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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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@...
        • 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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 19 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.