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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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.