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

Re: [textualcriticism] New Posting of Chicago Manuscripts at CSNTM

Expand Messages
  • Jovial
    Larry 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
    Message 1 of 16 , Apr 3, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Larry 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
       
       
       
       
       
    • Jovial
      Yes, there are places where Jerome quotes directly from GH. He states in comparing the Greek to the Hebrew of Matthew 6:11 that in GH, it says machar ,
      Message 2 of 16 , Apr 3, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        
        Yes, there are places where Jerome quotes directly from GH.   He states in comparing the Greek to the Hebrew of Matthew 6:11 that in GH, it says "machar", which is Hebrew for tomorrow, but is not Aramaic.  He transliterates the word into Latin letters.  So obviously, his copy of GH had Matthew 6:11 in Hebrew, not in Aramaic.  He does the same in his commenting on Matt 21:9, saying this...
         
           "Finally Matthew, who wrote the Gospel in the Hebrew language,
           put it the following way, "Osianna barrama," which means
           "Hosanna in the highest." (Letter 20.5)
         
        "Hoshianu" has been transliterated into Greek but "barama" hasn't.  Those are just two places I can think of from the top of my head.  There's also places where he quotes from it in ways that don't preserve the original words from the text, but rather translates instead, but he does quote from it directly.
         
        Even without quoting exactly from it, there's also other places where Jerome makes arguments for a Hebrew origin to Matthew in which he obviously does NOT mean "Aramaic" or simply some Jewish version.  Another point that Jerome uses to try and prove that Matthew was written in Hebrew is he cites mention of the word "nazwraioV" in Matt 2:23 in chapter 3 of Lives of Illustrious Men.  Of course "נצר" is Hebrew for "branch", but it is not Aramaic, so his logic only works for Hebrew, but does not work for Aramaic or for that matter, any other language.  Jerome is alluding to the fact that the writer is appealing to one's understanding of Isa 11:1, where the word "נצר" is used.
         
        My personal theory is that the "Gospel According to the Hebrews" may have had both Hebrew and Aramaic parts, or it may have had a Hebrew Mattew and other Aramaic writings.  For example, the "Prayer of James" may have been part of the canon referred to by the term "Gospel According to the Hebrews".  The "Prayer of James"  is cited as a work accepted by Nazarenes.   There may have been other works included in what was called "GH" we don't know about.  At least some of these may have been in Aramaic.  Take a good look at how Jerome words what he says in Lives...chapter 2 and I wonder if the "Prayer of James" wasn't published along with GH as part of the same work.  In fact I wonder if the "Acts of the Apostles" was part of GH , or GH was part of "Acts of the Apostles" or what.  I wish we had a copy of it.
         
         
         
        Joe
         
         
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 3:11 PM
        Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] New Posting of Chicago Manuscripts at CSNTM

         

        "Although Eusebius does mention GH by name, it is a moot point whether he actually saw the gospel. [6]"
         
        6. He never directly quotes from it, but see the Syriac theophania 4, 12 (GCS 11, 183: cited by K-R, 148, and James, op. cit. p. 2). The HE III 39, 16 references may only ne from Papias.  There is a mention in Klostermann' s edition of the theophania (not in Gressmann's GCS edition) of a "gospel in Hebrew letters which has come to us" to eis hmas hkon (James, 3; H-S GN 18; PG 24, 685f), Jerome indicates that GH was to be found in the Caesarea library (de vir. ill. 3) where Eusebius would certainly have seen it.  Some have argued, however, that has Eusebius been in possession of such a treasure he would have said so.
         
        Pritz, R. A. Nazarene Jewish Christianity. Ch 6 "The Gospel According to the Hebrews" p. 84.
         
         
        Jack
         
        Jack Kilmon

        Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 2:18 PM
        Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] New Posting of Chicago Manuscripts at CSNTM

        Here's another quotation from Pritz

         

        Among ancient writers the only Church Father specifically to connect the Nazarene sect to GH is Jerome. This he does in eight places: de vir. ill. 3; in Matt. 12:13; 23:35; in Is. 40:9–11 (= in Ez. 16:13); prol. 65; in Ez. 18:5–9; and adv. Pelag. III 2. One other passage, in Is. 11:2, mentions a "gospel written in Hebrew which the Nazarenes read"; this we will take to be the same work. The passage in Matt. 12:13 is one of the three which support Epiphanius in calling this gospel by Matthew’s name (also the de vir. ill. and adv. Pelag. passages). In another respect this passage is unique when it says that both Nazarenes and Ebionites use this gospel. Although it is most likely that Jerome is simply making a generalization based on Epiphanius, if there is any factual basis to what he says, it can only support our hypothesis that both sects made use of gospels which were commonly thought to be the same work and which were in fact of the same family.

         

        I seem to recall that Pritz stated somewhere that there were some quotations from the GH in Eusebius though I may be wrong.


         
        george
        gfsomsel


        … search for truth, hear truth,
        learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
        defend the truth till death.


        - Jan Hus
        _________



        From: Larry Swain <theswain@operamail. com>
        To: textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com
        Sent: Fri, April 2, 2010 11:19:28 AM
        Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] New Posting of Chicago Manuscripts at CSNTM

         

        George wrote, quoting Pritz:

        >>While Jerome makes no explicit claim to have known the Nazarene sect personally, he does, however, make two other claims which have frequently been called into question: he copied the Gospel according to the Hebrews (GH), "which is read by the Nazarenes," and he translated it into both Greek and Latin. The parameters of this complicated problem and the limitations of any possible solutions have been well laid down by Vielhauer.19 His general conclusions were, first, that Jerome was thinking of only one work when he spoke of GH and its various other designations; that this gospel was to be found in Caesarea and was probably the same as the one used by the Nazarenes; and lastly, that Jerome never translated all the gospel. To Vielhauer’s article we would add some observations and suggestions.

        Pritz, Ray A. Nazarene Jewish Christianity : From the End of the New Testament Period Until Its Disappearance in the Fourth Century, p 51.  Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1992.<<

        Thanks George. I appreciate the additional quotation. Minor quibble: I do wonder where the idea that Jerome translated the Gospel of the Hebrews into Latin came from. In response to Jovial's email I did take a look at all the places I could find in Jerome's works where he mentions the GH, and I found the one that Jovial referred us to in the commentary on Matthew chap. 12:13, which says that he translated into Greek. Does Pritz give any additional insight? Anyone else know?

        Larry Swain
        Independent Scholar

        --
        ____________ _________ _________ _________ ________
        Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
        Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera. com

        Powered by Outblaze


      • Larry Swain
        Forgive the long delay in response. Real life has intervened, but I thought this an interesting and important enough topic not to just let go and die: Larry
        Message 3 of 16 , May 30, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Forgive the long delay in response. Real life has intervened, but I thought this an interesting and important enough topic not to just let go and die:



          Larry 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.
          ))))))))))))))))))

          Jovial said: 
          >>> 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.<<

          Maybe, and he may in some contexts simply be reporting tradition.
          More importantly, the message of yours to which I was responding
          claimed that we could assume that IOUDAIKW indicated Hebrew, even
          in mss. We simply can not make that assumption, but have to assess
          each case as it is encountered.
           
          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.
          )))))))))))))

          Joe replies:
          >> There's almost always SOME small representation of almost any
          belief system nearly everywhere in the world.<<

          Sure, but that's like assuming that every citizen of the US knows
          something and has contact with Shinto priests.

          (((((((((
          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.
          ))))))))))))
           
          Joe continues:
          >> In chapter 2 of LIVES OF ILLUSTRIOUS MEN", Jerome said he
          translated it into BOTH Greek and Latin.<


          Yes, but of course that is the reference that began this discussion
          and is problematic. So now we've come full circle.

          Joe continues:
          >>   In order to use it for comparaetive purposes, I would think it would be difficult unless ne 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.<<
           
          How do you know he didn't? Origen, an influence on Jerome, for
          example created the Hexapla. And he needn't have a personal
          copy....but simply go to the library at Caesarea...which he seems
          to have done. As for your last point, do remember that where
          Hebrew names and words typically appear in fourth and fifth century
          Greek and Latin Christian writers, the Hebrew appears in
          transliteration at best, and usually Graecized or Latinized. Even
          the Hexapla had the Hebrew in Greek letters to compare to the LXX
          etc. I suggest that Jerome probably had a similar working method,
          if we assume that Hebrew Matthew was really in Hebrew: a copy of
          the Hebrew, a transliteration, his translation, comparison to Greek
          Matthew.

          Larry Swain

          --
          _______________________________________________
          Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
          Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.