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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.