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

[tc-list] RE: The Semitic Origin of the New Testament

Expand Messages
  • Robert D. Haslach
    On the language of Jesus - Mr. Washburn addresses one of the most interesting issues: how did Jesus communicate with people who would not have
    Message 1 of 11 , Jan 6, 1972
    • 0 Attachment
      On the language of Jesus - Mr. Washburn addresses one of the most
      interesting issues: how did Jesus communicate with people who would not
      have wanted/bothered/needed to learn Aramaic or whatever Galilean dialect
      used at home or down at the fishing boats.
      Since anyone could have walked (I aver) from Philadelphia to Spain and
      obtained food, drink and lodging, using Koine, and Jesus dealt with a
      range of non-natives, I issue the open question to my Koine students -
      did Jesus speak Greek?
      As always, absence of facts and documents does not prove any particular
      point of view.

      Robert Haslach
      Washington, DC
      On Wed, 5 Jan 2000, Dave Washburn wrote:

      > Jim WEst wrote:
      > > >
      > > >Secondly, how can we hope to "establish" a new textual criticism for the
      > > >N.T. based upon a complete dirth of Semitic New Testament manuscripts?
      > >
      > > this is precisely the heart of the problem. there are a few semitic words
      > > in the nt and there is little doubt, at least to me, that jesus spoke
      > > aramaic. but where is the ms evidence for the claim that the nt was written
      > > in some semitic dialect? does anyone know of a single manuscript of any nt
      > > text in aramaic?
      >
      > Agreed. I would go even further and suggest that Jesus also spoke
      > Greek, since we have reports that He spoke to Romans,
      > Syrophonecians and others would likely would not have bothered to
      > learn Aramaic. And aside from the total lack of manuscript
      > evidence, I would also suggest that the Greek of the NT shows no
      > signs of being translation Greek. I second Jim's DOA conclusion.
      >
      >
      > Dave Washburn
      > http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
      > Teach me your way, O Lord, and I will walk in your truth;
      > give me an undivided heart that I may fear your name.
      > Psalm 86:11
      >
      > ---
      > You are currently subscribed to tc-list as: rhaslach@...
      > To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-tc-list-445P@...-certr.org
      >

      Regards,
      Robert D. Haslach
      Bye


      ---
      You are currently subscribed to tc-list as: ListSaver-of-tc-list@...
      To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-tc-list-445P@...-certr.org
    • Doug Petrovich
      This book establishes a Semitic (Hebrew and Aramaic) rather than a Greek origin for the New Testament. It takes the reader through an analysis of the
      Message 2 of 11 , Nov 5, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        This book establishes a Semitic (Hebrew and Aramaic) rather than a Greek
        origin for the New Testament. It takes the reader through an analysis of
        the conditions in first century Judea and the Diaspora while following the
        evolution of the N.T. and analyzes word plays, puns, alliterations and
        misreadings in the Greek text that demonstrate a Hebrew /Aramaic original
        for the New Testament. This book is thorough and packed with footnotes
        establishing a new textual criticism for the N.T. - 77 pgs

        Although I am not able to comment on Mr. Trimm's book, I would like to take
        a moment to address briefly a couple of his assertions. First of all, I
        think it is far wiser to say that one may "theorize" (not "establish") a
        Semitic origin of the New Testament. Unfortunately, such an assertion
        falls prey to the same weakness that is inherent within claims for the
        existence of Q, namely that there is absolutely no extant textual
        attestation behind these elusive documents. Show us some manuscripts . . .
        then we may begin speaking about establishment. If we say that we think we
        can establish a Semitic origin for the "writers" of the N.T., then we have
        a much sturdier foundation to make such a dogmatic statement.

        Secondly, how can we hope to "establish" a new textual criticism for the
        N.T. based upon a complete dirth of Semitic New Testament manuscripts?
        Perhaps I should not speak for the tc-list, but I think one would have a
        difficult time convincing New Testament textual critics that we should give
        up the pursuit of extant Greek manuscripts as the primary area of emphasis
        in this field so that it can be exchanged for an emphasis fully devoid of
        hard evidence . . . at least I hope that we would not consider such a swap!
        However, if Mr. Trimm is able to accomplish all of this in a mere 77 pages,
        then I would certainly need to read this thorough book for myself.

        Doug Petrovich
        Novosibirsk, Russia



        ---
        You are currently subscribed to tc-list as: ListSaver-of-tc-list@...
        To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-tc-list-445P@...-certr.org
      • Jim West
        ... this is precisely the heart of the problem. there are a few semitic words in the nt and there is little doubt, at least to me, that jesus spoke aramaic.
        Message 3 of 11 , Jan 5, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          At 09:34 PM 11/5/99 +0000, you wrote:


          >
          >Secondly, how can we hope to "establish" a new textual criticism for the
          >N.T. based upon a complete dirth of Semitic New Testament manuscripts?

          this is precisely the heart of the problem. there are a few semitic words
          in the nt and there is little doubt, at least to me, that jesus spoke
          aramaic. but where is the ms evidence for the claim that the nt was written
          in some semitic dialect? does anyone know of a single manuscript of any nt
          text in aramaic?


          > Perhaps I should not speak for the tc-list, but I think one would have a
          >difficult time convincing New Testament textual critics that we should give
          >up the pursuit of extant Greek manuscripts as the primary area of emphasis
          >in this field so that it can be exchanged for an emphasis fully devoid of
          >hard evidence . . . at least I hope that we would not consider such a swap!

          its interesting to consider- but taking into account the horrid fact that we
          have no mss to support the idea, it seems DOA.
          ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

          Jim West, ThD
          jwest@...
          http://web.infoave.net/~jwest



          ---
          You are currently subscribed to tc-list as: ListSaver-of-tc-list@...
          To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-tc-list-445P@...-certr.org
        • Ronald D. Worden
          It has been a while since I spent much time on this issue. I did do an independent study of the linguistic milieu of first century Israel/Palestine under Dr.
          Message 4 of 11 , Jan 5, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            It has been a while since I spent much time on this issue. I did do
            an independent study of the linguistic milieu of first century
            Israel/Palestine under Dr. Bruce Metzger in doctoral studies at
            Princeton in the late 1960s. I felt then (and still feel) much more
            comfortable with the approach of scholars such as Matthew Black
            (An Aramaic Approach . . .), and J. A. Fitzmyer, for example, who
            seek to examine the Semitic substructure of parts of the New Testament
            but do not postulate original Semitic texts. In Luke-Acts, for example,
            the Semitic idioms and the like are more apparent in the dialogue than
            in Luke's narrative. The narrative does exhibit "Biblical style"
            which echoes the translation Greek of the LXX, "And it came to pass . . ."
            (wayehi = Kai egeneto), for example. It would take a lot of persuading
            (and evidence) to convince me that there is more than just "Jewish
            Greek" in the original New Testament documents.

            Ronald D. Worden
            Houston Graduate School of Theology
            rdworden@...

            -----Original Message-----
            From: James Trimm [mailto:jstrimm@...]
            Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 11:25 PM
            To: TC-List
            Subject: [tc-list] The Semitic Origin of the New Testament


            Since the claim has blatently been made that the Peshitta NT is a
            translation from the Greek NT I would like to point anyone interested to my
            book (THE SEMITIC ORIGIN OF THE NEW TESTAMENT by James Trimm) in which I
            prove that the Aramaic text of the Peshitta could not have been translated
            from our Greek NT.

            This book establishes a Semitic (Hebrew and Aramaic) rather than a Greek
            origin for the New Testament. It takes the reader through an analysis of
            the conditions in first century Judea and the Diaspora while following the
            evolution of the N.T. and analyzes word plays, puns, alliterations and
            misreadings in the Greek text that demonstrate a Hebrew /Aramaic original
            for the New Testament. This book is thorough and packed with footnotes
            establishing a new textual criticism for the N.T. - 77 pgs.

            Suggested donation of $15.00 +$2.00 shipping and handling ($3.20 for
            priority mail)

            Mail check or Money order made out to SANJ to:

            SANJ
            Po Box 471
            Hurst, TX 76053
            USA




            ---
            You are currently subscribed to tc-list as: rdworden@...
            To unsubscribe send a blank email to
            leave-tc-list-445P@...-certr.org


            ---
            You are currently subscribed to tc-list as: ListSaver-of-tc-list@...
            To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-tc-list-445P@...-certr.org
          • James Trimm
            ... Yep. And my book tells you exactly what their manuscript numbers are and where they are deposited. It also discusses internal evidence that the text of
            Message 5 of 11 , Jan 5, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              >At 09:34 PM 11/5/99 +0000, you wrote:
              >
              >
              >>
              >>Secondly, how can we hope to "establish" a new textual criticism for the
              >>N.T. based upon a complete dirth of Semitic New Testament manuscripts?
              >
              >this is precisely the heart of the problem. there are a few semitic words
              >in the nt and there is little doubt, at least to me, that jesus spoke
              >aramaic. but where is the ms evidence for the claim that the nt was written
              >in some semitic dialect? does anyone know of a single manuscript of any nt
              >text in aramaic?
              >

              Yep. And my book tells you exactly what their manuscript numbers are and where
              they are deposited. It also discusses internal evidence that the text of
              these manuscripts stands behind our Greek text.

              >
              >> Perhaps I should not speak for the tc-list, but I think one would have a
              >>difficult time convincing New Testament textual critics that we should give
              >>up the pursuit of extant Greek manuscripts as the primary area of emphasis
              >>in this field so that it can be exchanged for an emphasis fully devoid of
              >>hard evidence . . . at least I hope that we would not consider such a swap!
              >
              >its interesting to consider- but taking into account the horrid fact that we
              >have no mss to support the idea, it seems DOA.
              >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
              >
              >Jim West, ThD
              >jwest@...
              >http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
              >
              >
              >
              >---
              >You are currently subscribed to tc-list as: jstrimm@...
              >To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-tc-list-445P@...-certr.org




              ---
              You are currently subscribed to tc-list as: ListSaver-of-tc-list@...
              To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-tc-list-445P@...-certr.org
            • James Trimm
              We have several Semitic NT manuscripts. The book discusses each of them and gives evidence that they stand behind the Greek. James Trimm ... You are currently
              Message 6 of 11 , Jan 5, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                We have several Semitic NT manuscripts. The book discusses each of them
                and gives evidence that they stand behind the Greek.

                James Trimm

                >This book establishes a Semitic (Hebrew and Aramaic) rather than a Greek
                >origin for the New Testament. It takes the reader through an analysis of
                >the conditions in first century Judea and the Diaspora while following the
                >evolution of the N.T. and analyzes word plays, puns, alliterations and
                >misreadings in the Greek text that demonstrate a Hebrew /Aramaic original
                >for the New Testament. This book is thorough and packed with footnotes
                > establishing a new textual criticism for the N.T. - 77 pgs
                >
                >Although I am not able to comment on Mr. Trimm's book, I would like to take
                >a moment to address briefly a couple of his assertions. First of all, I
                >think it is far wiser to say that one may "theorize" (not "establish") a
                >Semitic origin of the New Testament. Unfortunately, such an assertion
                >falls prey to the same weakness that is inherent within claims for the
                >existence of Q, namely that there is absolutely no extant textual
                >attestation behind these elusive documents. Show us some manuscripts . . .
                >then we may begin speaking about establishment. If we say that we think we
                >can establish a Semitic origin for the "writers" of the N.T., then we have
                >a much sturdier foundation to make such a dogmatic statement.
                >
                >Secondly, how can we hope to "establish" a new textual criticism for the
                >N.T. based upon a complete dirth of Semitic New Testament manuscripts?
                > Perhaps I should not speak for the tc-list, but I think one would have a
                >difficult time convincing New Testament textual critics that we should give
                >up the pursuit of extant Greek manuscripts as the primary area of emphasis
                >in this field so that it can be exchanged for an emphasis fully devoid of
                >hard evidence . . . at least I hope that we would not consider such a swap!
                >However, if Mr. Trimm is able to accomplish all of this in a mere 77 pages,
                >then I would certainly need to read this thorough book for myself.
                >
                >Doug Petrovich
                >Novosibirsk, Russia
                >
                >
                >
                >---
                >You are currently subscribed to tc-list as: jstrimm@...
                >To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-tc-list-445P@...-certr.org



                ---
                You are currently subscribed to tc-list as: ListSaver-of-tc-list@...
                To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-tc-list-445P@...-certr.org
              • Jim West
                ... well i dont want ya to give away all your book s info- but what are the dates of these mss? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jim West, ThD
                Message 7 of 11 , Jan 5, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 12:30 PM 1/5/00 -0600, you wrote:

                  >Yep. And my book tells you exactly what their manuscript numbers are and where
                  >they are deposited. It also discusses internal evidence that the text of
                  >these manuscripts stands behind our Greek text.

                  well i dont want ya to give away all your book's info- but what are the
                  dates of these mss?

                  ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

                  Jim West, ThD
                  jwest@...
                  http://web.infoave.net/~jwest



                  ---
                  You are currently subscribed to tc-list as: ListSaver-of-tc-list@...
                  To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-tc-list-445P@...-certr.org
                • James Trimm
                  Some of them date back as far as the 4th century. I should add that age is really not a very important factor. Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls,
                  Message 8 of 11 , Jan 5, 2000
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Some of them date back as far as the 4th century.

                    I should add that age is really not a very important factor.

                    Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest Hebrew Tanak
                    manuscripts
                    only dated to the middle ages. At that time the oldest manuscripts of any
                    TANAK books by far were Greek LXX manuscripts dating to the 4th century.
                    Yet NO ONE would have argued based on that fact, that the TANAK had first
                    been written in Greek and was only later translated into Hebrew.

                    James Trimm

                    >At 12:30 PM 1/5/00 -0600, you wrote:
                    >
                    >>Yep. And my book tells you exactly what their manuscript numbers are and
                    >>where
                    >>they are deposited. It also discusses internal evidence that the text of
                    >>these manuscripts stands behind our Greek text.
                    >
                    >well i dont want ya to give away all your book's info- but what are the
                    >dates of these mss?
                    >
                    >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
                    >
                    >Jim West, ThD
                    >jwest@...
                    >http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >---
                    >You are currently subscribed to tc-list as: jstrimm@...
                    >To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-tc-list-445P@...-certr.org




                    ---
                    You are currently subscribed to tc-list as: ListSaver-of-tc-list@...
                    To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-tc-list-445P@...-certr.org
                  • Jim West
                    ... so nothing really to compare with the papyri as far as age is concerned. ... it is an exceedingly important factor. if you have a copy of the declaration
                    Message 9 of 11 , Jan 5, 2000
                    • 0 Attachment
                      At 05:13 PM 1/5/00 -0600, you wrote:
                      >Some of them date back as far as the 4th century.

                      so nothing really to compare with the papyri as far as age is concerned.

                      >
                      >I should add that age is really not a very important factor.

                      it is an exceedingly important factor. if you have a copy of the
                      declaration of independence that dates to the year 1788, and one that dates
                      to the year 1850, which one will be most important? which will have greater
                      intrinsic value?

                      >
                      >Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest Hebrew Tanak
                      >manuscripts
                      >only dated to the middle ages. At that time the oldest manuscripts of any
                      >TANAK books by far were Greek LXX manuscripts dating to the 4th century.
                      >Yet NO ONE would have argued based on that fact, that the TANAK had first
                      >been written in Greek and was only later translated into Hebrew.

                      in fact that has been argued. not succesfully to be sure, but it has been
                      argued.

                      best,

                      jim

                      ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

                      Jim West, ThD
                      jwest@...
                      http://web.infoave.net/~jwest



                      ---
                      You are currently subscribed to tc-list as: ListSaver-of-tc-list@...
                      To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-tc-list-445P@...-certr.org
                    • Dave Washburn
                      ... Agreed. I would go even further and suggest that Jesus also spoke Greek, since we have reports that He spoke to Romans, Syrophonecians and others would
                      Message 10 of 11 , Jan 5, 2000
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Jim WEst wrote:
                        > >
                        > >Secondly, how can we hope to "establish" a new textual criticism for the
                        > >N.T. based upon a complete dirth of Semitic New Testament manuscripts?
                        >
                        > this is precisely the heart of the problem. there are a few semitic words
                        > in the nt and there is little doubt, at least to me, that jesus spoke
                        > aramaic. but where is the ms evidence for the claim that the nt was written
                        > in some semitic dialect? does anyone know of a single manuscript of any nt
                        > text in aramaic?

                        Agreed. I would go even further and suggest that Jesus also spoke
                        Greek, since we have reports that He spoke to Romans,
                        Syrophonecians and others would likely would not have bothered to
                        learn Aramaic. And aside from the total lack of manuscript
                        evidence, I would also suggest that the Greek of the NT shows no
                        signs of being translation Greek. I second Jim's DOA conclusion.


                        Dave Washburn
                        http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
                        Teach me your way, O Lord, and I will walk in your truth;
                        give me an undivided heart that I may fear your name.
                        Psalm 86:11

                        ---
                        You are currently subscribed to tc-list as: ListSaver-of-tc-list@...
                        To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-tc-list-445P@...-certr.org
                      • Dave Washburn
                        ... I would also wonder about the linguistic flavor of these mss. If the 1850 copy of the Declaration is in French that shows clear signs of having been
                        Message 11 of 11 , Jan 5, 2000
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Jim West wrote:
                          > At 05:13 PM 1/5/00 -0600, you wrote:
                          > >Some of them date back as far as the 4th century.
                          >
                          > so nothing really to compare with the papyri as far as age is concerned.
                          >
                          > >
                          > >I should add that age is really not a very important factor.
                          >
                          > it is an exceedingly important factor. if you have a copy of the
                          > declaration of independence that dates to the year 1788, and one that dates
                          > to the year 1850, which one will be most important? which will have greater
                          > intrinsic value?

                          I would also wonder about the linguistic flavor of these mss. If the
                          1850 copy of the Declaration is in French that shows clear signs of
                          having been translated from 18th century English, that's a
                          significant factor as well.


                          Dave Washburn
                          http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
                          Teach me your way, O Lord, and I will walk in your truth;
                          give me an undivided heart that I may fear your name.
                          Psalm 86:11

                          ---
                          You are currently subscribed to tc-list as: ListSaver-of-tc-list@...
                          To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-tc-list-445P@...-certr.org
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.