From: Rolf Furuli (furuli@online.no)
Date: Tue Dec 23 1997 - 12:29:48 EST
Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
<As for Papias, his statement is fraught with difficulty in construing
<nearly every word that has survived for us: MATQAIOS MEN OUN hEBRAIDI
<DIALEKTWi TA LOGIA SUNETAXATO, hHRMHNEUSEN D AUTA hWS HN DUNATOS hEKASTOS.
<For example, the phrase hEBRAIDI DIALEKTWi is anarthrous, while every NT
<occurrence, clearly referring to language or dialect, uses the article:
<Ac1:19 2:6 8 21:40 22:2 26:14. This implies that the DIALEKTWi may
<signify "style" instead (Kuerzinger), or at best indicates a lack of first
<hand knowledge on the part of Papias ("in *a* Hebrew language").
<As for Luke, chapters 1 and 2 are widely viewed as imitating the style of
<LXX, which was translated out of Hebrew and Aramaic originals. In such a
<case, there is no need to postulate a Semitic original.
<Since the canonical texts of Matthew and John contain Greek word play, it
<is clear that the final composition of these texts are in Greek. As to the
<issue of Semitic source material, well, such suggestions have not carried
<the day due to a failure to meet the burden of proof. At best we have only
<a few tantalizing traces of possible translation variants or translation-
<induced mistakes. Since the Evangelists probably relied on oral tradition,
<it is impossible to localize the source of such translation variants at the
<the Evangelists themselves.
Dear Stephen,
I agree with your principal points above that it is not easy to show that
Matthew (or other books) were originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic,
although I find Howard`s arguments more convincing than does Peterson.
In any case is it however important to keep the Semitic background in mind.
Jesus is reported to have spoken with the Samaritan woman and with the Jews
in the language of the people, and both the heavenly voice and Paul is said
to have spoken Hebrew (Acts 22:2; 26:14). Most, or all of the NT writers
had a Semitic language as their mother tongue, so we must presume there has
been an extensive translation work occurring in the minds of those writing
the NT books. To ask for the Hebrew or Aramaic substratum or even the
original Hebrew/Aramaic clauses behind the Greek text is therefore not
dependant upon Matthew or others WRITING in Hebrew. In addition to Greek
word plays is Semittic constructions popping up througout the NT. It is
therefore good methodology, particularly when the Greek is ambiguous, to
ask for the Hebrew/Aramaic constructions behind the Greek text.
Regards
Rolf
Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo
furuli@online.no
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:40 EDT