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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Papias spoke Aramaic???

Expand Messages
  • Stephen C. Carlson
    ... Although I ve been fascinated by Papias for many years, I ve never read until now that Papias spoke Aramaic. What is the basis for this view? Papias did
    Message 1 of 6 , Dec 7, 1999
      At 10:37 AM 12/7/99 +0000, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
      >Papias spoke Aramaic,
      >as well as Greek. The "living voice" which Papias favoured was probably
      >Hebrew/Aramaic oral tradition.

      Although I've been fascinated by Papias for many years, I've never
      read until now that Papias spoke Aramaic. What is the basis for
      this view?

      Papias did say that he talked to those who heard the apostles. If
      many of these apostles taught in Aramaic (or Hebrew) rather than
      Greek (even though Greek was common), it is only necessary for
      Papias' informants to be bilingual, not Papias.

      Papias also knows of a compilation of LOGIA in a Hebrew manner of
      speech, which others interpreted. We are not sure, however,
      whether Papias had first hand knowledge of this nor even whether
      hEBRAIDI DIALEKTWi means Hebrew language or style (cf. K├╝rzinger).

      Stephen Carlson
      --
      Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
      Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
      "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
    • Brian E. Wilson
      Stephen Carlson wrote - ... Stephen, Thanks for pointing out my mistake. I now realize I was confusing Papias with Josephus. Sorry about that. Best wishes,
      Message 2 of 6 , Dec 7, 1999
        Stephen Carlson wrote -
        >
        >Although I've been fascinated by Papias for many years, I've never
        >read until now that Papias spoke Aramaic. What is the basis for
        >this view?
        >
        Stephen,
        Thanks for pointing out my mistake. I now realize I was
        confusing Papias with Josephus. Sorry about that.

        Best wishes,
        BRIAN WILSON

        E-MAIL : brian@... HOMEPAGE
        SNAILMAIL ; Rev B. E. Wilson,
        10 York Close, Godmanchester, www.twonh.demon.co.uk
        Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, PE18 8EB, UK
      • Ron Price
        Brian Wilson wrote:
        Message 3 of 6 , Dec 8, 1999
          Brian Wilson wrote:

          << I would suggest that the following two-fold
          repetitions in Luke have only one component parallelled in Mark -

          (1) Lk 4.43(b) // Mk 1.38, and Lk 8.1(b)
          (2) Lk 5.20-21 // Mk 2.5-7 and Lk 7.48-49
          (3) Lk 5.29b-31a // Mk 2.15(b)-17(a) and Lk 15.1-3
          (4) Lk 6.6-9 // Mk 3.1-4a and Lk 14.1-3
          (5) Lk 7.50 and Lk 8.48 // Mk 9.22(a)
          (6) Lk 8.16 // Mk 4.21 and Lk 11.33
          (7) Lk 8.18b //Mk 4.25 and Lk 19.26(b)
          (8) Lk 9.3b-5 // Mk 6.8(b)-11 and Lk 10.4-11(a)
          (9) Lk 9.24 // Mk 8.34(b)-35 and Lk 17.33
          (10) Lk 10.11(b) and Lk 21.31 // Mk 13.29
          (11) Lk 10.25 and Lk 18.18-19(a) // Mk 10.17b
          (12) Lk 19.44(b) and Lk 21.6(b) // Mk 13.2(b)

          In addition to these there are two-fold repetitions in Luke with no
          component parallelled in Mark -

          (13) Lk 1.59 and Lk 2.21
          (14) Lk 12.7 and Lk 21.18
          (15) Lk 16.17 and Lk 21.33 >>

          Brian,
          Six of these cases result, I believe, from the overlap of the written
          sources Mark and sQ.
          Many others involve repeated phrases and clauses which do not make
          sense in isolation.
          O.K., so you force me to be more precise. Rather than say that Au_Luke
          didn't like duplication as such, I will say that (s)he did not like
          duplicating pericopae, and normally only did so when a pericope appeared
          in both favoured written sources, Mark and sQ.
          There are two parallels which remain problematic, and will have to be
          put down as exceptions to the norm:
          (1) Luke 12:7 = 21:18 (the hairs on your head are numbered/will not
          perish)
          (2) Luke 6:6-9 = 14:1-3 (the man with the withered arm/the man with
          dropsy)

          Brian added:
          << ..... if, as the 3SH affirms,
          the overlap between Q and Mark is to be explained by dependence on oral
          tradition in Greek. >>

          Brian,
          I'd be interested to know where this information comes from. Surely
          the oral tradition could have been in Aramaic, especially as we know for
          certain that Au_Mark knew at least **some** Aramaic (Mark 5:41 etc.).

          Ron Price

          Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

          e-mail: ron.price@...

          Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
        • Brian E. Wilson
          Ron Price wrote - ... Ron, Nonetheless, they are all instances of duplication which Au_Luke allowed in his gospel. I think it is a hard task to try and show
          Message 4 of 6 , Dec 8, 1999
            Ron Price wrote -
            >
            >Six of these cases result, I believe, from the overlap of the written
            >sources Mark and sQ. Many others involve repeated phrases and clauses
            >which do not make sense in isolation.
            >
            Ron,
            Nonetheless, they are all instances of duplication which Au_Luke
            allowed in his gospel. I think it is a hard task to try and show that
            Au_Luke disliked duplication. I would again suggest that Luke actually
            welcomed duplication even though his gospel does not include some
            duplications found in Mark or Matthew. I think Luke was for duplication,
            not against it, on balance.
            >
            >O.K., so you force me to be more precise. Rather than say that Au_Luke
            >didn't like duplication as such, I will say that (s)he did not like
            >duplicating pericopae, and normally only did so when a pericope
            >appeared in both favoured written sources, Mark and sQ.
            >
            The point is that we actually do observe a lot of duplication (of
            various sizes of pieces of material) in Luke, but virtually no clear
            triplets of pieces of material of similar sizes to those found
            duplicated. If the 3SH describes what happened, then, since Mark and Q
            overlapped, and both feed into Matthew, and since Q, Mark and Matthew
            (containing duplication) all feed into Luke, is it not rather surprising
            that there are so few clear triplets in Luke? Luke should contain
            plentiful clear triplets if the 3SH is what happened. Where are they?
            >
            >we know for certain that Au_Mark knew at least **some** Aramaic (Mark
            >5:41 etc.).
            >
            All the instances of an Aramaic phrase accompanied by its Greek
            translation in the Gospel of Mark may have been taken by Au_Mark from
            his documentary source material. On the Greek Notes Hypothesis, this is
            probably what happened. It seems to me that the occurrence of Aramaic
            expressions in Mark therefore does not imply that we know that Au_Mark
            knew any Aramaic.

            More generally, I would suggest that from the Gospel of Mark alone we
            know nothing of what Au_Mark knew, because Au-Mark does not tell us
            which wording he supplied as redaction, and which wording in his Gospel
            is tradition which he reproduced from his source material.

            Best wishes,
            BRIAN WILSON

            E-MAIL : brian@... HOMEPAGE
            SNAILMAIL ; Rev B. E. Wilson,
            10 York Close, Godmanchester, www.twonh.demon.co.uk
            Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, PE18 8EB, UK
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.