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
    • 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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.