From: Jack Kilmon (jkilmon@historian.net)
Date: Sun Apr 19 1998 - 01:15:06 EDT
Steven Cox wrote:
>
> Jack, cc Carl, Jim, Paul, George (hope I've not missed anyone)
>
> A very interesting reconstruction which I have saved to my hard drive.
>
> I am surprised that there is only one word for Love in Aramaic, I had
> always assumed that it must be like Hebrew with 2 or more options
> (eg. Song 1:2 and 1:3)
>
> I think I have seen you make reference to the Peshitta in the past
> (apologies if I am confused) can you comment whether there is a
> diligis?/amas? shift as per Vulgate or whether rxm is used in both
> places.
rxm is used in both places. I also think it significant
that John 21 is the only use of diligis in the entire NT of the
Vulgate. Jerome was a competent Semitist and yet saw fit to
follow the Yohanine redactor's use of AGAPAJ/DILIGIS; FILEIS/AMO; -AS.
Since there was an agenda behind this, I believe the shift had
a purpose, this not being vorlage original to the HJ.
I think that the ch 21 appendage to John was an attempt
to neutralize the anti-petrine polemic of the autograph. Ch 21
just may have been the ending of the pro-petrine Mark. I think
that a very early Aramaic "proto-John/Signs" narrative was not
very friendly to Peter. Mark just may have been a response
to this narrative...yep, I am saying Mark was not first! This
Aramaic "proto-John" is still imbedded in translational Greek
within the larger compositional Greek 4G. I have been working
on restoring it.
Jack
--
Dâman dith laych idneh dânishMA nishMA
Jack Kilmon (jkilmon@historian.net)
http://www.historian.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:25 EDT