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

[Synoptic-L] Papias spoke Aramaic???

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 6 , Dec 7, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 6 , Dec 8, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 6 , Dec 8, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          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.