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

Re: [Synoptic-L] The Aramaic-Greek transition

Expand Messages
  • R. Steven Notley
    Larry Swain wrote: ...assuming that Jesus taught ONLY in Aramaic in the first place. As a casual observer to some of the comments on this list the last week or
    Message 1 of 28 , Jan 13, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Larry Swain wrote:

      ...assuming that Jesus taught ONLY in Aramaic in the first place.

      As a casual observer to some of the comments on this list the last week or so, let me just remind folks that "the assumption" (and that is all it is) that the linguistic milieu for Jesus and the primitive church was monolingual (i.e. Aramaic) flies in the face of all of the epigraphical data and archaeological evidence uncovered in Israel during the 20 century.  I do not need to remind those who read the Dead Sea Scrolls without translation that over 90% of the library is Hebrew.  There must have been someone who could read!  Greek inscriptions in Judaea are also well-known beginning from the Hellenistic period--including the Galilee.  By the way,  contrary to often-repeated assumption, Galilee was no backwater.  Every known leading first century Jewish Sage had roots in the Galilee.

      Finally, multilingual inscriptions are common throughout the country.  I am unsure why we must continue to insist that Jesus and the Early Church lived in a vacuum.

      I have yet to hear any reason why Jesus and his followers were not multilingual.  Moreover, what evidence is there to assume that he taught ONLY in Aramaic (i.e. to the exclusion of Hebrew)?

      regards,
      R. Steven Notley
      Nyack College NYC

    • Jeffrey B. Gibson
      ... That the DSS were written in Hebrew does not warrant the conclusion that Hebrew was a language prominent in Palestine. In the first place, the Hebrew in
      Message 2 of 28 , Jan 13, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        "R. Steven Notley" wrote:

        > I have yet to hear any reason why Jesus and his followers were not
        > multilingual. Moreover, what evidence is there to assume that he
        > taught ONLY in Aramaic (i.e. to the exclusion of Hebrew)?

        That the DSS were written in Hebrew does not warrant the conclusion that
        Hebrew was a language prominent in Palestine. In the first place, the
        Hebrew in which the DSS were is not the spoken Hebrew for which there is
        some evidence but a literary form of the language. In the second place,
        as John Collins once noted to me, the authors of the DSS chose to write
        in Hebrew in order to be **countercultural**. In the third place, the
        evidence regarding language of a consciously isolated group is not good
        evidence for what language was spoken in the culture upon which they had
        turned their backs.

        Yours,

        Jeffrey Gibson


        --
        Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
        1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
        Floor 1
        Chicago, Illinois 60626
        e-mail jgibson000@...
        jgibson000@...

        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • R. Steven Notley
        ... This is not true. Literary Hebrew is prominent among the Dead Sea Scrolls. But other documents such as 4QMMT are colloquial not literary. No less a
        Message 3 of 28 , Jan 13, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
           

          "Jeffrey B. Gibson" wrote:

          "R. Steven Notley" wrote:

          > I have yet to hear any reason why Jesus and his followers were not
          > multilingual.  Moreover, what evidence is there to assume that he
          > taught ONLY in Aramaic (i.e. to the exclusion of Hebrew)?

          That the DSS were written in Hebrew does not warrant the conclusion that
          Hebrew was a language prominent in Palestine. In the first place, the
          Hebrew in which the DSS were is not the spoken Hebrew for which there is
          some evidence but a literary form of the language.

          This is not true.  Literary Hebrew is prominent among the Dead Sea Scrolls. But other documents such as 4QMMT are colloquial not literary.  No less a scholar than Kutcher long ago demonstrated that the Isaiah scroll from Qumran was revised at points from its earlier biblical Hebrew idiom to reflect contemporary idioms that were alive and in use.

          The evidence is clear that Judaea in the first century was multilingual.  I repeat my previous question:  What tangible and clear evidence is there to exclude Hebrew from consideration of the relevant languages for Jesus and his first followers.

          In the second place,
          as John Collins once noted to me, the authors of the DSS chose to write
          in Hebrew in order to be **countercultural**.
          He's wrong.  There is not one shred of evidence to support that notion.  He would have to demonstrate that Hebrew was only used at Qumran (or other sectarian separatists communities) to even suggest such a **countercultural** argument.  There is none. Indeed, there is evidence to the contrary.
          In the third place, the
          evidence regarding language of a consciously isolated group is not good
          evidence for what language was spoken in the culture upon which they had
          turned their backs.
          If Qumran scholarship is correct that 4QMMT (which is in colloquial Hebrew) was written to religious leaders outside of the Qumran community, then the use of Hebrew was not a type of "community speak" but an understood language of communication between the leadership of two very distinct communities.

          By the way the Bar Kochba letters (132-135 AD) further demonstrate that colloquial Hebrew was alive and well into the 2nd century AD.

           

          Yours,

          Jeffrey Gibson

          --
          Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
          1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
                    Floor 1
          Chicago, Illinois 60626
          e-mail jgibson000@...
                    jgibson000@...

        • Thomas R. W. Longstaff
          ... Jeffrey makes some very good points. As I follow the discussion, however, it seems to me that we also need to pay attention to the physical evidence as
          Message 4 of 28 , Jan 13, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            At 04:56 PM 1/13/2003 -0600, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:
            >"R. Steven Notley" wrote:
            >
            > > I have yet to hear any reason why Jesus and his followers were not
            > > multilingual. Moreover, what evidence is there to assume that he
            > > taught ONLY in Aramaic (i.e. to the exclusion of Hebrew)?
            >
            >That the DSS were written in Hebrew does not warrant the conclusion that
            >Hebrew was a language prominent in Palestine. In the first place, the
            >Hebrew in which the DSS were is not the spoken Hebrew for which there is
            >some evidence but a literary form of the language. In the second place,
            >as John Collins once noted to me, the authors of the DSS chose to write
            >in Hebrew in order to be **countercultural**. In the third place, the
            >evidence regarding language of a consciously isolated group is not good
            >evidence for what language was spoken in the culture upon which they had
            >turned their backs.

            Jeffrey makes some very good points. As I follow the discussion, however, it
            seems to me that we also need to pay attention to the physical evidence as well
            as to literary texts. What do we know of languages in use from ostraca and
            public
            inscriptions (which clearly people would be expected to read and understand)?
            Often it is the physical evidence from archaeological excavation that gives us
            better insights into what the ordinary people did (and, in this case, perhaps
            what languages they used). Literary texts usually reflect a non-representative
            element in the population. I would have a very different knowledge of how you
            live if I could look at your garbage and the "stuff" that you have
            throughout your
            house than I would by reading a contemporary novel - or even the newspaper.
            Although I don't have a definitive answer to offer, in my experience I have
            seen
            both Aramaic, Greek and Hebrew in use, suggesting a higher level of bilingual
            ability than we might imagine.

            Thomas R. W. Longstaff
            Crawford Family Professor, Emeritus
            Colby College
            Waterville, Maine



            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • John C. Poirier
            Ron, The tannaitic Rabbis who opposed the religious use of Aramaic were usually open to the religious use of Greek. There is nothing at all strange about a
            Message 5 of 28 , Jan 13, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              Ron,

              The tannaitic Rabbis who opposed the religious use of Aramaic were usually
              open to the religious use of Greek. There is nothing at all strange about
              a first-century Jerusalem-based community writing in Greek, especially
              when the writing in question might be intended for a wider readership.


              John C. Poirier
              Middletown, Ohio


              Ron Price wrote:

              > . . . James was an autocratic and extremely conservative leader who
              > exerted his control from the most conservative Jewish location, namely
              > Jerusalem. In spite of Acts 15 (where Luke was probably to some extent
              > papering over the cracks in the Jesus movement), James was not someone
              > who would readily make concessions to Greeks.


              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            • R. Steven Notley
              Thomas R. W. Longstaff wrote: What do we know of languages in use from ostraca and public inscriptions (which clearly people would be expected to read and
              Message 6 of 28 , Jan 13, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                "Thomas R. W. Longstaff" wrote:

                What do we know of languages in use from ostraca and
                public inscriptions (which clearly people would be expected to read and understand)?

                <Break>

                Although I don't have a definitive answer to offer, in my experience I have
                seen both Aramaic, Greek and Hebrew in use, suggesting a higher level of bilingual
                ability than we might imagine.
                Notley:

                My experience with the epigraphical data coincides with the witness of the literary data towards a multilingual (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek) environment in first century Judaea.  To my knowledge there is absolutely no indication that Hebrew was unknown in the first century.

                As Randall Buth pointed out in his presentation in Toronto, scholarship has taken little note of the stark lack of Aramaic Targumim at Qumran.  There are Aramaic documents, so Aramaic was known by the Qumran Community.  Yet, except for a Targum of Job (notorious for its difficult Hebrew) Targumim do not exist in the Qumran library.  So, in spite of Collins' suggestion that the use of Hebrew at Qumran was somehow artificially fabricated to create a **counterculture** there seems to be no indication that anyone had difficulty reading and understanding Hebrew.

                Far less that the use of Hebrew was intended to mark the Qumran community as a **counterculture**.

                The mistaken notion that Hebrew was in non-use by the first century is a 19th century suggestion put forward by Avraham Geiger (Lehr- und Lesebuch zur Sprache der Mischnah [1845]), the founder of the Reformed Jewish movement in Germany.  "Conveniently" that position aided him in his struggle with Orthodox Judaism, because the earliest stratum of oral tradition upon which Orthodox Judaism is founded is in Mishnaic Hebrew.  He thereby sought to challenge the foundations of Orthodox Judaism.  Yet, Segal (1908) demonstrated later that Geiger's thesis was unfounded.  Moreover, a century of archaeological discovery in Palestine/Israel has shown that Segal was correct.

                R. Steven Notley
                Nyack College NYC

              • R. Steven Notley
                ... I know of no evidence of monolingual pockets in first century Judaea. Certainly, the most widespread sector of society represented by proto-Pharisaism
                Message 7 of 28 , Jan 14, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                   

                  DaGoi@... wrote:

                   
                  What are the evident dividing lines between the aramaic use and the hebrew
                  use in the first century?  I had thought also that the Qumran use of hebrew
                  may be due to a back-to-basics counterculture one-ups-manship, or perhaps to
                  the survival in literary use (but I've read in this thread that it was
                  evidently a living growing language).  Is there any indication of who was
                  more prone to use Hebrew as opposed to Aramaic or Greek (and what of that -
                  all koine, or do the more formal instances stretch into attic?) and when?

                  Bill Foley
                  Woburn

                  I know of no evidence of monolingual "pockets" in first century Judaea.  Certainly, the most widespread sector of society represented by proto-Pharisaism (and its successors) which most closely parallels the ethos and approach to scripture in the Jesus movement evidences familiarity and use of Hebrew (colloquial and literary), Aramaic and Greek. The same can be said at Qumran.

                  I am not trying to posit Jesus in any one stream of Jewish piety.  Only to say that multilingualism cut across these sectarian/societal divides.

                  The onus is on those who would seek to "exclude" any of these from first century use in Judaea.  The evidence for this exclusion simply is not there.

                  I am certainly not suggesting that Jesus did not know and use Aramaic (sorry for the double negative).  I am only questioning why we need to take an Aramaic ONLY approach to the linguistic questions of the Gospels.  Almost all of the Semitisms in the NT touted at proof of Aramaic use by Jesus represent as easily Hebraisms.  The only reason they are not represented as such are the a priori assumptions (now clearly unfounded) of NT scholarship for 150 years concerning the linguistic milieu of first century Judaea.

                • R. Steven Notley
                  ... The Aramaic vs. Hebrew origins for names preserved in NT Greek is certainly open to question and tricky at best. Often what is presumed to be Aramaized
                  Message 8 of 28 , Jan 14, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Emmanuel Fritsch wrote:

                    > > I am certainly not suggesting that Jesus did not know and use Aramaic (sorry for
                    > > the double negative). I am only questioning why we need to take an Aramaic ONLY
                    > > approach to the linguistic questions of the Gospels. Almost all of the Semitisms
                    > > in the NT touted at proof of Aramaic use by Jesus represent as easily Hebraisms.
                    > > The only reason they are not represented as such are the a priori assumptions
                    > > (now clearly unfounded) of NT scholarship for 150 years concerning the linguistic
                    > > milieu of first century Judaea.
                    >
                    > - "Lazare" is aramaic (vs "Eleazar" which is hebrew) and the case
                    > in common with names in NT. (Is greek form of "Jesus" closer to
                    > aramaic or hebrew ?)

                    The Aramaic vs. Hebrew origins for names preserved in NT Greek is certainly open to
                    question and tricky at best. Often what is presumed to be Aramaized Greek is merely
                    the Greek style of representing Semitic names without any clear indication of whether
                    that name was intrinsically Aramaic or Hebrew. Thus, Greek's tendency not to leave
                    names ending with certain vowels (or consonants) and the appended sigma on the name of
                    Jesus. It is possible that Jesus' name was pronounced Yeshu (IHSUS)but certainly
                    included a final 'Ayin (without the furtive PetaH?) as first century epigraphical
                    examples indicate. By the way, Matthew's play on the name Jesus in Matthew 1:21
                    presumes Hebrew.

                    In addition, in some inscriptions we find a linguistic mix. To cite a recent example
                    (whether it is authentic or not), the putative ossuary of James included names that
                    could be Hebrew or Aramaic (Yaakov, Yosef and Yeshua) with words that are Aramaic
                    (BAR, AHUI). To complicate matters, terms such as BAR (as opposed to BEN) had become
                    so commonplace that it appears fluidly in both Hebrew and Aramaic texts. In other
                    words, it simply is impossible to deal with the data in a kind of "hermetically
                    sealed" fashion that conclusive demonstrates "linguistic priority" one way or the
                    other. Let's just take it at face value to signify a dynamic multilingual
                    environment.

                    >
                    > - without matching exactly geography, aramaic is supposed to be
                    > more common in Galileae, and hebrew in Judeae.

                    I repeat that every major first century Sage had roots in the Galilee and their
                    sayings (apart from Hillel) are remembered in Hebrew.

                    >
                    >
                    > Sorry for not giving references and precisions. These are old
                    > remembers. But if right, they show that aramaic priority is
                    > not so unfounded as you say. Who helps ?

                    The phrase that started this discussion was to "Aramaic ONLY". "Linguistic priority"
                    is a different question, and raises further issues of context (i.e. market vs.
                    synagogue, etc.).

                    >
                    >
                    > a+
                    > manu

                    regard,
                    R. Steven Notley
                    Nyack College NYC


                    Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                    List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                  • Ron Price
                    ... John, I still think it less likely if it required translating and thus hiding the words which Jesus actually spoke (whether in Aramaic or Hebrew). But
                    Message 9 of 28 , Jan 14, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      John Poirier wrote:

                      >The tannaitic Rabbis who opposed the religious use of Aramaic were usually
                      >open to the religious use of Greek. There is nothing at all strange about
                      >a first-century Jerusalem-based community writing in Greek, especially
                      >when the writing in question might be intended for a wider readership.

                      John,

                      I still think it less likely if it required translating and thus
                      hiding the words which Jesus actually spoke (whether in Aramaic or
                      Hebrew).

                      But either way the problem remains for the Farrer and 2ST theories.
                      Where is the evidence of any such writings? Farrer provides no clue, and
                      the 2ST only has the hypothetical document Q supposedly originating in
                      *Galilee*.

                      Ron Price

                      Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

                      e-mail: ron.price@...

                      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

                      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                    • Ron Price
                      ... Larry, That s if you take Mark s presentation of James and Peter at face value, which I don t. Trocme and Weeden have argued persuasively that Mark
                      Message 10 of 28 , Jan 14, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Larry Swain wrote:

                        >Just a quick note, but it should not need to be said
                        >that James, the brother of the Lord, was NOT in any
                        >tradition I know of, one of the *original* followers
                        >of Jesus, which is of course what your comments were
                        >predicated upon.

                        Larry,

                        That's if you take Mark's presentation of James and Peter at face
                        value, which I don't.
                        Trocme and Weeden have argued persuasively that Mark deliberately
                        denigrated the original disciples. I take this to its logical conclusion
                        to deduce that James was the leading disciple all along. There is
                        support for this in the suspiciously casual introduction of James as
                        leader in Acts 12:17, and in the coincidence (??) in the naming of the
                        prominent trio ( James, Peter, John) in both the pre-crucifixion
                        synoptic setting and the post-crucifixion Galatians setting.

                        Ron Price

                        Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

                        e-mail: ron.price@...

                        Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

                        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                      • Maluflen@aol.com
                        In a message dated 1/14/2003 10:14:39 AM Pacific Standard Time, ... You would have to spell out your logic here in somewhat more detail, and in the process
                        Message 11 of 28 , Jan 14, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          In a message dated 1/14/2003 10:14:39 AM Pacific Standard Time, ron.price@... writes:


                          That's if you take Mark's presentation of James and Peter at face
                          value, which I don't.
                            Trocme and Weeden have argued persuasively that Mark deliberately
                          denigrated the original disciples. I take this to its logical conclusion
                          to deduce that James was the leading disciple all along. There is
                          support for this in the suspiciously casual introduction of James as
                          leader in  Acts 12:17, and in the coincidence (??) in the naming of the
                          prominent trio ( James, Peter, John)  in both the pre-crucifixion
                          synoptic setting and the post-crucifixion Galatians setting.


                          You would have to spell out your logic here in somewhat more detail, and in the process perhaps also introduce the list to a full-blown Eisenmanian approach. Is it at all significant that the names you mention never appear in the NT in the order you give, either literally or by implication? And I don't think the Zebedee James has ever been confused by anybody with James the brother of the Lord, even if the other James in the apostolic lists may at times have suffered that confusion. Are you saying that Mark (or whoever) was unable to remove the name James entirely from the Jesus tradition, even though he would like to have, so he made up the idea of a Zebedee family which -- lo and behold -- had a James in it too? Or, what exactly are you saying here?

                          Leonard Maluf
                        • Ron Price
                          ... Larry, I didn t mean that translation would have presented any *technical* difficulty. I meant that there would have been a special preciousness in the
                          Message 12 of 28 , Jan 15, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I wrote:

                            >> I still think it less likely if it required
                            >> translating and thus
                            >> hiding the words which Jesus actually spoke (whether
                            >> in Aramaic or Hebrew).

                            Larry Swain replied:

                            >Based upon what Ron? .....
                            >Even if Jesus taught principally in Aramaic it does
                            >not follow that "translation" would have presented any
                            >difficulty in a multilingual environment. Unlike most
                            >students of NT Greek who struggle with a passage, the
                            >multilingual easily switch.

                            Larry,

                            I didn't mean that translation would have presented any *technical*
                            difficulty. I meant that there would have been a special preciousness in
                            the very words which Jesus spoke, as is evidenced in Mark's retention of
                            Aramaic in e.g. Mk 5:41 in spite of the expectation (based on the fact
                            that he provided the Greek translation) that his readers would not
                            understand the words.

                            Ron Price

                            Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

                            e-mail: ron.price@...

                            Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

                            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                          • LeeEdgarTyler@aol.com
                            In a message dated 1/15/2003 12:06:45 PM Central Standard Time, ... Most scholars, however, doubt that these are the very words Jesus spoke on this occasion.
                            Message 13 of 28 , Jan 15, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              In a message dated 1/15/2003 12:06:45 PM Central Standard Time, ron.price@... writes:


                              I didn't mean that translation would have presented any *technical*
                              difficulty. I meant that there would have been a special preciousness in
                              the very words which Jesus spoke, as is evidenced in Mark's retention of
                              Aramaic in e.g. Mk 5:41 in spite of the expectation (based on the fact
                              that he provided the Greek translation) that his readers would not
                              understand the words.

                              Ron Price



                              Most scholars, however, doubt that these are the very words Jesus spoke on this occasion.  Presumably, Mark thought they were or he would not have rendered them verbatim.  But it seems to me we need to develop a theory for these Aramaic sayings that does not rely upon them being precious simply because Jesus spoke them, but rather because the tradition attributed them to him.  Why, for instance, would "little girl, arise" be so sacred that they would be reproduced in the original language, but the words of the Eucharist would not?

                              Ed Tyler

                              http://hometown.aol.com/leeedgartyler/myhomepage/index.html

                            • Horace Jeffery Hodges
                              Ron Price and Larry Swain are discussing this topic, but I m receiving only Ron s posts. Is anyone else experiencing this? Jeffery Hodges ===== Horace Jeffery
                              Message 14 of 28 , Jan 15, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Ron Price and Larry Swain are discussing this topic,
                                but I'm receiving only Ron's posts.

                                Is anyone else experiencing this?

                                Jeffery Hodges

                                =====
                                Horace Jeffery Hodges, Ph.D. (University of California, Berkeley)
                                Assistant Professor
                                Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
                                447-791 Kyunggido, Osan-City
                                Yangsandong 411
                                South Korea

                                __________________________________________________
                                Do you Yahoo!?
                                Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
                                http://mailplus.yahoo.com

                                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                              • LeeEdgarTyler@aol.com
                                In a message dated 1/15/2003 2:56:05 PM Central Standard Time, ... In a word, yes. et Ed Tyler http://hometown.aol.com/leeedgartyler/myhomepage/index.html
                                Message 15 of 28 , Jan 15, 2003
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  In a message dated 1/15/2003 2:56:05 PM Central Standard Time, jefferyhodges@... writes:

                                  Ron Price and Larry Swain are discussing this topic,
                                  but I'm receiving only Ron's posts.

                                  Is anyone else experiencing this?

                                  Jeffery Hodges


                                  In a word, yes.

                                  et

                                  Ed Tyler

                                  http://hometown.aol.com/leeedgartyler/myhomepage/index.html

                                • LARRY SWAIN
                                  My fault I fear. I hit reply by habit, rather than reply all . My apologies to all. Larry Swain ... Synoptic-L Homepage:
                                  Message 16 of 28 , Jan 15, 2003
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    My fault I fear. I hit reply by habit, rather than
                                    "reply all". My apologies to all.

                                    Larry Swain
                                    --- Horace Jeffery Hodges <jefferyhodges@...>
                                    wrote:
                                    > Ron Price and Larry Swain are discussing this topic,
                                    > but I'm receiving only Ron's posts.
                                    >
                                    > Is anyone else experiencing this?
                                    >
                                    > Jeffery Hodges
                                    >
                                    > =====
                                    > Horace Jeffery Hodges, Ph.D. (University of
                                    > California, Berkeley)
                                    > Assistant Professor
                                    > Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
                                    > 447-791 Kyunggido, Osan-City
                                    > Yangsandong 411
                                    > South Korea
                                    >
                                    > __________________________________________________
                                    > Do you Yahoo!?
                                    > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
                                    > now.
                                    > http://mailplus.yahoo.com
                                    >
                                    > 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@...
                                  • Ron Price
                                    ... Ed, I m dubious about the originality of both the words and the setting. ... Agreed. ... I have suggested on the Corpus-Paul list that Paul was the
                                    Message 17 of 28 , Jan 16, 2003
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Ed Tyler wrote:

                                      >Most scholars, however, doubt that these are the very words Jesus spoke on
                                      >this occasion [re "Talitha cumi" in Mk 5:41].

                                      Ed,

                                      I'm dubious about the originality of both the words and the setting.

                                      > Presumably, Mark thought they were or he would not have
                                      >rendered them verbatim. But it seems to me we need to develop a theory for
                                      >these Aramaic sayings that does not rely upon them being precious simply
                                      >because Jesus spoke them, but rather because the tradition attributed them
                                      >to him.

                                      Agreed.

                                      > Why, for instance, would "little girl, arise" be so sacred that
                                      >they would be reproduced in the original language, but the words of the
                                      >Eucharist would not?

                                      I have suggested on the Corpus-Paul list that Paul was the originator
                                      of the words of the Eucharist.
                                      So the simple answer is that I think these words probably originated
                                      in Greek. They were never in Aramaic. This is partially supported by the
                                      assessment of Aramaic scholars that "my blood of the covenant" (Mk
                                      14:24) can't (according to M.D.Hooker, _The Gospel According to St
                                      Mark_, London, A&C Black, 1991, p.342) be translated into Aramaic.

                                      Ron Price

                                      Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

                                      e-mail: ron.price@...

                                      Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

                                      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                    • LARRY SWAIN
                                      ... Ron, But Ed s overall point is still a valid one. One would expect more than a few phrases or words of Aramaic in a miraculous context to be preserved
                                      Message 18 of 28 , Jan 19, 2003
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        --- Ron Price <ron.price@...> wrote:
                                        > Ed Tyler wrote:
                                        >
                                        > > Why, for instance, would "little girl, arise" be
                                        > so sacred that
                                        > >they would be reproduced in the original language,
                                        > but the words of the
                                        > >Eucharist would not?
                                        >
                                        > I have suggested on the Corpus-Paul list that Paul
                                        > was the originator
                                        > of the words of the Eucharist.
                                        > So the simple answer is that I think these words
                                        > probably originated
                                        > in Greek. They were never in Aramaic. This is
                                        > partially supported by the
                                        > assessment of Aramaic scholars that "my blood of the
                                        > covenant" (Mk
                                        > 14:24) can't (according to M.D.Hooker, _The Gospel
                                        > According to St
                                        > Mark_, London, A&C Black, 1991, p.342) be translated
                                        > into Aramaic.

                                        Ron,

                                        But Ed's overall point is still a valid one. One
                                        would expect more than a few phrases or words of
                                        Aramaic in a miraculous context to be preserved rather
                                        than more extensive citations if indeed preservation
                                        of Jesus' actual words in his actual language were in
                                        any way important. Even groups which appear as
                                        concerned with Judaism as Matthew's and the community
                                        of the Didache write in Greek. If you maintain your
                                        premise you are stuck with saying that Jesus made so
                                        little impact that practically NONE of his
                                        sayings/teachings were preserved in Aramaic since
                                        almost all the preserved sayings, even those in Paul,
                                        are in Greek.

                                        Larry Swain
                                        UIC


                                        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                      • Ron Price
                                        ... Larry, On the contrary, in my synoptic theory Jesus original followers recorded 72 sayings attributed to Jesus in Aramaic, these being the TA LOGIA
                                        Message 19 of 28 , Jan 20, 2003
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Larry Swain wrote:

                                          > If you maintain your
                                          >premise you are stuck with saying that Jesus made so
                                          >little impact that practically NONE of his
                                          >sayings/teachings were preserved in Aramaic since
                                          >almost all the preserved sayings, even those in Paul,
                                          >are in Greek.

                                          Larry,

                                          On the contrary, in my synoptic theory Jesus' original followers
                                          recorded 72 sayings attributed to Jesus in Aramaic, these being the 'TA
                                          LOGIA' referred to by Papias. The fact that these are no longer
                                          preserved in their original language has nothing whatsoever to do with
                                          Jesus' impact on his original followers. For his original Jewish
                                          followers were all dead by the time the less parochial Christian
                                          synoptic authors decided to write the stories of Jesus in Greek and to
                                          incorporate translations of selected sayings from the Aramaic
                                          collection.

                                          Ron Price

                                          Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

                                          e-mail: ron.price@...

                                          Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm

                                          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                        • Tim Reynolds
                                          ... You can say my blood of the covenant in Hebrew, why not in Aramaic? tim Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l List Owner:
                                          Message 20 of 28 , Jan 20, 2003
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            on 1/19/03 9:22 PM, LARRY SWAIN at theswain@... wrote:

                                            > --- Ron Price <ron.price@...> wrote:
                                            >> Ed Tyler wrote:
                                            >>
                                            >>> Why, for instance, would "little girl, arise" be
                                            >> so sacred that
                                            >>> they would be reproduced in the original language,
                                            >> but the words of the
                                            >>> Eucharist would not?
                                            >>
                                            >> I have suggested on the Corpus-Paul list that Paul
                                            >> was the originator
                                            >> of the words of the Eucharist.
                                            >> So the simple answer is that I think these words
                                            >> probably originated
                                            >> in Greek. They were never in Aramaic. This is
                                            >> partially supported by the
                                            >> assessment of Aramaic scholars that "my blood of the
                                            >> covenant" (Mk
                                            >> 14:24) can't (according to M.D.Hooker, _The Gospel
                                            >> According to St
                                            >> Mark_, London, A&C Black, 1991, p.342) be translated
                                            >> into Aramaic.
                                            >
                                            > Ron,
                                            >
                                            > But Ed's overall point is still a valid one. One
                                            > would expect more than a few phrases or words of
                                            > Aramaic in a miraculous context to be preserved rather
                                            > than more extensive citations if indeed preservation
                                            > of Jesus' actual words in his actual language were in
                                            > any way important. Even groups which appear as
                                            > concerned with Judaism as Matthew's and the community
                                            > of the Didache write in Greek. If you maintain your
                                            > premise you are stuck with saying that Jesus made so
                                            > little impact that practically NONE of his
                                            > sayings/teachings were preserved in Aramaic since
                                            > almost all the preserved sayings, even those in Paul,
                                            > are in Greek.
                                            >
                                            > Larry Swain
                                            > UIC
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                            > List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

                                            You can say "my blood of the covenant" in Hebrew, why not in Aramaic?

                                            tim


                                            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                          • DaGoi@aol.com
                                            In a message dated 1/21/3 12:40:35 AM, (so interwoven i have to say I read : ... Because this is not a magical formula, but a prophetic shared experience and
                                            Message 21 of 28 , Jan 21, 2003
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              In a message dated 1/21/3 12:40:35 AM, (so interwoven i have to say "I read":

                                              <<on 1/19/03 9:22 PM, LARRY SWAIN at theswain@... wrote:

                                              > --- Ron Price <ron.price@...> wrote:
                                              >> Ed Tyler wrote:
                                              >>
                                              >>> Why, for instance, would "little girl, arise" be
                                              >> so sacred that
                                              >>> they would be reproduced in the original language,
                                              >> but the words of the
                                              >>> Eucharist would not?

                                              Because this is not a magical formula, but a prophetic shared experience and
                                              so it was important to understand the words while the cult was relatively
                                              new. When it got old and aquired a bit of cultural authority then it'd be
                                              prone to being holy stale.

                                              <<
                                              You can say "my blood of the covenant" in Hebrew, why not in Aramaic?

                                              tim
                                              >>

                                              if there is a reason, maybe that's why the scripture wasn't translated into
                                              Aramaic: couldn't do Ex 24.8. hmm, is there an aramaic targum on exodus
                                              24.8?

                                              Bill Foley
                                              Woburn

                                              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.