[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #790
b-greek-digest Thursday, 20 July 1995 Volume 01 : Number 790
In this issue:
re: Re: Languages of Jesus
Date of Wavesheaf/Resurrection
Re: Re: Textual Criticism
Re: Languages of Jesus
Re: Languages of Jesus
Long Post on Ceremonial and Practical Days
Re: PARADOUNAI TW SATANA
Re: Textual Criticism
G.B.Caird, Lang. & Imagery of Bible
lang. of Jesus
re: Re: Languages of Jesus
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 95 13:22:54 PDT
Subject: re: Re: Languages of Jesus
I just want to make one comment on whether Jesus originally spoke
in Hebrew/Aramaic/etc. It seems to me that multiple scholars have come
up with alternative rendering of the hypothetical original for something
in the canonical Gospels. If there are multiple possibilities proposed,
that might suggest that such an effort, to go backwards, may not be
very helpful in showing anything except the facility of the scholar
in Hebrew/Aramaic/etc. Indeed, anyone who has tried literal translation
of Greek into English I think soon realizes that exact correspondece
is not readily possible, and I have doubts about the ability to go
from Greek back to Hebrew or Aramaic just as much as I would doubt the
ability to go from the NASB (a fairly literal translation, as English
translations go) back to the Greek. Comments?
Ken Litwak
Emeryville, CA
------------------------------
From: Greg Doudna <gdoudna@ednet1.osl.or.gov>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 13:32:24 -0700
Subject: Date of Wavesheaf/Resurrection
As noted in Lori's post, there was an early Christian
tradition that Jesus was raised from the dead on the day of
the Wavesheaf or Firstfruits. That this was basic in early
Christian belief can hardly be disputed (cp. I Cor 15:20).
The gospels portray Jesus's Last Supper/arrest/crucifixion
as associated with the Passover (Nisan 14), and the resurrection
on the Sunday immediately following, that is, Nisan 16 (John)
or Nisan 17 (synoptics).
Naturally, because I can't avoid rearranging conventional
assumptions, and because of the high calibre of bright minds
on this list who can offer cross-examination, I would like to
set out some thinking I have done on this topic. This is
original, so far as I know, and at minimum should be interesting
(if working out the chronology of the Passion week is of
interest)!
Setting aside for the moment the problems associated with
having a Last Supper, arrest and trial, and a crucifixion ALL
happen on the same day, let us turn instead to the date of the
Wavesheaf/Resurrection. There are a number of indications to
me that appear to point to a Nisan 22 date for the Sunday
Wavesheaf of Jesus's resurrection (according to the tradition),
that is, *a week later* than conventionally assumed. These
indications include:
(1) While the Pharisee Wavesheaf was on Nisan 16, and the
Sadducee (and Samaritan) method of counting was from the
first Sunday within the Passover week, there was a third
possibility: in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the distinctive calendar
found therein has the Wavesheaf on the first Sunday *following*
the Days of Unleavened Bread.
(2) Indications that this post-Passover week Wavesheaf played
a role in Christian tradition may be seen in several heretofore
unrecognized motifs. (a) The miraculous deliverance of Simon
Peter of Acts 12 bears typological similarities to the
resurrection of Jesus. Note that Peter was held in prison
throughout the Passover week, and the intent was to have Peter
executed at the _end_ of the Passover week (12:4), but instead
Peter miraculously escaped. (b) The incident of the
resuscitation, or resurrection (whichever it was) of Eutychus
of Acts 20:7-12, which occurred on a Sunday and may have
been intended (to the author) to bear typological resonance
with the Wavesheaf resurrection of Jesus, occurred a few days
after the end of the Passover week (20:5-6). (c) There is a
theory that the "Lord's Day" of Rev 1:10 may have originally
meant the annual day of Jesus's resurrection. In any case,
Rev 1:9-15, in which John receives the heavenly visit on "the
Lord's Day", shows remarkable and perhaps derivative
similarities to Daniel 10:4-6. Both occasions are dated. What
in Revelation occurs on "the Lord's Day" is dated in Dan 10:4
to Nisan 24 (apparently).
(3) Luke 24:13-16 has people leaving Jerusalem on the Sunday
of Jesus's resurrection. This is more reasonable as a picture
of people leaving Jerusalem after the end of the feast, rather
than in the midst of the Passover week. In the Gospel of
Peter this is made explicit. The discovery by the women of
the empty tomb of Jesus is described, then, "Now it was the
last day of unleavened bread and many went away and repaired
to their homes, since the feast was at an end" (GospPet 59).
What is to be done with this? Go back to the practical,
logistic difficulties in having a Last Supper, arrest and
trial(s), and crucifixion all happen on the same day.
Instead, I would suggest considering that while the Last
Supper and arrest could indeed have happened at the
beginning of Passover, that Jesus (like Peter) was held
and questioned for a period of several days throughout
the feast. The crucifixion would be on a Friday Nisan 20
and the Sunday of the Resurrection would be a Sunday
Nisan 22. Bruce Terry's last post adequately explained
John 19:14's "paraskeuh tou pasca" as simply meaning
"the Friday of the Passover week".
All of this analysis presupposes that the Gospels do
remember chronological details which can be checked against
history. The only real alteration is the suggestion that
the gospels have truncated the time between arrest and
crucifixion artificially in order to have Jesus's death
also fit the Passover Lamb typology. If this redating of
the Passion week is possibly correct, what implications
does this have for the arguments from astronomy for dating
the year of Jesus's crucifixion? This was my original
interest in this matter. I don't have the astronomical
data at hand, but a Sunday Nisan 22 occurred in the year
36, and in no other year in Pilate's term. I have
previously noted an historical arguments (not original
with me) for a 36 crucifixion year date. The fundamental
objection to such a dating has always been the objection
from astronomy. However, with the case I outline above,
I would argue that the astronomical argument provides
possible (possible!--so many variables!--I know)
corroboration or support for a 36 date. I hope this has
been interesting and my apologies to my poor friends
getting the digest, paying by the minute, and uninterested
in ancient calendars!
Greg Doudna
West Linn, Oregon
- --
------------------------------
From: Mark O'Brien <Mark_O'Brien@dts.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 95 16:09:02 CST
Subject: Re: Re: Textual Criticism
Original message sent on Wed, Jul 19 11:49 AM by nichael@sover.net (Nichael
Lynn Cramer) :
> At 10:56 AM 19/07/95, Mark O'Brien wrote:
>> FYI, Dr. Hodges is retired and no longer at DTS. A number of very
>> lucid and logical refutations have been addressed against Hodges and
>> others on the pro-TR team by DTS's Dan Wallace, probably the latest
>> being in the feschscift for Bruce Metzger which was published
>> recently.
> The tiniest of nits: Dr Wallace's article actually addresses the
> problems with the "Majority" Text, not the TR; while
> not _quite_ the same thing, there is a great deal of overlap and
> many of Dr Wallace's points hold in both cases.
Ahhh... good point. Wallace has written a number of articles and papers
which do specifically address the TR issue, and in fact one of these
deals with the very question of whether MT is necessarily to be equated
with TR. Thanks for the clarification.
Mark.
------------------------------
From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 16:47:11 -0500
Subject: Re: Languages of Jesus
At 12:35 PM 7/19/95, David Moore wrote:
> I seem to remember having read somewhere that the couplet at Mat.
>11:17 shows signs of having been composed originally in Koine. Not
>being well versed {:) in matters of meter, etc. in Greek, I would be
>interested to know what Carl Conrad or others who have studied poetry
>and meter in the classics might have to say about the verse.
By ordinary rules of Greek scansion the couplet comes out thus:
_ _ u u _ _ u _ _ _ u u
HU-LH-SA-MEN hU-MIN KAI OUK WR-XH-SA-SQE
u _ _ u u u _ u _ u u
E-QRH-NH-SA-MEN KAI OUK E-KOC-A-SQE
I don't recognize any distinct metrical pattern here,nor do I either, if
the variant with hUMIN added after E-QRH-NH-SA-MEN. Certainly it can be
said that we have homoioteleuton in the active (-HSAMEN) and middle -ASQE)
verb endings, but I would expect to see such homoioteleuta in translated
Hebrew/Aramaic parallel lines as well. I should add that I'm no expert in
lyric meters such as can get extremely complicated in the choral odes of
Greek tragedy, but this will not fit into any of the normal stichic
patterns such as the iambic trimeter of Tragedy and Comedy or the dactylic
hexameter of epic or elegiac couplet of epigrams, nor yet any of the common
lines most commonly found in lyric stanzas. Personally, being, as I have on
occasion hitherto noted, from Missouri, I'd have to be SHOWN that this is
distinctly Greek in metrical configuration.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 16:35:05 CST
Subject: Re: Languages of Jesus
On Wed, 19 Jul 95, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
> I just want to make one comment on whether Jesus originally spoke
>in Hebrew/Aramaic/etc. It seems to me that multiple scholars have come
>up with alternative rendering of the hypothetical original for something
>in the canonical Gospels. If there are multiple possibilities proposed,
>that might suggest that such an effort, to go backwards, may not be
>very helpful in showing anything except the facility of the scholar
>in Hebrew/Aramaic/etc. Indeed, anyone who has tried literal translation
>of Greek into English I think soon realizes that exact correspondece
>is not readily possible, and I have doubts about the ability to go
>from Greek back to Hebrew or Aramaic just as much as I would doubt the
>ability to go from the NASB (a fairly literal translation, as English
>translations go) back to the Greek. Comments?
Your point seems well taken.
I believe that no one has yet mentioned A.T. Robertson's discussion of the
question in his big grammar on pp. 26-29. It seems fairly certain that Jesus'
discussion with Pilate was in Greek.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Bruce Terry <terry@bible.acu.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 17:43:15 CST
Subject: Long Post on Ceremonial and Practical Days
In view of several recent posts, I have decided to post the relevant
paragraphs from the article on my FTP site about ceremonial and practical
days. This is fairly long, so delete it if such stuff does not interest you.
********************************************************************************
Bruce Terry E-MAIL: terry@bible.acu.edu
Box 8426, ACU Station Phone: 915/674-3759
Abilene, Texas 79699 Fax: 915/674-3769
********************************************************************************
For the purpose of this article, we will refer to the day which begins in the
evening at sundown and goes until the next evening as the "ceremonial day,"
since the Sabbath was reckoned in this way (Luke 23:54). We will refer to the
midnight to midnight day as the "legal day." And there is found in scripture
a third way of reckoning the day, from in the morning when the person wakes up
until the next morning. This we will call the "practical day," since it is
the way most of us actually reckon time. In the Old Testament we find the
ceremonial day and the practical day side by side. The ceremonial day is the
oldest of the two, being found as early as Genesis 1:5 where the evening
preceeds the morning. The practical day, on the other hand, is seldom
mentioned. It is found in Lev. 7:15 and 22:30, where it is said that certain
sacrifices must be eaten on the same day that they are offered--that nothing
should be left until the morning.
But more important for our purposes is the fact that dates are figured using
the practical day, not the ceremonial day. In other words, the evening of the
14th day of a month follows the daylight hours of the 14th rather than
preceeding them. Thus there were two systems of reckoning going on at the
same time--a new ceremonial day started each day at sundown, but it was still
considered the same day of the month. This is seen in the references to the
passover week which occurred during the first month of the year. This week
may be diagrammed as in the following chart:
_________________________________________________________
| | | | | | | | |
|_ 14 _|_ 15 _|_ 16 _|_ 17 _|_ 18 _|_ 19 _|_ 20 _|_ 21 _|
|\| |\|\| |\|\| |\|\| |\|\| |\|\| |\|\| |\|\| |\|
|\|__|\|\|__|\|\|__|\|\|__|\|\|__|\|\|__|\|\|__|\|\|__|\|
^1stday^
^Feast of Unleavened Bread.......................^
^P^ (Passover)
Passover was on the 14th day in the evening (Lev. 23:5) while the Feast of
Unleavened Bread covered the seven day period from the evening of the 14th to
the evening of the 21st (Ex. 12:18, 19). Numbers 33:3 records that the
Israelites left Egypt on the 15th--the day after the original passover. For
this reason the 15th was considered the first day (i.e., daytime) of the Feast
of Unleavened Bread (Lev. 23:6; Num. 28:17). In using the ceremonial day,
Deut. 16:4 says that the evening of the first day of the feast preceeds the
morning of the day. Now note that although the Passover evening is part of
the first ceremonial day, it is the evening of the 14th, not the 15th (the
first day). Dates use the practical day, not the ceremonial day.
This is seen in the New Testament also in John 20:19, where it is said that
Jesus appeared to the disciples "on the evening of that day, the first day of
the week." Thus in reckoning the date, the evening follows the morning.
Copyright (c) 1995 by Bruce Terry. Permission to quote not for profit given.
------------------------------
From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 21:52:50 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: PARADOUNAI TW SATANA
On Tue, 18 Jul 1995, Mark O'Brien wrote:
> As I was following this thread over 1Co 5, I had Ro 1:24 ff. come
> to mind, and I was wondering whether any of you see a connection
> here with the imagery?
Yes - that was a passage I had in mind, too. Again it presents evildoers
as prisoners who had been "handed over" - but this time by God, not humans,
and to their own evil, not Satan. There may have been a connection -
Satan encouraging evil in a person until the person becomes disgusted with
themselves & repents. The image is of the sins as officers of God's
court, like Satan, and the sinners are prisoners whom God has already
found guilty (of course). But the final punishment is not until Judgment
Day, after which God's stockpiled "wrath" is unleashed on the sinner -
*unless* the sinner had repented in the meanwhile. Again, the
opportunity for repentance is highlighted (Romans 2:4) as the purpose of
the "handing over," the kind of extended stay in prison on death row.
Greg Jordan
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
------------------------------
From: Rod Decker <rdecker@accunet.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 21:05:08 -0500
Subject: Re: Textual Criticism
I ran across an excellent summary tonight of the need and purpose of
textual criticism as I read George Ladd's _The NT and Criticism_ (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967). It also addresses the concern that is often
present among those who have not studied the issue. I thought it would be
worth citing.
"Textual criticism does not imply that the scholar is sitting in judgment
on the Word of God or is criticizing it; he is merely using critical and
scientific skills to establish what the text is. This exercise of criticism
is absolutely indispensable, for it is quite clear that although God
inspired the authors of the Bible to produce a divinely superintended
record, he has committed the reproduction and the preservation of the text
to the vagaries of human history; and the establishment of a trustworthy
text is the labor of a scientific scholarship. This is not to suggest that
God's providential hand does not rest upon all of human history; but it
does insist that the Holy Spirit was active in the production of the
biblical documents in a way different from their preservation and recovery.
It also means that in the search for a good text, piety and devotion can
never take the place of knowledge and scholarly judgment. One does not
solve a problem of divergent textual readings by prayer or by the inner
illumination of the Holy Spirit, but only by an extensive knowledge and
skill in the science of textual criticism.
...
"The role of biblical criticism is not to criticize the Word of God
but to understand it." (pp. 80-81)
Rod
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rodney J. Decker Calvary Theological Seminary
Asst. Prof./NT 15800 Calvary Rd.
Kansas City, Missouri 64147
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
From: Rod Decker <rdecker@accunet.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 21:20:03 -0500
Subject: G.B.Caird, Lang. & Imagery of Bible
I am trying to locate copies of Caird's hermeneutics text, Lang. & Imagery
of Bible, for textbook use this fall. It was pub. by Westminster in 1980
but is now out of print. I have rumors that it may still be available in
England from ?Duckworth? Does anyone know of the availability of this book
or have contact info. for Duckworth? An American distributor would be
great, but a London contact would be OK. If anyone has a new or used
copy/copies that you would sell, please drop me email off-list.
Thanks,
Rod
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rodney J. Decker Calvary Theological Seminary
Asst. Prof./NT 15800 Calvary Rd.
Kansas City, Missouri 64147
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
From: Pete Cepuch <pcepuch@diag1.iac.honeywell.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 95 20:20:24 MST
Subject: lang. of Jesus
Eric Weiss discussed Dr's Lindsay,Flusser,Blizzard, David Biven -left out
Brad Young -of the Jerusalem School of the Synoptic Gospels and the work
they have been doing for many years on the Hebrew roots of the synoptic gospels. I, also, have read much of their material and think they make a much better
case for Hebrew being the language of Jesus than Aramaic. having said that,
I'm not trying to claim that Jesus did not speak Aramaic or Greek, but there
seems to be a good case to made for Hebrew.
Dr. Lindsey, being a "lettered" Greek scholar had the opportunity to pastor
a church in Jerusalem for many years and thus wanted to give his people
a good modern Hebrew translation of the koine. So he started with Mark and
noticed that there was some "bad greek" in some places that translated
nicely back into Hebrew as well as other Hebraisms that seemed to be
"dressed" in Greek. Of course the use of the word Amen is interesting as
it is a Hebrew word, not Greek and whenever the punctuation was added to
Greek text's it was always had Jesus starting His sentences with Amen.
However, Amen was always used as a response in Hebrew for yeah,I agree,truly,
or that goes for me too. If you read the text with that in mind you notice
that Jesus is alway's responding to what was said before and then He
elaborates...Anyway, there is much there in their works like Brad Young's
book on Jesus' use of parables in relation to "rabbinics" that illustrates
the "Jewish Jesus" nicely. I think that we goyim would do well to see the
"Jesus Material" in that light i.e. on totally Jewish/Hebraic grounds and
hence our traditionally bad theology would improve-probably wishful thinking:)-
Anyway, I mentioned this about ayear ago on this list and for some reason
the "scholarly" opinion is that Aramaic was more in use. It's strange, but
nation's cultural identity is connected strongly to language. Just ask Poles
who were prohibited from learning,writng or speaking Polish during the
partitions what effect that has on cultural continuity....Aramaic was the
lingua franca of the world during the babylonian era. Greek also in a later
period as English is today around the world. As modern Israel is a multi-lingua l nation today, it is Hebrew that is the official language, even though
many arrive speaking different languages, if you're gonna live in Israel
you're probably going to have to learn Hebrew to get by...Hebrew is a
cultural connection for Jewish folks, that goes way way back. I find it
hard to believe that the 70 year exile in Babylon caused the exiles as well
as the people who stayed in the land to forsake Hebrew. One last question
before I waste anymore band-width with this post* How can anyone be sure
what was the language of Jesus? He is recorded useing both Aramaic and
Hebrew in a Greek text. I guess we decide on whatever we want to believe:)
Best to all,
Peter Cepuch
ULM(Unlettered Moron :) )
------------------------------
From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" <jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 00:22:17 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: re: Re: Languages of Jesus
On Wed, 19 Jul 1995, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
> of Greek into English I think soon realizes that exact correspondece
> is not readily possible, and I have doubts about the ability to go
> from Greek back to Hebrew or Aramaic just as much as I would doubt the
> ability to go from the NASB (a fairly literal translation, as English
> translations go) back to the Greek. Comments?
I would just like to agree that it seems rather dubious from a linguistic
standpoint to try to "back-translate" word for word.
I would also like to reemphasize to some here that Aramaic, Hebrew, and
Greek were all spoken languages of Jews at the time of Jesus. Hebrew
might have had the most prestige, but I'm not even aware of so much as a
reference to it in the New Testament. The 'echoes' of Hebrew in the
Greek NT would probably be very hard to distinguish from those that could be
explained as Aramaic. As far as I know, all explicit Semiticisms in the
NT are Aramaic. Greek, though, was not less Jewish, so to speak, a
language - the LXX was considered inspired in its Greek.
PS: I see no one's suggested Jesus spoke Latin...
Hmmm!
Greg Jordan
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #790
*****************************
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
To unsubscribe from this list write
majordomo@virginia.edu
with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content. For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content
"help".
For further information, you can write the owner of the list at
owner-b-greek@virginia.edu
You can send mail to the entire list via the address:
b-greek@virginia.edu