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

Re: [XTalk] "Jesus the Ointment"?!

Expand Messages
  • Jack Kilmon
    ... From: yeshua666 Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 4:38 PM To: Subject: Re: [XTalk] Jesus the
    Message 1 of 16 , Nov 18, 2010
      From: "yeshua666" <t.c.oneill2@...>
      Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 4:38 PM
      To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
      Subject: Re: [XTalk] "Jesus the Ointment"?!

      > --- In crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@...> wrote:
      >> Josephus commented he wrote in Aramaic (War 1.3), and had assistants
      >> (synergoi) write it in Greek. He states that he wanted the first edition
      >> to
      >> be read by the Parthians, Babylonians, Arabs, the Jews living beyond the
      >> Euphrates, and the inhabitants of Adiabene. That the language of the
      >> Babylonian diaspora was Aramaic is shown by the fact that Hillel loved to
      >> frame his maxims in that language. Josephus further discusses his
      >> discomfort with Greek at Ant. 20.11.2. The translators were very good in
      >> that they were successful in removing much of the semitic structures but
      >> I
      >> believe the James passage shows casus pendans which is an Aramaic aspect.
      > Many thanks for the references on his use of Aramaic Jack. It's been many
      > years since I've read either "Antiquities" or "War" end to end, and since
      > then I've been dipping into parts relevant to my specific studies so I had
      > forgotten or missed those references.
      > I'd still be keen for you to expand on your last point and I know several
      > others here would also. Because if a case can be made that the
      > James/Jesus reference contains Aramaic forms this is a strong argument
      > against interpolation and the James/Jesus reference is the hardest
      > historical evidence for the ahistoricists and Mythers to wave away if you
      > remove their old standby of interpolation.
      > I've just done some Googling on what a "causus pendens" is and I think I
      > understand your point. But my quick research also turned up a note that
      > this construction can also be found in Greek as a form of emphasis. So is
      > it rare enough in Greek for it to be unlikely to be used in this kind of
      > sentence and more likely to be a remnant of the Aramaic original? And is
      > there anything else in this passage that indicates the Aramaic?
      > Thanks in advance,
      > Tim O'Neill

      It is used with that effect in Classical Greek but is much more common in
      Hebrew and Aramaic than in Koine Greek. Black notes that especially
      characteristic of Hebrew and Aramaic is the resumption of the subject or
      object by the personal pronoun. I have found that the majority of "mythers"
      do not have Greek even though a few of the "commercial mythers" claim they
      do. It is up to them to prove, from a linguistic standpoint, the signature
      of an interpolation in this passage, or the passage as a whole, in the
      Josephan Greek. The majority of heavyweight Josephus scholars, Thackery for
      one, see no indication that the James passage is an interpolation (the
      favorite word of mythers). The James passage is a problem for mythers for
      two reasons. First, it assumes the reader has read something previously on
      Jesus (in Book xviii) and secondly an historical James as a brother of Jesus
      is evidence that BOTH brothers are historical. Can't have that if you want
      to sell "myther books."


      Jack Kilmon
      San Antonio, TX
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.