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

Re: The Hebrew Jesus, more

Expand Messages
  • Jack Kilmon
    ... This is fascinating stuff, Randy, and I am going to have to study it. My firstquestion is the reasoning behind why a narrative tote is absolute as an
    Message 1 of 2 , Nov 30, 1998
      yochanan bitan wrote:

      > this string has gotten long, rather quickly.
      > 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
      > perspective.
      > 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
      > biggies:
      > 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
      > it.
      > 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.
      > surprise.
      > [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.]

      This is fascinating stuff, Randy, and I am going to have to study it. My
      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?

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.