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

Re: [XTalk] Historical method (aramaic)

Expand Messages
  • brmcc2000
    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
    Message 1 of 4 , Feb 17, 2002
      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.

      Brian McCarthy

      --- 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'
      teaching
      > > in our greek gospels to do with his original teaching in aramaic?
      If
      > > the answer is 'nothing', then HJ studies are in a pickle.
      >
      > HJ studies have been hindered because of the reluctance of Greek-
      learned NT
      > scholars to consider Aramaic. Aramaic is a language where one word
      can have
      > several meanings. Greek is a language where one meaning has
      several words.
      > As a result, in many cases of variant readings in the Greek
      witnesses for
      > material once in Aramaic, retroversion to Aramaic will distill the
      variants
      > to one Aramaic word. The Greek word MISEI means "hate" while ita
      Aramaic
      > equivalent SANAH means "hate" and also "set aside." Now go to Luke
      14:26
      > and use the Aramaic idiom instead of the Greek meaning and see if
      the
      > pericope makes more sense against the general corpus of Jesus
      sayings.
      >
      > >
      > > Some time back one of the leading Q scholars assured me that Q--
      the Q
      > > material--shows no indications of having been translated from
      > > aramaic.
      >
      > There is more Aramaic interference in the Greek of Q material,
      lexical and
      > syntactic, than you can throw a lexicon at. Much of the sayings
      materials,
      > 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 but
      > Greek with semitic structures and syntax.
      >
      > Jack
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.