Re: an Aramaic Approach the the Synoptic Gospels
- "Brian E. Wilson" wrote:
>There is not a doubt in my mind that Jesus' common tongue was Aramaic.
> The June 1999 edition of "The Expository Times" (volume 110 number 9)
> pages 273-278 will include an article by Dr Maurice Casey of the
> University of Nottingham, UK, on "An Aramaic Approach to the Synoptic
> Gospels". He seems to me to follow the view of Geza Vermes that Jesus
> spoke and taught in Galilean Aramaic.
The evidence is too overwhelming. I will try to pick this article
> He states that the publication ofI'll have to read the article to comment definitively on these points.
> all the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls permits us to do far more work on the
> Aramaic sources of the Synoptic Gospels than was previously possible. He
> writes of a reconstruction of the Aramaic text of parts of Mark. He has
> been writing a book on an Aramaic approach to "Q". He notes that there
> are Hebraisms in the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls.
I don't think it can be shown that GMark was originally written in
Aramaic but it is likely that Mark was an Aramaic speaker who wrote
his gospel in a near-patois Greek but did use Aramaic sources (either
oral or written) for some of the "Jesus said.." material. I think
whether or not any of the narrative may have come from an Aramaic
source has much to do with how far back we can push the terminus
a quo for authorship.
My own opinion, which is radical, is that there was indeed an
Aramaic "proto-John" and that the first edition Mark was actually
in response to proto-John. In this case, the first edition would
have been directed to the same Aramaic speaking audience. Although
I have been working on reconstructing the Aramaic proto-John,
still imbedded in translational Greek in the larger compositional
Greek 4G, I have not examined Mark in this manner...yet.
>My overall impression is that there was little influence on 1st century
> I wonder whether the Dead Sea Scrolls in Aramaic will provide new light
> on the synoptic gospels. Presumably the Aramaic written in the scrolls
> found near Qumran gives us a good idea of the Aramaic spoken in Galilee
> in the time of Jesus. Presumably also the occurrence of Hebraisms in the
> Aramaic of that time implies that Hebraisms (for instance in Luke) do
> not necessarily point to a Hebrew source.
Aramaic by Hebrew, yet Qumran Hebrew has a considerable Aramaic
I think the "Hebraisms" of Luke...notably the first 2 chapters (later
appended) were so-called by their semitic structure and more accurately
"Aramaisms." My take on Luke is that he was competent in Aramaic since
he goes out of his way on several occasions to accurately translate to
Greek Aramaic idiom...which Matthew does not.
I don't know what the Aramaic of the DSS can tell us of the Galilean
dialect of middle Aramaic and I would suspect that Judean Aramaic was
"purer" without the Hellenistic as well as Eastern Aramaic influence
in the Galilee. How I see the Aramaic texts helping us with some
synoptic issues is in shared vorlage and concepts. We see some of this
more blatantly in 4G.
I'll try to pick up The Expository Times today and mayhaps comment
taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon