Savitri
   Member: Member Feedback |
Jun-22-2000 at 03:38 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
Dear Paul, Per our emails I am synopsizing some of the main arguments I came across in Ian Wilson's "Jesus: The Evidence." I was originally skeptical about reading another theological treatise by another journalist, but Wilson's integrity, accuracy and impartiality have been refreshing. So here goes: Arguments for "M" and "L" sources of Matthew and Proto-Luke being Aramaic: 1. As you have discovered in your research, there are many instances of confusing translations in the Greek, unless the original Aramaic language is taken into account. For example, in Luke 11: 39-41 <"...You clean the outside of the cup and plate, while inside yourselves you are filled with extortion and wickedness. . .Instead 'give alms' from what you have and then everything will be clean for you">, the Aramaic 'zakkau,' give alms, is easily confused with 'dakkau,' to cleanse. The latter translation is supported by the parallel text in Matthew 23:26. These and other oddities support the conclusion that the writer of Luke in the "original" Greek was probably struggling with an earlier, Aramaic, written source. 2. In Matthew, the "Sermon on the Mount" passages, which are a bit dull in the Greek, are much more verselike and rhythmic in the Aramaic renditions. Surprisingly, John has the most Aramaic flavour of all the gospels. Previously deemed "helenistic" and "later" by most scholars, the Dead Sea texts have revealed that the language of John is strikingly similar to what was being written by members of the Dead Sea community who were contemporary to Jesus, and certainly no later than 70 CE. In addition, John's familiarity with details of events that were contemporaneous with Jesus, and places that were destroyed by the Romans prior to 70 CE, has led some scholars to date the narrative elements of John to approximately 40 CE, and to attribute the source material to eyewitness reporting. The conclusion drawn by Wilson is that original Aramaic texts were in all likelihood redacted and embellished into the texts we now know, but which still point strongly to the authenticity and middle-Eastern origins of the source material. A short quote-within-a-quote, by way of conclusion: ". . .It is as if a second generation has come along and adulterated genuine first-hand material. In the case of the Matthew gospel at least this idea is certainly supported by a cryptic remark by the early Bishop Papias (c. 60-130 AD): 'Matthew compiled the Sayings in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as well as he could.' The above is a scant overview of Wilson's chapter on the authenticity of the gospels, but I hope it adds to your arsenal for Aramaic priority. In Alaha, Savitri
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Alexander R Pruss
   Member: Member Feedback |
Aug-24-2000 at 02:24 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #0
I would think that it isn't that controversial that at SOME point in the transmission of our Lord's words, these words were transmitted in Aramaic. That would just stand to reason, given that they were originally uttered in Aramaic. There may be a few scholars who think Jesus spoke in Greek (I know some American fundamentalists like to claim this, because it is very important for them to have Jesus' words _literally_, but they are, I think, rather a small percentage of the scholarly world), but generally I thought it is accepted that He spoke in Aramaic. So, yes, at some point Aramaic was translated into Greek. This leads to the two questions relevant to this forum: 1. At which point? Was it after the penning of the complete Gospels as we have them (as some here claim), or at some point before it, and if so at which point? 2. Does the Peshitta preserve that original Aramaic? Looking at the sayings of Jesus, such as the one about washing the outside of the cup, won't help answer either question very much, I think, because we know that Jesus spoke in Aramaic and figuring out at which point in the composition these sayings were translated into Greek seems an impossible task. Looking at narrative (e.g., word order, but considered statistically and in comparison to other Semites writing in Koine) might be more helpful. If one wants evidence of a Semitic origin for Jesus' sayings, I know of none more convincing than the parable of the mote in the eye. At least in Hebrew translation (and I suspect the Aramaic will be just as good here, but I don't have an Aramaic dictionary with me right now), there is a delightful pun between `ayin meaning eye and `aying meaning spring (first Jesus talks of a mote in an `ayin and the listener thinks this is about eyes; next, obviously, logs fit in springs, but don't literally fit in eyes, so when the listener hears Jesus talking of a log in an `ayin, he may imagine a log in a spring of water and think by comparison of a mere mote in a neighbor's spring of water; but when Jesus says that one needs to take the log out to see, the listener realizes that just as at the beginning of the parable, Jesus IS talking about eyes, and the idea of a log being in the eye as opposed to a spring is a wonderful piece of hyperbole). While talking of evidence, I think the Aramaic equivalents of the "abba pater" passages give some evidence to think the Aramaic is a translation. The Peshitta renders it at one point 'b' 'bwn (if I remember rightly). Now, translating "pater" (literally , "father") as "'bwn" (literally, "our father") is pretty natural because use of relationship words without suffix pronouns is unnatural in Aramaic, so it would be quite natural for the Peshitta to add the suffix pronoun. Were a Greek translating 'b' 'bwn, he would be likely to say "abba pater hemOn", i.e., he would be likely to translate the -wn suffix. This is, however, all a question of probabilities, and isn't very strong evidence. Alex
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Paul
    Member: Jun-1-2000 Posts: 78 Member Feedback |
Aug-24-2000 at 04:14 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #1
Shlama Alex, Your example of the pun in Ain' and Ayin' is superb, and I am ashamed to say I had not even considered it. Thanks for sharing that. You said: ">So, yes, at some point Aramaic >was translated into Greek. >This leads to the two >questions relevant to this forum: > >1. At which point? Was >it after the penning of >the complete Gospels as we >have them (as some here >claim), or at some point >before it, and if so >at which point? >2. Does the Peshitta preserve that >original Aramaic? " I think those are excellent questions, and they are the very reason I'm providing this Interlinear Text.....as yet another tool to help investigate the matter with an open mind. ">Looking at the sayings of Jesus, >such as the one about >washing the outside of the >cup, won't help answer either >question very much, I think, >because we know that Jesus >spoke in Aramaic and figuring >out at which point in >the composition these sayings were >translated into Greek seems an >impossible task."
OK, but how do you, for instance, understand understand "Raqa" from a Greek NT if that is all you were using? How do you understand that whole story? ">Looking at >narrative (e.g., word order, but >considered statistically and in comparison >to other Semites writing in >Koine) might be more helpful. " I love this suggestion, I have to find Josephus in Greek!!!! ">If one wants evidence of a >Semitic origin for Jesus' sayings, >I know of none more >convincing than the parable of >the mote in the eye. > At least in Hebrew >translation (and I suspect the >Aramaic will be just as >good here, but I don't >have an Aramaic dictionary with >me right now), there is >a delightful pun between `ayin >meaning eye and `aying meaning >spring (first Jesus talks of >a mote in an `ayin >and the listener thinks this >is about eyes; next, >obviously, logs fit in springs, >but don't literally fit in >eyes, so when the listener >hears Jesus talking of a >log in an `ayin, he >may imagine a log in >a spring of water and >think by comparison of a >mere mote in a neighbor's >spring of water; but >when Jesus says that one >needs to take the log >out to see, the listener >realizes that just as at >the beginning of the parable, >Jesus IS talking about eyes, >and the idea of a >log being in the eye >as opposed to a spring >is a wonderful piece of >hyperbole)."
This is phenomenal! Yes, the Aramaic words there are the same as the Hebrew. ">While talking of evidence, I think >the Aramaic equivalents of the >"abba pater" passages give some >evidence to think the Aramaic >is a translation. The >Peshitta renders it at one >point 'b' 'bwn (if I >remember rightly). Now, translating >"pater" (literally , "father") as >"'bwn" (literally, "our father") is >pretty natural because use of >relationship words without suffix pronouns >is unnatural in Aramaic, so >it would be quite natural >for the Peshitta to add >the suffix pronoun."
The Aramaic sounds beautiful in the original context (This is coming from someone
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Alex Pruss
   Member: Member Feedback |
Aug-24-2000 at 06:21 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #2
Pax Christi tecum! (Let's vary the languages ecumenically ) 1. There is a Greek-English Josephus in the Loeb Classics series. 2. As for Raqa, I think scholars think its exact meaning is a little obscure in Aramaic, too. Could it perhaps be that it is a dirty word and the Greek translator of our Lord's words did not want to find a Greek equivalent--or didn't know one? Alex Alex
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
Paul Younan
    Member: Jun-1-2000 Posts: 1,306 Member Feedback |
Aug-24-2000 at 07:01 PM (UTC+3 Nineveh, Assyria) |
In reply to message #3
Shlama Alex, Thanks for your reply. "Raqa" in Aramaic means "to spit", which was the ultimate form of an insult to a Semite....to spit in his face. It is used even today, and is in no way a vulgarity....just an insult. I wanted to bring this exampe up, because unless the Western world looks at it from Aramaic glasses, it will have no clue as to what Eshoa meant. Check out the translation here of Matti 5:22. The Western world *has* to come to grips with this story.....I can't tell you how many different interpretations I've seen on this, and how many incorrect sermons (all contradicting each other) I've heard. You will notice, when referencing the original Aramaic, that what Maran Eshoo is speaking of is actually the "escalation" of a fight.....and the (directly) related consequence of each of these 3 steps of starting the fight: (1) Anyone who provokes his brother without cause to anger is = condemned to judgement. (2) Then the person says "I spit on you" = they are condemned to the judgement of the assembly. (3) Then the person says "You are a coward" = they are condemned to the judgement of fire You cannot understand this from the Greek texts, dear brother, because they did not even bother to translate the word "Raqa". Any Aramaic-speaking person would be able to tell immediately what the word means, and what Maran Eshoa was trying to say. If Matti was originally penned in Greek, how could this be so? Wouldn't Matti know what "Raqa" means, since he spoke Aramaic? Does God inspire people to write in Greek, quote and Aramaic saying from Eshoa, then not translate it into Greek? This is only one example. Check out the post titled "An error in the Interlinear" on this forum. Shlama w'Burkate, Paul
>Pax Christi tecum! (Let's vary >the languages ecumenically ) > > >1. There is a Greek-English Josephus >in the Loeb Classics series. > > >2. As for Raqa, I think >scholars think its exact meaning >is a little obscure in >Aramaic, too. Could it >perhaps be that it is >a dirty word and the >Greek translator of our Lord's >words did not want to >find a Greek equivalent--or didn't >know one? > >Alex > >Alex
| |
|
Print Top | | |
|
|