aramaic influence Jim West jwest at Highland.Net
Fri May 14 16:38:04 EDT 1999
syntax and semantics [Fwd: An Important Message for Members of AAR and SBL] one example, i think, of aramaic influence on the greek text seems to residein luke 13:2, 4. here the “sinners” are then called “debtors”- a confusionresolved when one realizes that the underlying aramaic most likely wouldhave been <aram> chayiv </aram>; a word meaning “indebted” (to God). thegreek translator rendered it “sinner” in v. 2 but “debtor” in v. 4.the significance of understanding something of the aramaic world of Jesus ininterpreting gospel texts seems reaffirmed.Best,Jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDemail- jwest at highland.netweb page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
syntax and semantics[Fwd: An Important Message for Members of AAR and SBL]
aramaic influence Jim West jwest at Highland.Net
Fri May 14 16:38:04 EDT 1999
syntax and semantics [Fwd: An Important Message for Members of AAR and SBL] one example, i think, of aramaic influence on the greek text seems to residein luke 13:2, 4. here the “sinners” are then called “debtors”- a confusionresolved when one realizes that the underlying aramaic most likely wouldhave been <aram> chayiv </aram>; a word meaning “indebted” (to God). thegreek translator rendered it “sinner” in v. 2 but “debtor” in v. 4.the significance of understanding something of the aramaic world of Jesus ininterpreting gospel texts seems reaffirmed.Best,Jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDemail- jwest at highland.netweb page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
syntax and semantics[Fwd: An Important Message for Members of AAR and SBL]
Luke’s Semitic Style James P. Ware jw44 at evansville.edu
Mon May 17 09:41:02 EDT 1999
Dative Participle Luke 8:27 Luke’s Semitic Style After so many years of study there still seems to be no consensus on theorigin of the heavily Semiticized style which is especiallyprominent in certain sections of Luke-Acts. It would seem that theexplanation would have to lie in either (or, perhaps, both) 1) Luke’sconscious imitation of LXX Biblical style, or 2) an Aramaic and/or Hebrewsource(s). Is the question insoluble? Does any one on the list have anyinsights into this question?Jim Ware
Dative Participle Luke 8:27Luke’s Semitic Style
Luke’s Semitic Style James P. Ware jw44 at evansville.edu
Mon May 17 09:41:02 EDT 1999
Dative Participle Luke 8:27 Luke’s Semitic Style After so many years of study there still seems to be no consensus on theorigin of the heavily Semiticized style which is especiallyprominent in certain sections of Luke-Acts. It would seem that theexplanation would have to lie in either (or, perhaps, both) 1) Luke’sconscious imitation of LXX Biblical style, or 2) an Aramaic and/or Hebrewsource(s). Is the question insoluble? Does any one on the list have anyinsights into this question?Jim Ware
Dative Participle Luke 8:27Luke’s Semitic Style
Luke’s Semitic Style Jim West jwest at highland.net
Mon May 17 10:06:45 EDT 1999
Luke’s Semitic Style Luke’s Semitic Style At 08:41 AM 5/17/99 -0500, you wrote:> >After so many years of study there still seems to be no consensus on the>origin of the heavily Semiticized style which is especially>prominent in certain sections of Luke-Acts. It would seem that the>explanation would have to lie in either (or, perhaps, both) 1) Luke’s>conscious imitation of LXX Biblical style,Chapters 1-2 of Luke seem to be especially LXX-like in their style. Theonly way we can say whether this is because Luke imitates the LXX or becauseLuke is himself a semite. The second option would seem most peculiar,really, given the fact that Luke is portrayed as the only Gentile writer ofthe NT documents.I have always believed that Luke intentionally imitated the LXX as a meansof linking the “promise” of the OT with the “fulfillment” of the Christevent. It is, after all, when Jesus is born that the heavily septuagintizedchapters leave off.The rest of Luke seems a bit more semitic than Mark- but certainly not moreso than Matthew. Why? I think Luke is dependent on sources here- and closeattention being paid one will notice that the most semitic elements occurwhere Lk has not made use of Mark. I take this as an indication that Q wasa semitic source. And that Luke’s special material (called by us old guys”L”) was also semitic in origin.> or 2) an Aramaic and/or Hebrew>source(s). Is the question insoluble? Does any one on the list have any>insights into this question?I dont think it is solvable. We can hypothesize, but until we can ask Lukewhat he did, we will never know.> >Jim WareBest,Jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDemail- jwest at highland.netweb page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
Luke’s Semitic StyleLuke’s Semitic Style
Luke’s Semitic Style Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon May 17 09:49:53 EDT 1999
Luke’s Semitic Style Luke’s Semitic Style At 8:41 AM -0500 5/17/99, James P. Ware wrote:>After so many years of study there still seems to be no consensus on the>origin of the heavily Semiticized style which is especially>prominent in certain sections of Luke-Acts. It would seem that the>explanation would have to lie in either (or, perhaps, both) 1) Luke’s>conscious imitation of LXX Biblical style, or 2) an Aramaic and/or Hebrew>source(s). Is the question insoluble? Does any one on the list have any>insights into this question?No particular insight, but my recollection is that Raymond Brown, in _Birthof the Messiah_, argued that Lk 1-2 were composed in deliberate imitationof the style of the LXX.I might just add, with regard to the question of Mark’s style, about whichEdgar Foster was commenting, something I’ve said previously: that I’vechanged my own attitude toward Mark’s style and am now inclined to thinkthat he is reverent toward his source material and its often-contortedGreek formulation, but that when he is writing what appear to be his ownredactional segments, the Greek style is not only less objectionable buteven quite respectable (DOKIMOS, I think, was the Greek term?).Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Luke’s Semitic StyleLuke’s Semitic Style
Luke’s Semitic Style Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Mon May 17 09:49:53 EDT 1999
Luke’s Semitic Style Luke’s Semitic Style At 8:41 AM -0500 5/17/99, James P. Ware wrote:>After so many years of study there still seems to be no consensus on the>origin of the heavily Semiticized style which is especially>prominent in certain sections of Luke-Acts. It would seem that the>explanation would have to lie in either (or, perhaps, both) 1) Luke’s>conscious imitation of LXX Biblical style, or 2) an Aramaic and/or Hebrew>source(s). Is the question insoluble? Does any one on the list have any>insights into this question?No particular insight, but my recollection is that Raymond Brown, in _Birthof the Messiah_, argued that Lk 1-2 were composed in deliberate imitationof the style of the LXX.I might just add, with regard to the question of Mark’s style, about whichEdgar Foster was commenting, something I’ve said previously: that I’vechanged my own attitude toward Mark’s style and am now inclined to thinkthat he is reverent toward his source material and its often-contortedGreek formulation, but that when he is writing what appear to be his ownredactional segments, the Greek style is not only less objectionable buteven quite respectable (DOKIMOS, I think, was the Greek term?).Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington UniversitySummer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad at artsci.wustl.eduWWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
Luke’s Semitic StyleLuke’s Semitic Style
Luke’s Semitic Style Jim West jwest at highland.net
Mon May 17 10:06:45 EDT 1999
Luke’s Semitic Style Luke’s Semitic Style At 08:41 AM 5/17/99 -0500, you wrote:> >After so many years of study there still seems to be no consensus on the>origin of the heavily Semiticized style which is especially>prominent in certain sections of Luke-Acts. It would seem that the>explanation would have to lie in either (or, perhaps, both) 1) Luke’s>conscious imitation of LXX Biblical style,Chapters 1-2 of Luke seem to be especially LXX-like in their style. Theonly way we can say whether this is because Luke imitates the LXX or becauseLuke is himself a semite. The second option would seem most peculiar,really, given the fact that Luke is portrayed as the only Gentile writer ofthe NT documents.I have always believed that Luke intentionally imitated the LXX as a meansof linking the “promise” of the OT with the “fulfillment” of the Christevent. It is, after all, when Jesus is born that the heavily septuagintizedchapters leave off.The rest of Luke seems a bit more semitic than Mark- but certainly not moreso than Matthew. Why? I think Luke is dependent on sources here- and closeattention being paid one will notice that the most semitic elements occurwhere Lk has not made use of Mark. I take this as an indication that Q wasa semitic source. And that Luke’s special material (called by us old guys”L”) was also semitic in origin.> or 2) an Aramaic and/or Hebrew>source(s). Is the question insoluble? Does any one on the list have any>insights into this question?I dont think it is solvable. We can hypothesize, but until we can ask Lukewhat he did, we will never know.> >Jim WareBest,Jim+++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDemail- jwest at highland.netweb page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
Luke’s Semitic StyleLuke’s Semitic Style
Luke’s Semitic Style Mark Goodacre M.S.GOODACRE at bham.ac.uk
Mon May 17 11:19:03 EDT 1999
Luke’s Semitic Style Luke’s Semitic Style On 17 May 99 at 10:06, Jim West wrote:> The rest of Luke seems a bit more semitic than Mark- but certainly not more so> than Matthew. Why? I think Luke is dependent on sources here- and close> attention being paid one will notice that the most semitic elements occur> where Lk has not made use of Mark. I take this as an indication that Q was a> semitic source. And that Luke’s special material (called by us old guys “L”)> was also semitic in origin.Subject, of course, to correction from Carl and Edward, this sounds to me more like a Synoptic-L topic than a one. If Jim or anyone wants to raise it there, I would (for one) be interested in discussing it.With good wishesMark————————————–Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre at bham.ac.uk Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512 University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866 Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdomhttp://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre Aseneth Home Page Recommended New Testament Web Resources Mark Without Q
Luke’s Semitic StyleLuke’s Semitic Style
Luke’s Semitic Style Jack Kilmon jkilmon at historian.net
Mon May 17 11:44:13 EDT 1999
Luke’s Semitic Style Luke’s Semitic Style I am convinced that Luke was competent in Aramaic and usedAramaic source material. If Luke came from Syrian Antioch assome believe, he would know Aramaic. Look how he definesthe exclusive Aramaic idiom (xwbyn) in the LP as “sins” where the Greek Speaking Matthean scribe uses “debts.”Fitzmyer, in his “Gospel According to Luke” catalogs theAramaisms in Luke, Vol I, p116.Jack”James P. Ware” wrote:> > After so many years of study there still seems to be no consensus on the> origin of the heavily Semiticized style which is especially> prominent in certain sections of Luke-Acts. It would seem that the> explanation would have to lie in either (or, perhaps, both) 1) Luke’s> conscious imitation of LXX Biblical style, or 2) an Aramaic and/or Hebrew> source(s). Is the question insoluble? Does any one on the list have any> insights into this question?> > Jim Ware> > —> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: jkilmon at historian.net> To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu— ______________________________________________taybutheh d’maran yeshua masheecha am kulkonJack Kilmonjkilmon at historian.nethttp://www.historian.net
Luke’s Semitic StyleLuke’s Semitic Style
Luke’s Semitic Style Mark Goodacre M.S.GOODACRE at bham.ac.uk
Mon May 17 11:19:03 EDT 1999
Luke’s Semitic Style Luke’s Semitic Style On 17 May 99 at 10:06, Jim West wrote:> The rest of Luke seems a bit more semitic than Mark- but certainly not more so> than Matthew. Why? I think Luke is dependent on sources here- and close> attention being paid one will notice that the most semitic elements occur> where Lk has not made use of Mark. I take this as an indication that Q was a> semitic source. And that Luke’s special material (called by us old guys “L”)> was also semitic in origin.Subject, of course, to correction from Carl and Edward, this sounds to me more like a Synoptic-L topic than a one. If Jim or anyone wants to raise it there, I would (for one) be interested in discussing it.With good wishesMark————————————–Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre at bham.ac.uk Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512 University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866 Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdomhttp://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre Aseneth Home Page Recommended New Testament Web Resources Mark Without Q
Luke’s Semitic StyleLuke’s Semitic Style
Luke’s Semitic Style Jack Kilmon jkilmon at historian.net
Mon May 17 11:44:13 EDT 1999
Luke’s Semitic Style Luke’s Semitic Style I am convinced that Luke was competent in Aramaic and usedAramaic source material. If Luke came from Syrian Antioch assome believe, he would know Aramaic. Look how he definesthe exclusive Aramaic idiom (xwbyn) in the LP as “sins” where the Greek Speaking Matthean scribe uses “debts.”Fitzmyer, in his “Gospel According to Luke” catalogs theAramaisms in Luke, Vol I, p116.Jack”James P. Ware” wrote:> > After so many years of study there still seems to be no consensus on the> origin of the heavily Semiticized style which is especially> prominent in certain sections of Luke-Acts. It would seem that the> explanation would have to lie in either (or, perhaps, both) 1) Luke’s> conscious imitation of LXX Biblical style, or 2) an Aramaic and/or Hebrew> source(s). Is the question insoluble? Does any one on the list have any> insights into this question?> > Jim Ware> > —> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: jkilmon at historian.net> To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu— ______________________________________________taybutheh d’maran yeshua masheecha am kulkonJack Kilmonjkilmon at historian.nethttp://www.historian.net
Luke’s Semitic StyleLuke’s Semitic Style
Luke’s Semitic Style Jack Kilmon jkilmon at historian.net
Mon May 17 12:07:00 EDT 1999
Luke’s Semitic Style Luke 13.2,4 (was Re: aramaic influence) I think the wrench in the gears comes from the consensus that Luke wasa gentile. An examination of Lukan style displays many Aramaisms. I think the Ockham’s sharpie here is that Luke was competent in Aramaicand used Aramaic source material. This is perfectly understandableif Luke was from Syrian Antioch. His use of exclusive Aramaic idiom inhis translation can only come from being competent WITH the Aramaicidiom, IMHO.JackJim West wrote:> > At 08:41 AM 5/17/99 -0500, you wrote:> >> >After so many years of study there still seems to be no consensus on the> >origin of the heavily Semiticized style which is especially> >prominent in certain sections of Luke-Acts. It would seem that the> >explanation would have to lie in either (or, perhaps, both) 1) Luke’s> >conscious imitation of LXX Biblical style,> > Chapters 1-2 of Luke seem to be especially LXX-like in their style. The> only way we can say whether this is because Luke imitates the LXX or because> Luke is himself a semite. The second option would seem most peculiar,> really, given the fact that Luke is portrayed as the only Gentile writer of> the NT documents.> I have always believed that Luke intentionally imitated the LXX as a means> of linking the “promise” of the OT with the “fulfillment” of the Christ> event. It is, after all, when Jesus is born that the heavily septuagintized> chapters leave off.> > The rest of Luke seems a bit more semitic than Mark- but certainly not more> so than Matthew. Why? I think Luke is dependent on sources here- and close> attention being paid one will notice that the most semitic elements occur> where Lk has not made use of Mark. I take this as an indication that Q was> a semitic source. And that Luke’s special material (called by us old guys> “L”) was also semitic in origin.> > > or 2) an Aramaic and/or Hebrew> >source(s). Is the question insoluble? Does any one on the list have any> >insights into this question?> > I dont think it is solvable. We can hypothesize, but until we can ask Luke> what he did, we will never know.> > >> >Jim Ware> > Best,> > Jim> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++> Jim West, ThD> email- jwest at highland.net> web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest> > —> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: jkilmon at historian.net> To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu— ______________________________________________taybutheh d’maran yeshua masheecha am kulkonJack Kilmonjkilmon at historian.nethttp://www.historian.net
Luke’s Semitic StyleLuke 13.2,4 (was Re: aramaic influence)
Luke 13.2,4 (was Re: aramaic influence) Jim West jwest at Highland.Net
Mon May 17 12:26:18 EDT 1999
Luke’s Semitic Style Luke 13.2,4 (was Re: aramaic influence) At 05:21 PM 5/17/99 +0000, you wrote:>On 14 May 99 at 16:38, Jim West wrote:One clarification- I didn’t write this- jack Kilmon did.> >> one example, i think, of aramaic influence on the greek text seems to reside>> in luke 13:2, 4. here the “sinners” are then called “debtors”- a confusion>> resolved when one realizes that the underlying aramaic most likely would have>> been <aram> chayiv </aram>; a word meaning “indebted” (to God). the greek>> translator rendered it “sinner” in v. 2 but “debtor” in v. 4. thesignificance>> of understanding something of the aramaic world of Jesus in interpreting>> gospel texts seems reaffirmed.> >This is an interesting case and since no-one else has commented, perhaps I may >say something. Jim may be right about underlying Aramaic here, though it is >worth noting that the sinners // debtors (hAMARTWOLOI // OFEILETAI, etc.) link >occurs elsewhere in Luke. Luke 11.4, for example, has “Forgive us our sins >(hAMARTIAS) as we forgive each one who is indebted to us (PANTI OFEILONTI >hHMIN). Likewise 7.36-50 (Anointing) works with the same sin-debt correlation >— the woman is a sinner (hAMARTWLOS, 7.39) but Jesus tells a story about two >debtors (CREOFEILETAI). I suspect, therefore, that this can be explained in >terms of (a) standard Lukan variation in terminology and tendency to varieshis >synonyms and (b) an established correlation between sin and metaphorical debt.> >Markbest,Jim(not worthy to untie Jack’s shoes… etc…. :-)+++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDemail- jwest at highland.netweb page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
Luke’s Semitic StyleLuke 13.2,4 (was Re: aramaic influence)
Luke’s Semitic Style Jack Kilmon jkilmon at historian.net
Mon May 17 12:07:00 EDT 1999
Luke’s Semitic Style Luke 13.2,4 (was Re: aramaic influence) I think the wrench in the gears comes from the consensus that Luke wasa gentile. An examination of Lukan style displays many Aramaisms. I think the Ockham’s sharpie here is that Luke was competent in Aramaicand used Aramaic source material. This is perfectly understandableif Luke was from Syrian Antioch. His use of exclusive Aramaic idiom inhis translation can only come from being competent WITH the Aramaicidiom, IMHO.JackJim West wrote:> > At 08:41 AM 5/17/99 -0500, you wrote:> >> >After so many years of study there still seems to be no consensus on the> >origin of the heavily Semiticized style which is especially> >prominent in certain sections of Luke-Acts. It would seem that the> >explanation would have to lie in either (or, perhaps, both) 1) Luke’s> >conscious imitation of LXX Biblical style,> > Chapters 1-2 of Luke seem to be especially LXX-like in their style. The> only way we can say whether this is because Luke imitates the LXX or because> Luke is himself a semite. The second option would seem most peculiar,> really, given the fact that Luke is portrayed as the only Gentile writer of> the NT documents.> I have always believed that Luke intentionally imitated the LXX as a means> of linking the “promise” of the OT with the “fulfillment” of the Christ> event. It is, after all, when Jesus is born that the heavily septuagintized> chapters leave off.> > The rest of Luke seems a bit more semitic than Mark- but certainly not more> so than Matthew. Why? I think Luke is dependent on sources here- and close> attention being paid one will notice that the most semitic elements occur> where Lk has not made use of Mark. I take this as an indication that Q was> a semitic source. And that Luke’s special material (called by us old guys> “L”) was also semitic in origin.> > > or 2) an Aramaic and/or Hebrew> >source(s). Is the question insoluble? Does any one on the list have any> >insights into this question?> > I dont think it is solvable. We can hypothesize, but until we can ask Luke> what he did, we will never know.> > >> >Jim Ware> > Best,> > Jim> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++> Jim West, ThD> email- jwest at highland.net> web page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest> > —> home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/> You are currently subscribed to as: jkilmon at historian.net> To unsubscribe, forward this message to $subst(‘Email.Unsub’)> To subscribe, send a message to subscribe- at franklin.oit.unc.edu— ______________________________________________taybutheh d’maran yeshua masheecha am kulkonJack Kilmonjkilmon at historian.nethttp://www.historian.net
Luke’s Semitic StyleLuke 13.2,4 (was Re: aramaic influence)
Luke 13.2,4 (was Re: aramaic influence) Jim West jwest at Highland.Net
Mon May 17 12:26:18 EDT 1999
Luke’s Semitic Style Luke 13.2,4 (was Re: aramaic influence) At 05:21 PM 5/17/99 +0000, you wrote:>On 14 May 99 at 16:38, Jim West wrote:One clarification- I didn’t write this- jack Kilmon did.> >> one example, i think, of aramaic influence on the greek text seems to reside>> in luke 13:2, 4. here the “sinners” are then called “debtors”- a confusion>> resolved when one realizes that the underlying aramaic most likely would have>> been <aram> chayiv </aram>; a word meaning “indebted” (to God). the greek>> translator rendered it “sinner” in v. 2 but “debtor” in v. 4. thesignificance>> of understanding something of the aramaic world of Jesus in interpreting>> gospel texts seems reaffirmed.> >This is an interesting case and since no-one else has commented, perhaps I may >say something. Jim may be right about underlying Aramaic here, though it is >worth noting that the sinners // debtors (hAMARTWOLOI // OFEILETAI, etc.) link >occurs elsewhere in Luke. Luke 11.4, for example, has “Forgive us our sins >(hAMARTIAS) as we forgive each one who is indebted to us (PANTI OFEILONTI >hHMIN). Likewise 7.36-50 (Anointing) works with the same sin-debt correlation >— the woman is a sinner (hAMARTWLOS, 7.39) but Jesus tells a story about two >debtors (CREOFEILETAI). I suspect, therefore, that this can be explained in >terms of (a) standard Lukan variation in terminology and tendency to varieshis >synonyms and (b) an established correlation between sin and metaphorical debt.> >Markbest,Jim(not worthy to untie Jack’s shoes… etc…. :-)+++++++++++++++++++++++++Jim West, ThDemail- jwest at highland.netweb page- http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
Luke’s Semitic StyleLuke 13.2,4 (was Re: aramaic influence)
Luke 13.2,4 (was Re: aramaic influence) Mark Goodacre M.S.GOODACRE at bham.ac.uk
Mon May 17 13:21:49 EDT 1999
Luke 13.2,4 (was Re: aramaic influence) Matt 11:28-30 chiasm or parallelism? On 14 May 99 at 16:38, Jim West wrote:> one example, i think, of aramaic influence on the greek text seems to reside> in luke 13:2, 4. here the “sinners” are then called “debtors”- a confusion> resolved when one realizes that the underlying aramaic most likely would have> been <aram> chayiv </aram>; a word meaning “indebted” (to God). the greek> translator rendered it “sinner” in v. 2 but “debtor” in v. 4. the significance> of understanding something of the aramaic world of Jesus in interpreting> gospel texts seems reaffirmed.This is an interesting case and since no-one else has commented, perhaps I may say something. Jim may be right about underlying Aramaic here, though it is worth noting that the sinners // debtors (hAMARTWOLOI // OFEILETAI, etc.) link occurs elsewhere in Luke. Luke 11.4, for example, has “Forgive us our sins (hAMARTIAS) as we forgive each one who is indebted to us (PANTI OFEILONTI hHMIN). Likewise 7.36-50 (Anointing) works with the same sin-debt correlation — the woman is a sinner (hAMARTWLOS, 7.39) but Jesus tells a story about two debtors (CREOFEILETAI). I suspect, therefore, that this can be explained in terms of (a) standard Lukan variation in terminology and tendency to varies his synonyms and (b) an established correlation between sin and metaphorical debt.Mark————————————–Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre at bham.ac.uk Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512 University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866 Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdomhttp://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre Aseneth Home Page Recommended New Testament Web Resources Mark Without Q
Luke 13.2,4 (was Re: aramaic influence)Matt 11:28-30 chiasm or parallelism?
Luke 13.2,4 (was Re: aramaic influence) Mark Goodacre M.S.GOODACRE at bham.ac.uk
Mon May 17 13:21:49 EDT 1999
Luke 13.2,4 (was Re: aramaic influence) Matt 11:28-30 chiasm or parallelism? On 14 May 99 at 16:38, Jim West wrote:> one example, i think, of aramaic influence on the greek text seems to reside> in luke 13:2, 4. here the “sinners” are then called “debtors”- a confusion> resolved when one realizes that the underlying aramaic most likely would have> been <aram> chayiv </aram>; a word meaning “indebted” (to God). the greek> translator rendered it “sinner” in v. 2 but “debtor” in v. 4. the significance> of understanding something of the aramaic world of Jesus in interpreting> gospel texts seems reaffirmed.This is an interesting case and since no-one else has commented, perhaps I may say something. Jim may be right about underlying Aramaic here, though it is worth noting that the sinners // debtors (hAMARTWOLOI // OFEILETAI, etc.) link occurs elsewhere in Luke. Luke 11.4, for example, has “Forgive us our sins (hAMARTIAS) as we forgive each one who is indebted to us (PANTI OFEILONTI hHMIN). Likewise 7.36-50 (Anointing) works with the same sin-debt correlation — the woman is a sinner (hAMARTWLOS, 7.39) but Jesus tells a story about two debtors (CREOFEILETAI). I suspect, therefore, that this can be explained in terms of (a) standard Lukan variation in terminology and tendency to varies his synonyms and (b) an established correlation between sin and metaphorical debt.Mark————————————–Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre at bham.ac.uk Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512 University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866 Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdomhttp://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre Aseneth Home Page Recommended New Testament Web Resources Mark Without Q
Luke 13.2,4 (was Re: aramaic influence)Matt 11:28-30 chiasm or parallelism?
Luke’s Semitic Style Perry L. Stepp plstepp at flash.net
Mon May 17 14:23:01 EDT 1999
Matt 11:28-30 chiasm or parallelism? Glassman >Chapters 1-2 of Luke seem to be especially LXX-like in their style. The>only way we can say whether this is because Luke imitates the LXX or>because Luke is himself a semite.Keep in mind that some syntactical investigations (and here I’m thinkingespecially of Raymond M. Martin) have given us good reason to believe thatActs 1-8 are “translation Greek,” i.e., the syntax seems to indicate thatthese materials were originally written in Aramaic (or even Hebrew) and thentranslated into Greek. I don’t really remember if Martin addressed Lk 1-2,but I wonder if some of the same phenomena might be at work.PLStepp********************************************************************Senior Pastor, DeSoto Christian Church, DeSoto TXDCC’s webpage: http://come.to/DeSotoCCPh.D. Candidate in Religion, Baylor University#1 Cowboy FanDoes it not concern us that God’s name is oftendishonored because of poor theologies of God? –Clark Pinnock, *The Openness of God*********************************************************************
Matt 11:28-30 chiasm or parallelism?Glassman
Luke’s Semitic Style Perry L. Stepp plstepp at flash.net
Mon May 17 14:23:01 EDT 1999
Matt 11:28-30 chiasm or parallelism? Glassman >Chapters 1-2 of Luke seem to be especially LXX-like in their style. The>only way we can say whether this is because Luke imitates the LXX or>because Luke is himself a semite.Keep in mind that some syntactical investigations (and here I’m thinkingespecially of Raymond M. Martin) have given us good reason to believe thatActs 1-8 are “translation Greek,” i.e., the syntax seems to indicate thatthese materials were originally written in Aramaic (or even Hebrew) and thentranslated into Greek. I don’t really remember if Martin addressed Lk 1-2,but I wonder if some of the same phenomena might be at work.PLStepp********************************************************************Senior Pastor, DeSoto Christian Church, DeSoto TXDCC’s webpage: http://come.to/DeSotoCCPh.D. Candidate in Religion, Baylor University#1 Cowboy FanDoes it not concern us that God’s name is oftendishonored because of poor theologies of God? –Clark Pinnock, *The Openness of God*********************************************************************
Matt 11:28-30 chiasm or parallelism?Glassman