From: Jack Kilmon (jkilmon@historian.net)
Date: Wed Apr 25 2001 - 12:57:49 EDT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Thompson" <keitht@kneptune.demon.co.uk>
To: "Biblical Greek" <b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 6:49 AM
Subject: [b-greek] Re: Original NT in Greek?
> >
> >In 1901 Charles Huleat bought 3 papyrus fragments from an antiquities
dealer
> >in Luxor, Egypt and donated them to Magdalen College at Oxford where they
> >remained
> >mostly unnoticed until C.H. Roberts published on them in 1953.
> >
> >C. H. Roberts, "An Early Papyrus of the First Gospel" Harvard Theological
> >Review 46,
> >(1953) 233-237.
> >
> >They were designated P64 and dated to the 2nd century CE. The three
> >fragments
> >contain (recto and verso) segments of Mt 26.
> >
> >Roberts also published on P67 (Barcelona), 2 fragments containing
segments
> >of
> >Mt 3 and 5 from the same scribe and codex. Another portion of this same
> >codex is P4 in
> >Paris, also obtained in Luxor.
> >
> >Carston Thiede and a sensationalist journalist, Matthew d'Ancona
published a
> >book
> >in 1996 titled "Eyewitness to Jesus" claiming that these papyrus
fragments
> >date to
> >the mid 1st century based on their speculative dating of the zierstil
> >biblical uncial
> >script. An online review can be found at:
> >
> >
> >http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/thiede.htm
> >
> >..and Bruce Metzger gives a scathing review in the August 1996 issue of
> >Bible Review.
> >
> >I consider the Thiede/d'Ancona "theory" to be "National Enquirer"
> >scholarship.
> I presume 'National Enquirer' is like the British 'Sunday Sport'
> newspaper. So what I found was actually true but not considered to be
> reliable? (Or is it?)
The National Enquirer is a tabloid that will run a story about Queen
Elizabeth
and Elvis (returned to earth by aliens) honeymooning secretly in the
Bahamas. These papyri are not first century and not the autograph.
> >
> >> Also someone mentioned there was 'Greek word play' which is not
> >> possible in Hebrew or Aramaic in Matthew 16 and John 21, what exactly
is
> >> this?
I will speak about Matthew 16 and the Rock imagery.
> >
> >Which verses? Mark 16 is unfinished or lost from 16:9 on and appended
> >with a non-Markan ending (several versions). John 21 is also an appendix
> >not part of the original.
> >
> >Jack
> >
> The specific verses and words weren't mentioned, that is what I was
> asking about (I think you've confused Matthew and Mark here). From what
> Randall Buth wrote it seems it's about the words 'love' and 'rock', but
> he also says this WOULD have been possible in Hebrew or Aramaic. Can
> someone clearly explain exactly what the word-play is and why it 'may'
> only be possible in Greek?
Yes, I had Mark on the brain from doing a study of the GoT and the Markan
parallels.
Matthew 16:18
KAGW DE SOI LEGW hOTI SU EI PETROS KAI EPI TAUTH TH PETRA
And I also to you say that you are PETER and on this
ROCK
hOIKODOMHSW MOU THN EKKLHSIAN
I will build my assembly
The Greek "word play" (something I am not so sure about) is between the
nickname
PETROS (stone) and the PETRA (ROCK).
In Aramaic, it would have been something like:
attah KEFA hu we'al KEFA den ebnyeh qehali
you are a ROCK and on this ROCK I will BUILD (from stone) my assembly
The word for "build" is from EBEN (build as in a mason) and its root is BANA
(stone).
This is, IMO, the intended word play. "You are a rock and on this rock I
will build an assembly out of ROCK"
This particular word play works in both Aramaic AND Hebrew (ebeneh eth
odathi) but
NOT in Greek. The putative GREEK word play is between PETROS and PETRA
but my opinion is this is an artifact of difficult translation from Semitic
to Greek with
the use of a masculine suffix.
The Semitic word play makes a lot more sense to me, particularly when I
think of
an Aramaic parallel in the Odes of Solomon (22:12):
"And the foundation of everything is thy ROCK and upon it thou hast built
thy kingdom......."
I am convinced..along with many scholars, that Jesus' native tongue was
Aramaic
but Aramaic or Hebrew, the Semitic construction makes more sense than the
Greek. This does not mean that Matthew was autographed in Aramaic or Hebrew
and the Greek is a translation. It merely means that the Greek of Yeshuine
sayings material
is translational from his original Semitic voice. Quite frankly, I do not
think the Matthean
scribe was competent in either Aramaic or Hebrew.
Jump in here anytime Randy <g>
Jack
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:36:55 EDT