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

[HJMatMeth] Re: Greek Q and Aramaic Jesus

Expand Messages
  • Jack Kilmon
    ... I ll copy and move this to Xtalk for my comments and hope others do the same with the wealth of foundational material we have accumulated from the HJ
    Message 1 of 2 , Mar 1, 2000
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
       

      Brian McCarthy wrote:

       
      Dom,
      
      As we come to the end of this many-sided discussion, a big word of thanks to
      you and to Jeffrey and Mahlon.
      
      Here is my final question: I have not followed Q studies in detail, the SBL
      Q Seminar, the International Q Project etc. But each time i have come across
      some Q discussion it has always concerned some Greek entity.
      
      This is fine for gospel experts, who are working back from Greek texts--and
      whose Greek  in most cases is probably far better than their Aramaic--but
      how can Questers justify the great unbalance between, on the one hand, the
      major investment of energy in Greek Q and on the other the
      lack--comparative? total?--of attempts to bridge the
      the chasm between Greek Q and Jesus' popular teaching, presumably in Aramaic
      (or Hebrew, or a mix)?


      I'll copy and move this to Xtalk for my comments and hope others do the same with the wealth of foundational
      material we have accumulated from the HJ Seminar.  Mahlon and I have discussed this very situation in the
      past as it relates to his and my interest in 4G and my perception of an imbedded translational Greek
      "proto-John" that was originally an Aramaic narrative.  The context of our discussion was my interest in
      how the ""follow the Aramaic" tool was used when the various sayings were considered as whether or
      not genuinely Yeshuine.  My understanding was that this tool was not as utilized as much as it could have
      been, IMO, to be helpful.

      If you dont mind my giving an example, I will use the saying cited by Luke (14:26)

      "If any [man] come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and
      children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

      and GOT #55:

      Jesus said, "Whoever does not hate father and mother cannot be my disciple, and whoever does not hate
      brothers and sisters, and carry the cross as I do, will not be worthy of me."

      The Greek for "hate" in Luke is MISEI and the Coptic for "hate" in GOT is MECTE.

      The JS voted this saying as improbable (gray).  When I consider that the Aramaic for "hate" is
      <Aram>snh (saneh) that is also an idiom (only in Aramaic) for "set aside" I am left with
      the Aramaism of mistranslation which compels me to view this as genuinely Yeshuine.  It
      also make me think that Coptic GOT was translated from a Greek document.

              For example what Aramaic lay behind  the tou theou of  he basileia
      tou theou?                 Was it the equivalent i) of El or Elohim or of
      ii) or YHWH (or one of its pious                     replacements)?


      MalKOOthah d'aLAha

              The questions would then arise of i) the possible implications of
      Jesus' choice of         one of these alternatives over the other, and ii)
      of the fact that we probably cannot         determine which he chose?
      
      But this is simply an example and should not distract from the basic
      question of why the lack of efforts to bridge the linguistic gap and
      reconstitute Jesus' own words?


      I have run into this in discussions on all the forums.  NT scholars are primarily Graecists and many
      get quite red in the face at even the mention of Aramaic and the notion (which I consider indisputable)

      that Jesus' spoken lingua franca was Aramaic.
      Please reply on Xtalk.
      Jack

      --
      ______________________________________________

      taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon

      Jack Kilmon
      jkilmon@...

      http://www.historian.net

      sharing a meal for free.
      http://www.thehungersite.com/
       
       
       
       

    • John Dominic Crossan
      You ask, Brian, why the lack of efforts to bridge the linguistic gap [from Greek to Aramaic] and reconstitute Jesus own words? My best guess is that is that
      Message 2 of 2 , Mar 1, 2000
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        You ask, Brian, "why the lack of efforts to bridge the linguistic gap [from
        Greek to Aramaic] and reconstitute Jesus' own words?" My best guess is that
        is that most of the retrojections from Greek texts that we have (or
        reconstruct, if we are talking about Q) have been so linguistically insecure
        and/or so historically uninteresting that they have never created a wider
        tradition of scholarship. On the one hand, the debate between two such
        experts as Vermes and Fitzmyer on the Jewish Aramaic background of son of
        man, seems to me to have been more convincingly argued by the latter than
        the former. If we were sure that the Jewish Aramaic phrase "son of man," at
        the time of Jesus, meant "I myself" in an exclusive sense (as distinct from
        "we ourselves" including, but in no way emphasizing, the speaker), we might
        have one very clear example of how a retrojection from Greek to Aramaic
        could be of great significance. But all the examples cited by Vermes can (at
        least) be read in that corporate sense. On the other hand, if you read the
        careful reconstruction of a presumed Aramaic behind the "Our Father" in
        Fitzmyer's double-volume commentary on Luke (p. 901), you do not find any
        particular new information given there than is available in the Greek. The
        Greek term we translate as "daily"is unclear in Greek and just as unclear in
        any possible Aramaic substratum. I suppose the question you would ask is
        whether, be it in English, Greek, or Aramaic (let us presume Jesus spoke
        Aramaic and Fitzmyer got it exactly right) we have any shortcuts to
        understanding what those heavy-duty terms such as "kingdom of god" or "son
        of man" meant by retrojecting from Greek to Aramaic. On your specific
        example of Jesus' Aramaic "kingdom of WHAT?,"I leave open whether he would
        have said "Kingdom of God" or "Kingdom of (the) heaven(s)" or "Kingdom of
        the Father" and see no very clear way of deciding between them. I also see
        no immediate difference between those referents and would still have to
        interpret them within his wider vision/program.

        ----------
        >From: "Brian McCarthy" <brmcc@...>
        >To: "hj materials" <hjmaterialsmethodolgy@...>
        >Subject: [HJMatMeth] Greek Q and Aramaic Jesus
        >Date: Tue, Feb 29, 2000, 12:07 AM
        >

        > Dom,
        >
        > As we come to the end of this many-sided discussion, a big word of thanks to
        > you and to Jeffrey and Mahlon.
        >
        > Here is my final question: I have not followed Q studies in detail, the SBL
        > Q Seminar, the International Q Project etc. But each time i have come across
        > some Q discussion it has always concerned some Greek entity.
        >
        > This is fine for gospel experts, who are working back from Greek texts--and
        > whose Greek in most cases is probably far better than their Aramaic--but
        > how can Questers justify the great unbalance between, on the one hand, the
        > major investment of energy in Greek Q and on the other the
        > lack--comparative? total?--of attempts to bridge the
        > the chasm between Greek Q and Jesus' popular teaching, presumably in Aramaic
        > (or Hebrew, or a mix)?
        >
        > For example what Aramaic lay behind the tou theou of he basileia
        > tou theou? Was it the equivalent i) of El or Elohim or of
        > ii) or YHWH (or one of its pious replacements)?
        > The questions would then arise of i) the possible implications of
        > Jesus' choice of one of these alternatives over the other, and ii)
        > of the fact that we probably cannot determine which he chose?
        >
        > But this is simply an example and should not distract from the basic
        > question of why the lack of efforts to bridge the linguistic gap and
        > reconstitute Jesus' own words?
        >
        > Brian McCarthy, Madison WI
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        > To Post a message, send it to: hjmaterialsmethodolgy@...
        > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
        > hjmaterialsmethodolgy-unsubscribe@...
        >
        > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        > FREE ADVICE FROM REAL PEOPLE! Xpertsite has thousands of experts who
        > are willing to answer your questions for FREE. Go to Xpertsite today and
        > put your mind to rest.
        > http://click.egroups.com/1/1404/4/_/295551/_/951880094/
        >
        > -- 20 megs of disk space in your group's Document Vault
        > -- http://www.egroups.com/docvault/hjmaterialsmethodolgy/?m=1
        >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.