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

Re: [gthomas] May I introduce myself

Expand Messages
  • Rick Hubbard
    ... + This statement assumes first of all that the dying words of Jesus reported here are actual utterances of Jesus. If they are, why are they so radically
    Message 1 of 2 , May 4, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      didymus84@... wrote:
      >
      > I believe Matthews gospel to be indeed universal in intent. The
      > parable of the tenants and the parable of the wedding banquet both
      > illustrate this universality. In Matt27:46 the author translates
      > Yeshua's Aramaic into Greek. If the readers were all Jews, there
      > would be little need for this translation from the lingua franca of
      > even the Jews of the Dispersion. Secondly, the Great Commission
      > orders them to "make disciples of all nations" not just the Jews.

      + This statement assumes first of all that the dying words of Jesus
      reported here are actual utterances of Jesus. If they are, why are they
      so radically different from the last words reported by the other gospel
      writers? More likely, these words are a literary device of the author to
      echo LXX Ps 22.1 in the context of the Passion Proclamation. To the
      extent that the audience knew Ps 22.1, they knew it in Greek (from the
      LXX) not in Aramaic, therefore what the author is doing is translating
      from Greek INTO Aramaic.
      In other words, he does so for the benefit of those who spoke in the
      Aramaic vernacular, not the other way around.

      Rick Hubbard
    • Jack Kilmon
      ... I do not believe the Matthean scribe is translating anything in his gospel from a semitic language to Greek. I am convinced he was not competent in
      Message 2 of 2 , May 4, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Rick Hubbard wrote:

        > didymus84@... wrote:
        > >
        > > I believe Matthews gospel to be indeed universal in intent. The
        > > parable of the tenants and the parable of the wedding banquet both
        > > illustrate this universality. In Matt27:46 the author translates
        > > Yeshua's Aramaic into Greek. If the readers were all Jews, there
        > > would be little need for this translation from the lingua franca of
        > > even the Jews of the Dispersion. Secondly, the Great Commission
        > > orders them to "make disciples of all nations" not just the Jews.
        >
        > + This statement assumes first of all that the dying words of Jesus
        > reported here are actual utterances of Jesus. If they are, why are they
        > so radically different from the last words reported by the other gospel
        > writers? More likely, these words are a literary device of the author to
        > echo LXX Ps 22.1 in the context of the Passion Proclamation. To the
        > extent that the audience knew Ps 22.1, they knew it in Greek (from the
        > LXX) not in Aramaic, therefore what the author is doing is translating
        > from Greek INTO Aramaic.
        > In other words, he does so for the benefit of those who spoke in the
        > Aramaic vernacular, not the other way around.

        I do not believe the Matthean scribe is translating anything in his gospel
        from a semitic language to Greek. I am convinced he was not competent
        in Aramaic. The Aramaisms of Matthew are easily transmitted from a
        translational Greek source document. His dependence on the LXX for his
        creative and often thin midrash also casts doubt on his Hebrew competence.

        Certainly he was a Jew..an Hellenistic Jew, probably from Antioch and
        his audience were Greek-speaking Jews that Judeans regarded only slightly
        above gentiles. This author may be writing in response to either:

        Seeing gentile participation in the "way" increasing and diaspora Jewish
        participation decreasing, or;

        The issuance of the Birkhat haMinim in 85CE...or both

        and this scribe is saying "Hey! This is a Jewish thingy!"

        Matthews version of the Cry from the Cross is nothing more than
        his screwing up the language and mixing Hebrew and Aramaic but his
        source is Mark.

        I believe the cry from the cross is historical and Mark recorded it from
        an eye/ear witness.

        Jack

        --
        ______________________________________________

        taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon

        Jack Kilmon
        jkilmon@...

        http://www.historian.net

        sharing a meal for free.
        http://www.thehungersite.com/
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.