Re: [XTalk] Historical method (aramaic)
- Jack and Ron,
Many thanks for the further info concerning underlying Aramaic.
Someone needs to get this argumant out in the form of at least a
substantial article that no one can ignore.
--- In crosstalk2@y..., "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@h...> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "brmcc2000" <brmcc@c...>
> To: <crosstalk2@y...>
> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 11:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [XTalk] Historical method (aramaic)
> > Antonio,
> > Thank you for your response. Whatever one's position on Q the
> > question always comes up: What have the accounts of Jesus'
> > in our greek gospels to do with his original teaching in aramaic?
> > the answer is 'nothing', then HJ studies are in a pickle.
> HJ studies have been hindered because of the reluctance of Greek-
> scholars to consider Aramaic. Aramaic is a language where one word
> several meanings. Greek is a language where one meaning has
> As a result, in many cases of variant readings in the Greek
> material once in Aramaic, retroversion to Aramaic will distill the
> to one Aramaic word. The Greek word MISEI means "hate" while ita
> equivalent SANAH means "hate" and also "set aside." Now go to Luke
> and use the Aramaic idiom instead of the Greek meaning and see if
> pericope makes more sense against the general corpus of Jesus
> > Some time back one of the leading Q scholars assured me that Q--
> > material--shows no indications of having been translated from
> > aramaic.
> There is more Aramaic interference in the Greek of Q material,
> syntactic, than you can throw a lexicon at. Much of the sayings
> clumsy in Greek, retroverts to beautiful Aramaic oratorical poetry.
> > I suppose there could have been first a translation of Jesus
> > teaching material into bad greek, and then a--or several--
> > reworking(s) of the latter into better greek.
> Most of the material is the former...well, not so much as "bad"
> Greek with semitic structures and syntax.