Re: The Hebrew Jesus, more
- yochanan bitan wrote:
> this string has gotten long, rather quickly.This is fascinating stuff, Randy, and I am going to have to study it. My
> perhaps of interest to this synoptic list would be actual texts worked out
> with a full semitic-background methodology?
> maybe in a couple weeks i'll have time to send some samples of 'minutes' of
> some discussions here in jerusalem.
> in the meantime, i'll also try to put some comments from the string into
> earlier writers on this thread had 'agreed' on:
> > retroversion to Hebrew is useless since the gospels are primarily
> > compositional Greek. Retroversion to Aramaic is
> > helpful in understanding key words/idioms
> nt scholarship in general has assumed aramaic to the extent of
> misrepresenting data. specifically, older works like jeremias, black and
> fitzmyer have often discussed something as aramaic or 'shown' something to
> be 'aramaic' without pointing out that the identical thing occurs in
> mishnaic hebrew.
> once a tri-lingual first century is recognized (and if not, then barr's
> chiding of NT folk 9 years ago is still on the mark), two points are
> 1. a trace element capable of revealing an aramaic narrative substratum is
> manifestly MISSING in our greek gospels, despite many evidences of semitic
> narrative. narrative 'tote' ("then", a reflex to 'edayin' as a narrative
> conjunction) should be at least somewhat common if the gospels go back to
> 1st century aramaic where all qumran aramaic narratives and earlier have
> narrative 'tote' should be extremely rare if the gospels go back to greek
> sources based on hebrew.
> the lack in 1 maccabees means that 1mac comes from hebrew. no surprise.
> the existence of narrative tote in the greek editions of tobit shows that
> the translator used an aramaic source. no surprise.
> the LACK in Mark and Luke show hebrew to be their main semitic substratum.
> [matthew's narrative 'tote's are exactly what are missing in Mark and Luke
> and appear to be an aramaic stylistic overlay on Matthew's own part, but
> could theoretically be argued to point to an additional semitic substratum
> in aramaic. careful analysis shows that matthew's own style is the most
> probable cause, though i do not rule out that matthew had been
> stylistically influenced from a now untracable aramaic/greek written/oral
> presentation of the jesus-story.]
firstquestion is the reasoning behind why a narrative tote is absolute as an
Aramaic marker and how that differs from tote in "sayings," the sayings
also being short narratives (the totes in Mark, Luke & John seem to be
mainly in sayings) but in narrative in Acts. Outside of the gospelers, the
highest occurrence of narrative totes is in 1Corinthians (I count 9).
Am I missing something?