Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
Skip to search.
 

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 28 , Jan 13, 2003
      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 2 of 28 , Jan 13, 2003
        "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 3 of 28 , Jan 14, 2003
           

          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 4 of 28 , Jan 14, 2003
            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 5 of 28 , Jan 14, 2003
              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 6 of 28 , Jan 14, 2003
                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 7 of 28 , Jan 14, 2003
                  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 8 of 28 , Jan 15, 2003
                    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 9 of 28 , Jan 15, 2003
                      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 10 of 28 , Jan 15, 2003
                        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 11 of 28 , Jan 15, 2003
                          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 12 of 28 , Jan 15, 2003
                            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 13 of 28 , Jan 16, 2003
                              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 14 of 28 , Jan 19, 2003
                                --- 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 15 of 28 , Jan 20, 2003
                                  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 16 of 28 , Jan 20, 2003
                                    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 17 of 28 , Jan 21, 2003
                                      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.