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

RE: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John

Expand Messages
  • Mardaga, Hellen
    Dear Mark, Jack, etc…. I am surprised to read the following statement: Peter would say to a group of people in Lydda, ... The 2-4 beat rhyme you are
    Message 1 of 16 , Jan 19, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Mark, Jack, etc….

      I am surprised to read the following statement:
      Peter would say to a group of people in Lydda,
      > Pontus,
      > Cappadocia, etc... איכא דאן נהוא פגרא תמן נתכנשׁון נשׁרא׃" Yeshua
      > amar......'aika den d'hawa pagra, thamman yitkanuon nishrea'" Now I am
      > confident this indeed goes to the lips of the HISTORICAL Jesus because you
      > will notice it is a 2-4 beat rhyme. Vintage Jesus-speak. Then Peter, I
      > am sure, paused while Mark translated the Aramaic to Greek, " ὅπου γὰρ ἐὰν
      > ᾖ τὸ πτῶμα ἐκεῖ συναχθήσονται οἱ ἀετοί "
      > and the crowd nodded to each other as they heard "wherever their is a
      > carcass, there also will gather the vultures."

      The 2-4 beat rhyme you are referring to (and I think you have the book “The Poetry of Our Lord” in mind) is a common stylistic feature. I do not see how you can simply “deduct” from this phenomenon that “the historical Jesus” said such a thing. I think you are overlooking some important aspects of rhetoric:

      - a feature may be common in a book – several books (e.g. parallelism is found both in John and in the Synoptics) but is that necessary a proof that because a word of Jesus is structured as a parallelism he literally “spoke” that way?
      - We do not even clearly know which language Jesus spoke. He could have spoken some Greek, maybe Aramaic, read Hebrew….but that is it. We can only “assume” what he might have said
      - What about the whole notion of orality? Oral tradition? Parallelism, rhyme, repetition, amplification are not only used in written texts but they also serve a listening audience. It could be that Mark composed the words of Jesus (since he is translating them [!] as you suggest) as a 2-4 beath rhyme (!) exactly to serve the listening audience and to help them remember the content of the gospel easier by mnemotechnic features.

      Dr. Hellen Mardaga
      Assistant Professor of New Testament
      The Catholic University of America
      Caldwel Hall 419
      620 Michigan Av.
      20064 Washington DC
      202-319-6885
      ________________________________
      From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com [mailto:johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Matson, Mark (Academic)
      Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 12:02 PM
      To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John



      Jack Kilman wrote:

      > There are many layer to 4G. In my opinion and open to discussion, once
      > they are peeled away, 4G was the first (that's right....first, prior to
      > Mark) and most historical gospel of them all.

      Jack, I agree with you on the priority of John. At least I suspect John is very early, as early as Mark, and independent. I think "priority" is a difficult term if there is independence, and I have a hard time seeing John as dependent on Mark, or Mark dependent on John. Paul Anderson may have something with his interfluentiality, though I still have a hard time seeing clear evidence of that.

      What I question, though, is the "layers" and the "peeling away." How can we really tell? I used to be a fan of Fortna's, but have become less certain. The more I read John (and E. Schweizer's analysis of John was influential on this), the more I see a unified text. And, as my own response to Joseph Calandrino indicated, I think narrative analysis tends to find the story as very cohesive. So I guess my question is how do you determine the layers? How confident can you be? Perhaps a sample would be helpful.

      Peter would say to a group of people in Lydda,
      > Pontus,
      > Cappadocia, etc... איכא דאן נהוא פגרא תמן נתכנשׁון נשׁרא׃" Yeshua
      > amar......'aika den d'hawa pagra, thamman yitkanuon nishrea'" Now I am
      > confident this indeed goes to the lips of the HISTORICAL Jesus because you
      > will notice it is a 2-4 beat rhyme. Vintage Jesus-speak. Then Peter, I
      > am sure, paused while Mark translated the Aramaic to Greek, " ὅπου γὰρ ἐὰν
      > ᾖ τὸ πτῶμα ἐκεῖ συναχθήσονται οἱ ἀετοί "
      > and the crowd nodded to each other as they heard "wherever their is a
      > carcass, there also will gather the vultures." Now to Yeshua the
      > "carcass"
      > (pagra) was the temple treasury and the "vultures" (nishrea) were the
      > Romans.

      And we would agree that much of the gospel of John is clearly very semitic. And I would bow to your expertise about particular phrases that are clear indications of an Aramaic origin. But does this mean a source, or has John either directly written in Greek having a Semitic background? Or Perhaps is he reporting eyewitness account (cf. Bauckham, but also simply the emphasis on "testimony" in the 4G)? How do we know?

      And I am very comfortable asserting the historicity of certain aspects (as I did recently arguing for John's version of Passion dating). But again, I tend to see the whole gospel as unified, and thus don't move easily to argue for sources or historicity simply on pieces.

      > Well now, if the multiple extensions, redactions, glosses, interpolations
      > and chapter shuffling is undone and the remainder back translated to
      > Aramaic (something I am doing) you will have your discourse that moves
      > matters of history.
      >

      So, the story we have is not partaking in "historiography?" (rightly understood as the interpretation of an individual). Granted, John is now what we would call a history... it is exhortation in narrative form to make a point (That you might believe....). But I'm still not comfortable with the need to "extract" the history... and am nervous about the series of decisions that are made to get at "historical bits". The methodology seems iffy to me.

      Mark A. Matson
      Academic Dean
      Milligan College
      423-461-8720
      http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Matson, Mark (Academic)
      Helen Mardaga wrote: ... I think you are overlooking some important aspects of rhetoric: - a feature may be common in a book – several books (e.g.
      Message 2 of 16 , Jan 19, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Helen Mardaga wrote:

        ... I think you are overlooking some important aspects of rhetoric:

        - a feature may be common in a book – several books (e.g. parallelism is found both in John and in the Synoptics) but is that necessary a proof that because a word of Jesus is structured as a parallelism he literally “spoke” that way?

        - We do not even clearly know which language Jesus spoke. He could have spoken some Greek, maybe Aramaic, read Hebrew….but that is it. We can only “assume” what he might have said

        - What about the whole notion of orality? Oral tradition? Parallelism, rhyme, repetition, amplification are not only used in written texts but they also serve a listening audience. It could be that Mark composed the words of Jesus (since he is translating them [!] as you suggest) as a 2-4 beath rhyme (!) exactly to serve the listening audience and to help them remember the content of the gospel easier by mnemotechnic features.
        ================================
        Thanks, Helen, for this comment.

        I think I, too, would like to respond to Jack with a query about the writing process and its relationship to various sources and/or levels of a document.

        I guess I tend to see authors utilizing a variety of approaches, some conscious some unconscious, to influence an audience (thanks, Helen, for introducing rhetoric and its orientation to audiences and the need to persuade). I imagine at times an author casts language in various ways for effect (compare Luke's very Greek prologue, only to slip into a very semitic or septuagintal style in the birth narrative; similarly Luke in Acts frequently adopts stylistic modes in the speeches).

        So I imagine that John might well be doing something similar -- especially adopting some semitic styles in the Jesus teaching sections.. Could this not be simply a Hellenistic Jew who is moderately fluent in both Aramaic and Greek, who at times allows more of the Aramaic memories/oral components to come out more strongly. I say this as a proposal.

        Having said all that, Jack, I want to take your own stratification and see what it works like. That will take a few days.

        But as Paul Anderson noted (referring to Bultmann's segmentation of sources), careful analysis of the text has tended to discount any variety of strata so as to distinguish sources. I found Fortna's model pretty persuasive at one pont (focusing on various aporia, logical breaks, in the narrative as indications of redactional seams), but Eduard Schweizer's careful analysis of linguistic stylistic markers (in his book Ego Eimi), at a linguistic level these layers can't be verified. Have you read Schweizer's book (quite old now), and do you have a suitable answer for his analysis?

        And with this kind of stylistic analysis, if John 21 was originally from Mark, then there has been an extreme and systematic reshaping of the language. It does not sound like Mark, grammatically or rhetorically. It sounds like John (and concerns about ch. 21 have foundered often on the fact that this chapter is very similar stylistically to the rest of the 4G.

        This takes me back to my earlier assertion that John is a fairly uniform text. Does it have Aramaisms? Yes. Is the Jewish substrata of this gospel strongly present? Yes. But that can certainly take place as an author attempts to create a persuasive text to an audience (that might be composed of Hellenistic Jews in part or in whole)...


        Mark A. Matson
        Academic Dean
        Milligan College
        Milligan College, TN
        http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm
      • SemioticSymphony@aol.com
        Hello Tom and fellow listers: I think the very issues of story and discourse are difficult because they have the tendency to deflect inquiry into our texts
        Message 3 of 16 , Jan 20, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          Hello Tom and fellow listers:

          I think the very issues of story and discourse are difficult because they have the tendency to deflect inquiry into our texts toward the writer doing the inquiring. This phenomenon occurs primarily because of the interpretive gestures and semantic transformations our strategies betray. I believe Hellen is working this kind of thing through with Jack on this thread.

          Though I am very interested in the assumptions we make as we approach FG (or any text, really) I do not think that the work on which such assumptions operate negates the entire enterprise, except where assumptions contain fatal flaws of logic, errors of fact, etc. Jack, our resident Aramaicist (if I may be so bold), continues to illuminate biblical texts for us with a sensitivity to language and literary convention, even as Hellen's challenges move the discussion forward.

          so, have at it!

          Joe
          Joseph Calandrino






          -----Original Message-----
          From: Tom Butler <pastor_t@...>
          To: johannine_literature <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Mon, Jan 17, 2011 4:54 pm
          Subject: Re: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John




          Joe and Members of the Johannine Literature List,
          I look forward to reading a thread addressed to the question you pose, Joe.





          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Jack Kilmon
          ... From: Mardaga, Hellen Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 12:39 PM To: Subject: RE: [John_Lit]
          Message 4 of 16 , Jan 21, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            --------------------------------------------------
            From: "Mardaga, Hellen" <MARDAGA@...>
            Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 12:39 PM
            To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
            Subject: RE: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John

            > Dear Mark, Jack, etc….
            >
            > I am surprised to read the following statement:
            > Peter would say to a group of people in Lydda,
            >> Pontus,
            >> Cappadocia, etc... איכא דאן נהוא פגרא תמן נתכנשׁון נשׁרא׃" Yeshua
            >> amar......'aika den d'hawa pagra, thamman yitkanuon nishrea'" Now I am
            >> confident this indeed goes to the lips of the HISTORICAL Jesus because
            >> you
            >> will notice it is a 2-4 beat rhyme. Vintage Jesus-speak. Then Peter, I
            >> am sure, paused while Mark translated the Aramaic to Greek, " ὅπου γὰρ
            >> ἐὰν
            >> ᾖ τὸ πτῶμα ἐκεῖ συναχθήσονται οἱ ἀετοί "
            >> and the crowd nodded to each other as they heard "wherever their is a
            >> carcass, there also will gather the vultures."
            >
            > The 2-4 beat rhyme you are referring to (and I think you have the book
            > “The Poetry of Our Lord” in mind) is a common stylistic feature. I do not
            > see how you can simply “deduct” from this phenomenon that “the historical
            > Jesus” said such a thing. I think you are overlooking some important
            > aspects of rhetoric:
            >
            > - a feature may be common in a book – several books (e.g.
            > parallelism is found both in John and in the Synoptics) but is that
            > necessary a proof that because a word of Jesus is structured as a
            > parallelism he literally “spoke” that way?

            Hi Hellen:

            Sorry it took me a while. Sometimes recreational computer time comes
            infrequently.

            Concentrating on Aramaic reconstructions of first layer sayings and
            aphorisms of Jesus I find the typical orality devices, of course. Assonance,
            paronomasia, alliteration rhyme and meter that indicate to me an individual
            in a manner that would not occur if the language of delivery would have been
            anything other than Aramaic.



            > - We do not even clearly know which language Jesus spoke.

            Judean Aramaic. To me it is not even debatable anymore. There is a ton of
            evidence in the only real footprints of the historical Jesus we have, his
            words.

            Translational Greek is recognizable by the lexical and syntactic
            interference and in this case that interference is Aramaic.


            > He could have spoken some Greek, maybe Aramaic, read Hebrew….but that is
            > it. We can only “assume” what he might have said

            I am sure he had "get by Greek" having grown up in Galilee surrounded by
            Hellenism and trade. He spoke Aramaic. Those are the only transliterated
            words placed on his lips including the cry from the cross. Whether or not
            he was competent in Hebrew is hard to assess. The reading of the Isaiah
            scroll at the synagogue at Luke 4:21 is special "L" material from the last
            decade of the 1st century and almost certainly not genuine to Jesus.
            Otherwise we have no indications he knew, read or spoke Hebrew and we do
            have indications he was familiar with Targums.

            Jesus grew up in Palestine (not even assuming the Galilee) in the first
            third of the 1st century. As such, he grew up in an Aramaic speaking country
            so it is more than an assumption to me that he spoke Aramaic as his mother
            tongue.

            Even our Gospel of John has an Aramaic sub-structure, in fact the strongest
            of the Gospels.


            > - What about the whole notion of orality? Oral tradition?
            > Parallelism, rhyme, repetition, amplification are not only used in written
            > texts but they also serve a listening audience. It could be that Mark
            > composed the words of Jesus (since he is translating them [!] as you
            > suggest) as a 2-4 beath rhyme (!) exactly to serve the listening audience
            > and to help them remember the content of the gospel easier by mnemotechnic
            > features.

            That is the most unlikely possibility, IMO, since Mark wrote his Gospel in
            his "second language Greek" where the Aramaic mnemonic apparati would be
            lost just as was idiom in many cases. They do not appear until the Aramaic
            is reconstructed. In the cry from the cross, first penned...er...reeded..by
            Mark from his notebook, he chose to preserve it as it was spoken and there
            is no better indication of Judean Aramaic.

            The "cry from the cross" bothers some people and there are apologists from
            Syriac churches (Jesus did not speak Syriac) who manufacture all forms of
            creative "translations." The cry from the cross is clear Aramaic and
            definitively "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"

            I think Mark was correct in his transliteration since the Western Aramaic
            (Judean) would have a qamets qatan instead of qamets gadhol for the lamed in
            alaha. Easterm (Syriac) would be alef (pattah)-lamed (qamets gadhol)-heh
            (hiriq qatan)-yod, hence aLAhy. Western (Judean) would be alef-lamed
            (qamets qatan)-heh (hiriq qatan)-yod, hence aLOhy, hence Mark's
            transliteration as ELWI Ελωι ελωι λαμμᾶ σαβαχθανι . Judean Aramaic
            aLOhy, aLOhy LAma shevawqTAny?

            "God of me, God of me, why have forsaken you me?"

            Some say there a problem with the absence of a smooth breathing for the
            transliterated ELWI? I don't think so. There was no such thing in the
            first century and the original Markan autograph would have had an uncial
            ELWI.

            In Aramaic speaking Palestine of the 1st century, Jesus would not have heard
            Psalm 22 in Hebrew. He would have heard it from the synagogue lector reading
            the Aramaic Targum of Psalm 22.
            אלהי אלהי מטול מה שׁבקתני

            Just one of hundreds of indicators that I have noticed is the rendering of
            the name of Jesus' buddy אֶלְעָזָר in Hebrew el'azar. It has come down to
            us from Jesus' own Galilean pronunciation as l'azar with the dropped aleph
            and transliterated into Greek as Λάζαρος and in the Vulgate as Lazarus.

            If Jeremias, Black, Fitzmyer and Casey are not compelling on this issue,
            then no one can be, certainly not a mere amateur such as myself.

            Is it cold in DC?

            Regards,

            Jack

            Jack Kilmon
            San Antonio, TX



            >
            > Dr. Hellen Mardaga
            > Assistant Professor of New Testament
            > The Catholic University of America
            > Caldwel Hall 419
            > 620 Michigan Av.
            > 20064 Washington DC
            > 202-319-6885
          • Mardaga, Hellen
            Dear Jack, yes it is very cold in DC.....I really hate the winter..... One should avoid statements or certainties with regard to claims about the
            Message 5 of 16 , Jan 22, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Jack,



              yes it is very cold in DC.....I really hate the winter.....



              One should avoid statements or "certainties" with regard to claims about the "historical" Jesus. I have discovered that all to often people say things about the historical jesus (what he did, how he spoke, where he went to etc...)that sound as if they were personally present at the scenery (no ofense). There really is no straightforward evidence with regard to the literacy of Jesus, only possibilities or probabilities.



              I also think - but I might be wrong- that you overlook the very important distinction between the real Jesus (whom we do not know and never will) and the historical Jesus (the Jesus we recover through scientific research).



              Hellen















              ________________________________
              From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com [johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com] on behalf of Jack Kilmon [jkilmon@...]
              Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 11:36 PM
              To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John




              --------------------------------------------------
              From: "Mardaga, Hellen" <MARDAGA@...<mailto:MARDAGA%40cua.edu>>
              Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 12:39 PM
              To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com<mailto:johannine_literature%40yahoogroups.com>>
              Subject: RE: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John

              > Dear Mark, Jack, etc….
              >
              > I am surprised to read the following statement:
              > Peter would say to a group of people in Lydda,
              >> Pontus,
              >> Cappadocia, etc... איכא דאן נהוא פגרא תמן נתכנשׁון נשׁרא׃" Yeshua
              >> amar......'aika den d'hawa pagra, thamman yitkanuon nishrea'" Now I am
              >> confident this indeed goes to the lips of the HISTORICAL Jesus because
              >> you
              >> will notice it is a 2-4 beat rhyme. Vintage Jesus-speak. Then Peter, I
              >> am sure, paused while Mark translated the Aramaic to Greek, " ὅπου γὰρ
              >> ἐὰν
              >> ᾖ τὸ πτῶμα ἐκεῖ συναχθήσονται οἱ ἀετοί "
              >> and the crowd nodded to each other as they heard "wherever their is a
              >> carcass, there also will gather the vultures."
              >
              > The 2-4 beat rhyme you are referring to (and I think you have the book
              > “The Poetry of Our Lord” in mind) is a common stylistic feature. I do not
              > see how you can simply “deduct” from this phenomenon that “the historical
              > Jesus” said such a thing. I think you are overlooking some important
              > aspects of rhetoric:
              >
              > - a feature may be common in a book – several books (e.g.
              > parallelism is found both in John and in the Synoptics) but is that
              > necessary a proof that because a word of Jesus is structured as a
              > parallelism he literally “spoke” that way?

              Hi Hellen:

              Sorry it took me a while. Sometimes recreational computer time comes
              infrequently.

              Concentrating on Aramaic reconstructions of first layer sayings and
              aphorisms of Jesus I find the typical orality devices, of course. Assonance,
              paronomasia, alliteration rhyme and meter that indicate to me an individual
              in a manner that would not occur if the language of delivery would have been
              anything other than Aramaic.

              > - We do not even clearly know which language Jesus spoke.

              Judean Aramaic. To me it is not even debatable anymore. There is a ton of
              evidence in the only real footprints of the historical Jesus we have, his
              words.

              Translational Greek is recognizable by the lexical and syntactic
              interference and in this case that interference is Aramaic.

              > He could have spoken some Greek, maybe Aramaic, read Hebrew….but that is
              > it. We can only “assume” what he might have said

              I am sure he had "get by Greek" having grown up in Galilee surrounded by
              Hellenism and trade. He spoke Aramaic. Those are the only transliterated
              words placed on his lips including the cry from the cross. Whether or not
              he was competent in Hebrew is hard to assess. The reading of the Isaiah
              scroll at the synagogue at Luke 4:21 is special "L" material from the last
              decade of the 1st century and almost certainly not genuine to Jesus.
              Otherwise we have no indications he knew, read or spoke Hebrew and we do
              have indications he was familiar with Targums.

              Jesus grew up in Palestine (not even assuming the Galilee) in the first
              third of the 1st century. As such, he grew up in an Aramaic speaking country
              so it is more than an assumption to me that he spoke Aramaic as his mother
              tongue.

              Even our Gospel of John has an Aramaic sub-structure, in fact the strongest
              of the Gospels.

              > - What about the whole notion of orality? Oral tradition?
              > Parallelism, rhyme, repetition, amplification are not only used in written
              > texts but they also serve a listening audience. It could be that Mark
              > composed the words of Jesus (since he is translating them [!] as you
              > suggest) as a 2-4 beath rhyme (!) exactly to serve the listening audience
              > and to help them remember the content of the gospel easier by mnemotechnic
              > features.

              That is the most unlikely possibility, IMO, since Mark wrote his Gospel in
              his "second language Greek" where the Aramaic mnemonic apparati would be
              lost just as was idiom in many cases. They do not appear until the Aramaic
              is reconstructed. In the cry from the cross, first penned...er...reeded..by
              Mark from his notebook, he chose to preserve it as it was spoken and there
              is no better indication of Judean Aramaic.

              The "cry from the cross" bothers some people and there are apologists from
              Syriac churches (Jesus did not speak Syriac) who manufacture all forms of
              creative "translations." The cry from the cross is clear Aramaic and
              definitively "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"

              I think Mark was correct in his transliteration since the Western Aramaic
              (Judean) would have a qamets qatan instead of qamets gadhol for the lamed in
              alaha. Easterm (Syriac) would be alef (pattah)-lamed (qamets gadhol)-heh
              (hiriq qatan)-yod, hence aLAhy. Western (Judean) would be alef-lamed
              (qamets qatan)-heh (hiriq qatan)-yod, hence aLOhy, hence Mark's
              transliteration as ELWI Ελωι ελωι λαμμᾶ σαβαχθανι . Judean Aramaic
              aLOhy, aLOhy LAma shevawqTAny?

              "God of me, God of me, why have forsaken you me?"

              Some say there a problem with the absence of a smooth breathing for the
              transliterated ELWI? I don't think so. There was no such thing in the
              first century and the original Markan autograph would have had an uncial
              ELWI.

              In Aramaic speaking Palestine of the 1st century, Jesus would not have heard
              Psalm 22 in Hebrew. He would have heard it from the synagogue lector reading
              the Aramaic Targum of Psalm 22.
              אלהי אלהי מטול מה שׁבקתני

              Just one of hundreds of indicators that I have noticed is the rendering of
              the name of Jesus' buddy אֶלְעָזָר in Hebrew el'azar. It has come down to
              us from Jesus' own Galilean pronunciation as l'azar with the dropped aleph
              and transliterated into Greek as Λάζαρος and in the Vulgate as Lazarus.

              If Jeremias, Black, Fitzmyer and Casey are not compelling on this issue,
              then no one can be, certainly not a mere amateur such as myself.

              Is it cold in DC?

              Regards,

              Jack

              Jack Kilmon
              San Antonio, TX

              >
              > Dr. Hellen Mardaga
              > Assistant Professor of New Testament
              > The Catholic University of America
              > Caldwel Hall 419
              > 620 Michigan Av.
              > 20064 Washington DC
              > 202-319-6885
            • Jack Kilmon
              Hi Hellen: Since it is a given that the real Jesus is lost to history, the historical Jesus is as close as we are going to get. We get as close as we can
              Message 6 of 16 , Jan 22, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Hellen:

                Since it is a given that the "real Jesus" is lost to history, the
                "historical Jesus" is as close as we are going to get. We get as close as
                we can through both a critical analysis of the texts and steeped in the
                social, cultural, religious and linguistic anthropology of the late second
                temple period. As a result and per exemplum, I do not know if the REAL
                Jesus wore sandals. I do know that they were the standard footwear and some
                have been recovered at Qumran and Wadi Muraba'at and the texts tell me he
                did a lot of walking. As a result, I think I am very safe in stating,
                almost apodictically, Jesus wore sandals.
                I don't know what the REAL Jesus wore in addition to the sandals but
                standard dress was an inner tunic, a tunic coat (Kitonet), a girdle or belt
                of leather, a mantle that was like a robe, similar to a Gilabiyah and a
                headdress not unlike a prayer shawl or tallit. Examples of these pieces of
                clothing have been found, some fairly well preserved and I would bet the
                mayonnaise farm that is what the historical and the real Jesus wore, albeit
                I cannot tell you about colors. I can tell from the archaeological evidence
                what kind of cups he drank from and ate from and what kind of wine he drank
                and food he ate. We also have a very good idea of infrastructure and the
                types of houses he lived in as well as social and family praxis. I can say
                with strong conviction that he spoke Aramaic and even know enough of the
                idiom to know he didn't say some of the things we think he said.

                I think he really did, honestly and for true, actually heal a lot of people,
                again with good reason rather than "faith."

                All I am saying is that if you look at the whole elephant from all of the
                indicators at out disposal, there is much we can say about the only REAL
                Jesus we will ever know, the historical Jesus.

                shlama

                Jack

                Jack Kilmon
                San Antonio, TX

                --------------------------------------------------
                From: "Mardaga, Hellen" <MARDAGA@...>
                Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 7:30 AM
                To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                Subject: RE: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John

                > Dear Jack,
                >
                >
                >
                > yes it is very cold in DC.....I really hate the winter.....
                >
                >
                >
                > One should avoid statements or "certainties" with regard to claims about
                > the "historical" Jesus. I have discovered that all to often people say
                > things about the historical jesus (what he did, how he spoke, where he
                > went to etc...)that sound as if they were personally present at the
                > scenery (no ofense). There really is no straightforward evidence with
                > regard to the literacy of Jesus, only possibilities or probabilities.
                >
                >
                >
                > I also think - but I might be wrong- that you overlook the very important
                > distinction between the real Jesus (whom we do not know and never will)
                > and the historical Jesus (the Jesus we recover through scientific
                > research).
                >
                >
                >
                > Hellen

                >
                >
                > ________________________________
                > From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                > [johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com] on behalf of Jack Kilmon
                > [jkilmon@...]
                > Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 11:36 PM
                > To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: Re: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > --------------------------------------------------
                > From: "Mardaga, Hellen" <MARDAGA@...<mailto:MARDAGA%40cua.edu>>
                > Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 12:39 PM
                > To:
                > <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com<mailto:johannine_literature%40yahoogroups.com>>
                > Subject: RE: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John
                >
                >> Dear Mark, Jack, etc….
                >>
                >> I am surprised to read the following statement:
                >> Peter would say to a group of people in Lydda,
                >>> Pontus,
                >>> Cappadocia, etc... איכא דאן נהוא פגרא תמן נתכנשׁון נשׁרא׃" Yeshua
                >>> amar......'aika den d'hawa pagra, thamman yitkanuon nishrea'" Now I am
                >>> confident this indeed goes to the lips of the HISTORICAL Jesus because
                >>> you
                >>> will notice it is a 2-4 beat rhyme. Vintage Jesus-speak. Then Peter, I
                >>> am sure, paused while Mark translated the Aramaic to Greek, " ὅπου γὰρ
                >>> ἐὰν
                >>> ᾖ τὸ πτῶμα ἐκεῖ συναχθήσονται οἱ ἀετοί "
                >>> and the crowd nodded to each other as they heard "wherever their is a
                >>> carcass, there also will gather the vultures."
                >>
                >> The 2-4 beat rhyme you are referring to (and I think you have the book
                >> “The Poetry of Our Lord” in mind) is a common stylistic feature. I do not
                >> see how you can simply “deduct” from this phenomenon that “the historical
                >> Jesus” said such a thing. I think you are overlooking some important
                >> aspects of rhetoric:
                >>
                >> - a feature may be common in a book – several books (e.g.
                >> parallelism is found both in John and in the Synoptics) but is that
                >> necessary a proof that because a word of Jesus is structured as a
                >> parallelism he literally “spoke” that way?
                >
                > Hi Hellen:
                >
                > Sorry it took me a while. Sometimes recreational computer time comes
                > infrequently.
                >
                > Concentrating on Aramaic reconstructions of first layer sayings and
                > aphorisms of Jesus I find the typical orality devices, of course.
                > Assonance,
                > paronomasia, alliteration rhyme and meter that indicate to me an
                > individual
                > in a manner that would not occur if the language of delivery would have
                > been
                > anything other than Aramaic.
                >
                >> - We do not even clearly know which language Jesus spoke.
                >
                > Judean Aramaic. To me it is not even debatable anymore. There is a ton of
                > evidence in the only real footprints of the historical Jesus we have, his
                > words.
                >
                > Translational Greek is recognizable by the lexical and syntactic
                > interference and in this case that interference is Aramaic.
                >
                >> He could have spoken some Greek, maybe Aramaic, read Hebrew….but that is
                >> it. We can only “assume” what he might have said
                >
                > I am sure he had "get by Greek" having grown up in Galilee surrounded by
                > Hellenism and trade. He spoke Aramaic. Those are the only transliterated
                > words placed on his lips including the cry from the cross. Whether or not
                > he was competent in Hebrew is hard to assess. The reading of the Isaiah
                > scroll at the synagogue at Luke 4:21 is special "L" material from the last
                > decade of the 1st century and almost certainly not genuine to Jesus.
                > Otherwise we have no indications he knew, read or spoke Hebrew and we do
                > have indications he was familiar with Targums.
                >
                > Jesus grew up in Palestine (not even assuming the Galilee) in the first
                > third of the 1st century. As such, he grew up in an Aramaic speaking
                > country
                > so it is more than an assumption to me that he spoke Aramaic as his mother
                > tongue.
                >
                > Even our Gospel of John has an Aramaic sub-structure, in fact the
                > strongest
                > of the Gospels.
                >
                >> - What about the whole notion of orality? Oral tradition?
                >> Parallelism, rhyme, repetition, amplification are not only used in
                >> written
                >> texts but they also serve a listening audience. It could be that Mark
                >> composed the words of Jesus (since he is translating them [!] as you
                >> suggest) as a 2-4 beath rhyme (!) exactly to serve the listening audience
                >> and to help them remember the content of the gospel easier by
                >> mnemotechnic
                >> features.
                >
                > That is the most unlikely possibility, IMO, since Mark wrote his Gospel in
                > his "second language Greek" where the Aramaic mnemonic apparati would be
                > lost just as was idiom in many cases. They do not appear until the Aramaic
                > is reconstructed. In the cry from the cross, first
                > penned...er...reeded..by
                > Mark from his notebook, he chose to preserve it as it was spoken and there
                > is no better indication of Judean Aramaic.
                >
                > The "cry from the cross" bothers some people and there are apologists from
                > Syriac churches (Jesus did not speak Syriac) who manufacture all forms of
                > creative "translations." The cry from the cross is clear Aramaic and
                > definitively "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"
                >
                > I think Mark was correct in his transliteration since the Western Aramaic
                > (Judean) would have a qamets qatan instead of qamets gadhol for the lamed
                > in
                > alaha. Easterm (Syriac) would be alef (pattah)-lamed (qamets gadhol)-heh
                > (hiriq qatan)-yod, hence aLAhy. Western (Judean) would be alef-lamed
                > (qamets qatan)-heh (hiriq qatan)-yod, hence aLOhy, hence Mark's
                > transliteration as ELWI Ελωι ελωι λαμμᾶ σαβαχθανι . Judean Aramaic
                > aLOhy, aLOhy LAma shevawqTAny?
                >
                > "God of me, God of me, why have forsaken you me?"
                >
                > Some say there a problem with the absence of a smooth breathing for the
                > transliterated ELWI? I don't think so. There was no such thing in the
                > first century and the original Markan autograph would have had an uncial
                > ELWI.
                >
                > In Aramaic speaking Palestine of the 1st century, Jesus would not have
                > heard
                > Psalm 22 in Hebrew. He would have heard it from the synagogue lector
                > reading
                > the Aramaic Targum of Psalm 22.
                > אלהי אלהי מטול מה שׁבקתני
                >
                > Just one of hundreds of indicators that I have noticed is the rendering of
                > the name of Jesus' buddy אֶלְעָזָר in Hebrew el'azar. It has come down to
                > us from Jesus' own Galilean pronunciation as l'azar with the dropped aleph
                > and transliterated into Greek as Λάζαρος and in the Vulgate as Lazarus.
                >
                > If Jeremias, Black, Fitzmyer and Casey are not compelling on this issue,
                > then no one can be, certainly not a mere amateur such as myself.
                >
                > Is it cold in DC?
                >
                > Regards,
                >
                > Jack
                >
                > Jack Kilmon
                > San Antonio, TX
                >
                >>
                >> Dr. Hellen Mardaga
                >> Assistant Professor of New Testament
                >> The Catholic University of America
                >> Caldwel Hall 419
                >> 620 Michigan Av.
                >> 20064 Washington DC
                >> 202-319-6885
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > ------------------------------------
                >
                > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
                > MESSAGE ARCHIVE:
                > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messagesYahoo! Groups
                > Links
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
              • Matthew Estrada
                Jack, You speak in generalities, but the gospel stories are specific. And that, I am afraid, you cannot claim with certainty (the mayonaise farm), what the
                Message 7 of 16 , Jan 22, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  Jack,

                  You speak in generalities, but the gospel stories are specific. And that, I am
                  afraid, you cannot claim with certainty (the mayonaise farm), what the REAL
                  Jesus DID. Did he indeed turn water into wine?

                  Matt Estrada
                  peasant




                  ________________________________
                  From: Jack Kilmon <jkilmon@...>
                  To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Sat, January 22, 2011 9:12:45 PM
                  Subject: Re: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John

                   
                  Hi Hellen:

                  Since it is a given that the "real Jesus" is lost to history, the
                  "historical Jesus" is as close as we are going to get. We get as close as
                  we can through both a critical analysis of the texts and steeped in the
                  social, cultural, religious and linguistic anthropology of the late second
                  temple period. As a result and per exemplum, I do not know if the REAL
                  Jesus wore sandals. I do know that they were the standard footwear and some
                  have been recovered at Qumran and Wadi Muraba'at and the texts tell me he
                  did a lot of walking. As a result, I think I am very safe in stating,
                  almost apodictically, Jesus wore sandals.
                  I don't know what the REAL Jesus wore in addition to the sandals but
                  standard dress was an inner tunic, a tunic coat (Kitonet), a girdle or belt
                  of leather, a mantle that was like a robe, similar to a Gilabiyah and a
                  headdress not unlike a prayer shawl or tallit. Examples of these pieces of
                  clothing have been found, some fairly well preserved and I would bet the
                  mayonnaise farm that is what the historical and the real Jesus wore, albeit
                  I cannot tell you about colors. I can tell from the archaeological evidence
                  what kind of cups he drank from and ate from and what kind of wine he drank
                  and food he ate. We also have a very good idea of infrastructure and the
                  types of houses he lived in as well as social and family praxis. I can say
                  with strong conviction that he spoke Aramaic and even know enough of the
                  idiom to know he didn't say some of the things we think he said.

                  I think he really did, honestly and for true, actually heal a lot of people,
                  again with good reason rather than "faith."

                  All I am saying is that if you look at the whole elephant from all of the
                  indicators at out disposal, there is much we can say about the only REAL
                  Jesus we will ever know, the historical Jesus.

                  shlama

                  Jack

                  Jack Kilmon
                  San Antonio, TX

                  --------------------------------------------------
                  From: "Mardaga, Hellen" <MARDAGA@...>
                  Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 7:30 AM
                  To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                  Subject: RE: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John

                  > Dear Jack,
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > yes it is very cold in DC.....I really hate the winter.....
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > One should avoid statements or "certainties" with regard to claims about
                  > the "historical" Jesus. I have discovered that all to often people say
                  > things about the historical jesus (what he did, how he spoke, where he
                  > went to etc...)that sound as if they were personally present at the
                  > scenery (no ofense). There really is no straightforward evidence with
                  > regard to the literacy of Jesus, only possibilities or probabilities.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > I also think - but I might be wrong- that you overlook the very important
                  > distinction between the real Jesus (whom we do not know and never will)
                  > and the historical Jesus (the Jesus we recover through scientific
                  > research).
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Hellen

                  >
                  >
                  > ________________________________
                  > From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                  > [johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com] on behalf of Jack Kilmon
                  > [jkilmon@...]
                  > Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 11:36 PM
                  > To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                  > Subject: Re: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > --------------------------------------------------
                  > From: "Mardaga, Hellen" <MARDAGA@...<mailto:MARDAGA%40cua.edu>>
                  > Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 12:39 PM
                  > To:
                  ><johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com<mailto:johannine_literature%40yahoogroups.com>>
                  >>
                  > Subject: RE: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John
                  >
                  >> Dear Mark, Jack, etc….
                  >>
                  >> I am surprised to read the following statement:
                  >> Peter would say to a group of people in Lydda,
                  >>> Pontus,
                  >>> Cappadocia, etc... איכא דאן נהוא פגרא תמן נתכנשׁון נשׁרא׃" Yeshua
                  >>> amar......'aika den d'hawa pagra, thamman yitkanuon nishrea'" Now I am
                  >>> confident this indeed goes to the lips of the HISTORICAL Jesus because
                  >>> you
                  >>> will notice it is a 2-4 beat rhyme. Vintage Jesus-speak. Then Peter, I
                  >>> am sure, paused while Mark translated the Aramaic to Greek, " ὅπου γὰρ
                  >>> ἐὰν
                  >>> ᾖ τὸ πτῶμα ἐκεῖ συναχθήσονται οἱ ἀετοί "
                  >>> and the crowd nodded to each other as they heard "wherever their is a
                  >>> carcass, there also will gather the vultures."
                  >>
                  >> The 2-4 beat rhyme you are referring to (and I think you have the book
                  >> “The Poetry of Our Lord” in mind) is a common stylistic feature. I do not
                  >> see how you can simply “deduct” from this phenomenon that “the historical
                  >> Jesus” said such a thing. I think you are overlooking some important
                  >> aspects of rhetoric:
                  >>
                  >> - a feature may be common in a book – several books (e.g.
                  >> parallelism is found both in John and in the Synoptics) but is that
                  >> necessary a proof that because a word of Jesus is structured as a
                  >> parallelism he literally “spoke” that way?
                  >
                  > Hi Hellen:
                  >
                  > Sorry it took me a while. Sometimes recreational computer time comes
                  > infrequently.
                  >
                  > Concentrating on Aramaic reconstructions of first layer sayings and
                  > aphorisms of Jesus I find the typical orality devices, of course.
                  > Assonance,
                  > paronomasia, alliteration rhyme and meter that indicate to me an
                  > individual
                  > in a manner that would not occur if the language of delivery would have
                  > been
                  > anything other than Aramaic.
                  >
                  >> - We do not even clearly know which language Jesus spoke.
                  >
                  > Judean Aramaic. To me it is not even debatable anymore. There is a ton of
                  > evidence in the only real footprints of the historical Jesus we have, his
                  > words.
                  >
                  > Translational Greek is recognizable by the lexical and syntactic
                  > interference and in this case that interference is Aramaic.
                  >
                  >> He could have spoken some Greek, maybe Aramaic, read Hebrew….but that is
                  >> it. We can only “assume” what he might have said
                  >
                  > I am sure he had "get by Greek" having grown up in Galilee surrounded by
                  > Hellenism and trade. He spoke Aramaic. Those are the only transliterated
                  > words placed on his lips including the cry from the cross. Whether or not
                  > he was competent in Hebrew is hard to assess. The reading of the Isaiah
                  > scroll at the synagogue at Luke 4:21 is special "L" material from the last
                  > decade of the 1st century and almost certainly not genuine to Jesus.
                  > Otherwise we have no indications he knew, read or spoke Hebrew and we do
                  > have indications he was familiar with Targums.
                  >
                  > Jesus grew up in Palestine (not even assuming the Galilee) in the first
                  > third of the 1st century. As such, he grew up in an Aramaic speaking
                  > country
                  > so it is more than an assumption to me that he spoke Aramaic as his mother
                  > tongue.
                  >
                  > Even our Gospel of John has an Aramaic sub-structure, in fact the
                  > strongest
                  > of the Gospels.
                  >
                  >> - What about the whole notion of orality? Oral tradition?
                  >> Parallelism, rhyme, repetition, amplification are not only used in
                  >> written
                  >> texts but they also serve a listening audience. It could be that Mark
                  >> composed the words of Jesus (since he is translating them [!] as you
                  >> suggest) as a 2-4 beath rhyme (!) exactly to serve the listening audience
                  >> and to help them remember the content of the gospel easier by
                  >> mnemotechnic
                  >> features.
                  >
                  > That is the most unlikely possibility, IMO, since Mark wrote his Gospel in
                  > his "second language Greek" where the Aramaic mnemonic apparati would be
                  > lost just as was idiom in many cases. They do not appear until the Aramaic
                  > is reconstructed. In the cry from the cross, first
                  > penned...er...reeded..by
                  > Mark from his notebook, he chose to preserve it as it was spoken and there
                  > is no better indication of Judean Aramaic.
                  >
                  > The "cry from the cross" bothers some people and there are apologists from
                  > Syriac churches (Jesus did not speak Syriac) who manufacture all forms of
                  > creative "translations." The cry from the cross is clear Aramaic and
                  > definitively "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"
                  >
                  > I think Mark was correct in his transliteration since the Western Aramaic
                  > (Judean) would have a qamets qatan instead of qamets gadhol for the lamed
                  > in
                  > alaha. Easterm (Syriac) would be alef (pattah)-lamed (qamets gadhol)-heh
                  > (hiriq qatan)-yod, hence aLAhy. Western (Judean) would be alef-lamed
                  > (qamets qatan)-heh (hiriq qatan)-yod, hence aLOhy, hence Mark's
                  > transliteration as ELWI Ελωι ελωι λαμμᾶ σαβαχθανι . Judean Aramaic
                  > aLOhy, aLOhy LAma shevawqTAny?
                  >
                  > "God of me, God of me, why have forsaken you me?"
                  >
                  > Some say there a problem with the absence of a smooth breathing for the
                  > transliterated ELWI? I don't think so. There was no such thing in the
                  > first century and the original Markan autograph would have had an uncial
                  > ELWI.
                  >
                  > In Aramaic speaking Palestine of the 1st century, Jesus would not have
                  > heard
                  > Psalm 22 in Hebrew. He would have heard it from the synagogue lector
                  > reading
                  > the Aramaic Targum of Psalm 22.
                  > אלהי אלהי מטול מה שׁבקתני
                  >
                  > Just one of hundreds of indicators that I have noticed is the rendering of
                  > the name of Jesus' buddy אֶלְעָזָר in Hebrew el'azar. It has come down to
                  > us from Jesus' own Galilean pronunciation as l'azar with the dropped aleph
                  > and transliterated into Greek as Λάζαρος and in the Vulgate as Lazarus.
                  >
                  > If Jeremias, Black, Fitzmyer and Casey are not compelling on this issue,
                  > then no one can be, certainly not a mere amateur such as myself.
                  >
                  > Is it cold in DC?
                  >
                  > Regards,
                  >
                  > Jack
                  >
                  > Jack Kilmon
                  > San Antonio, TX
                  >
                  >>
                  >> Dr. Hellen Mardaga
                  >> Assistant Professor of New Testament
                  >> The Catholic University of America
                  >> Caldwel Hall 419
                  >> 620 Michigan Av.
                  >> 20064 Washington DC
                  >> 202-319-6885
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ------------------------------------
                  >
                  > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
                  > MESSAGE ARCHIVE:
                  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messagesYahoo! Groups
                  > Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >






                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Jack Kilmon
                  No, Matt, I do not believe he turned water into wine. The miracle stories and supernatural events are an entirely different animal in HJ studies, primarily
                  Message 8 of 16 , Jan 23, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    No, Matt, I do not believe he turned water into wine. The miracle stories
                    and supernatural events are an entirely different animal in HJ studies,
                    primarily ignored in the various "quests."
                    In the cyclic "quests" for the historical Jesus, in the past, much focus has
                    been placed on the sayings of Jesus. Other important aspects in the "quest"
                    have good foundations in the cultural anthropology of
                    1st century Palestine. These elements are woefully absent in much debate
                    concerning the historical Jesus. The miracle stories, however, were ignored
                    because of the historical difficulty.

                    In the 1st century Middle East any disease, disability or infirmity was
                    considered divine punishment for some transgression against God or for sin.
                    This is a silly concept today (albeit still promulgated by primitive
                    evangelical types like Pat Robertson regarding the AIDS epidemic). Back to
                    the 1st century. Hysterical pathologies resulting from guilt feelings over
                    perceived transgressions would have been rampant in that society where
                    literally thousands of "sinners" expected imminent retribution from God.
                    These hysterically based infirmities, called Conversion Disorders, are
                    often seen today by psychiatrists and most commonly are some form of
                    paralysis (healed by Jesus at Mark 3:1) 1, 2, 3, blindness (Mark 8:22;
                    10:49) 4, skin eruptions, all of which were called "Leprosy" in the 1st
                    century (healed Mark 1:40) and deafness (healed Mark 7:32) 5. Given a
                    healer whom the victim believed had the authority from God to heal the sin,
                    many of these infirmities would have been instantly healed (6) and failures
                    chalked up to "lack of faith." The reputation of Jesus as a healer spread
                    like wildfire.

                    There were other healers sashaying from place to place but the higher rate
                    of success for Jesus may have been the perception by the am ha'aretz that he
                    was the bar nasha and had God's authority to forgive sin which the gospels
                    relate was a sharp thorn in the butts of the temple crowd who could only
                    play the "healing on a sabbath" ruse to trip him up.

                    The point is that some of the "miracles" actually happened.

                    1.Heruti RJ, Reznik J, Adunski A, et al. Conversion motor paralysis
                    disorder: analysis of 34 consecutive referrals. Spinal Cord 2002;40:335-40.
                    2.Heruti RJ, Levy A, Adunski A, et al. Conversion motor paralysis disorder:
                    overview and rehabilitation model. Spinal Cord 2002;40:327-34.
                    3.Letonoff EJ, Williams TR, Sidhu KS. Hysterical paralysis: a report of
                    three cases and a review of the literature. Spine 2002;27:441-5.
                    4.Freud, Sigmund. (1910i). The psycho-analytic view of psychogenic
                    disturbance of vision. SE, 11: 209-218.
                    5.Loren Pankratza, etal A forced-choice technique to evaluate deafness in
                    the hysterical or malingering patient Journal of Consulting and Clinical
                    Psychology
                    Volume 43, Issue 3, June 1975, Pages 421-422
                    6. Ruddy R, House A. Psychosocial interventions for conversion disorder.
                    Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 4.

                    Jack

                    Jack Kilmon
                    San Antonio, TX


                    --------------------------------------------------
                    From: "Matthew Estrada" <matt_estrada@...>
                    Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 8:40 PM
                    To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                    Subject: Re: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John

                    > Jack,
                    >
                    > You speak in generalities, but the gospel stories are specific. And that,
                    > I am
                    > afraid, you cannot claim with certainty (the mayonaise farm), what the
                    > REAL
                    > Jesus DID. Did he indeed turn water into wine?
                    >
                    > Matt Estrada
                    > peasant
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > ________________________________
                    > From: Jack Kilmon <jkilmon@...>
                    > To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                    > Sent: Sat, January 22, 2011 9:12:45 PM
                    > Subject: Re: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John
                    >
                    >
                    > Hi Hellen:
                    >
                    > Since it is a given that the "real Jesus" is lost to history, the
                    > "historical Jesus" is as close as we are going to get. We get as close as
                    > we can through both a critical analysis of the texts and steeped in the
                    > social, cultural, religious and linguistic anthropology of the late second
                    > temple period. As a result and per exemplum, I do not know if the REAL
                    > Jesus wore sandals. I do know that they were the standard footwear and
                    > some
                    > have been recovered at Qumran and Wadi Muraba'at and the texts tell me he
                    > did a lot of walking. As a result, I think I am very safe in stating,
                    > almost apodictically, Jesus wore sandals.
                    > I don't know what the REAL Jesus wore in addition to the sandals but
                    > standard dress was an inner tunic, a tunic coat (Kitonet), a girdle or
                    > belt
                    > of leather, a mantle that was like a robe, similar to a Gilabiyah and a
                    > headdress not unlike a prayer shawl or tallit. Examples of these pieces of
                    > clothing have been found, some fairly well preserved and I would bet the
                    > mayonnaise farm that is what the historical and the real Jesus wore,
                    > albeit
                    > I cannot tell you about colors. I can tell from the archaeological
                    > evidence
                    > what kind of cups he drank from and ate from and what kind of wine he
                    > drank
                    > and food he ate. We also have a very good idea of infrastructure and the
                    > types of houses he lived in as well as social and family praxis. I can say
                    > with strong conviction that he spoke Aramaic and even know enough of the
                    > idiom to know he didn't say some of the things we think he said.
                    >
                    > I think he really did, honestly and for true, actually heal a lot of
                    > people,
                    > again with good reason rather than "faith."
                    >
                    > All I am saying is that if you look at the whole elephant from all of the
                    > indicators at out disposal, there is much we can say about the only REAL
                    > Jesus we will ever know, the historical Jesus.
                    >
                    > shlama
                    >
                    > Jack
                    >
                    > Jack Kilmon
                    > San Antonio, TX
                    >
                    > --------------------------------------------------
                    > From: "Mardaga, Hellen" <MARDAGA@...>
                    > Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 7:30 AM
                    > To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                    > Subject: RE: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John
                    >
                    >> Dear Jack,
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >> yes it is very cold in DC.....I really hate the winter.....
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >> One should avoid statements or "certainties" with regard to claims about
                    >> the "historical" Jesus. I have discovered that all to often people say
                    >> things about the historical jesus (what he did, how he spoke, where he
                    >> went to etc...)that sound as if they were personally present at the
                    >> scenery (no ofense). There really is no straightforward evidence with
                    >> regard to the literacy of Jesus, only possibilities or probabilities.
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >> I also think - but I might be wrong- that you overlook the very important
                    >> distinction between the real Jesus (whom we do not know and never will)
                    >> and the historical Jesus (the Jesus we recover through scientific
                    >> research).
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >> Hellen
                    >
                    >>
                    >>
                    >> ________________________________
                    >> From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                    >> [johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com] on behalf of Jack Kilmon
                    >> [jkilmon@...]
                    >> Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 11:36 PM
                    >> To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                    >> Subject: Re: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >> --------------------------------------------------
                    >> From: "Mardaga, Hellen" <MARDAGA@...<mailto:MARDAGA%40cua.edu>>
                    >> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 12:39 PM
                    >> To:
                    >><johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com<mailto:johannine_literature%40yahoogroups.com>>
                    >>>
                    >> Subject: RE: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John
                    >>
                    >>> Dear Mark, Jack, etc….
                    >>>
                    >>> I am surprised to read the following statement:
                    >>> Peter would say to a group of people in Lydda,
                    >>>> Pontus,
                    >>>> Cappadocia, etc... איכא דאן נהוא פגרא תמן נתכנשׁון נשׁרא׃" Yeshua
                    >>>> amar......'aika den d'hawa pagra, thamman yitkanuon nishrea'" Now I am
                    >>>> confident this indeed goes to the lips of the HISTORICAL Jesus because
                    >>>> you
                    >>>> will notice it is a 2-4 beat rhyme. Vintage Jesus-speak. Then Peter, I
                    >>>> am sure, paused while Mark translated the Aramaic to Greek, " ὅπου γὰρ
                    >>>> ἐὰν
                    >>>> ᾖ τὸ πτῶμα ἐκεῖ συναχθήσονται οἱ ἀετοί "
                    >>>> and the crowd nodded to each other as they heard "wherever their is a
                    >>>> carcass, there also will gather the vultures."
                    >>>
                    >>> The 2-4 beat rhyme you are referring to (and I think you have the book
                    >>> “The Poetry of Our Lord” in mind) is a common stylistic feature. I do
                    >>> not
                    >>> see how you can simply “deduct” from this phenomenon that “the
                    >>> historical
                    >>> Jesus” said such a thing. I think you are overlooking some important
                    >>> aspects of rhetoric:
                    >>>
                    >>> - a feature may be common in a book – several books (e.g.
                    >>> parallelism is found both in John and in the Synoptics) but is that
                    >>> necessary a proof that because a word of Jesus is structured as a
                    >>> parallelism he literally “spoke” that way?
                    >>
                    >> Hi Hellen:
                    >>
                    >> Sorry it took me a while. Sometimes recreational computer time comes
                    >> infrequently.
                    >>
                    >> Concentrating on Aramaic reconstructions of first layer sayings and
                    >> aphorisms of Jesus I find the typical orality devices, of course.
                    >> Assonance,
                    >> paronomasia, alliteration rhyme and meter that indicate to me an
                    >> individual
                    >> in a manner that would not occur if the language of delivery would have
                    >> been
                    >> anything other than Aramaic.
                    >>
                    >>> - We do not even clearly know which language Jesus spoke.
                    >>
                    >> Judean Aramaic. To me it is not even debatable anymore. There is a ton of
                    >> evidence in the only real footprints of the historical Jesus we have, his
                    >> words.
                    >>
                    >> Translational Greek is recognizable by the lexical and syntactic
                    >> interference and in this case that interference is Aramaic.
                    >>
                    >>> He could have spoken some Greek, maybe Aramaic, read Hebrew….but that is
                    >>> it. We can only “assume” what he might have said
                    >>
                    >> I am sure he had "get by Greek" having grown up in Galilee surrounded by
                    >> Hellenism and trade. He spoke Aramaic. Those are the only transliterated
                    >> words placed on his lips including the cry from the cross. Whether or not
                    >> he was competent in Hebrew is hard to assess. The reading of the Isaiah
                    >> scroll at the synagogue at Luke 4:21 is special "L" material from the
                    >> last
                    >> decade of the 1st century and almost certainly not genuine to Jesus.
                    >> Otherwise we have no indications he knew, read or spoke Hebrew and we do
                    >> have indications he was familiar with Targums.
                    >>
                    >> Jesus grew up in Palestine (not even assuming the Galilee) in the first
                    >> third of the 1st century. As such, he grew up in an Aramaic speaking
                    >> country
                    >> so it is more than an assumption to me that he spoke Aramaic as his
                    >> mother
                    >> tongue.
                    >>
                    >> Even our Gospel of John has an Aramaic sub-structure, in fact the
                    >> strongest
                    >> of the Gospels.
                    >>
                    >>> - What about the whole notion of orality? Oral tradition?
                    >>> Parallelism, rhyme, repetition, amplification are not only used in
                    >>> written
                    >>> texts but they also serve a listening audience. It could be that Mark
                    >>> composed the words of Jesus (since he is translating them [!] as you
                    >>> suggest) as a 2-4 beath rhyme (!) exactly to serve the listening
                    >>> audience
                    >>> and to help them remember the content of the gospel easier by
                    >>> mnemotechnic
                    >>> features.
                    >>
                    >> That is the most unlikely possibility, IMO, since Mark wrote his Gospel
                    >> in
                    >> his "second language Greek" where the Aramaic mnemonic apparati would be
                    >> lost just as was idiom in many cases. They do not appear until the
                    >> Aramaic
                    >> is reconstructed. In the cry from the cross, first
                    >> penned...er...reeded..by
                    >> Mark from his notebook, he chose to preserve it as it was spoken and
                    >> there
                    >> is no better indication of Judean Aramaic.
                    >>
                    >> The "cry from the cross" bothers some people and there are apologists
                    >> from
                    >> Syriac churches (Jesus did not speak Syriac) who manufacture all forms of
                    >> creative "translations." The cry from the cross is clear Aramaic and
                    >> definitively "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"
                    >>
                    >> I think Mark was correct in his transliteration since the Western Aramaic
                    >> (Judean) would have a qamets qatan instead of qamets gadhol for the lamed
                    >> in
                    >> alaha. Easterm (Syriac) would be alef (pattah)-lamed (qamets gadhol)-heh
                    >> (hiriq qatan)-yod, hence aLAhy. Western (Judean) would be alef-lamed
                    >> (qamets qatan)-heh (hiriq qatan)-yod, hence aLOhy, hence Mark's
                    >> transliteration as ELWI Ελωι ελωι λαμμᾶ σαβαχθανι . Judean Aramaic
                    >> aLOhy, aLOhy LAma shevawqTAny?
                    >>
                    >> "God of me, God of me, why have forsaken you me?"
                    >>
                    >> Some say there a problem with the absence of a smooth breathing for the
                    >> transliterated ELWI? I don't think so. There was no such thing in the
                    >> first century and the original Markan autograph would have had an uncial
                    >> ELWI.
                    >>
                    >> In Aramaic speaking Palestine of the 1st century, Jesus would not have
                    >> heard
                    >> Psalm 22 in Hebrew. He would have heard it from the synagogue lector
                    >> reading
                    >> the Aramaic Targum of Psalm 22.
                    >> אלהי אלהי מטול מה שׁבקתני
                    >>
                    >> Just one of hundreds of indicators that I have noticed is the rendering
                    >> of
                    >> the name of Jesus' buddy אֶלְעָזָר in Hebrew el'azar. It has come down to
                    >> us from Jesus' own Galilean pronunciation as l'azar with the dropped
                    >> aleph
                    >> and transliterated into Greek as Λάζαρος and in the Vulgate as Lazarus.
                    >>
                    >> If Jeremias, Black, Fitzmyer and Casey are not compelling on this issue,
                    >> then no one can be, certainly not a mere amateur such as myself.
                    >>
                    >> Is it cold in DC?
                    >>
                    >> Regards,
                    >>
                    >> Jack
                    >>
                    >> Jack Kilmon
                    >> San Antonio, TX
                    >>
                    >>>
                    >>> Dr. Hellen Mardaga
                    >>> Assistant Professor of New Testament
                    >>> The Catholic University of America
                    >>> Caldwel Hall 419
                    >>> 620 Michigan Av.
                    >>> 20064 Washington DC
                    >>> 202-319-6885
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >> ------------------------------------
                    >>
                    >> SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                    >> UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                    >> PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
                    >> MESSAGE ARCHIVE:
                    >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messagesYahoo! Groups
                    >> Links
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > ------------------------------------
                    >
                    > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                    > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                    > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
                    > MESSAGE ARCHIVE:
                    > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messagesYahoo! Groups
                    > Links
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                  • Matthew Estrada
                    Thanks, Jack, for your well-thought out response. Matt ________________________________ From: Jack Kilmon To:
                    Message 9 of 16 , Jan 23, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Thanks, Jack, for your well-thought out response.

                      Matt



                      ________________________________
                      From: Jack Kilmon <jkilmon@...>
                      To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Sun, January 23, 2011 9:58:03 AM
                      Subject: Re: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John

                       
                      No, Matt, I do not believe he turned water into wine. The miracle stories
                      and supernatural events are an entirely different animal in HJ studies,
                      primarily ignored in the various "quests."
                      In the cyclic "quests" for the historical Jesus, in the past, much focus has
                      been placed on the sayings of Jesus. Other important aspects in the "quest"
                      have good foundations in the cultural anthropology of
                      1st century Palestine. These elements are woefully absent in much debate
                      concerning the historical Jesus. The miracle stories, however, were ignored
                      because of the historical difficulty.

                      In the 1st century Middle East any disease, disability or infirmity was
                      considered divine punishment for some transgression against God or for sin.
                      This is a silly concept today (albeit still promulgated by primitive
                      evangelical types like Pat Robertson regarding the AIDS epidemic). Back to
                      the 1st century. Hysterical pathologies resulting from guilt feelings over
                      perceived transgressions would have been rampant in that society where
                      literally thousands of "sinners" expected imminent retribution from God.
                      These hysterically based infirmities, called Conversion Disorders, are
                      often seen today by psychiatrists and most commonly are some form of
                      paralysis (healed by Jesus at Mark 3:1) 1, 2, 3, blindness (Mark 8:22;
                      10:49) 4, skin eruptions, all of which were called "Leprosy" in the 1st
                      century (healed Mark 1:40) and deafness (healed Mark 7:32) 5. Given a
                      healer whom the victim believed had the authority from God to heal the sin,
                      many of these infirmities would have been instantly healed (6) and failures
                      chalked up to "lack of faith." The reputation of Jesus as a healer spread
                      like wildfire.

                      There were other healers sashaying from place to place but the higher rate
                      of success for Jesus may have been the perception by the am ha'aretz that he
                      was the bar nasha and had God's authority to forgive sin which the gospels
                      relate was a sharp thorn in the butts of the temple crowd who could only
                      play the "healing on a sabbath" ruse to trip him up.

                      The point is that some of the "miracles" actually happened.

                      1.Heruti RJ, Reznik J, Adunski A, et al. Conversion motor paralysis
                      disorder: analysis of 34 consecutive referrals. Spinal Cord 2002;40:335-40.
                      2.Heruti RJ, Levy A, Adunski A, et al. Conversion motor paralysis disorder:
                      overview and rehabilitation model. Spinal Cord 2002;40:327-34.
                      3.Letonoff EJ, Williams TR, Sidhu KS. Hysterical paralysis: a report of
                      three cases and a review of the literature. Spine 2002;27:441-5.
                      4.Freud, Sigmund. (1910i). The psycho-analytic view of psychogenic
                      disturbance of vision. SE, 11: 209-218.
                      5.Loren Pankratza, etal A forced-choice technique to evaluate deafness in
                      the hysterical or malingering patient Journal of Consulting and Clinical
                      Psychology
                      Volume 43, Issue 3, June 1975, Pages 421-422
                      6. Ruddy R, House A. Psychosocial interventions for conversion disorder.
                      Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 4.

                      Jack

                      Jack Kilmon
                      San Antonio, TX

                      --------------------------------------------------
                      From: "Matthew Estrada" <matt_estrada@...>
                      Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 8:40 PM
                      To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                      Subject: Re: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John

                      > Jack,
                      >
                      > You speak in generalities, but the gospel stories are specific. And that,
                      > I am
                      > afraid, you cannot claim with certainty (the mayonaise farm), what the
                      > REAL
                      > Jesus DID. Did he indeed turn water into wine?
                      >
                      > Matt Estrada
                      > peasant
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > ________________________________
                      > From: Jack Kilmon <jkilmon@...>
                      > To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                      > Sent: Sat, January 22, 2011 9:12:45 PM
                      > Subject: Re: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John
                      >
                      >
                      > Hi Hellen:
                      >
                      > Since it is a given that the "real Jesus" is lost to history, the
                      > "historical Jesus" is as close as we are going to get. We get as close as
                      > we can through both a critical analysis of the texts and steeped in the
                      > social, cultural, religious and linguistic anthropology of the late second
                      > temple period. As a result and per exemplum, I do not know if the REAL
                      > Jesus wore sandals. I do know that they were the standard footwear and
                      > some
                      > have been recovered at Qumran and Wadi Muraba'at and the texts tell me he
                      > did a lot of walking. As a result, I think I am very safe in stating,
                      > almost apodictically, Jesus wore sandals.
                      > I don't know what the REAL Jesus wore in addition to the sandals but
                      > standard dress was an inner tunic, a tunic coat (Kitonet), a girdle or
                      > belt
                      > of leather, a mantle that was like a robe, similar to a Gilabiyah and a
                      > headdress not unlike a prayer shawl or tallit. Examples of these pieces of
                      > clothing have been found, some fairly well preserved and I would bet the
                      > mayonnaise farm that is what the historical and the real Jesus wore,
                      > albeit
                      > I cannot tell you about colors. I can tell from the archaeological
                      > evidence
                      > what kind of cups he drank from and ate from and what kind of wine he
                      > drank
                      > and food he ate. We also have a very good idea of infrastructure and the
                      > types of houses he lived in as well as social and family praxis. I can say
                      > with strong conviction that he spoke Aramaic and even know enough of the
                      > idiom to know he didn't say some of the things we think he said.
                      >
                      > I think he really did, honestly and for true, actually heal a lot of
                      > people,
                      > again with good reason rather than "faith."
                      >
                      > All I am saying is that if you look at the whole elephant from all of the
                      > indicators at out disposal, there is much we can say about the only REAL
                      > Jesus we will ever know, the historical Jesus.
                      >
                      > shlama
                      >
                      > Jack
                      >
                      > Jack Kilmon
                      > San Antonio, TX
                      >
                      > --------------------------------------------------
                      > From: "Mardaga, Hellen" <MARDAGA@...>
                      > Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 7:30 AM
                      > To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                      > Subject: RE: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John
                      >
                      >> Dear Jack,
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >> yes it is very cold in DC.....I really hate the winter.....
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >> One should avoid statements or "certainties" with regard to claims about
                      >> the "historical" Jesus. I have discovered that all to often people say
                      >> things about the historical jesus (what he did, how he spoke, where he
                      >> went to etc...)that sound as if they were personally present at the
                      >> scenery (no ofense). There really is no straightforward evidence with
                      >> regard to the literacy of Jesus, only possibilities or probabilities.
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >> I also think - but I might be wrong- that you overlook the very important
                      >> distinction between the real Jesus (whom we do not know and never will)
                      >> and the historical Jesus (the Jesus we recover through scientific
                      >> research).
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >> Hellen
                      >
                      >>
                      >>
                      >> ________________________________
                      >> From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                      >> [johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com] on behalf of Jack Kilmon
                      >> [jkilmon@...]
                      >> Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 11:36 PM
                      >> To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                      >> Subject: Re: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >> --------------------------------------------------
                      >> From: "Mardaga, Hellen" <MARDAGA@...<mailto:MARDAGA%40cua.edu>>
                      >> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 12:39 PM
                      >> To:
                      >><johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com<mailto:johannine_literature%40yahoogroups.com>>
                      >>
                      >>>
                      >> Subject: RE: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John
                      >>
                      >>> Dear Mark, Jack, etc….
                      >>>
                      >>> I am surprised to read the following statement:
                      >>> Peter would say to a group of people in Lydda,
                      >>>> Pontus,
                      >>>> Cappadocia, etc... איכא דאן נהוא פגרא תמן נתכנשׁון נשׁרא׃" Yeshua
                      >>>> amar......'aika den d'hawa pagra, thamman yitkanuon nishrea'" Now I am
                      >>>> confident this indeed goes to the lips of the HISTORICAL Jesus because
                      >>>> you
                      >>>> will notice it is a 2-4 beat rhyme. Vintage Jesus-speak. Then Peter, I
                      >>>> am sure, paused while Mark translated the Aramaic to Greek, " ὅπου γὰρ
                      >>>> ἐὰν
                      >>>> ᾖ τὸ πτῶμα ἐκεῖ συναχθήσονται οἱ ἀετοί "
                      >>>> and the crowd nodded to each other as they heard "wherever their is a
                      >>>> carcass, there also will gather the vultures."
                      >>>
                      >>> The 2-4 beat rhyme you are referring to (and I think you have the book
                      >>> “The Poetry of Our Lord” in mind) is a common stylistic feature. I do
                      >>> not
                      >>> see how you can simply “deduct” from this phenomenon that “the
                      >>> historical
                      >>> Jesus” said such a thing. I think you are overlooking some important
                      >>> aspects of rhetoric:
                      >>>
                      >>> - a feature may be common in a book – several books (e.g.
                      >>> parallelism is found both in John and in the Synoptics) but is that
                      >>> necessary a proof that because a word of Jesus is structured as a
                      >>> parallelism he literally “spoke” that way?
                      >>
                      >> Hi Hellen:
                      >>
                      >> Sorry it took me a while. Sometimes recreational computer time comes
                      >> infrequently.
                      >>
                      >> Concentrating on Aramaic reconstructions of first layer sayings and
                      >> aphorisms of Jesus I find the typical orality devices, of course.
                      >> Assonance,
                      >> paronomasia, alliteration rhyme and meter that indicate to me an
                      >> individual
                      >> in a manner that would not occur if the language of delivery would have
                      >> been
                      >> anything other than Aramaic.
                      >>
                      >>> - We do not even clearly know which language Jesus spoke.
                      >>
                      >> Judean Aramaic. To me it is not even debatable anymore. There is a ton of
                      >> evidence in the only real footprints of the historical Jesus we have, his
                      >> words.
                      >>
                      >> Translational Greek is recognizable by the lexical and syntactic
                      >> interference and in this case that interference is Aramaic.
                      >>
                      >>> He could have spoken some Greek, maybe Aramaic, read Hebrew….but that is
                      >>> it. We can only “assume” what he might have said
                      >>
                      >> I am sure he had "get by Greek" having grown up in Galilee surrounded by
                      >> Hellenism and trade. He spoke Aramaic. Those are the only transliterated
                      >> words placed on his lips including the cry from the cross. Whether or not
                      >> he was competent in Hebrew is hard to assess. The reading of the Isaiah
                      >> scroll at the synagogue at Luke 4:21 is special "L" material from the
                      >> last
                      >> decade of the 1st century and almost certainly not genuine to Jesus.
                      >> Otherwise we have no indications he knew, read or spoke Hebrew and we do
                      >> have indications he was familiar with Targums.
                      >>
                      >> Jesus grew up in Palestine (not even assuming the Galilee) in the first
                      >> third of the 1st century. As such, he grew up in an Aramaic speaking
                      >> country
                      >> so it is more than an assumption to me that he spoke Aramaic as his
                      >> mother
                      >> tongue.
                      >>
                      >> Even our Gospel of John has an Aramaic sub-structure, in fact the
                      >> strongest
                      >> of the Gospels.
                      >>
                      >>> - What about the whole notion of orality? Oral tradition?
                      >>> Parallelism, rhyme, repetition, amplification are not only used in
                      >>> written
                      >>> texts but they also serve a listening audience. It could be that Mark
                      >>> composed the words of Jesus (since he is translating them [!] as you
                      >>> suggest) as a 2-4 beath rhyme (!) exactly to serve the listening
                      >>> audience
                      >>> and to help them remember the content of the gospel easier by
                      >>> mnemotechnic
                      >>> features.
                      >>
                      >> That is the most unlikely possibility, IMO, since Mark wrote his Gospel
                      >> in
                      >> his "second language Greek" where the Aramaic mnemonic apparati would be
                      >> lost just as was idiom in many cases. They do not appear until the
                      >> Aramaic
                      >> is reconstructed. In the cry from the cross, first
                      >> penned...er...reeded..by
                      >> Mark from his notebook, he chose to preserve it as it was spoken and
                      >> there
                      >> is no better indication of Judean Aramaic.
                      >>
                      >> The "cry from the cross" bothers some people and there are apologists
                      >> from
                      >> Syriac churches (Jesus did not speak Syriac) who manufacture all forms of
                      >> creative "translations." The cry from the cross is clear Aramaic and
                      >> definitively "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"
                      >>
                      >> I think Mark was correct in his transliteration since the Western Aramaic
                      >> (Judean) would have a qamets qatan instead of qamets gadhol for the lamed
                      >> in
                      >> alaha. Easterm (Syriac) would be alef (pattah)-lamed (qamets gadhol)-heh
                      >> (hiriq qatan)-yod, hence aLAhy. Western (Judean) would be alef-lamed
                      >> (qamets qatan)-heh (hiriq qatan)-yod, hence aLOhy, hence Mark's
                      >> transliteration as ELWI Ελωι ελωι λαμμᾶ σαβαχθανι . Judean Aramaic
                      >> aLOhy, aLOhy LAma shevawqTAny?
                      >>
                      >> "God of me, God of me, why have forsaken you me?"
                      >>
                      >> Some say there a problem with the absence of a smooth breathing for the
                      >> transliterated ELWI? I don't think so. There was no such thing in the
                      >> first century and the original Markan autograph would have had an uncial
                      >> ELWI.
                      >>
                      >> In Aramaic speaking Palestine of the 1st century, Jesus would not have
                      >> heard
                      >> Psalm 22 in Hebrew. He would have heard it from the synagogue lector
                      >> reading
                      >> the Aramaic Targum of Psalm 22.
                      >> אלהי אלהי מטול מה שׁבקתני
                      >>
                      >> Just one of hundreds of indicators that I have noticed is the rendering
                      >> of
                      >> the name of Jesus' buddy אֶלְעָזָר in Hebrew el'azar. It has come down to
                      >> us from Jesus' own Galilean pronunciation as l'azar with the dropped
                      >> aleph
                      >> and transliterated into Greek as Λάζαρος and in the Vulgate as Lazarus.
                      >>
                      >> If Jeremias, Black, Fitzmyer and Casey are not compelling on this issue,
                      >> then no one can be, certainly not a mere amateur such as myself.
                      >>
                      >> Is it cold in DC?
                      >>
                      >> Regards,
                      >>
                      >> Jack
                      >>
                      >> Jack Kilmon
                      >> San Antonio, TX
                      >>
                      >>>
                      >>> Dr. Hellen Mardaga
                      >>> Assistant Professor of New Testament
                      >>> The Catholic University of America
                      >>> Caldwel Hall 419
                      >>> 620 Michigan Av.
                      >>> 20064 Washington DC
                      >>> 202-319-6885
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >> ------------------------------------
                      >>
                      >> SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                      >> UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                      >> PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
                      >> MESSAGE ARCHIVE:
                      >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messagesYahoo! Groups
                      >> Links
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > ------------------------------------
                      >
                      > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                      > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                      > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
                      > MESSAGE ARCHIVE:
                      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messagesYahoo! Groups
                      > Links
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >






                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.