Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
On the Incoherence of Aramaic Primacy I
#1
On the Incoherence of Aramaic Primacy I

Aramaic Primacy, formerly known as ???translation Greek theory,??? appears convincing. Its basic assumptions are simple: (a) the earliest Christians used Aramaic to advance the Christian movement in and outside Judea (b) composing books in Aramaic were common in Judaism and Christianity © every word in the Greek Gospels, written in koine Greek, is a translation of the Aramaic originals. The scope of this essay is limited to assumption ©. Aramaic primacy???s general methodology used to prove its case includes (1) locating a piece of composition within the Greek NT that ???looks Semitic??? and/or corresponds to Semitic syntax, deeming it evidence of translation (2) locating an alleged Aramaicism in the Greek Gospels that seems corrupted, deeming it as evidence of mistranslation. I will show that (1) is an inadequate method to discern translation Greek.

The Greek Gospels were composed in koine or ???common??? Greek. Koine Greek was a derivative of the Attic dialect that spread in 400 BCE, as a consequence of Alexander the Great???s conquests, throughout the urban centers in Egypt, Syria, and Asia Minor. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, we find that since this dialect was employed far from its Mediterranean base, naturally, ???it absorbed numerous non-Attic elements and underwent some degree of grammatical simplification.??? As we expect two neighboring peoples to intermingle at some point, the same principle follows with linguistic expression. For example, because of the Islamic conquests, the Arabic language spread throughout the entire Near East. Inevitably, the native languages spoken outside of the Arabian Peninsula would impose several elements onto Arabic. To illustrate, before the Islamic conquests, Aramaic was the principal language in Mesopotamia. If we examine the Syrian-Arabic dialect, we will find that it possesses the voiceless realization of /q/, the elision of short /u/ and /i/ and the shift from interdentals to dentals, as found in Aramaic. That being said, there is no surprise that koine Greek, from its association with Hebrew and Aramaic, underwent certain changes in its syntax and vocabulary due to influence from the Semitic mind-frame. Yet somehow, this principle is continually overlooked by A.P. proponents. We can sum up their position in the form of a deductive argument:

(1) Literary Greek, in terms of syntax, is entirely different from Aramaic
(2) The Greek Gospels, written in literary Greek, have many Aramaicisms
(3) Therefore, the Greek Gospels are translations of Aramaic originals

This argument commits the non-sequitur fallacy in that the conclusion is not necessarily drawn from the premises; for instance, the premises do not rule out the possibility that the gospel-writers chose to write in classical Greek but think in Aramaic. But as we know, A.P. proponents make a basic error in confusing classical, literary Greek for the vernacular (koine) Greek. We know that the Greek Gospels were written in koine Greek, which is, as aforementioned, different from the classical tongue. In regards to the relationship between the vernacular Greek and Aramaic, Camden M. Cobern notes:

Every Greek scholar from the days of Erasmus had known that the New Testament language differed in a marked degree from the classical Greek in its word-formation and in accidence, as well as in vocabulary. The strange ascendancy of the accusative, the blending of conjugations, the multiplication of suffixes and prepositions, had clashed decisively with classical usage. Many of these new forms had been explained either as errors of copyists and "Semitisms " due to the fact that the New Testament writers were Hebrews, or as divinely inspired variations from pagan forms; but the discovery of the papyrus documents proved that such an explanation could no longer be counted sufficient. The same double negatives and the same loose connections between subject and predicate which had been so confidently laid to the door of careless scribes were now found to be the ordinary language of the peasantry in the Apostolic age. The supposed Hebraic idioms were found, almost all of them, to be used freely in the papyri by non- Jews-men who were worshiping heathen gods and displaying the most heathenish characteristics.

In Modern Methods of New Testament Philology, Samuel Angus notes:

???the philologist Albert Thumb has now depicted for us the origin and nature of this type of Greek and its true place in the history of the Greek language. He confirmed Deissmann's position and went further, by bringing to bear both on the Koine and on New Testament Greek a wide knowledge of modern popular Greek, by the aid of which, among other things, he strengthened the case against Hebraisms. With these scholars should be named James Hope Moulton, patris laborum heres, now professor of Hellenistic Greek in Victoria University, Manchester. He supplemented Deissmann's discoveries from collections of inscriptions and papyri previously unused, and has now in the field of New Testament grammar demonstrated that the accidence and syntax of the New Testament are substantially those of the vernacular Koine. His work is the more valuable because, following Thumb's example, he has availed himself of the evidence to be drawn from modern Greek.

With the above testimonies in mind, let us analyze the claim that the structure of Mark 3:7-8 (KJV) betrays literary Greek in favor of Semitic influence, thereby proving Aramaic origin. In this passage, we find a gratuitous use of ???and??? between clauses. While this may have been rare in classical Greek, it is normal in vernacular Greek:

A fourth Semitic characteristic is the extreme frequency of clausal paratasis, the tendency to string clauses together with 'and', avoiding subordination. In the non-literary [koine] Greek of the papyri this is quite common, and some writers (Wellhausen, Deissrnan, Moulton) have felt that the parataxis of the Gospels is merely that of [koine] rusticity

Besides the use of clausal paratasis, in many cases, vernacular Greek in the papyri also employed svo word-order, periphrastic formations of the perfect, the use of prolepsis, casus pedens and hyperbaton, change of construction after a participle, historical present, especially with verbs of saying, redundant adverbial use of the relative with a cognate verb, demonstrative pronoun in apposition with a noun, redundant personal pronoun, frequency of the first and second personal pronouns without emphasis, redundant pronoun referring to a preceding relative, intensive repetition, the use of asyndeton, an imperative followed by future, and transition from the infinitive of indirect to direct speech.

Based on the given information, we know now that vernacular Greek and Aramaic, in terms of syntax, are very likely to overlap. Therefore, using the occurrence of "semitic" syntax as a method to detect translation Greek is inadequate. Before determining whether the Greek gospels are translations of Aramaic originals, by means of finding "semitic" syntax, it would be wise to first consult the papyri for the same turns of speech in non-literary Greek; if no parallels can be found therein, then the argument based on syntax becomes more reasonable. Furthermore, given the vernacular Greek's accommodation to the Semitic mentality, the possibility that an Aramaic-speaking evangelist would spread the Christian message in proper, common Greek while thinking in Aramaic is viable.

Bibliography

Riddle, Donald. "The Logic of the Theory of Translation Greek." Journal of Biblical Literature 51.1 (1932): 14.
"Greek language." Encyclop??dia Britannica. 2010. Encyclop??dia Britannica Online. 21 Mar. 2010 <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/244595/Greek-language>.
Versteegh, Kees. The Arabic Language. Edinburgh University Press, 2001. 105. Print.
Cobern, Camden. "Some Results of Recent Archaeological Studies Bearing upon the New Testament and the Primitive Church." Biblical World 51.5 (1918): 261-262. 21 Mar 2010.
Angus, Samuel. "Modern Methods in New Testament Philology." Harvard Theological Review 2.4 (1909): n. pag. 22 Mar 2010.
Grant, Leonard. "Hebrew, Aramaic, and the Greek of the Gospels." Greece & Rome 20.60 (1951): 116. 22 Mar 2010.
Rife, J. Merle. "The Mechanics of Translation Greek." Journal of Biblical Literature 52.4 (1933): 251. Web. 22 Mar 2010.
McKay, K.L. "On the Perfect and Other Aspects in New Testament Greek ." Novum Testamentum 23. (1981): 291-292. 22 Mar 2010.
Van Belle, Gilbert. "Prolepsis in the Gospel of John." Novum Testamentum 43. (2001): 341-342. Web. 22 Mar 2010.
Burrows, Millar. "The Original Language of the Gospel of John." Journal of Biblical Literature 49.2 (1930): 95-139. Web. 22 Mar 2010.
Cadbury, Henry J. "Lexical Notes on Luke-Acts. IV. On Direct Quotation, with Some Uses of ??????? and ????? ." Journal of Biblical Literature 48.3/4 (1929): 25 Mar 2010.
Reply
#2
Quote:On the Incoherence of Aramaic Primacy I

Aramaic Primacy, formerly known as "translation Greek theory," appears convincing. Its basic assumptions are simple:
(a) the earliest Christians used Aramaic to advance the Christian movement in and outside Judea
(b) composing books in Aramaic were common in Judaism and Christianity
© every word in the Greek Gospels, written in koine Greek, is a translation of the Aramaic originals.

The scope of this essay is limited to assumption ©. Aramaic Primacy's general methodology used to prove its case includes:
(1) locating a piece of composition within the Greek NT that "looks Semitic" and/or corresponds to Semitic syntax, deeming it evidence of translation
(2) locating an alleged Aramaicism in the Greek Gospels that seems corrupted, deeming it as evidence of mistranslation.

I will show that (1) is an inadequate method to discern translation Greek.

The Greek Gospels were composed in koine or "common" Greek. Koine Greek was a derivative of the Attic dialect that spread in 400 BCE, as a consequence of Alexander the Great's conquests, throughout the urban centers in Egypt, Syria, and Asia Minor. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, we find that since this dialect was employed far from its Mediterranean base, naturally, "it absorbed numerous non-Attic elements and underwent some degree of grammatical simplification." As we expect two neighboring peoples to intermingle at some point, the same principle follows with linguistic expression. For example, because of the Islamic conquests, the Arabic language spread throughout the entire Near East. Inevitably, the native languages spoken outside of the Arabian Peninsula would impose several elements onto Arabic. To illustrate, before the Islamic conquests, Aramaic was the principal language in Mesopotamia. If we examine the Syrian-Arabic dialect, we will find that it possesses the voiceless realization of /q/, the elision of short /u/ and /i/ and the shift from interdentals to dentals, as found in Aramaic. That being said, there is no surprise that koine Greek, from its association with Hebrew and Aramaic, underwent certain changes in its syntax and vocabulary due to influence from the Semitic mind-frame. Yet somehow, this principle is continually overlooked by A.P. proponents. We can sum up their position in the form of a deductive argument:

(1) Literary Greek, in terms of syntax, is entirely different from Aramaic
(2) The Greek Gospels, written in literary Greek, have many Aramaicisms
(3) Therefore, the Greek Gospels are translations of Aramaic originals

This argument commits the non-sequitur fallacy in that the conclusion is not necessarily drawn from the premises; for instance, the premises do not rule out the possibility that the gospel-writers chose to write in classical Greek but think in Aramaic. But as we know, A.P. proponents make a basic error in confusing classical, literary Greek for the vernacular (koine) Greek. We know that the Greek Gospels were written in koine Greek, which is, as aforementioned, different from the classical tongue. In regards to the relationship between the vernacular Greek and Aramaic, Camden M. Cobern notes:

Every Greek scholar from the days of Erasmus had known that the New Testament language differed in a marked degree from the classical Greek in its word-formation and in accidence, as well as in vocabulary. The strange ascendancy of the accusative, the blending of conjugations, the multiplication of suffixes and prepositions, had clashed decisively with classical usage. Many of these new forms had been explained either as errors of copyists and "Semitisms " due to the fact that the New Testament writers were Hebrews, or as divinely inspired variations from pagan forms; but the discovery of the papyrus documents proved that such an explanation could no longer be counted sufficient. The same double negatives and the same loose connections between subject and predicate which had been so confidently laid to the door of careless scribes were now found to be the ordinary language of the peasantry in the Apostolic age. The supposed Hebraic idioms were found, almost all of them, to be used freely in the papyri by non- Jews-men who were worshiping heathen gods and displaying the most heathenish characteristics.

In Modern Methods of New Testament Philology, Samuel Angus notes:

...the philologist Albert Thumb has now depicted for us the origin and nature of this type of Greek and its true place in the history of the Greek language. He confirmed Deissmann's position and went further, by bringing to bear both on the Koine and on New Testament Greek a wide knowledge of modern popular Greek, by the aid of which, among other things, he strengthened the case against Hebraisms. With these scholars should be named James Hope Moulton, patris laborum heres, now professor of Hellenistic Greek in Victoria University, Manchester. He supplemented Deissmann's discoveries from collections of inscriptions and papyri previously unused, and has now in the field of New Testament grammar demonstrated that the accidence and syntax of the New Testament are substantially those of the vernacular Koine. His work is the more valuable because, following Thumb's example, he has availed himself of the evidence to be drawn from modern Greek.

With the above testimonies in mind, let us analyze the claim that the structure of Mark 3:7-8 (KJV) betrays literary Greek in favor of Semitic influence, thereby proving Aramaic origin. In this passage, we find a gratuitous use of "and" between clauses. While this may have been rare in classical Greek, it is normal in vernacular Greek:

A fourth Semitic characteristic is the extreme frequency of clausal paratasis, the tendency to string clauses together with 'and', avoiding subordination. In the non-literary [koine] Greek of the papyri this is quite common, and some writers (Wellhausen, Deissrnan, Moulton) have felt that the parataxis of the Gospels is merely that of [koine] rusticity

Besides the use of clausal paratasis, in many cases, vernacular Greek in the papyri also employed svo word-order, periphrastic formations of the perfect, the use of prolepsis, casus pedens and hyperbaton, change of construction after a participle, historical present, especially with verbs of saying, redundant adverbial use of the relative with a cognate verb, demonstrative pronoun in apposition with a noun, redundant personal pronoun, frequency of the first and second personal pronouns without emphasis, redundant pronoun referring to a preceding relative, intensive repetition, the use of asyndeton, an imperative followed by future, and transition from the infinitive of indirect to direct speech.

Based on the given information, we know now that vernacular Greek and Aramaic, in terms of syntax, are very likely to overlap. Therefore, using the occurrence of "semitic" syntax as a method to detect translation Greek is inadequate. Before determining whether the Greek gospels are translations of Aramaic originals, by means of finding "semitic" syntax, it would be wise to first consult the papyri for the same turns of speech in non-literary Greek; if no parallels can be found therein, then the argument based on syntax becomes more reasonable. Furthermore, given the vernacular Greek's accommodation to the Semitic mentality, the possibility that an Aramaic-speaking evangelist would spread the Christian message in proper, common Greek while thinking in Aramaic is viable.

Bibliography

Riddle, Donald. "The Logic of the Theory of Translation Greek." Journal of Biblical Literature 51.1 (1932): 14.
"Greek language." Encyclop?dia Britannica. 2010. Encyclop?dia Britannica Online. 21 Mar. 2010 <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/244595/Greek-language>.
Versteegh, Kees. The Arabic Language. Edinburgh University Press, 2001. 105. Print.
Cobern, Camden. "Some Results of Recent Archaeological Studies Bearing upon the New Testament and the Primitive Church." Biblical World 51.5 (1918): 261-262. 21 Mar 2010.
Angus, Samuel. "Modern Methods in New Testament Philology." Harvard Theological Review 2.4 (1909): n. pag. 22 Mar 2010.
Grant, Leonard. "Hebrew, Aramaic, and the Greek of the Gospels." Greece & Rome 20.60 (1951): 116. 22 Mar 2010.
Rife, J. Merle. "The Mechanics of Translation Greek." Journal of Biblical Literature 52.4 (1933): 251. Web. 22 Mar 2010.
McKay, K.L. "On the Perfect and Other Aspects in New Testament Greek ." Novum Testamentum 23. (1981): 291-292. 22 Mar 2010.
Van Belle, Gilbert. "Prolepsis in the Gospel of John." Novum Testamentum 43. (2001): 341-342. Web. 22 Mar 2010.
Burrows, Millar. "The Original Language of the Gospel of John." Journal of Biblical Literature 49.2 (1930): 95-139. Web. 22 Mar 2010.
Cadbury, Henry J. "Lexical Notes on Luke-Acts. IV. On Direct Quotation, with Some Uses of ??????? and ????? ." Journal of Biblical Literature 48.3/4 (1929): 25 Mar 2010.

Dependent upon the veracity of your sources, it could seem that finding supposed Semitic patterns in the Greek would be of dubious value alone in proving a text to be translated from a Semitic source, if the same things are found to be significantly present in Greek texts demonstrably not so translated.

Great point if correct, and if not, at the very least these arguments could help proponents of Aramaic Primacy (myself included) refine their own arguments and their criteria for good evidence.

Thanks for contributing. As I personally did not regard "Semitic style in the GNT" to be the greatest evidence for Aramaic Primacy, I do not think you have at all damaged the theory. Upon further reading I may however be able to conclude whether you have helped improve the quality of the discussion.

Peace and blessings to you!
-Raymond
===
dowidh Wrote:People want the apostles to be like them and often they re-imagine them to be more like themselves than what they really are. Like some ... picture white Jesus without a beard, speaking English singing praise and worship music at Church...
Reply
#3
In two cases, I even found Greek verses that started with 'it happened that...' which is not a good classical greek start <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> but a semitic one.

Going to the Aramaic, there even was no 'it happened that.' unfortunately, I cannot find this reference back so easily. It was in Matthew.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)