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

[GTh] Re: GTh 20 & 21 (Kilmon)

Expand Messages
  • mgrondin@tir.com
    ... You mean laryngeal (as in of the larynx )? Aside from that, how about putting these things in a way us non-linguists can understand? Mike
    Message 1 of 9 , Jun 6, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      --- Jack Kilmon wrote:
      > The Key sounds in Aramaic are the layrygal and sonant resh that
      > form the paronomasia.

      You mean 'laryngeal' (as in 'of the larynx')? Aside from that, how
      about putting these things in a way us non-linguists can understand?

      Mike
    • Rick Hubbard
      If there was a way that I could configure this computer to prevent me from typing certain words unless I confirmed about six times that I really wanted to use
      Message 2 of 9 , Jun 7, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        If there was a way that I could configure this computer to prevent me
        from typing certain words unless I confirmed about six times that I
        really wanted to use them, then two of those words would be "original"
        and "originality." Inevitably, when I use those words in the context
        of literary comparisons, I get into trouble. The following response
        from Jack Kilmon regarding my remarks to Frank McCoy about Gth 20 and
        "parallels" in Mk is a perfect example.

        [Jack wrote:]
        My take on GoT 20 and the Markan parallel is that the Markan parallel
        is
        more "original" and actually redacted down in GoT.

        I did not mean to imply that both Mark and the Gth compiler shared a
        common written source and that the version of either Thomas or Mark is
        closest to that "original." Instead, I meant to argue that Thomas and
        Mark each had access to what were probably oral traditions about Jesus
        and that the construction of the similtude in Gth more closely
        approximates the oral form than does the version in Mk. It is a widely
        accepted principle that narratives and sayings associated with Jesus
        that circulated in the oral tradition tended toward being shorter
        rather than longer, and so, when one sees two written versions of what
        appears to be the same saying, the one that is shortest probably is
        closer to the oral version (assuming of course, that there was only
        one oral version. It is possible that there may have been more than
        one).

        Your persistent argument that there is evidence of Aramaic linguistic
        artifacts behind the written versions of the Jesus logia, is, as you
        well know, not universally accepted. Since I do not know Aramaic, I
        certainly have no business debating the merits of your hypotheses. I
        will observe, however, that it is not necessary to identify any
        "Aramaic Original" behind the sayings of Jesus in order to recover
        what is closest to Jesus' actual utterances.

        While it is very likely that Jesus spoke Aramaic, there remains the
        very real possibility that he also spoke Greek. One must not ignore
        the tremendous Hellenistic cultural influence that had existed for
        generations in the western Mediterranean basin (e.g., Palestine).
        Jesus lived in that cultural environment, and if we are to accept the
        accounts of the canonical gospels he seemed to travel through portions
        of it regularly and to discourse with its residents. If so, it seems
        likely that he would have had to have some competency in Greek. This
        does nothing to prove that he knew Greek, but the observation is
        sufficient to leave open that possibility.

        One of the arguments made by those who postulate an "Aramaic Jesus,"
        is that the region where he lived was a cultural and linguistic
        archipelago. In this enclave, Aramaic remained as the dominant
        language and the traditions of the Judean religion were paramount. If
        I understand correctly, this means that the enclave must have
        successfully resisted the Hellenistic cultural influences that
        engulfed virtually all of the remainder of the western Mediterranean
        and that the linguistic and religious heritage of the enclave remained
        largely unaffected.

        Again, the merits of that hypothesis is not something I can comment on
        directly, but I can relate something from my own experience that may
        be analogous to the "enclave phenomenon" that seems to be a
        foundational part of the "Aramaic Jesus" argument. I grew up on the
        Flathead Indian Reservation in Western Montana. It seems to me that
        there are a few intriguing parallels between the acculturation process
        that occurred in Palestine and in the Mission Valley, where the
        reservation was located. In both cases, the indigenous populations
        were inundated by new languages. In Palestine, it was Greek. In
        Montana, it was English. American culture was introduced into this
        area by the Jesuits and by commercial representatives of the Hudson
        Bay Company beginning around the middle of the 19th century. By the
        time I was born, roughly one hundred years later, virtually all
        Indians spoke English, but a large number of continued to speak Salish
        as well. The native language was spoken primarily in homes, at
        cultural gatherings, in the tribal government and in the context of
        religious practices. However, in the course of day to day activities,
        English was the routine language.

        The analogy between the two is this: In both cases (Palestine and
        Montana), we can observe that the cultural traditions of the two
        indigenous populations were subjected to overwhelming outside
        influences. In the latter case, it is known for certain that, while
        the language of the native population continued to be used and the
        traditional religious practices were still followed (in spite of the
        most vigorous efforts of missionaries), the Native Americans regularly
        used the language of the culture that had surrounded them. It seems to
        me therefore very likely that the situation in Palestine was similar.
        Certain enclaves in the region, perhaps including where Jesus lived,
        also managed to retain and keep alive their language and religious
        traditions, but as a matter of survival, they also used the Greek
        language. If that is true, then Jesus may have been as fluent in Greek
        as he was in Aramaic.

        This of course does virtually nothing to deny the argument that an
        Aramaic original lies behind the Jesus logia. But it does, to a
        degree, reaffirm the possibility that Jesus *did* speak Greek and that
        therefore it is not essential that reconstruction of an Aramaic
        Original to his sayings is the only certain means by which his
        "authentic words" can be recovered.


        Rick Hubbard
        Humble Maine Woodsman
      • David C. Hindley
        ... me from typing certain words unless I confirmed about six times that I really wanted to use them, then two of those words would be original and
        Message 3 of 9 , Jun 7, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Rick Hubbard laments:

          >>If there was a way that I could configure this computer to prevent
          me from typing certain words unless I confirmed about six times that I
          really wanted to use them, then two of those words would be "original"
          and "originality." <<

          Yes you can.

          Presuming that your e-mail software's built-in editor (or the WP you
          use as an e-mail editor) performs a spell check before sending the
          message, just find the way into your spell checking dictionary and
          erase the entries for "original" and "originality." Then it will
          always prompt you with a dialogue box seeking confirmation when it
          encounters these words, offering you alternative words, etc. If you
          say "yes accept this word" it will probably ask you again in a
          different way just to be sure.

          I may well do that sort of thing myself with words like "merely,"
          "simply," "obviously," and other words often used in a dismissive
          sense, just to prevent me from falling into the trap of dismissing
          evidence contrary to my pet hypotheses for the sake of convenience.

          Respectfully,

          Dave Hindley
          Cleveland, Ohio, USA
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.