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

[Synoptic-L] Papias and LOGIA/EPILOGIA v. LOGOI

Expand Messages
  • Goodell, Donald (Donald)
    Steve---- Now that we re back from the holidays....time to read through all the threads over the past 4 days. You raise some extremely laudable points in your
    Message 1 of 12 , Apr 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Steve----
       
      Now that we're back from the holidays....time to read through all the threads over the past 4 days.
       
      You raise some extremely laudable points in your discussion below, especially towards the end with regard to Papias and "Matthew" which may allow for some additional discussion, however I am not sure if  there was any previous attempt of an extended discussion on the topic (new that I am to it) of Papias' statements regarding the LOGIA of the Lord (KURIOU) with regard to a Matthean source for the modern canonical "1st" gospel.
       
      I am in agreement with normative scholarship on the point you made that this term LOGIA could hardly refer to our modern Canonical Matthew --- but what DOES the term LOGIA refer to exactly---this yet another point at which even "mainstream" scholarship is divided.
       
      What  did the words regarding "Matthew" which Eusebeius placed into Papias' mouth (most likely phrased in order to give the canonical book of Matthew some "pedigree"  or authority for the 4th century bishops)  mean, exactly? (We might well ask, Where did Papias get such a tradition in the first place? How much can we trust his source, especially if we can't even trace it?)
       
      The usual generic Koine Greek term for "words" (or even "sayings") is LOGOI (pl. of LOGOS, "word" "utterance" "thought" "idea" "figure of speech" etc.); but Papias did not say the "LOGOI of  he Lord" (Kuriou = presumably Iesous is meant here, rather than YHWH?) which would of course be translated plainly as  "the words of the Lord"--- instead Papias used a different word altogether, possibly with a technical meaning in mind: "LOGIA" -------which represents the plural of LOGION,  a word having different shades of meaning in English depending on the word chosen to represent the Greek (translated variously in the literature ranging from "saying" to "aphorism"  to "oracle").
       
      Here is the modern English translation of the quote in question:
       
                          "Matthew collected the LOGIA of the LORD in the Hebrew (sic) Tongue, and everyone translated (interpreted?) them as they were able..."
       
      To translate "LOGIA" in modern English as "sayings", we would perhaps be imagining a string of LOGOI, ("words")  i.e. in the form of a short saying or "aphorism" which is generally rendered in the 1st/2nd century  Koine Greek by the word EPILOGION (pl. "EPILOGIA "would be closer possibly, to "aphorisms" ).
       
      Was Eusebeius intending Papias to mean "EPILOGIA" ("aphorisms", "sayings"?) when he chose the word LOGIA to place into his mouth? One must also be very aware of the cavalier way Eusebeius treats many of his sources throughout his 4th century "History", and of his own agenda in defending what became "canonical" gospels...but that would be a whole different discussion thread...
       
      It is sometimes suggested that LOGIA refer to "oracles" rather than just generic "sayings", which would bring us closer to the idea of  "prophecies" of Iesous (if Papias' "The Lord" refers to "Iesous" in this sentence).
       
      If in fact Papias' "LOGIA of the LORD" refers to the "Oracles of YHWH in the OT Tanak" (whatever that consisted of in the middle of 1st century, i.e. before Javneh), his phrase could be, I suppose,  construed to mean "Matthew collected the Prophecies of YHWH fulfilled in Iesous in the Hebrew tongue, and everyone translated them as best they could"  which might in fact point to a Matthean type of OT oracles/prophecies source-book which circulated in written form (originally Hebrew, or are we to imagine the oracles of the Messiah expressed in the Aramaic Targum paraphrases, which were later conflated with the LXX wording when transcribed into Greek?) which provided the basis for much sondergut-M "Midrashic" expansion in the narrative portions of canonical Matthew (e.g. "This-was-done-to-fulfil-what-was spoken-by-the-prophet-so-and-so, e.g. Matt 1:22, 2:5, 2:15, 2:17, 2:23, 4:15, 21:4 (two animals?), 27:9).
       
      If, on the other hand, we understand LOGIA to mean EPILOGIA ("aphorisms"), we could perhaps imagine an old ("Matthean") tradition of an early written or collected sayings-type gospel in the manner of Thomas (or Q) written in Aramaic which then was variously translated into Greek and possibly other languages "as each were able". and may well have formed much of the Sondergut-Matthew material (the socalled Special-M-source).
       
      One begins to wonder if these (written?) "translations" of the LOGIA circulated separately for any length of time, morphed to fit the situation they landed in,t hen came back together in various versions/guises in the form sof what we today call Q?
       
       
      DG
       
       
       From: R. Steven Notley [mailto:Notley@...]
      Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 4:19 PM
      To: David Gentile; Synoptic List
      Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Synoptic Relationship

       

      David Gentile wrote:

      Thank you for the response.

      Steven writes:

      Where did
      > Luke get them and what in the world would have motivated him to contort
      his
      > Greek to a non-biblical Hebrew style?

      Maybe Luke spoke Hebrew and Greek and it was natural for him?

      This may seem radical but I see no evidence that the Evangelists knew Hebrew-certainly none that Luke "spoke Hebrew."  There are inherent Hebrew idioms in Jesus sayings that are completely overlooked/misunderstood by the Evangelists.  One gets the distinct sense that they are working entirely in Greek.
       

      > >
      > > If the minor agreements come from a common source, you would have to
      > > postulate that Luke reworked his triple tradition, enough to make his
      > > material clearly non-source-like, while Matthew, substantially, only
      copied
      > > the source, or even more unlikely successfully imitated the vocabulary
      > > signature of the source.

      You I think the divergence between Matthew and Luke in the triple tradition texts is Markan influences upon Matthew-not Luke's reworking the material to look "non-source like."

      >
      > This is not entirely true.  Both Matthew and Luke re-work their sources.

      You miss my point here. It is demonstrated mathematically by the analysis
      that the minor agreements are significantly more Matthian than Lukian, given
      this, my statement *is* true, unless we can think of another way to explain
      the minor agreement being Matthian and not Lukian.

      Excuse my ignorance.  Is your identification of "Matthian" mean Matthean vocabulary, style, syntax?
       

      > >
      > > D) Contained some Matthian themes
      >
      > I don't know what you mean here.
      >

      I'm referring to some arguments Mark Goodacre makes regarding "judgment"
      being a theme of both Matthew and Q. The word turns up in the HBB analysis,
      as well, as a contributor to making 200 look like 202. (Sondergut Mathew
      looks like the double tradition agreements)

      I am unaware of Goodacre's suggestion that "judgment" was a special theme of Matthew and Q.  I was under the impression that this was a Jewish notion and not limited to Matthew and Q.
       

      >
      > Not canonical Matthew.

      That would be difficult (impossible) to prove, but I think we can
      demonstrate a number of similarities to Matthew. Then given that, and given
      that it was not used frequently, there don't seem to be very good reasons to
      suppose that it was not Matthew.

      Again, my biggest problem identifying Papias' Matthew with canonical Matthew is that (on the basis of linguistic analysis) there is no question canonical Matthew was not written in Hebrew.  Thus, if you are identifying Papias' Matthew with the canonical Matthew, you will need to do something about his report of the original language.
       

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

    • Randall Buth
      shalom Donald, Thank you for your discussion. I ve just a couple of comments, two ingedients to add to the soup. ... the ... Matthew ... point ... in ...
      Message 2 of 12 , Apr 2, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        shalom Donald,

        Thank you for your discussion. I've just a couple of comments, two
        ingedients to add to the soup.

        >
        >If in fact Papias' "LOGIA of the LORD" refers to the "Oracles of YHWH in
        the
        >OT Tanak" (whatever that consisted of in the middle of 1st century, i.e.
        >before Javneh), his phrase could be, I suppose, construed to mean
        "Matthew
        >collected the Prophecies of YHWH fulfilled in Iesous in the Hebrew tongue,
        >and everyone translated them as best they could" which might in fact
        point
        >to a Matthean type of OT oracles/prophecies source-book which circulated
        in
        >written form (originally Hebrew, or are we to imagine the oracles of the
        >Messiah expressed in the Aramaic Targum paraphrases, which were later
        >conflated with the LXX wording when transcribed into Greek?) which
        provided
        >the basis for much sondergut-M "Midrashic" expansion in the narrative
        >portions of canonical Matthew (e.g. "This-was-done-to-fulfil-what-was
        >spoken-by-the-prophet-so-and-so, e.g. Matt 1:22, 2:5, 2:15, 2:17, 2:23,
        >4:15, 21:4 (two animals?), 27:9).

        As far as we know from Qumran, Aramaic Scriptures were not circulating in
        in the Judean Province. (Qumran likes scriptures in more than Hebrew and
        Qumran likes Aramaic, they just don't have an Aramaic targum.
        I'll be presenting a paper on this at SBL Toronto.
        Job is at Qumran in two caves/copies, but it appears to come from further
        East, and in any case is "Job", rather marginal to the Hebrew Bible. I
        think the Targum in use in Palestine (i.e.post 135 CE) is a post-second
        temple phenomenon.)

        >If, on the other hand, we understand LOGIA to mean EPILOGIA ("aphorisms"),
        >we could perhaps imagine an old ("Matthean") tradition of an early written
        >or collected sayings-type gospel in the manner of Thomas (or Q) written in
        >Aramaic which then was variously translated into Greek and possibly other
        >languages "as each were able". and may well have formed much of the
        >Sondergut-Matthew material (the socalled Special-M-source).
        >
        >One begins to wonder if these (written?) "translations" of the LOGIA
        >circulated separately for any length of time, morphed to fit the situation
        >they landed in,t hen came back together in various versions/guises in the
        >form sof what we today call Q?

        ANyone ever notice that the name of a long historical narrative in the
        Hebrew
        Bible is called divre ha-yamim? The WORDS of the days. I think this may
        be germane to the Hebrew Words that Papias mentions. We certainly
        find hebraisms showing up in synoptic narrative accounts as well as
        sayings.

        ERRWSO
        Randall Buth

        Randall Buth, Phd
        Director, Biblical Language Center
        www.biblicalulpan.org
        and Lecturer, Biblical Hebrew
        Rothberg International School
        Hebrew University


        D<


        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Goodell, Donald (Donald)
        Thanks, Randall, for your insight on this issue so crucial to any meaningful Synoptic discussion. You raise a number of important points regarding the kind of
        Message 3 of 12 , Apr 3, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks, Randall, for your insight on this issue so crucial to any meaningful
          Synoptic discussion.

          You raise a number of important points regarding the kind of Hebrew or
          Aramaic (or both) that was current in 1st century Palestine, and there has
          been much ink spilled on this subject of late...and so the "soup"
          thickens...

          Scholarship seems divided on the issue of "just exactly what languages were
          commonly spoken and where in 1st century Palestine" and I sometimes find
          researchers reduced to shilly-shallying around the subject a little, using
          terms like "proto-Mishnaic Hebrew" (such as we could use to describe the
          type of Aramaicised Hebrew that we seem to find in the 2nd/3rd century BCE
          book of Qoheleth, or "Ecclesiastes") and weird descriptions like "a 1st
          century Aramaic Polyglot", whatever that means, (e.g. Morton Smith when
          speaking of Carpocratian Mark, etal.), and so forth.

          To get back to the point at hand, I previously asked in my last posting (see
          below) whether we should assume Papias' statement about "Matthew's" LOGIA
          (e.g. if, for the sake of argument, we are talking about OT Tanak prophecies
          of the Messiah fulfilled in "Iesous" forming what Papias refers to as
          Matthew's "oracles of the Lord") would be "in the Hebrew Tongue" (as
          Eusebius words it in Papias' mouth) or whether some form of Aramaic targum
          paraphrase of the Tanak prophets.

          I ask this simply because "Matthew's" quotations from the Tanak seem so out
          of line with both the Massoretic Text (MT) and the Septuagint (LXX) it is
          almost as if he is quoting from an Aramaic paraphrase of some kind, perhaps
          using a "proto-Aramaic Targum": see for example his handling of Hebrew
          passages such as Matthew 2:6 (=Micah 5:2), Matt 4:15-16 (=Isaiah 9:1-2),
          Matt 8:17 (=Isaiah 53:4), Matt 12:18-20 (=Isaiah 42:1-3), Matthew 13:35
          (=Psalms 78:2), Matt 22:37 (=Deuteronomy 6:5), Matt 27:9-10 (Zechariah
          11:12-13) etc.

          Admitedly, most of the other 30 or so direct quotations from the Tanak that
          "Matthew" uses seem to line up fairly exactly with the Greek of the standard
          LXX (e.g. Isaiah 7:14 + 8:8 found in Matt 1:23a+b etc.) but could the set of
          Proof Text quotations that varies with the LXX and MT be an Aramaic
          Targum-like core of Papias' LOGIA, one wonders, (that is, if we assume that
          LOGIA were in fact prophecies fulfilled in Iesous and not "sayings". )??

          It is, as you know, impossible to prove a "negative", and I think we are
          faced with the very difficult task of ascertaining what languages were and
          "were-not" spoken in 1st century Palestine. What light can the Qumran
          fragments shed on this, one wonders?

          Your argument that written Aramaic targums were not common or much known
          before the 2nd century in Palestine (we do have the Targum of Job, however,
          from Qumran in southern Palestine, however "marginal" a book it certainly
          is) and that that Targum of Job at Qumran had originally come from the East
          (Babylon): one recalls the story of the maiden-in-the-court who accuses
          "Peter" of being "with the Galilean" because of his distinctive (presumably
          northern)"accent" which was apparently audibly different than the language
          spoken commonly around Judaea: the "difference" question is naturally one of
          degree, and begs another question: "exactly HOW different" was Peter's
          Galilean language from the language commonly spoken in Jersualem and its
          environs? How can we know?

          If, as you say, Aramaic was not as common as was previously supposed in the
          1st century, and that you suspect Aramaic paraphrase books of the Tanak
          copied at Qumran e.g. Job came from the East (i.e. from Babylonian Judaeism)
          and were not native to Palestine, what are we to make of the other Aramaic
          Torah-based midrashic style writings also found at Qumran, like the Midrash
          on the Patriarchs (The socalled Genesis Apocryphon, 1QapGen)??

          Would you automatically assume 1 QapGen ALSO hailed from the "east" because
          it was written in Aramaic, or should we be thinking that BOTH proto-Mishnaic
          Hebrew and Aramaic ("polyglots"?) were commonly spoken and written in
          Palestine in the 1st century? Do 1st century Aramaic grave inscriptions shed
          any light on this problem? (I suppose we have to ask, Do 1st Century
          Palestinian Grave Inscriptions ALWAYS reflect the lingua franca of a given
          locale and era? How would we know that? Would the style of the inscription
          be in an older form of language? etc.)

          I do not quite know what to make of the fact that we do not possess any
          Aramaic Targums from the Tanak proper from the "surviving fragments" (random
          accidents of Archaeology?) at Qumran outside of the fragments of the Aramaic
          Targum of Job which could be perhaps dated somewhere around 100
          BCE...Interestingly, perhaps, there are TWO dialects and forms of Hebrew
          writing in canonical Job (i.e. comprising the socalled "prose introduction
          chapters" viz. 1 and 2 plus the Epilogue (chapter 42:7ff) those sections
          flanking the poem proper being composed in a kind of late post-exilic
          Hebrew, whereas the CORE of the canonical Hebrew book of Job is expressed in
          a kind of "Elamite" Hebrew poetical metre with that curious name for the god
          throughout the text beginning in chapter 3----viz. "Shaddai" and "Eloah", of
          all things, a feminine singular form of "Elohim"...and, curiously, YHWH
          appears as the name of the god only in the prose prologue/epilogue and
          occurs only once in the CORE, curiously interpolated into the introduction
          to the socalled Whirlwind Scene beginning in chapter 38..."and YHWH answered
          Job out of the Whirlwind...")

          Languages, as we all know, evolve over time, sometimes imperceptively and
          are highly sensitive to outside (read: foreign) influences dictated by the
          whims of history. This whole "Aramaic-usage" question remains very much open
          and will be raised again in other threads in this group ...

          Thanks again for your input, Randall: I would be very interested in
          discussing more of these points after your Toronto paper is given as it
          pertains to the question of "what exactly constituted the LOGIA of
          Papias..."


          DG
          dgoodell@...



          -----Original Message-----
          From: Randall Buth [mailto:ButhFam@...]
          Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 1:07 AM
          To: Goodell, Donald (Donald)
          Cc: Synoptic-L@...
          Subject: [Synoptic-L] Papias and LOGIA/EPILOGIA v. LOGOI


          shalom Donald,

          Thank you for your discussion. I've just a couple of comments, two
          ingedients to add to the soup.

          >
          >If in fact Papias' "LOGIA of the LORD" refers to the "Oracles of YHWH in
          the
          >OT Tanak" (whatever that consisted of in the middle of 1st century, i.e.
          >before Javneh), his phrase could be, I suppose, construed to mean
          "Matthew
          >collected the Prophecies of YHWH fulfilled in Iesous in the Hebrew tongue,
          >and everyone translated them as best they could" which might in fact
          point
          >to a Matthean type of OT oracles/prophecies source-book which circulated
          in
          >written form (originally Hebrew, or are we to imagine the oracles of the
          >Messiah expressed in the Aramaic Targum paraphrases, which were later
          >conflated with the LXX wording when transcribed into Greek?) which
          provided
          >the basis for much sondergut-M "Midrashic" expansion in the narrative
          >portions of canonical Matthew (e.g. "This-was-done-to-fulfil-what-was
          >spoken-by-the-prophet-so-and-so, e.g. Matt 1:22, 2:5, 2:15, 2:17, 2:23,
          >4:15, 21:4 (two animals?), 27:9).

          As far as we know from Qumran, Aramaic Scriptures were not circulating in
          in the Judean Province. (Qumran likes scriptures in more than Hebrew and
          Qumran likes Aramaic, they just don't have an Aramaic targum.
          I'll be presenting a paper on this at SBL Toronto.
          Job is at Qumran in two caves/copies, but it appears to come from further
          East, and in any case is "Job", rather marginal to the Hebrew Bible. I
          think the Targum in use in Palestine (i.e.post 135 CE) is a post-second
          temple phenomenon.)

          >If, on the other hand, we understand LOGIA to mean EPILOGIA ("aphorisms"),
          >we could perhaps imagine an old ("Matthean") tradition of an early written
          >or collected sayings-type gospel in the manner of Thomas (or Q) written in
          >Aramaic which then was variously translated into Greek and possibly other
          >languages "as each were able". and may well have formed much of the
          >Sondergut-Matthew material (the socalled Special-M-source).
          >
          >One begins to wonder if these (written?) "translations" of the LOGIA
          >circulated separately for any length of time, morphed to fit the situation
          >they landed in,t hen came back together in various versions/guises in the
          >form sof what we today call Q?

          ANyone ever notice that the name of a long historical narrative in the
          Hebrew
          Bible is called divre ha-yamim? The WORDS of the days. I think this may
          be germane to the Hebrew Words that Papias mentions. We certainly
          find hebraisms showing up in synoptic narrative accounts as well as
          sayings.

          ERRWSO
          Randall Buth

          Randall Buth, Phd
          Director, Biblical Language Center
          www.biblicalulpan.org
          and Lecturer, Biblical Hebrew
          Rothberg International School
          Hebrew University


          D<


          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • R. Steven Notley
          Donald, Thank you for your lengthy response to Randy s comments. I look forward to his reply. In the meantime, a couple of comments from myselfóactually
          Message 4 of 12 , Apr 4, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Donald,

            Thank you for your lengthy response to Randy's comments.  I look forward to his reply.  In the meantime, a couple of comments from myself—actually points of clarification.  I think you misunderstood both the direction of Randy's comments and his conclusions:
             

            "Goodell, Donald (Donald)" wrote:

            (snip)
            If, as you say, Aramaic was not as common as was previously supposed in the
            1st century, and that you suspect Aramaic paraphrase books of the Tanak
            copied at Qumran e.g. Job came from the East (i.e. from Babylonian Judaeism)
            and were not native to Palestine, what are we to make of the other Aramaic
            Torah-based midrashic style writings also found at Qumran, like the Midrash
            on the Patriarchs (The socalled Genesis Apocryphon, 1QapGen)??
            Randy does not suggest that Aramaic was "not as common."  Indeed, I think you will find that he embraces a multilingual (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek) environment in first century Judea.  He is not arguing that Aramaic was unknown in first century Judea.  In fact he remarked (as you likewise point out) that "Qumran likes Aramaic, they just don't have an Aramaic targum."

            His line of reasoning is this:  We know that the Qumran Congregation both knew Aramaic and liked to use it to paraphrase OT narrative in Aramaic (e.g. Genesis Apocryphon).  In light of that knowledge/affinity, how do we explain the near absence of Aramaic Targumim in the Qumran library? [BTW the presence of over 800 scrolls (whole or portions thereof) seems to challenge any suggestion that their absence is "a random accident of Archeology".]  His comment about the "eastern dialect" of the Targum of Job, was only to draw attention to the fact that the only first century Targum at Qumran, seems to have been imported.  It was not created locally because the Qumran Congregation was "ignorant" of Hebrew—which is generally the reasoning put forward by scholarship for the creation of the Aramaic Targumim.

            In essence, what Randy (and others of us who agree with him) react to is the outdated assumption that Hebrew was a dead language in the first century and that the purpose of the Targumim was to translate the Hebrew Scriptures for those who could not read Hebrew.  These assumptions are the result of erroneous assumptions from the 19th century that have been totally undermined by the linguistic data recovered by archeology in the 20th century.

            Nevertheless, these false assumptions continue unabated in NT scholarship resulting (for example) in the freedom of NT translators (e.g. NIV) to translate HEBRAIS (Hebrew) in Acts 21:40 as "Aramaic".  

            (snip)

            Would you automatically assume 1 QapGen ALSO hailed from the "east" because
            it was written in Aramaic, or should we be thinking that BOTH proto-Mishnaic
            Hebrew and Aramaic ("polyglots"?)  were commonly spoken and written in
            Palestine in the 1st century? Do 1st century Aramaic grave inscriptions shed
            any light on this problem? (I suppose we have to ask, Do 1st Century
            Palestinian Grave Inscriptions ALWAYS reflect the lingua franca of a given
            locale and era? How would we know that? Would the style of the inscription
            be in an older form of language? etc.)

            Again, I think you are missing Randy's point entirely here.  Randy is not arguing for an absence of Aramaic in first century Judea—only that we have no evidence for first century Targumim written in Judea.

            You may choose to explain the absence of Aramaic Targumim in the Qumran library however you want (i.e. an archaeological fluke?)—but Randy's point about the lack of Aramaic Targumim (especially of the Torah) in an "Aramaic friendly" environment begs that we at least take a moment to reassess our long-held assumptions regarding the linguistic environment of first century Judea.

            Shalom,
            Steven Notley
            Nyack College NYC
             

          • Randall Buth
            shalom Donald, Thank you for your email. You ve covered alot of ground. I ll try to answer, though briefly. ... were ... There are different levels of
            Message 5 of 12 , Apr 4, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              shalom Donald,

              Thank you for your email. You've covered alot of ground. I'll try to
              answer, though briefly.

              >You raise a number of important points regarding the kind of Hebrew or
              >Aramaic (or both) that was current in 1st century Palestine, and there has
              >been much ink spilled on this subject of late...and so the "soup"
              >thickens...
              >
              >Scholarship seems divided on the issue of "just exactly what languages
              were
              >commonly spoken and where in 1st century Palestine" and I sometimes find
              >researchers reduced to shilly-shallying around the subject a little, using
              >terms like "proto-Mishnaic Hebrew"

              There are different levels of division. Israeli specialists on Mishnaic
              Hebrew
              do not know of a division about whether the language was alive during the
              2nd temple. But describing its dialects--plenty of division--the data is
              incomplete.

              snip

              >I ask this simply because "Matthew's" quotations from the Tanak seem so
              out
              >of line with both the Massoretic Text (MT) and the Septuagint (LXX) it is
              >almost as if he is quoting from an Aramaic paraphrase of some kind,
              perhaps
              >using a "proto-Aramaic Targum": see for example his handling of Hebrew
              >passages such as Matthew 2:6 (=Micah 5:2), Matt 4:15-16 (=Isaiah 9:1-2),
              >Matt 8:17 (=Isaiah 53:4), Matt 12:18-20 (=Isaiah 42:1-3), Matthew 13:35
              >(=Psalms 78:2), Matt 22:37 (=Deuteronomy 6:5), Matt 27:9-10 (Zechariah
              >11:12-13) etc.

              Good observation.
              You are dealing with a midrashic phenomenon. Most midrashic witnesses are
              in Hebrew, especially the old ones. Targum is just one sub-set of
              the witnesses to midrashic interpretation and development in 2nd and
              post-2nd
              temple times. You see this in "external" literature and Qumran, not to
              mention
              Josephus and NT. NT scholarship often jumps to a "targum" explanation
              because
              it is relying on a now-outdated language picture.

              >Admitedly, most of the other 30 or so direct quotations from the Tanak
              that
              >"Matthew" uses seem to line up fairly exactly with the Greek of the
              standard
              >LXX (e.g. Isaiah 7:14 + 8:8 found in Matt 1:23a+b etc.) but could the set
              of
              >Proof Text quotations that varies with the LXX and MT be an Aramaic
              >Targum-like core of Papias' LOGIA, one wonders, (that is, if we assume
              that
              >LOGIA were in fact prophecies fulfilled in Iesous and not "sayings". )??

              Again, this jumps to one subset without providing support or fitting into
              the bigger picture.

              snip

              >another question: "exactly HOW different" was Peter's
              >Galilean language from the language commonly spoken in Jersualem and its
              >environs? How can we know?

              By reading the primary literature. Incidently, there are several quotes
              of language use between Bablyon and Israel, and Galilee and Judea. There
              is the famous 'amar quote showing comical misunderstanding between
              the East and Palestine. And we have numerous rabbinic quotes of first
              century rabbis who hail from various parts of the land of Israel. Many
              from the south, many from the Galilee. The dialectical differences did
              not block understanding.

              >what are we to make of the other Aramaic
              >Torah-based midrashic style writings also found at Qumran, like the
              >Midrash on the Patriarchs (The socalled Genesis Apocryphon, 1QapGen)??

              REcognize them for what they are. Aramaic Jewish religious literature.
              QUmran has a bunch of that. Which is why the lack of Qumran Aramaic
              Bible is so remarkable.

              >Would you automatically assume 1 QapGen ALSO hailed from
              >the "east" because it was written in Aramaic,

              I think you've misunderstood me. Certainly Muraoka did not assume that
              when he pointed out the eastern features in 1Q Job ar in 1974.

              >or should we be
              >thinking that BOTH proto-Mishnaic
              >Hebrew and Aramaic ("polyglots"?) were commonly spoken and written in
              >Palestine in the 1st century?

              Both, of course. And we have records of both.
              Though one should clean up the definitions a bit. Rather than
              proto-Mishnaic
              you might be better to think of literary Hebrew (quasi-Qumranic,
              'biblical') and
              colloquial (varying degrees of influence from various spoken Hebrew
              dialects).

              snip

              >DG
              >dgoodell@...

              I suppose all of this brings us back to my comment about
              including DEVARIM=words=history=narrative=LOGIA
              in the soup. Such would fit with Semitisms/Hebraisms found in the
              narrative structure of gospel texts.

              lhitraot be-Toronto?
              yisge shlamax

              Randall Buth

              Randall Buth, Phd
              Director, Biblical Language Center
              www.biblicalulpan.org
              and Lecturer, Biblical Hebrew
              Rothberg International School
              Hebrew University

              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            • John Lupia
              Earlier Today Tragic Violence Strikes the Shrine of the Nativity Priest Says Israelis Destroy Bethlehem Church Door ROME (Reuters) Apr 4- Israeli troops have
              Message 6 of 12 , Apr 4, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                Earlier Today Tragic Violence Strikes the Shrine of
                the Nativity
                Priest Says Israelis Destroy Bethlehem Church Door

                ROME (Reuters) Apr 4- Israeli troops have destroyed a
                door into Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity and have
                battled with Palestinians holed up in the building,
                one of the priests trapped in the complex said on
                Thursday.

                "The situation is very serious. The Jews have knocked
                down the door of the nativity church where all the
                Palestinians were," Father Ibrahim Faltas, custodian
                of the Bethlehem church, said in a telephone interview
                with RAI television news.

                "The Palestinians are now in the Convent. There is a
                battle going on between the two sides and we are in
                the middle. We are in danger. Try to save us," he
                said.

                Some 200 Palestinian militants, many of them armed,
                have taken refuge in the church to avoid capture by
                Israeli troops who have surrounded the building.
                Around 40 monks and nuns are also in the religious
                complex.

                Witnesses earlier on Thursday reported hearing
                explosions and heavy machinegun fire from the back of
                the church, which is one of Christianity's holiest
                sites. The Israeli army has denied its forces were in
                action.

                * * *

                Michelle Sabbah, Patriarch of Jerusalem, Attempts Aid
                in Bethlehem

                BETHLEHEM--April 4--Early this morning, Church leaders
                of all Christian denominations arrived carrying olive
                branches, the traditional symbol of peace. The
                Israelis removed the barriers blocking the road to
                allow the cars bringing the Catholic and Orthodox
                delegates into the city. They arrived with the hope
                of bringing relief to the citizens of Bethlehem, to
                take care of the wounded and to bury the dead.
                Jerusalem Patriarch, Michelle Sabbah, said: "Many
                people are wounded, dead, we are told like that.
                Well, we are going to help, to help bring the wounded
                to the hospital, to help bury the killed if they are
                there." The Patriarch and other Church leaders came
                after hearing reports of the worst fighting and
                violence since the outbreak began. Tuesday Israeli
                troops occupied Bethlehem with tanks and troops of
                soldiers shooting and killing people at random. Four
                Palestinians killed in Bethlehem still lie outside the
                Church of the Nativity in the battle-scarred streets.
                Rescuers are unable to reach the dead and remove them
                because of constant shooting. Scores of Palestinians
                are inside the Church of the Nativity and Convent
                seeking refuge. The Church delegates were unable to
                do anything at this time due to the constant fighting.
                After they left the Israelis replaced the barriers
                across the road thwarting and paralyzing any hopes for
                peace at this time.

                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News/message/212

                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News



                =====
                John N. Lupia
                501 North Avenue B-1
                Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 USA

                __________________________________________________
                Do You Yahoo!?
                Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
                http://taxes.yahoo.com/

                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
              • Noel Fitzpatrick
                The discussion concerning the use of LOGIA by Papias is of interest to me. However perhaps BDAG may be of relevance here, where LOGIA, as used by Papias, are
                Message 7 of 12 , Apr 4, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  The discussion concerning the use of LOGIA by Papias is of
                  interest to me. However perhaps BDAG may be of relevance
                  here, where LOGIA, as used by Papias, are considered NT
                  sayings (page 598). Thus the fundamental assumption in this
                  discussion that the "LOGIA of the LORD", as used by Papias,
                  refer to the "ORACLES of YHWH" may be doubtful.

                  Best regards,

                  Noel J Fitzpatrick.
                  **********************************
                  Noel Fitzpatrick
                  16 Granville Park
                  Blackrock
                  Co Dublin
                  Ireland

                  Phone: 353 1 2893851

                  **********************************

                  Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                  List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                • R. Steven Notley
                  Noel Within this discussion about Papias LOGIA it is worthwhile to restate Randall Buth s suggestion last week that I think bears some consideration/response
                  Message 8 of 12 , Apr 5, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Noel

                    Within this discussion about Papias' LOGIA it is worthwhile to restate Randall Buth's suggestion last week that I think bears some consideration/response from members of the List.  Buth rightly understands that one of Hebrew equivalents for LOGIOV is DABAR.

                    Based upon this linguistic fact, his observation was that we have a late biblical Hebrew narrative work (Chronicles) entitled in Hebrew DIVREI HAYAMIM (lit.  "words of the days").  The fact that this biblical work is called "the words", and is not limited to "sayings" but includes narrative material as well, raises the question whether Papias' LOGIA might also be more than merely a collection of sayings.

                    I am not sure to whom your note was responding, but I don't think Buth was suggesting that Papias' LOGIA were "ORACLES OF YHWH."  Buth was only offering that Papias' work combined both narrative and saying material like Chronicles (and more closely approximating—though not necessarily identical—with our Gospels).

                    Shalom,
                    Steven Notley
                    Nyack College NYC
                     
                     

                    Noel Fitzpatrick wrote:

                    The discussion concerning the use of LOGIA by Papias is of
                    interest to me.  However perhaps BDAG may be of relevance
                    here, where LOGIA, as used by Papias, are considered NT
                    sayings (page 598).  Thus the fundamental assumption in this
                    discussion that the "LOGIA of the LORD", as used by Papias,
                    refer to the "ORACLES of YHWH" may be doubtful.

                    Best regards,

                    Noel J Fitzpatrick.
                    **********************************
                    Noel Fitzpatrick
                    16 Granville Park
                    Blackrock
                    Co Dublin
                    Ireland

                    Phone:   353 1 2893851

                    **********************************

                    Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                    List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

                  • Larry J. Swain
                    ... Randall s point is further supported by Papias own usage in the recorded remarks about Mark. Papias states that Mark AKRIBWS EGRAPSEN....H TOU KURIOU
                    Message 9 of 12 , Apr 5, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      "R. Steven Notley" wrote:

                      > Noel
                      >
                      > Within this discussion about Papias' LOGIA it is worthwhile to restate
                      > Randall Buth's suggestion last week that I think bears some
                      > consideration/response from members of the List. Buth rightly
                      > understands that one of Hebrew equivalents for LOGIOV is DABAR.
                      >
                      > Based upon this linguistic fact, his observation was that we have a
                      > late biblical Hebrew narrative work (Chronicles) entitled in Hebrew
                      > DIVREI HAYAMIM (lit. "words of the days"). The fact that this
                      > biblical work is called "the words", and is not limited to "sayings"
                      > but includes narrative material as well, raises the question whether
                      > Papias' LOGIA might also be more than merely a collection of sayings.
                      >

                      Randall's point is further supported by Papias' own usage in the
                      recorded remarks about Mark. Papias states that Mark AKRIBWS
                      EGRAPSEN....H TOU KURIOU LEXTHENTA H PRAXTHENTA..... Later in the
                      report he states that Mark did not do this SUNTAXIN TWN KURIWN
                      POIOUMENOS LOGIWN. Thus, the deeds and words of the Lord are the
                      "logion" of the Lord. Given this usage, we should presume that Papias
                      has the same usage in mind when he speaks of Matthew, and this confirms
                      Randall's equation of LOGION=DABAR.

                      Regards,

                      Larry Swain


                      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                    • Mahlon H. Smith
                      ... This is technically correct, Stephen. But Hebrew DBR has a far wider semantic range than Greek LOGION or any Greek phoneme with the root LOG-. If one is
                      Message 10 of 12 , Apr 5, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Stephen Notley wrote:
                         

                        > Within this discussion about Papias' LOGIA it is worthwhile to restate

                        Randall Buth's >suggestion last week that I think bears some consideration/response from members of the List.  >Buth rightly understands that one of Hebrew equivalents for LOGIOV is DABAR.

                        This is technically correct, Stephen. But Hebrew DBR has a far wider semantic range than Greek LOGION or any Greek phoneme with the root LOG-. If one is translating a Greek text into Hebrew DBR becomes the most likely equivalent of LOGION. But the reverse is not the case *unless* the DeBaRim in the text are formally sayings that may be regarded as oracular pronouncements. The issue here is the reason why Papias, a native Greek speaker who as far as we know had no competence in Semitic languages, chose to describe an alleged "Hebrew" text (that he never claims to have personally seen) as TA LOGIA TOU KURIOU to a Hellenistic audience that was bound to envision such a work as a collection of oracular pronouncements. What literate native Greek speaker would deliberately have chosen a Greek term otherwise generally used to refer to *sayings* of a god to characterize a narrative compiled by a human (Matthew)?  

                        >Based upon this linguistic fact, his observation was that we have a late

                        biblical Hebrew narrative >work (Chronicles) entitled in Hebrew DIVREI HAYAMIM (lit.  "words of the days").  The >fact that this biblical work is called "the words", and is not limited to "sayings" but includes
                        >narrative material as well, raises the question whether Papias' LOGIA might
                        also be more than >merely a collection of sayings.

                        Strictly speaking SeFeR DiBRei HaYaMMiM is not a "title" but a conventional early rabbinic formula (akin to BeRaShiTh or DeBaRiM) used to refer to a revered Hebrew text in distinction from others. Whether such a formula was standard in rabbinic circles in 1st or even 2nd c. CE is uncertain. But even if it was, it is noteworthy that when this text was translated into Greek by Jewish scribes, it was called PARALIPOMENA ("things that were left out") & *not* TA LOGIA or anything equivalent to the rabbinic deisgnation. DABAR in Hebrew can mean an "account" or "(subject) matter" or even "act." None of these are normal connotations TA LOGIA in Greek, the word chosen by Papias to characterize the contents of the alleged "Hebrew" text he credits to Matthew.

                        Shalom!

                        Mahlon

                        Mahlon H. Smith
                        Department of Religion
                        Rutgers University
                        New Brunswick NJ 08901
                         
                         
                         
                        Into His Own: Perspective on the World of Jesus
                        http://religion.rutgers.edu/iho/
                      • Mahlon H. Smith
                        ... Not necessarily, Larry, if one reads these words within Papias own logical syntax. Papias begins by asserting that as Peter s translator/interpreter
                        Message 11 of 12 , Apr 5, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Larry Swain wrote:

                          > Randall's point is further supported by Papias' own usage in the
                          > recorded remarks about Mark. Papias states that Mark AKRIBWS
                          > EGRAPSEN....H TOU KURIOU LEXTHENTA H PRAXTHENTA..... Later in the
                          > report he states that Mark did not do this SUNTAXIN TWN KURIWN
                          > POIOUMENOS LOGIWN. Thus, the deeds and words of the Lord are the
                          > "logion" of the Lord. Given this usage, we should presume that Papias
                          > has the same usage in mind when he speaks of Matthew, and this confirms
                          > Randall's equation of LOGION=DABAR.

                          Not necessarily, Larry, if one reads these words within Papias' own logical
                          syntax. Papias begins by asserting that as Peter's translator/interpreter
                          (hHRMENEUTHS) he wrote exactly (AKRIBWS) whatever he remembered *but* the
                          things that he wrote were not recorded in the order in which "the Lord" said
                          or did them. The point he wants to stress is that Mark was not an
                          eye-witness to Jesus but an ear-witness to Peter, totally dependent on
                          Peter's oral teaching (DIDASKALIA). He reiterates this, stressing that Mark
                          did not follow Jesus but rather followed Peter, whose own teaching was
                          dictated by later circumstances rather than concern to preserve the original
                          "syntax" in which the dominical LOGIA "occurred" (POIOUMENOS).

                          Papias' choice of the middle mood here leaves his exact meaning ambiguous.
                          On the one hand, it could be taken to indicate events that would include the
                          "things done" (PRAXQENTA) as well as "things said" (LEXQENTA) that he had
                          mentioned in the previous sentence. But the adversive construction of this
                          sentence contrasts the order of Peter's *teaching* with that of "the
                          Lord's" LOGIA. So it can be argued that the LOGIA envisioned by Papias in
                          this sentence was only a reference to what Jesus said, rather than what he
                          did. In both clauses Papias employs the verb POIEW. Peter "does" his
                          teaching. The Lord "does" his LOGIA. Papias' whole point is that the order
                          in which these occurred was not identical. Since Mark was not a direct
                          witness to Jesus, Papias contends, he should not be faulted for recalling
                          the LOGIA of "the Lord" as best he could from hearing the DIDASKALIA of
                          Peter. Note, Papias reserves the term LOGIA for what came directly from
                          "the Lord." He does not use that term to characterize either the DIDASKALIA
                          of Peter or the narrative of Mark's account. Thus, Papias' remarks about
                          GMark can be cited as evidence that TA LOGIA which he credits Matthew with
                          compiling (SYNTAXAW) but which others "translated/interpreted"
                          (hHRMENEUSEN), much as Mark did Peter, did *not* refer to a narrative text
                          like GMatt, but rather to sayings or teaching ascribed directly to HJ, which
                          Papias regarded as more reliable than Mark's since he supposed Matthew to be
                          a direct follower & first-hand ear-witness of "the Lord."

                          Shalom!

                          Mahlon

                          Mahlon H. Smith
                          Department of Religion
                          Rutgers University
                          New Brunswick NJ 08901

                          http://religion.rutgers.edu/profiles/mh_smith.html

                          Synoptic Gospels Primer
                          http://religion.rutgers.edu/nt/primer/

                          Into His Own: Perspective on the World of Jesus
                          http://religion.rutgers.edu/iho/


                          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                        • Stephen C. Carlson
                          ... I m somewhat at a loss why we should understand Papias use of the Greek LOGION in Hebrew terms. Papias flourished in Hierapolis, Phrygia, now in Central
                          Message 12 of 12 , Apr 5, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            "R. Steven Notley" wrote:
                            > Within this discussion about Papias' LOGIA it is worthwhile to restate
                            > Randall Buth's suggestion last week that I think bears some
                            > consideration/response from members of the List. Buth rightly
                            > understands that one of Hebrew equivalents for LOGIOV is DABAR.

                            I'm somewhat at a loss why we should understand Papias' use
                            of the Greek LOGION in Hebrew terms. Papias flourished
                            in Hierapolis, Phrygia, now in Central Turkey, and he had
                            a native Phrygian name (see Lightfoot). Without evidence
                            that Papias had been a Diaspora Jew or that he was familiar
                            with the Hebrew language, it is best to understand
                            LOGION by
                            looking first at its context (of course) and then to
                            contemporaneous Greek usage.

                            Stephen Carlson
                            --

                            Stephen C. Carlson,
                            mailto:scarlson@...
                            "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35

                            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.