoogroups.com>
                                                Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 4:24 PM
                                                Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Luke would never have done THAT to Matthew.


                                                > At 10:44 AM 5/30/2009, Jack Kilmon wrote:
                                                >>I once sat with a shaman of a tribe I stayed with for a while in the
                                                >>central
                                                >>Highlands of New Guinea. These are people whose language goes back 50,000
                                                >>years, unmolested by the west. The story he was telling of the history of
                                                >>this tribe was sung to me as a friend interpreted into Pidgin. It
                                                >>preserved
                                                >>names and events that I have no doubt have been similarly sung since the
                                                >>upper paleolithic. Oral cultures still exist in places not yet invaded by
                                                >>murderous modern literates.
                                                >
                                                > Most oral cultures make claims like this, and they're mostly baloney.
                                                > Clyde
                                                > Kluckhohn showed this about Navajo "history" stuff by showing that one of
                                                > the Navajo "sings" that was supposed to be traditional actually
                                                > incorporated allusions to contemporary events.
                                                >
                                                > See also in this regard Ted Weeden's take down of recent orality
                                                > hypotheses, available in the XTalk archives.
                                                >
                                                > Bob Schacht


                                                I am very familiar with Kluckhohn and "To the Foot of the Rainbow" (started
                                                when he was only 17 or 18 and published at 22) and "Beyond the Rainbow" are
                                                on my shelves. I remember Ted's opinions as well. I would pose, however,
                                                that Dr. Kluckhohn did not show Navaho orality to be "baloney" simply
                                                because he never studied Navaho orality among tribes unmolested or
                                                influenced by contemporary western culture. In 1863 Kit Carson and General
                                                James Carleton prosecuted a "scorched earth" campaign against the Navajo.
                                                They killed every adult male they encountered, destroyed all of the hogans,
                                                crops and livestock and oversaw the sale of the women and children into
                                                slavery in Mexico. Those that were left were marched, in what the Navajo
                                                call "The Long Walk" to Ft. Sumner in Southeast New Mexico where many died
                                                on the way. They were imprisoned in the Bosque Redondo for 4 years in
                                                horrible conditions with many dying of smallpox and other white man
                                                diseases. They lost all of the traditions and history and afterward counted
                                                their history from the year of that atrocity. There was no one left to
                                                "sing" their ancient lore so is it a surprise that what Kluckhohn heard in
                                                their song a mere 60 years later incorporated contemporary events? We
                                                destroy the Navajo and their history and then, 60 years later, bemoan their
                                                oral history as "baloney?" Who was left to sing the ancient songs, Bob?

                                                I know a little about this because I have spent time with indigenous tribes
                                                all over the globe..the Amazon, Africa, Southeast Asia, the Indonesian
                                                archipelago and New Guinea. Some tribes have a specific clan that transmits
                                                their histories and legends with a clan leader that guards and controls
                                                accuracy in the next generation of carriers while other tribes have a less
                                                structured method which some studies show may be less subject to corruption.
                                                It varies among oral cultures around the globe and tribes thathave been
                                                subject to genocide and atrocities, like the Navajo, are not good exemplars
                                                for non-corrupted orality versus a tribe that has had little or no
                                                molestation. I reject the broad brush statement that most oral cultures
                                                claim of uncorrupted transmission is baloney because those making that
                                                statement have often never been far enough away from civilization to carry a
                                                lunch.

                                                Jack


                                                Jack Kilmon
                                              • Bob Schacht
                                                ... I am very familiar with all of this. I lived on the Navajo reservation for a year, married a Navajo, and dealt with her family on the Navajo Reservation
                                                Message 23 of 29 , May 31, 2009
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  At 10:38 PM 5/30/2009, Jack Kilmon wrote:

                                                  >----- Original Message -----
                                                  >From: "Bob Schacht" <r_schacht@...>
                                                  >To: <Synoptic@yahoogroups.com>
                                                  >Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 4:24 PM
                                                  >Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Luke would never have done THAT to Matthew.
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > > At 10:44 AM 5/30/2009, Jack Kilmon wrote:
                                                  > >>I once sat with a shaman of a tribe I stayed with for a while in the
                                                  > >>central
                                                  > >>Highlands of New Guinea. These are people whose language goes back 50,000
                                                  > >>years, unmolested by the west. The story he was telling of the history of
                                                  > >>this tribe was sung to me as a friend interpreted into Pidgin. It
                                                  > >>preserved
                                                  > >>names and events that I have no doubt have been similarly sung since the
                                                  > >>upper paleolithic. Oral cultures still exist in places not yet invaded by
                                                  > >>murderous modern literates.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Most oral cultures make claims like this, and they're mostly baloney.
                                                  > > Clyde
                                                  > > Kluckhohn showed this about Navajo "history" stuff by showing that one of
                                                  > > the Navajo "sings" that was supposed to be traditional actually
                                                  > > incorporated allusions to contemporary events.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > See also in this regard Ted Weeden's take down of recent orality
                                                  > > hypotheses, available in the XTalk archives.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Bob Schacht
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >I am very familiar with Kluckhohn and "To the Foot of the Rainbow" (started
                                                  >when he was only 17 or 18 and published at 22) and "Beyond the Rainbow" are
                                                  >on my shelves. I remember Ted's opinions as well. I would pose, however,
                                                  >that Dr. Kluckhohn did not show Navaho orality to be "baloney" simply
                                                  >because he never studied Navaho orality among tribes unmolested or
                                                  >influenced by contemporary western culture. In 1863 Kit Carson and General
                                                  >James Carleton prosecuted a "scorched earth" campaign against the Navajo.
                                                  >They killed every adult male they encountered, destroyed all of the hogans,
                                                  >crops and livestock and oversaw the sale of the women and children into
                                                  >slavery in Mexico. Those that were left were marched, in what the Navajo
                                                  >call "The Long Walk" to Ft. Sumner in Southeast New Mexico where many died
                                                  >on the way. They were imprisoned in the Bosque Redondo for 4 years in
                                                  >horrible conditions with many dying of smallpox and other white man
                                                  >diseases.

                                                  I am very familiar with all of this. I lived on the Navajo reservation for
                                                  a year, married a Navajo, and dealt with her family on the Navajo
                                                  Reservation for 8 years. She had a home on the Rez that I took care of for
                                                  a few years when I was unemployed and she wasn't.

                                                  > They lost all of the traditions and history and afterward counted
                                                  >their history from the year of that atrocity.

                                                  They did NOT lose "all" of their traditions and history, but their history
                                                  became mixed, and influenced by surrounding events.

                                                  >There was no one left to "sing" their ancient lore

                                                  I beg to differ.

                                                  >so is it a surprise that what Kluckhohn heard in
                                                  >their song a mere 60 years later incorporated contemporary events? We
                                                  >destroy the Navajo and their history and then, 60 years later, bemoan their
                                                  >oral history as "baloney?" Who was left to sing the ancient songs, Bob?

                                                  They still have medicine men who sing the Beauty Way, the Night Way, and
                                                  many chants. I spent a night in a hogan for a Kinaalda for one of my wife's
                                                  nieces. Yes, they have lost some of their lore, but you will have to
                                                  contend with their association of singers for the rest.


                                                  >I know a little about this because I have spent time with indigenous tribes
                                                  >all over the globe..the Amazon, Africa, Southeast Asia, the Indonesian
                                                  >archipelago and New Guinea. Some tribes have a specific clan that transmits
                                                  >their histories and legends with a clan leader that guards and controls
                                                  >accuracy in the next generation of carriers while other tribes have a less
                                                  >structured method which some studies show may be less subject to corruption.
                                                  >It varies among oral cultures around the globe and tribes thathave been
                                                  >subject to genocide and atrocities, like the Navajo, are not good exemplars
                                                  >for non-corrupted orality versus a tribe that has had little or no
                                                  >molestation.

                                                  There are many ways in which oral traditions are passed down. One of the
                                                  world's experts is Jan Vansina, who I had briefly as a student at the
                                                  University of Wisconsin, and who Ted Weeden studied carefully in his review
                                                  of Bailey's work, which you can find in the XTalk archives.

                                                  > I reject the broad brush statement that most oral cultures
                                                  >claim of uncorrupted transmission is baloney because those making that
                                                  >statement have often never been far enough away from civilization to carry a
                                                  >lunch.

                                                  Well, then you're not talking about me. But let's go back to your statements:
                                                  >These are people whose language goes back 50,000 years, unmolested by the
                                                  >west.

                                                  This is possibly true. However, if you've read much about New Guinea, and I
                                                  trust that you have, you will know that they were molested plenty by each
                                                  other, and it is events on that scale that will have worked their way into
                                                  their stories and songs. While I have not been to New Guinea, one of my
                                                  teachers as a graduate student did field work there, and wrote a widely
                                                  used book on the subject, Pigs for the Ancestors. His name was Roy Rappaport.

                                                  > The story he was telling of the history of this tribe was sung to me as
                                                  > a friend interpreted into Pidgin. It preserved
                                                  >names and events that I have no doubt have been similarly sung since the
                                                  >upper paleolithic.

                                                  I perhaps read too much into what you wrote here; you may not be claiming
                                                  that their "history" preserves actual names and events from 10,000 years
                                                  ago. And you only make a claim that they were "similarly sung." So perhaps
                                                  I read too much into your claims. But if you are indeed claiming that their
                                                  "history" has remained uncontaminated for 10,000 years, you have no way to
                                                  prove that, and most evidence that has been collected about oral histories,
                                                  that has attempted to actually test fidelity of transmission, does not
                                                  support your case.

                                                  Bob Schacht

                                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                • Jack Kilmon
                                                  ... From: Bob Schacht To: Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 4:52 AM Subject: Kilmon Re: [Synoptic-L] Oral Tradition
                                                  Message 24 of 29 , May 31, 2009
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    ----- Original Message -----
                                                    From: "Bob Schacht" <r_schacht@...>
                                                    To: <Synoptic@yahoogroups.com>
                                                    Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 4:52 AM
                                                    Subject: Kilmon Re: [Synoptic-L] Oral Tradition


                                                    > At 10:38 PM 5/30/2009, Jack Kilmon wrote:
                                                    >
                                                    >>----- Original Message -----
                                                    >>From: "Bob Schacht" <r_schacht@...>
                                                    >>To: <Synoptic@yahoogroups.com>
                                                    >>Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 4:24 PM
                                                    >>Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Luke would never have done THAT to Matthew.
                                                    >>
                                                    >>
                                                    >> > At 10:44 AM 5/30/2009, Jack Kilmon wrote:
                                                    >> >>I once sat with a shaman of a tribe I stayed with for a while in the
                                                    >> >>central
                                                    >> >>Highlands of New Guinea. These are people whose language goes back
                                                    >> >>50,000
                                                    >> >>years, unmolested by the west. The story he was telling of the history
                                                    >> >>of
                                                    >> >>this tribe was sung to me as a friend interpreted into Pidgin. It
                                                    >> >>preserved
                                                    >> >>names and events that I have no doubt have been similarly sung since
                                                    >> >>the
                                                    >> >>upper paleolithic. Oral cultures still exist in places not yet invaded
                                                    >> >>by
                                                    >> >>murderous modern literates.
                                                    >> >
                                                    >> > Most oral cultures make claims like this, and they're mostly baloney.
                                                    >> > Clyde
                                                    >> > Kluckhohn showed this about Navajo "history" stuff by showing that one
                                                    >> > of
                                                    >> > the Navajo "sings" that was supposed to be traditional actually
                                                    >> > incorporated allusions to contemporary events.
                                                    >> >
                                                    >> > See also in this regard Ted Weeden's take down of recent orality
                                                    >> > hypotheses, available in the XTalk archives.
                                                    >> >
                                                    >> > Bob Schacht
                                                    >>
                                                    >>
                                                    >>I am very familiar with Kluckhohn and "To the Foot of the Rainbow"
                                                    >>(started
                                                    >>when he was only 17 or 18 and published at 22) and "Beyond the Rainbow"
                                                    >>are
                                                    >>on my shelves. I remember Ted's opinions as well. I would pose, however,
                                                    >>that Dr. Kluckhohn did not show Navaho orality to be "baloney" simply
                                                    >>because he never studied Navaho orality among tribes unmolested or
                                                    >>influenced by contemporary western culture. In 1863 Kit Carson and
                                                    >>General
                                                    >>James Carleton prosecuted a "scorched earth" campaign against the Navajo.
                                                    >>They killed every adult male they encountered, destroyed all of the
                                                    >>hogans,
                                                    >>crops and livestock and oversaw the sale of the women and children into
                                                    >>slavery in Mexico. Those that were left were marched, in what the Navajo
                                                    >>call "The Long Walk" to Ft. Sumner in Southeast New Mexico where many died
                                                    >>on the way. They were imprisoned in the Bosque Redondo for 4 years in
                                                    >>horrible conditions with many dying of smallpox and other white man
                                                    >>diseases.
                                                    >
                                                    > I am very familiar with all of this. I lived on the Navajo reservation for
                                                    > a year, married a Navajo, and dealt with her family on the Navajo
                                                    > Reservation for 8 years. She had a home on the Rez that I took care of for
                                                    > a few years when I was unemployed and she wasn't.
                                                    >
                                                    >> They lost all of the traditions and history and afterward counted
                                                    >>their history from the year of that atrocity.
                                                    >
                                                    > They did NOT lose "all" of their traditions and history, but their history
                                                    > became mixed, and influenced by surrounding events.
                                                    >
                                                    >>There was no one left to "sing" their ancient lore
                                                    >
                                                    > I beg to differ.
                                                    >
                                                    >>so is it a surprise that what Kluckhohn heard in
                                                    >>their song a mere 60 years later incorporated contemporary events? We
                                                    >>destroy the Navajo and their history and then, 60 years later, bemoan
                                                    >>their
                                                    >>oral history as "baloney?" Who was left to sing the ancient songs, Bob?
                                                    >
                                                    > They still have medicine men who sing the Beauty Way, the Night Way, and
                                                    > many chants. I spent a night in a hogan for a Kinaalda for one of my
                                                    > wife's
                                                    > nieces. Yes, they have lost some of their lore, but you will have to
                                                    > contend with their association of singers for the rest.
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >>I know a little about this because I have spent time with indigenous
                                                    >>tribes
                                                    >>all over the globe..the Amazon, Africa, Southeast Asia, the Indonesian
                                                    >>archipelago and New Guinea. Some tribes have a specific clan that
                                                    >>transmits
                                                    >>their histories and legends with a clan leader that guards and controls
                                                    >>accuracy in the next generation of carriers while other tribes have a less
                                                    >>structured method which some studies show may be less subject to
                                                    >>corruption.
                                                    >>It varies among oral cultures around the globe and tribes thathave been
                                                    >>subject to genocide and atrocities, like the Navajo, are not good
                                                    >>exemplars
                                                    >>for non-corrupted orality versus a tribe that has had little or no
                                                    >>molestation.
                                                    >
                                                    > There are many ways in which oral traditions are passed down. One of the
                                                    > world's experts is Jan Vansina, who I had briefly as a student at the
                                                    > University of Wisconsin, and who Ted Weeden studied carefully in his
                                                    > review
                                                    > of Bailey's work, which you can find in the XTalk archives.
                                                    >
                                                    >> I reject the broad brush statement that most oral cultures
                                                    >>claim of uncorrupted transmission is baloney because those making that
                                                    >>statement have often never been far enough away from civilization to carry
                                                    >>a
                                                    >>lunch.
                                                    >
                                                    > Well, then you're not talking about me. But let's go back to your
                                                    > statements:
                                                    >>These are people whose language goes back 50,000 years, unmolested by the
                                                    >>west.
                                                    >
                                                    > This is possibly true. However, if you've read much about New Guinea, and
                                                    > I
                                                    > trust that you have, you will know that they were molested plenty by each
                                                    > other, and it is events on that scale that will have worked their way into
                                                    > their stories and songs. While I have not been to New Guinea, one of my
                                                    > teachers as a graduate student did field work there, and wrote a widely
                                                    > used book on the subject, Pigs for the Ancestors. His name was Roy
                                                    > Rappaport.
                                                    >
                                                    >> The story he was telling of the history of this tribe was sung to me as
                                                    >> a friend interpreted into Pidgin. It preserved
                                                    >>names and events that I have no doubt have been similarly sung since the
                                                    >>upper paleolithic.
                                                    >
                                                    > I perhaps read too much into what you wrote here; you may not be claiming
                                                    > that their "history" preserves actual names and events from 10,000 years
                                                    > ago. And you only make a claim that they were "similarly sung." So perhaps
                                                    > I read too much into your claims. But if you are indeed claiming that
                                                    > their
                                                    > "history" has remained uncontaminated for 10,000 years, you have no way to
                                                    > prove that, and most evidence that has been collected about oral
                                                    > histories,
                                                    > that has attempted to actually test fidelity of transmission, does not
                                                    > support your case.
                                                    >
                                                    > Bob Schacht

                                                    No, Bob, I was trying to convey a method of information transmission that
                                                    preserves very ancient elements (some researchers identified oral references
                                                    to floods or geological events in the neolithic) but common sense tells me
                                                    new elements are incorporated every generation from both internal and
                                                    external events. In some tribes ancestral chants remove the earliest
                                                    ancestor on the addition of a new generation. Now that I know your enviable
                                                    background, I admit that my hackles raise (whatever a hackle is) when I
                                                    think someone "puts down" indigenous people and that clearly was not the
                                                    case here...sorry. Whether in the Amazon or Irian Jaya, entire tribes are
                                                    being slaughtered to steal the trees under which they live or to raise
                                                    livestock for hamburgers. My experiemces with indigenous folk, like your
                                                    more personal association, causes me to get testy occasionally. Common
                                                    sense also tells me that modern literates have no way of assessing the
                                                    transmission accuracy of ancient carriers. Getting back on topic, we can
                                                    see all manner of interpolation, text corruption and mistakes in written
                                                    manuscript transmission.

                                                    Regards,

                                                    Jack

                                                    Jack Kilmon
                                                    San Antonio, TX
                                                  • Dave Gentile
                                                    Jack, A song-like list of sayings to me, tells of a person who sat down and took considerable time to put them in that form. I would not tend to see these as
                                                    Message 25 of 29 , May 31, 2009
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      Jack,

                                                      A song-like list of sayings to me, tells of a person who sat down and took considerable time to put them in that form. I would not tend to see these as the words of a speaker in real-time. So, a song like list is not the historical Jesus, in my view. An early author? Perhaps. But then again, there is also the possibility of a later author, competent in Aramaic.

                                                      Dave Gentile
                                                      Riverside, IL



                                                      --- In Synoptic@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@...> wrote:
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > ----- Original Message -----
                                                      > From: "E Bruce Brooks" <brooks@...>
                                                      > To: <Synoptic@yahoogroups.com>
                                                      > Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 3:52 AM
                                                      > Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Luke would never have done THAT to Matthew.
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > > To: Synoptic
                                                      > > In Agreement With: Jeffery Hodges
                                                      > > On: Rhyme as Mnemonic
                                                      > > From: Bruce
                                                      > >
                                                      > > I think Jeffery's point is very well taken. Rhyme may be a mnemonic aid,
                                                      > > though whole traditions including the Homeric seem to have gotten along
                                                      > > nicely without it, but when present, it does not protect the maxim in
                                                      > > question from literary abrasion and change. The most famous poem of the
                                                      > > Chinese poet Li Bwo, a little thing of four short lines, can be shown by
                                                      > > early copies to have been worn down and trivialized from what is more
                                                      > > likely
                                                      > > to have been its original form to the form in which millions can recite it
                                                      > > at the present moment. In much the way that Jeffery's improvisation
                                                      > > suggests. Quotations, rhymed as well as unrhymed, from the early Chinese
                                                      > > classics in the later Chinese classics, are sometimes inexact, not to
                                                      > > mention quotations in less exalted contexts. Mediterranean examples might
                                                      > > be
                                                      > > multiplied as well.
                                                      > >
                                                      > > For one reason and another, some types of material may survive repetition
                                                      > > and transmission better than others, but there can be no guarantee,
                                                      > > whether
                                                      > > by genre or by form, of invariance under repetition and transmission. Life
                                                      > > is simple, but not *that* simple.
                                                      > >
                                                      > > Bruce
                                                      > >
                                                      > > E Bruce Brooks
                                                      > > Warring States Project
                                                      > > University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                                                      >
                                                      > Bruce:
                                                      >
                                                      > Homeric Greek may have gotten along without rhyme as a mnemonic device but
                                                      > it used another device....song. Homeric Greek was sung. I remember a time
                                                      > from my youth when my professorial uncle was teaching me from a
                                                      > boustrephedon of the Iliad and as I look/hear back, it sounded an awful lot
                                                      > like Chinese...hence to your point. Aramaic gives indications, as well, of
                                                      > a tonal quality that may have been inherited. The rhyme and meter of Jesus'
                                                      > sayings in Aramaic are very "song-like." We of the literary age know very
                                                      > little, it seems, of the oral period that goes back into the dark mists of
                                                      > pre-history for hundreds of thousands of years versus our literary
                                                      > millennium, an infancy compared to orality. There is a possibility that
                                                      > Neandertal may have sung his language. Literists believe that orality was
                                                      > very inaccurate but how do they know? They have never experienced it.
                                                      >
                                                      > I once sat with a shaman of a tribe I stayed with for a while in the central
                                                      > Highlands of New Guinea. These are people whose language goes back 50,000
                                                      > years, unmolested by the west. The story he was telling of the history of
                                                      > this tribe was sung to me as a friend interpreted into Pidgin. It preserved
                                                      > names and events that I have no doubt have been similarly sung since the
                                                      > upper paleolithic. Oral cultures still exist in places not yet invaded by
                                                      > murderous modern literates.
                                                      >
                                                      > Jack
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > Jack Kilmon
                                                      > San Antonio, TX
                                                      >
                                                    • Dave Gentile
                                                      Jack: We should factor in an earlier Aramaic gospel that was used by the Nazarene Jewish Community which they claimed was written by Matthew the disciple.
                                                      Message 26 of 29 , May 31, 2009
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        Jack:

                                                        We should factor in an earlier Aramaic gospel that was used by the Nazarene
                                                        Jewish Community which they claimed was written by Matthew the disciple.
                                                        Jerome translated some of it and since he called it "Gospel of the Hebrews
                                                        as read by the Nazarenes" it would later be called either "Gospel of the
                                                        Hebrews" or "Gospel of the Nazarenes" (9th century). How much confusion was
                                                        there between the Aramaic Gospel of Matthew (supposedly the REAL Matthew)
                                                        and the later pseudonymous Greek Gospel of Matthew and Papias' (who made a
                                                        cottage industry of confusing things) statement that Matthew (the disciple)
                                                        wrote the "logia" (not logoi)?

                                                        Dave:

                                                        The question I would ask is: "Is there any of this later evidence that could not be explained by an AD 80 "forgery", claiming to have the disciple Matthew for a source?

                                                        Jack:

                                                        One thing, however, stands out to me at Mark 9:43, 45, 47 AND
                                                        50 is the use of the Greek KALON (previously mentioned by you). This is an
                                                        obvious usage by someone who speaks Aramaic but is writing in Greek.

                                                        Dave: I have no problem with that.

                                                        Jack:

                                                        Good is salt but if
                                                        salt goes flat/bland, with what will it be salted

                                                        Dave: But if that is the original form of the saying, or in fact even if Mark's form were the original form and it was a free floating saying separate from Mark's context, then Mark's text is incredible. He has to work together a saying from Q or where-ever, and things from Hebrew scripture so as to make this whole thing work. Far more probable, is that the saying never existed before Mark's context, and Mark invents the saying and the context at the same time to fit his agenda of pointing at the OT and connecting it to Jesus..

                                                        Jack:

                                                        Judean Aramaic was aLOhy, aLOhy LAma shavawkTAny and Mark
                                                        transliterates it to Greek perfectly because it was his language. This is
                                                        too compelling, IMO, for originality.

                                                        Dave:

                                                        Authors are capable of producing compelling material, in my experience.

                                                        But maybe at this point we should agree to disagree. I've not seen anything to make me believe we are looking at the words of the historical Jesus, and you do not seem anywhere near to abandoning your position, and thus there may be more productive uses of both of our times.

                                                        Dave Gentile
                                                        Riverside, IL
                                                      • E Bruce Brooks
                                                        To: Synoptic In Response To: Oral Tradition Discussion From: Bruce This discussion may have reached a point of useful equilibrium. I here try to identify it,
                                                        Message 27 of 29 , May 31, 2009
                                                        • 0 Attachment
                                                          To: Synoptic
                                                          In Response To: Oral Tradition Discussion
                                                          From: Bruce

                                                          This discussion may have reached a point of useful equilibrium. I here try
                                                          to identify it, quoting from Jack Kilmon's latest posting and adding a few
                                                          commentarial notes of my own:

                                                          JACK: common sense tells me new elements are incorporated every generation
                                                          from both internal and
                                                          external events. In some tribes ancestral chants remove the earliest
                                                          ancestor on the addition of a new generation.

                                                          BRUCE: And also in some higher civilizations, such as the Han Empire of
                                                          China, where we have exactly that sort of substitution in the last of
                                                          previous emperors to whom state sacrifices were maintained. More generally,
                                                          what we have here is a statement about the fluidity and openness of "oral
                                                          texts," such as fixed ancestor chants. A fortiori, the same fluidity will
                                                          still more obtain in tales or wisdom sayings or other material which may
                                                          have had less culture-internal push for exactness.

                                                          JACK: Common sense also tells me that modern literates have no way of
                                                          assessing the transmission accuracy of ancient carriers.

                                                          BRUCE: It has already been conceded, in a conversation among "modern
                                                          literates," that the "transmission accuracy" of oral material is variable.
                                                          And that we have no way, merely by listening to, say, an ancestral chant, to
                                                          tell which figures on it are fictive, or to tell how many figures may have
                                                          been eliminated from it. I would then rephrase this last sentence this way:
                                                          Nobody, whether literate or not, can tell merely from inspecting an oral
                                                          text, or a text transcribed from oral praxis, which elements in it are older
                                                          and which are newer. It has no way, internal to the text and not relying on
                                                          information outside the text, to tell whether a given Chippewa song was
                                                          handed down from 1892, or composed last week.

                                                          JACK: . . . we can see all manner of interpolation, text corruption and
                                                          mistakes in written manuscript transmission.

                                                          BRUCE: Granted. But I think it now stands as equally granted that exactly
                                                          the same vicissitudes in principle apply to so-called "oral transmission."
                                                          The "oral" channel, then, is not privileged above the written channel for
                                                          freedom from these vicissitudes.

                                                          E Bruce Brooks
                                                          Warring States Project
                                                          University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                                                        • Jack Kilmon
                                                          But don t you see, Dave? You have just described the difference between an orator in an oral society versus a literate society. A good speaker/teacher
                                                          Message 28 of 29 , Jun 1, 2009
                                                          • 0 Attachment
                                                            But don't you see, Dave? You have just described the difference between an
                                                            orator in an oral society versus a literate society. A good speaker/teacher
                                                            incorporated mnemonic meter, tone, assonance, alliteration and paronomasia
                                                            for his audience to remember parables and short aphorisms. If the 30-odd
                                                            people listening to Jesus' parables did not remember them to pass them on,
                                                            they would soon forget and Jesus may just as well have spent his day playing
                                                            Galilean stickball. I don't think the carrier had to remember it word for
                                                            word but certainly the sense and meaning. There is a parable that just came
                                                            to my mind in Aramaic where the KEY words were in paronomasia. I hope you
                                                            don't mind. I have to do this in Aramaic to make my point:

                                                            So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed into the ground;

                                                            haKANna-y MALkutha d'aLAha ak nash d'yarMA zar'A bar'A

                                                            Now I am a tad literate in Aramaic and if I wanted to study this and
                                                            remember it by rote, I could but what I actually remember (as I believe
                                                            people in that small audience did) is:

                                                            ZAR'A (seed) and `AR'A (ground)

                                                            And should sleep, and rise night and day,

                                                            w'YIDmak w'yiQUM b'LILya w'b'YOMama

                                                            LILya (night) YOma (day)

                                                            and the seed should spring and grow up, he knoweth not how.

                                                            w'zar'A (seed) yirBA (grow)

                                                            For the earth bringeth forth fruit of itself, first the stalk,

                                                            ar'a ger MAYtya leh l'PER'a w'LUQdam HAwe 'ESba

                                                            AR'a (earth) PER'a (fruit)

                                                            then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear.

                                                            w'BAtreh SHYbla chaRAYat den CHIT-ta m'shamLAYta b'SHYbla

                                                            SHYbla (ear) CHITta (grain) b'SHYbla (in the ear)

                                                            But when the fruit is brought forth,

                                                            Kadh yehibha 'ibbah

                                                            immediately he putteth in the sickle, because the harvest is come.

                                                            Shallah magla dah'sadha 'abbibh


                                                            So I can remember zar'a...a'ra (seed-earth); lilya...yoma (night-day);
                                                            zar'a..yirBA (seed-grow); ar'a...per'a (earth to fruit);
                                                            shybla...chitta...b'shybla (ear-grain-in the ear)

                                                            From the mnemonic puns even a dummy like me can remember the Aramaicsense of
                                                            the parable but having gone through this exercise with you explaining how I
                                                            remember this parable (and how the first audience remembered it) I can see
                                                            how the wording connecting the puns can change from individual to
                                                            individual, preserving the main sense and meaning but probably not the
                                                            precise wording. The "Jesus stuff" then becomes "close to Jesus stuff." So
                                                            oral transmission was probably not verbatim. Don't tell Bruce and Bob I had
                                                            this epiphany.

                                                            Regards,

                                                            Jack


                                                            Jack Kilmon
                                                            San Antonio, TX


                                                            ----- Original Message -----
                                                            From: "Dave Gentile" <gentile_dave@...>
                                                            To: <Synoptic@yahoogroups.com>
                                                            Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 7:21 PM
                                                            Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Luke would never have done THAT to Matthew.


                                                            > Jack,
                                                            >
                                                            > A song-like list of sayings to me, tells of a person who sat down and took
                                                            > considerable time to put them in that form. I would not tend to see these
                                                            > as the words of a speaker in real-time. So, a song like list is not the
                                                            > historical Jesus, in my view. An early author? Perhaps. But then again,
                                                            > there is also the possibility of a later author, competent in Aramaic.
                                                            >
                                                            > Dave Gentile
                                                            > Riverside, IL
                                                            >
                                                            >
                                                            >
                                                            > --- In Synoptic@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@...> wrote:
                                                            >>
                                                            >>
                                                            >> ----- Original Message -----
                                                            >> From: "E Bruce Brooks" <brooks@...>
                                                            >> To: <Synoptic@yahoogroups.com>
                                                            >> Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 3:52 AM
                                                            >> Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Luke would never have done THAT to Matthew.
                                                            >>
                                                            >>
                                                            >> > To: Synoptic
                                                            >> > In Agreement With: Jeffery Hodges
                                                            >> > On: Rhyme as Mnemonic
                                                            >> > From: Bruce
                                                            >> >
                                                            >> > I think Jeffery's point is very well taken. Rhyme may be a mnemonic
                                                            >> > aid,
                                                            >> > though whole traditions including the Homeric seem to have gotten along
                                                            >> > nicely without it, but when present, it does not protect the maxim in
                                                            >> > question from literary abrasion and change. The most famous poem of the
                                                            >> > Chinese poet Li Bwo, a little thing of four short lines, can be shown
                                                            >> > by
                                                            >> > early copies to have been worn down and trivialized from what is more
                                                            >> > likely
                                                            >> > to have been its original form to the form in which millions can recite
                                                            >> > it
                                                            >> > at the present moment. In much the way that Jeffery's improvisation
                                                            >> > suggests. Quotations, rhymed as well as unrhymed, from the early
                                                            >> > Chinese
                                                            >> > classics in the later Chinese classics, are sometimes inexact, not to
                                                            >> > mention quotations in less exalted contexts. Mediterranean examples
                                                            >> > might
                                                            >> > be
                                                            >> > multiplied as well.
                                                            >> >
                                                            >> > For one reason and another, some types of material may survive
                                                            >> > repetition
                                                            >> > and transmission better than others, but there can be no guarantee,
                                                            >> > whether
                                                            >> > by genre or by form, of invariance under repetition and transmission.
                                                            >> > Life
                                                            >> > is simple, but not *that* simple.
                                                            >> >
                                                            >> > Bruce
                                                            >> >
                                                            >> > E Bruce Brooks
                                                            >> > Warring States Project
                                                            >> > University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                                                            >>
                                                            >> Bruce:
                                                            >>
                                                            >> Homeric Greek may have gotten along without rhyme as a mnemonic device
                                                            >> but
                                                            >> it used another device....song. Homeric Greek was sung. I remember a
                                                            >> time
                                                            >> from my youth when my professorial uncle was teaching me from a
                                                            >> boustrephedon of the Iliad and as I look/hear back, it sounded an awful
                                                            >> lot
                                                            >> like Chinese...hence to your point. Aramaic gives indications, as well,
                                                            >> of
                                                            >> a tonal quality that may have been inherited. The rhyme and meter of
                                                            >> Jesus'
                                                            >> sayings in Aramaic are very "song-like." We of the literary age know
                                                            >> very
                                                            >> little, it seems, of the oral period that goes back into the dark mists
                                                            >> of
                                                            >> pre-history for hundreds of thousands of years versus our literary
                                                            >> millennium, an infancy compared to orality. There is a possibility that
                                                            >> Neandertal may have sung his language. Literists believe that orality
                                                            >> was
                                                            >> very inaccurate but how do they know? They have never experienced it.
                                                            >>
                                                            >> I once sat with a shaman of a tribe I stayed with for a while in the
                                                            >> central
                                                            >> Highlands of New Guinea. These are people whose language goes back
                                                            >> 50,000
                                                            >> years, unmolested by the west. The story he was telling of the history
                                                            >> of
                                                            >> this tribe was sung to me as a friend interpreted into Pidgin. It
                                                            >> preserved
                                                            >> names and events that I have no doubt have been similarly sung since the
                                                            >> upper paleolithic. Oral cultures still exist in places not yet invaded
                                                            >> by
                                                            >> murderous modern literates.
                                                            >>
                                                            >> Jack
                                                            >>
                                                            >>
                                                            >> Jack Kilmon
                                                            >> San Antonio, TX
                                                            >>
                                                            >
                                                            >
                                                            >
                                                            >
                                                            > ------------------------------------
                                                            >
                                                            > Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links
                                                            >
                                                            >
                                                            >
                                                            >


                                                            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



                                                            No virus found in this incoming message.
                                                            Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                                                            Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.46/2145 - Release Date: 05/31/09
                                                            05:53:00
                                                          • Dave Gentile
                                                            Jack, One problem with all of this might come down to fist principles and how we are approaching these questions in the first place. But without having that
                                                            Message 29 of 29 , Jun 1, 2009
                                                            • 0 Attachment
                                                              Jack,

                                                              One problem with all of this might come down to fist principles and how we are approaching these questions in the first place.
                                                              But without having that discussion, I'd note that I'm not convinced that Jesus was this sort of teacher at all, i.e. someone who tried to put together material for others to remember, that is - a dispenser of sagely wisdom. And unless we already know that Jesus was this sort of person, then discovering something which someone who rehearsed oral material would use, only gets us closer to the conclusion that some material was once passed orally, it does not get us closer to the historical Jesus.

                                                              In short form:

                                                              The idea that "memorable sayings" moves us closer to the historical Jesus, only works if we already think the historical Jesus was a crafter of memorable sayings.

                                                              Dave Gentile
                                                              Riverside, IL

                                                              --- In Synoptic@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@...> wrote:
                                                              >
                                                              > But don't you see, Dave? You have just described the difference between an
                                                              > orator in an oral society versus a literate society. A good speaker/teacher
                                                              > incorporated mnemonic meter, tone, assonance, alliteration and paronomasia
                                                              > for his audience to remember parables and short aphorisms. If the 30-odd
                                                              > people listening to Jesus' parables did not remember them to pass them on,
                                                              > they would soon forget and Jesus may just as well have spent his day playing
                                                              > Galilean stickball. I don't think the carrier had to remember it word for
                                                              > word but certainly the sense and meaning. There is a parable that just came
                                                              > to my mind in Aramaic where the KEY words were in paronomasia. I hope you
                                                              > don't mind. I have to do this in Aramaic to make my point:
                                                              >
                                                              > So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed into the ground;
                                                              >
                                                              > haKANna-y MALkutha d'aLAha ak nash d'yarMA zar'A bar'A
                                                              >
                                                              > Now I am a tad literate in Aramaic and if I wanted to study this and
                                                              > remember it by rote, I could but what I actually remember (as I believe
                                                              > people in that small audience did) is:
                                                              >
                                                              > ZAR'A (seed) and `AR'A (ground)
                                                              >
                                                              > And should sleep, and rise night and day,
                                                              >
                                                              > w'YIDmak w'yiQUM b'LILya w'b'YOMama
                                                              >
                                                              > LILya (night) YOma (day)
                                                              >
                                                              > and the seed should spring and grow up, he knoweth not how.
                                                              >
                                                              > w'zar'A (seed) yirBA (grow)
                                                              >
                                                              > For the earth bringeth forth fruit of itself, first the stalk,
                                                              >
                                                              > ar'a ger MAYtya leh l'PER'a w'LUQdam HAwe 'ESba
                                                              >
                                                              > AR'a (earth) PER'a (fruit)
                                                              >
                                                              > then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear.
                                                              >
                                                              > w'BAtreh SHYbla chaRAYat den CHIT-ta m'shamLAYta b'SHYbla
                                                              >
                                                              > SHYbla (ear) CHITta (grain) b'SHYbla (in the ear)
                                                              >
                                                              > But when the fruit is brought forth,
                                                              >
                                                              > Kadh yehibha 'ibbah
                                                              >
                                                              > immediately he putteth in the sickle, because the harvest is come.
                                                              >
                                                              > Shallah magla dah'sadha 'abbibh
                                                              >
                                                              >
                                                              > So I can remember zar'a...a'ra (seed-earth); lilya...yoma (night-day);
                                                              > zar'a..yirBA (seed-grow); ar'a...per'a (earth to fruit);
                                                              > shybla...chitta...b'shybla (ear-grain-in the ear)
                                                              >
                                                              > From the mnemonic puns even a dummy like me can remember the Aramaicsense of
                                                              > the parable but having gone through this exercise with you explaining how I
                                                              > remember this parable (and how the first audience remembered it) I can see
                                                              > how the wording connecting the puns can change from individual to
                                                              > individual, preserving the main sense and meaning but probably not the
                                                              > precise wording. The "Jesus stuff" then becomes "close to Jesus stuff." So
                                                              > oral transmission was probably not verbatim. Don't tell Bruce and Bob I had
                                                              > this epiphany.
                                                              >
                                                              > Regards,
                                                              >
                                                              > Jack
                                                              >
                                                              >
                                                              > Jack Kilmon
                                                              > San Antonio, TX
                                                              >
                                                              >
                                                              > ----- Original Message -----
                                                              > From: "Dave Gentile" <gentile_dave@...>
                                                              > To: <Synoptic@yahoogroups.com>
                                                              > Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 7:21 PM
                                                              > Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Luke would never have done THAT to Matthew.
                                                              >
                                                              >
                                                              > > Jack,
                                                              > >
                                                              > > A song-like list of sayings to me, tells of a person who sat down and took
                                                              > > considerable time to put them in that form. I would not tend to see these
                                                              > > as the words of a speaker in real-time. So, a song like list is not the
                                                              > > historical Jesus, in my view. An early author? Perhaps. But then again,
                                                              > > there is also the possibility of a later author, competent in Aramaic.
                                                              > >
                                                              > > Dave Gentile
                                                              > > Riverside, IL
                                                              > >
                                                              > >
                                                              > >
                                                              > > --- In Synoptic@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@> wrote:
                                                              > >>
                                                              > >>
                                                              > >> ----- Original Message -----
                                                              > >> From: "E Bruce Brooks" <brooks@>
                                                              > >> To: <Synoptic@yahoogroups.com>
                                                              > >> Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 3:52 AM
                                                              > >> Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Luke would never have done THAT to Matthew.
                                                              > >>
                                                              > >>
                                                              > >> > To: Synoptic
                                                              > >> > In Agreement With: Jeffery Hodges
                                                              > >> > On: Rhyme as Mnemonic
                                                              > >> > From: Bruce
                                                              > >> >
                                                              > >> > I think Jeffery's point is very well taken. Rhyme may be a mnemonic
                                                              > >> > aid,
                                                              > >> > though whole traditions including the Homeric seem to have gotten along
                                                              > >> > nicely without it, but when present, it does not protect the maxim in
                                                              > >> > question from literary abrasion and change. The most famous poem of the
                                                              > >> > Chinese poet Li Bwo, a little thing of four short lines, can be shown
                                                              > >> > by
                                                              > >> > early copies to have been worn down and trivialized from what is more
                                                              > >> > likely
                                                              > >> > to have been its original form to the form in which millions can recite
                                                              > >> > it
                                                              > >> > at the present moment. In much the way that Jeffery's improvisation
                                                              > >> > suggests. Quotations, rhymed as well as unrhymed, from the early
                                                              > >> > Chinese
                                                              > >> > classics in the later Chinese classics, are sometimes inexact, not to
                                                              > >> > mention quotations in less exalted contexts. Mediterranean examples
                                                              > >> > might
                                                              > >> > be
                                                              > >> > multiplied as well.
                                                              > >> >
                                                              > >> > For one reason and another, some types of material may survive
                                                              > >> > repetition
                                                              > >> > and transmission better than others, but there can be no guarantee,
                                                              > >> > whether
                                                              > >> > by genre or by form, of invariance under repetition and transmission.
                                                              > >> > Life
                                                              > >> > is simple, but not *that* simple.
                                                              > >> >
                                                              > >> > Bruce
                                                              > >> >
                                                              > >> > E Bruce Brooks
                                                              > >> > Warring States Project
                                                              > >> > University of Massachusetts at Amherst
                                                              > >>
                                                              > >> Bruce:
                                                              > >>
                                                              > >> Homeric Greek may have gotten along without rhyme as a mnemonic device
                                                              > >> but
                                                              > >> it used another device....song. Homeric Greek was sung. I remember a
                                                              > >> time
                                                              > >> from my youth when my professorial uncle was teaching me from a
                                                              > >> boustrephedon of the Iliad and as I look/hear back, it sounded an awful
                                                              > >> lot
                                                              > >> like Chinese...hence to your point. Aramaic gives indications, as well,
                                                              > >> of
                                                              > >> a tonal quality that may have been inherited. The rhyme and meter of
                                                              > >> Jesus'
                                                              > >> sayings in Aramaic are very "song-like." We of the literary age know
                                                              > >> very
                                                              > >> little, it seems, of the oral period that goes back into the dark mists
                                                              > >> of
                                                              > >> pre-history for hundreds of thousands of years versus our literary
                                                              > >> millennium, an infancy compared to orality. There is a possibility that
                                                              > >> Neandertal may have sung his language. Literists believe that orality
                                                              > >> was
                                                              > >> very inaccurate but how do they know? They have never experienced it.
                                                              > >>
                                                              > >> I once sat with a shaman of a tribe I stayed with for a while in the
                                                              > >> central
                                                              > >> Highlands of New Guinea. These are people whose language goes back
                                                              > >> 50,000
                                                              > >> years, unmolested by the west. The story he was telling of the history
                                                              > >> of
                                                              > >> this tribe was sung to me as a friend interpreted into Pidgin. It
                                                              > >> preserved
                                                              > >> names and events that I have no doubt have been similarly sung since the
                                                              > >> upper paleolithic. Oral cultures still exist in places not yet invaded
                                                              > >> by
                                                              > >> murderous modern literates.
                                                              > >>
                                                              > >> Jack
                                                              > >>
                                                              > >>
                                                              > >> Jack Kilmon
                                                              > >> San Antonio, TX
                                                              > >>
                                                              > >
                                                              > >
                                                              > >
                                                              > >
                                                              > > ------------------------------------
                                                              > >
                                                              > > Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-lYahoo! Groups Links
                                                              > >
                                                              > >
                                                              > >
                                                              > >
                                                              >
                                                              >
                                                              > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              >
                                                              >
                                                              >
                                                              > No virus found in this incoming message.
                                                              > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                                                              > Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.46/2145 - Release Date: 05/31/09
                                                              > 05:53:00
                                                              >
                                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.