Re: [textualcriticism] New Posting of Chicago Manuscripts at CSNTM
- 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:
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,
>>> There may have been some ancient authors who didn't know enoughMaybe, and he may in some contexts simply be reporting tradition.
>>> 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.<<
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.
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 anybelief 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
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 hetranslated 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.
>> 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
Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com