5691Re: [textualcriticism] New Posting of Chicago Manuscripts at CSNTM
- Apr 3, 2010Larry said...((((((((((((((((((Hebrew. Nor is it a far stretch to posit it as Aramaic, and so far as I know, the ancient authors don't differentiate these languages yet...perhaps by the time of Jerome, but not earlier. Nor is it a far stretch to posit it as "in Jewish dialect." Hence, the problem. Nor can be automatically assumed that each author uses the term in the same way, so for Jerome it may be Hebrew, but for Papias, Aramaic etc.
))))))))))))))))))There may have been some ancient authors who didn't know enough about hte difference between Hebrew and Aramaic to tell them apart when they see it. But I think it's safe to say that Jerome would have known the difference.Larry said....(((((((((((((Sure, except that Jerome when referring to the Nazarenes and Ebionites doesn't mention Rome in connection with them, but rather modern Aleppo and the East....and so far as I recall (always open to correction) none of his contemporaries mention these groups being in Rome either. They could have been there in the fourth century, but unless there's some evidence we're missing, there doesn't seem to be much support for maintaining that Jerome encountered them there.
)))))))))))))There's almost always SOME small representation of almost any belief system nearly everywhere in the world. However, the Nazarenes in the East or Israeli area would have been of greater linguistic value since their knowledge of Hebrew would have likely been better due to more use of it in Israel or ease of learning it as a second language in Aramaic speaking parts of the world.
(((((((((In Evangelio quae utuntur Nazareni et Ebionitae quod nuper in Graecam de Hebraeo sermone transtulimus et quod vocatur a plerisque Matthaei authenticum.....
I. E. he does say he translated it into GREEK. ....He also doesn't say that the translation made it into Latin.))))))))))))In chapter 2 of LIVES OF ILLUSTRIOUS MEN", Jerome said he translated it into BOTH Greek and Latin. In order to use it for comparative purposes, I would think it would be difficult unless one wrote out each version side-by-side similar to the Hexapla or something. Of course, in order for him to have translated it from Hebrew into Greek and Latin, he would have had to have had his own personal copy of it. Your theory about translating for comparing might explain why no copy has survived. But to me, I'd rather compare the Hebrew directly with what I'm comparing it to. But maybe he did see some point in it.(((((((((((((((
Why does it matter? Hmm, interesting question: but rather than offer a defense of why it matters to try and get as accurate a picture of the historical situation as possible, I must ask why, being on a list such as this, you would think it didn't matter.
))))))))))))))I didn't say it COULDN'T matter, I was just interested in hearing what issue you saw it relevant towards. There's no real solid evidence that he either did or did not perform those errands personally. I see nothing he said that would draw a conclusion one way or another. But I'm just wondering , since you've raised the issue, if there's a conclusion you've drawn for which that issue has some input towards.Joe
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>