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

[Synoptic-L] GThomas and the Synoptics

Expand Messages
  • Brian E. Wilson
    Jack Kilmon wrote -- ... Jack, If transliterated Aramaic words that would not have been understood by people who spoke Greek only, were so common, and if they
    Message 1 of 27 , Feb 9, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Jack Kilmon wrote --
      >
      >Since Aramaic loan words in the Greek of the Aramaic-speaking regions
      >(Palestine, Syria) would not be uncommon, I would not place as much
      >importance on transliterated Aramaic words as I would on translation
      >variants and Aramaic interference in the Greek.
      >
      Jack,
      If transliterated Aramaic words that would not have been
      understood by people who spoke Greek only, were so common, and if they
      appeared independently in each synoptic gospel, and if GThomas was
      written earlier than the synoptic gospels, should we not expect to find
      a sizeable number of them in GThomas?

      Why do we find none at all?

      Best wishes,
      BRIAN WILSON

      E-mail; brian@... HOMEPAGE www.twonh.demon.co.uk

      Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
      > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
      > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
      _

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Brian E. Wilson
      Stephen Carlson wrote -- ... Stephen, I am sorry if you feel I have been insulting in any way. No insult was intended at all. On this List we have all been
      Message 2 of 27 , Feb 9, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Stephen Carlson wrote --
        >
        >I would really appreciate it if you would not quote fragments of my
        >sentences out of their original contexts to produce some imagined error
        >that you need to correct. Your hobbyhorse about "positive documentary
        >links" is so predictable that I really did try to take it into account.
        >However, for all my efforts to respect your favorite position, you went
        >out of your way to misquote me in such a way that I did not do so,
        >while ignoring my point. Frankly, this comes across as insulting.
        >
        Stephen,
        I am sorry if you feel I have been insulting in any way. No
        insult was intended at all. On this List we have all been asked at
        times by the moderators not simply to press our "reply" button and send
        back to Synoptic-L the whole of messages already sent by others. When I
        select part of a letter for a reply, I sincerely try never to mis-
        represent this. I hope that others on the List would agree that this has
        been the case when I have replied to parts of their messages. I
        certainly feel that generally, when others have quoted only extracts
        from what I have written, they have done so with a fair mind towards the
        message as a whole and the context of the material they have selected
        for quotation.

        As far as I can see, I have not created an "imagined error" that I "need
        to correct". I wrote --
        >
        >I am not convinced that apparent redaction of Mark by Matthew can be
        >used to show any positive documentary link of any kind. All it can be
        >used to show is that probably Mark did not use Matthew. I think (2) is
        >lacking also, therefore. The redaction would not be identifiably from X
        >to Y.
        >
        I would suggest that this would still be true even if I had kept in your
        kind reference to my Logia Translation Hypothesis. In fact, I used the
        variables "X" and "Y" (rather than "Mark" and "Matthew") to cover the
        extra case of the Logia Translation so that my statement was still true
        and related to your statement correctly.

        I also wrote --
        >
        >In other words, we look for the same quirk in all of the books
        >concerned, and show that this originated from none of them.
        >
        to which you replied --
        >
        >The general approach may be fruitful, but it depends on how
        >compelling are the details.
        >
        I am glad you agree. Is this not a line worth pursuing? For instance, is
        there such a quirk which occurs in both Matthew and Luke in the double
        tradition, does not occur in Mark, and can be shown to have originated
        from neither Matthew nor Luke? If so, then you have evidence for the
        existence of Q.

        You continued --
        >
        >In the present case, however, the phenomenon that you cite was common
        >enough to have its own term (barbarism) and be condemned by
        >contemporary grammarians. This does not suggest that it was
        >sufficiently unusual to preclude its independent occurrence.
        >
        I wonder whether you have understood the phenomenon that Millard
        describes, and which I have tried to represent. The phenomenon is that
        the same unusual quirk exists in all the documents being considered, and
        that the distribution of instances of the quirk are such that the writer
        of none of the documents could have derived all the instances he has in
        his book from the other documents. How, please, do you explain the
        occurrences, and distribution, in the synoptic gospels of Aramaic words
        which would not have been understood by people who spoke only Greek? Do
        you disagree with Millard that "These differences between the Gospels
        point to a common source, or to several sources" (page 144)?
        >
        > Even Paul used an Aramaic barbarism, one that shows up in Mark.
        >
        Yes. As Millard shows (page 142), Paul uses ABBA twice, in Romans 8.15
        and Galatians 4.6, and these are the only occurrences in the New
        Testament of what Millard calls an "Aramaic word" (other than the name
        Kephas) outside the gospels which would not have been understood by
        people who spoke only Greek. These occurrences of ABBA are particularly
        interesting to me because, on my understanding, the apostle Paul may
        well have used a copy of the Logia Translation in his year's teaching at
        Antioch in Syria, and given a copy of this same document to the
        Christians at Corinth. On my view, the phrase ABBA PATHR stood in the
        Logia Translation, and both Paul and Mark independently took this phrase
        from that source.

        The phenomenon as defined above is not, however, found in the Gospel of
        Thomas, either in Greek or Coptic. Since it is found in the synoptic
        gospels, if Thomas had been earlier than the synoptic gospels, would we
        not have expected the phenomenon to be very much present in Thomas? In
        fact it does not occur in Thomas at all. This would seem to be a small
        piece of evidence against Thomas having been prior to the synoptic
        gospels.

        Best wishes,
        BRIAN WILSON

        E-mail; brian@... HOMEPAGE www.twonh.demon.co.uk

        Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
        > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
        > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
        _

        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Jack Kilmon
        ... From: Brian E. Wilson To: Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 2:49 PM Subject: [Synoptic-L] GThomas and the
        Message 3 of 27 , Feb 9, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Brian E. Wilson" <brian@...>
          To: <Synoptic-L@...>
          Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 2:49 PM
          Subject: [Synoptic-L] GThomas and the Synoptics


          > Jack Kilmon wrote --
          > >
          > >Since Aramaic loan words in the Greek of the Aramaic-speaking regions
          > >(Palestine, Syria) would not be uncommon, I would not place as much
          > >importance on transliterated Aramaic words as I would on translation
          > >variants and Aramaic interference in the Greek.
          > >
          > Jack,
          > If transliterated Aramaic words that would not have been
          > understood by people who spoke Greek only, were so common, and if they
          > appeared independently in each synoptic gospel, and if GThomas was
          > written earlier than the synoptic gospels, should we not expect to find
          > a sizeable number of them in GThomas?
          >
          > Why do we find none at all?

          There is one off the top of my head in POxy 1 verso, line 9 which is also
          a Greek transliterated Aramaic word used by Josephus. This suggests
          to me that this was a common occurrence in the Greek used in an
          Aramaic provenance whether or not a speaker was Eastern and spoke
          Aramaic. Koine takes on patois laces of native language in every
          provenance of usage and often native languages incorporate Greek
          loan words as well. Jesus "hypocrite" may be one of these "reverse flow"
          influences. Shared Aramaisms between the Synoptics and Thomas
          are abundant but not necessarily indicative of Thomas dependence
          on the synoptics.
          We are told in the histories that Mark took his notes to Alexandria.
          What if Mark's sayings notes that he used as source material took
          on a life and textual trajectory of its own and became GoT??? This
          could explain the Markan parallels as well as the Matthean and
          Lukan parallels inherited from Mark.

          All kinds of possibilities.


          Jack
          --
          ______________________________________________

          taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon

          Jack Kilmon
          Austin, Texas
          jkilmon@...

          http://www.historian.net

          sharing a meal for free.
          http://www.thehungersite.com/





          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Maluflen@aol.com
          In a message dated 2/9/2001 4:08:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, brian@TwoNH.demon.co.uk writes:
          Message 4 of 27 , Feb 10, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 2/9/2001 4:08:52 PM Eastern Standard Time,
            brian@... writes:

            << These occurrences of ABBA are particularly
            interesting to me because, on my understanding, the apostle Paul may
            well have used a copy of the Logia Translation in his year's teaching at
            Antioch in Syria, and given a copy of this same document to the
            Christians at Corinth. On my view, the phrase ABBA PATHR stood in the
            Logia Translation, and both Paul and Mark independently took this phrase
            from that source. >>

            It is also possible, is it not, that a late Mark was simply reminded of
            (influenced by) a standard Pauline usage (Gal and Rom) as he told the story
            of Matthew's Gethsemani incident to his Roman audience? Matthew's text, after
            all, seems more original, in the sense that it is closer to what Jesus would
            actually have said (abi = "my father"). There are other cases where it seems
            likely that Mark was influenced by Pauline usage, such as his frequent use of
            EUAGGELION in the absolute, and especially his use of "gospel" in contexts
            quite foreign to Matthean usage, but reminiscent of Pauline idiom (e.g.,
            1:15: "believe in the Gospel").

            Leonard Maluf

            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.