Claims to Greek from "From Jesus to Christ" - Printable Version +- Peshitta Forum (http://peshitta.org/for) +-- Forum: New Testament (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=3) +--- Forum: Aramaic Primacy Forum (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=8) +--- Thread: Claims to Greek from "From Jesus to Christ" (/showthread.php?tid=760) |
Claims to Greek from "From Jesus to Christ" - hkoehli - 03-03-2004 Hello, all. I just watched the PBS documentary "From Jesus to Christ," and, as is to be expected, the scholars present a Greek primacy stand. I'm not familiar with most of the arguments for Aramaic or Greek primacy, so if anyone could give some opposing viewpoints, that would be great. Firstly they say that Mark was obviously teaching in Greek, as he had to explain the Aramaic in his gospel (eg. Mark 5:41, "talitha cumi, which is to say..."). Were these explanations added in the Greek? Secondly, they mention passages in Matthew and Luke that are identical in Greek, supporting the theory they were copied from the Q gospel of Jesus' sayings in Greek. Lastly they mention that Matthew obviously has better Greek grammar than Mark. Any comments are appreciated. Thanks, Harrison Re: Claims to Greek from "From Jesus to Christ" - judge - 03-03-2004 hkoehli Wrote:Hello, all. I just watched the PBS documentary "From Jesus to Christ," and, as is to be expected, the scholars present a Greek primacy stand. I'm not familiar with most of the arguments for Aramaic or Greek primacy, so if anyone could give some opposing viewpoints, that would be great. Firstly they say that Mark was obviously teaching in Greek, as he had to explain the Aramaic in his gospel (eg. Mark 5:41, "talitha cumi, which is to say..."). Were these explanations added in the Greek? Secondly, they mention passages in Matthew and Luke that are identical in Greek, supporting the theory they were copied from the Q gospel of Jesus' sayings in Greek. Lastly they mention that Matthew obviously has better Greek grammar than Mark. Any comments are appreciated. Thanks, In the aramaic of mark 5:41 there is no explanation given. The words "talithi cumi" do not need to be explained as the whole thing is in Aramaic. <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/Marqsch5.pdf">http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/Marqsch5.pdf</a><!-- m --> For some reason the greek translators left some words of Jesus in the original language. This occurs at other times in the greek translations as well. That being said there are three occaisions where the aramaic does also contain an explanation. 1. Jesus calls two of His disciples "sons of thunder". This is even explained in the aramaic because the word for thunder could also mean rage. So even the aramaic explains that Jesus meant sons of thunder not sons of rage. 2. The field of blood in the early part of the book of Acts. The name of this field "akeldama" is explained in the peshitta as meaning "field of blood" because this word is a local nickname for the field and this word may not have been understood by a foreigner even though they may have been an aramaic speaker. 3.Jesus being Gallilean spoke a Gallilean dialect of Aramaic. In Mark chapt 15:34 Mark recprds Jesus words in this Gallilean dialect and translates them into the Judean dialect of Aramaic. Matthew merely records these words in the judean dialect. <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/Marqsch15.pdf">http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/Marqsch15.pdf</a><!-- m --> However on several other occaisions, as with the exa,mple you gave, the greek translations include words from Aramaic and explain their meaning whilst the peshitta merely gives the entire thing in Aramaic. Hope this helps - gbausc - 03-03-2004 Harrison, Welcome to the forum ! Here is a link to an article I wrote a while ago on Peshitta Primacy: http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=457 There is much more on the forum. Paul Younan has lots of great stuff that will be helpful. More later . [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Nxrwb[/font] Blessings, Dave B - Rob - 04-11-2004 Shlama hkoehli, I've had a few arguments with some Zorbanaic Scholars over Aramaic primacy in the past few weeks, specifically with Conservative Evangelicals. They gave me quotes from scholars who engaged in speculative reasoning which said that the Aramaic words were "thrown into" the Greek text as some sort of inspirational translation. I find it extremely unlikely since some instances do not have any specific cultural reference what so ever. Such is the case with "raca"; which is a word we do not even know for certain what it means. It is obviously important, since Jesus said whoever says it is answerable to the sanhedrin. He would not have said a word that no Jew understood. It was the Greek translator that did not understand. Re: Claims to Greek from "From Jesus to Christ" - abudar2000 - 04-11-2004 shlomo, hkoehli Wrote:Hello, all. I just watched the PBS documentary "From Jesus to Christ," and, as is to be expected, the scholars present a Greek primacy stand. I'm not familiar with most of the arguments for Aramaic or Greek primacy, so if anyone could give some opposing viewpoints, that would be great. Firstly they say that Mark was obviously teaching in Greek, as he had to explain the Aramaic in his gospel (eg. Mark 5:41, "talitha cumi, which is to say..."). Were these explanations added in the Greek? Secondly, they mention passages in Matthew and Luke that are identical in Greek, supporting the theory they were copied from the Q gospel of Jesus' sayings in Greek. Lastly they mention that Matthew obviously has better Greek grammar than Mark. Any comments are appreciated. Thanks, In regards to Matthew, there's a problem with what they said. It's a scholarly consensus that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic. Saint Papias in the year 130AD said that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic, and that the various Greek translation have errors. poosh bashlomo, keefa-moroon - Dave - 04-12-2004 I wouldn't agree about Matthew being an aramaic source, nor am I sure about this so-called scholarly concensus. If I remember, the old church fathers and other sources cited matthew being a Hebrew source. - abudar2000 - 04-12-2004 Shlomo, Dave Wrote:I wouldn't agree about Matthew being an aramaic source, nor am I sure about this so-called scholarly concensus. If I remember, the old church fathers and other sources cited matthew being a Hebrew source. Here's a quote from the Catholic Navarre Bible St Matthew Texts and commentaries: "Written testimonies going back as early as the beginning of the second century assure us that St Matthew was first to write down the Gospel of Jesus Christ "in the language of the Hebrews". Are you denying St Papias who in the year 130AD claimed an Aramaic St Matthew origin? The Catholic Church as well as others have claimed an Aramaic origin to the Matthew Gospel. poosh bashlomo, keefa-moroon - Dave - 04-12-2004 Quote:Origen Language of the Hebrews could be Hebrew or Aramaic as your aware they are sister languages. Here we have Origen stating plainly Hebrew (as some special texts for religious usage were written in, and it would not be beyond Matthew the tax collector and learned person to utilize) Papias was not the only person to write for future generations to come. I think there are a few others who stated the same "Hebrew" language usage by Matthew, if one wants to do some digging on the internet. EDIT: This is not a crusade here for me, I just remember a few quotes from church fathers when I was double checking things on Trimms usage of his Hebrew texts. For me, I see the usage of the semetic form as the priority and the Greek as something to compare to the semetic. If I have the semetic form in Hebrew and The Lord witnesses it to me as faithful, am I to say "no Lord your lying to me?" Uhhhh, no. - Dave - 04-12-2004 Here, found a site that had quite a few quotes: Quote:Hebrew of Matthew - Paul Younan - 04-12-2004 Shlama Akhi Dave, Dave Wrote:Language of the Hebrews could be Hebrew or Aramaic as your aware they are sister languages. You make a good point in that it could be either Hebrew or Aramaic. Let me explain why I feel that it was Aramaic that was meant by Papias. Firstly, The Greek words used by Papias are MATQAIOS MEN OUN hEBRAIDI DIALEKTWi TA LOGIA SUNETAXATO, hHRMHNEUSEN D AUTA hWS HN DUNATOS hEKASTOS The word highlighted in red, DIALEKTWi, means "dialect" and not "language." Obviously, as it would be redundant to have a "Hebrew dialect" of the Hebrew language, the only thing that can be meant is a "Hebrew Dialect" of Aramaic....in other words, the dialect of Aramaic that was common to the Judeans, as opposed to the myriad of other dialects in the area. Secondly, who would have been Matthew's intended audience? That the common Jewish folk no longer spoke Hebrew, but Aramaic, after their return from Babylon is well documented hundreds of years before Meshikha ( Neh. 8:8 ). Who would benefit from, or be able to understand, a Hebrew Gospel? Finally, if Matthew really composed his Gospel in Hebrew and not Aramaic, then his Gospel is merely a translation of the Aramaic words of Meshikha, and not a first-hand account of the actual words Meshikha spoke - not much better than the Greek translations. - Dave - 04-12-2004 very interesting points Paul!!! That would make me lean towards the Aramaic more. I posted many of the quotes I found at one site. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a diehard "it has to be Hebrew!" fan here. I did find some interesting variants within what Trimm was working on but not to the point that anyone could say that his texts he was working on were original. His critical text is an interesting comparison tool only. At least he is attempting to bring out some texts that still remain untranslated, for whatever reason he has behind it, not that I am a part of that camp. I'm not truley sold on any pariticulars here Paul, which could put me in a rather abstract position, but I'm looking for the conviction within as I read, and there was some interesting things The Lord showed me in many different texts, the Greek included (although the greek mainly witnesses to the background it was translated from). I don't have the knowledge of different languages as you Paul, but The Lord aims to utilize me in this manner, so I let Him open it up to me. Takes a lot of patience on my part but I don't find Him in any hurry. Believe me, I have to be careful when I step out in front of folks such as yourself Paul with my convictions. Very easy for me to insert my foot in my mouth. - Paul Younan - 04-12-2004 Hey, don't worry about saying anything in front of me. I was explaining mostly for the benefit of others who have asked the same question in the past, or will in the future. In fact, I added this to the "F.A.Q." because there is a lot of misinformation out there on this topic. I'd be a staunch Hebrew primacist, if Meshikha had delivered this message in that most blessed of tongues. I have nothing against it at all. But I do have a problem with an Apostle writing a Gospel in any other language than the one Meshihka spoke. If that were the case, we would have to come to terms with the fact that the account we have in our hands is only a record, at best once removed, from the original teaching. And that's too much for me to accept, be it Greek or Hebrew. - Dave - 04-12-2004 Quote:If that were the case, we would have to come to terms with the fact that the account we have in our hands is only a record, at best once removed, from the original teaching. In many respects Paul, what we have is a record/account. I tend to think that Matthew and Mark compliment themselves. Mark seemed to cover areas that Matthew didn't or just glossed over and vice versa, they go together it seems. Luke, from what I can tell, was not an eyewitness to The Lords works so he collected what he could from the Apostles and the people who still were living at the time, and collated it together. At least what I gather from his words. John is the most removed in relation to the other gospels and is not considered one of the synoptics by some. I asked The Almighty if this was a true eyewitness one time, for Him to show me somehow that it was. Wouldn't you know it, I caught myself utilizing certain sentences and having certain events that related to the very things John had put in writing. I was like "Ok Lord, I get the hint." Didn't mean to get off track there. Was just an interesting quote that conjured up ideas. - Dave - 04-12-2004 Quote:and that he composed it in the Hebrew tongue and published it for the converts from Judaism I got to thinking of your example and your reasoning Paul. Here I show the original quote from Origen, who was from around the same time frame as Papias. Here he is clearly saying Hebrew tongue, not dialect. What sayest thou ??? Beyond any of our reasoning here,...foremost and first, none of us was there at the time and it is a crapshoot for us to figure out. Was any of these written in Hebrew? Was any of them written in Greek? Was everything written in Aramaic, or was all of them written in Greek? Really, we have no idea because we were not there at the time. If we go off the church fathers who did write something down, were they being biased or were they telling the truth? Was they relating opinion or fact? Again, we really don't know. We can try to reason it with what proof we are able gather and give an educated guess, but to make a "for certain" statement, I don't think any of us can. - Paul Younan - 04-12-2004 Shlama Akhi Dave, Dave Wrote:What sayest thou ??? I sayeth, ask modern Assyrians what language they speak and 9 out of 10 will tell you "the Assyrian language." Linguists, of course, will laugh at that answer. There is no such thing as the "Assyrian language" - ancient Assyrians spoke Akkadian and modern Assyrians speak neo-Aramaic. People will tend to identify the language they speak with their particular ethnicity. That Aramaic was called the "Hebrew tongue" by Hebrews, or by those descibing what the Hebrews at the time spoke, should be expected. If you ask some people in the middle east what language Americans speak - they will look at you funny and say "the American language, of course!" Well, as silly as it seems on the surface - you DO speak the American language. It is different from the language spoken in England. Only technically-minded linguists would insist to call it the "American dialect" of English. (or, "Australian dialect", "Canadian dialect", etc.) If people spoke Hebrew at the time, Akhi, there would have been no need for the numerous Aramaic Targums of scripture. There would have been no need to pen the Talmuds (both of them, the Babylonian and the Jerusalem) in Aramaic - they would have written these things in Hebrew. Even their script changed when they came back from Babylon, Akhi. They no longer wrote in Paleo-Hebrew, but in the Aramaic script we all recognize today. Again, I ask: who would Matthew have intended as his audience for a Hebrew Gospel? A few dozen priests, maybe, who still understood it? You've heard that modern Hebrew was resurrected sometime last century after the return of the Jews to the land of Israel. I ask you: when did Hebrew die out, finally? There was a point in which it did - otherwise, they wouldn't have needed to "resurrect" it! <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s --> |