[Lexicog] Re: When Semantics Doesn't Matter

[Hayim Sheynin]

Dear David,

Of course, I heard and read all similar opinions in works of Christian
and Jewish scholars, and I know about existing theories. In addition I read 
a lot of books on Hellenistic Palestine and studied Greek and Aramaic
works in original. For long time (since the 60s up to present) I worked on
comparative projects where different versions and ancient translations of the
Bible were scrutinized and compared.
The problem of solution of the original language of the NT may depend
(very much like an original text of the Hebrew bible) on new findings. Exactly like
DDS confirmed certain unclear words in Hebrew bible (see scholarly apparatus in the last ed. of the Biblia Hebraica Stutgartientia), so new findings of
Aramaic texts can confirm or overturn the theoretical conclusions of the
scholars in respect to a Greek original. For me not only particular Aramaic quotations, but also certain Semitic structures of the Greek text point either to preceding Western Aramaic text or to authors who wrote Greek but thought in Aramaic.
Although the dominant opinion today is "pro-Greek", there are also opinions about Aramaic primacy. Some of them even so extreme as to declare the text of Old Syriac (Peshitta) as the underlying structure of Greek NT.
Unfortunatelly the situation with the preservation of the texts of the first and second century C.E. is so bad, that we do not have enough good material
for definite judgment.
Maybe I am biased as Semitic scholar who dealt a lot with Aramaic language
that I would like to see an Aramaic original. Btw, several Aramaic texts which are found among the DDS are contemporary with the NT, i.e. written between the 50s and the 80s of the first century in Palestine.
And about the use of the Septuagint in the NT I can tell you, that a new theory exist (however without a definite proof), that the Septuagint reflects another version of Hebrew bible [so called Egyptian recension]. Among others, you can read works of Emmanuel Tov on Septuagint and other ancient Greek translations (Symmachos, Lukian[os], etc.). One of the important tools in this comparative work is a Samaritan Pentateuch.
The philological work that tries to understand  relations between  different versions is far  to be finished and so the question about the original language of the NT. However one should  be careful  not to make absolute statements before the problem is solved. 

Hayim Sheynin

David Frank <david_frank at sil.org> wrote:                                     
Hayim --
  
 I won't argue with you about whether  the earliest forms of the Gospels might have been written in Aramaic rather than  Greek. I will point out, though, that at the time of Christ the Hebrew  scriptures were being circulated in Greek translation, though I'm sure you are  well aware of that. In fact, there is evidence that many of quotes of the Hebrew  Bible in the Greek New Testament were actually quotes from the Greek Septuagint  translation rather than from the original Hebrew. You see this especially  in the (anonymous) Epistle to the Hebrews, but also in the Gospels, such as  where Jesus quoted the Septuagint version of Deut. 6:5 when asked what the  greatest commandment was. Well, actually, I have to admit that the spoken answer  was probably in Aramaic, but as it is recorded in the oldest manuscripts the  answer is in Greek and apparently based on the Greek Septuagint translation of  Deut. 6:5. We have no reason to think that Jesus actually ever uttered a word of 
 Greek.
  
 I don't doubt that the language spoken  by the Jews in Palestine at the time of Christ was primarily Aramaic. The  author of the Epistle to the Hebrews was probably from Alexandria, where Greek  was spoken more.
  
 You are a very learned man in terms of  languages, literatures, history and traditions, Hayim, so I don't expect I  am telling you anything you didn't already know.
  
 -- David Frank
  
    ----- Original Message ----- 
   From:    Hayim    Sheynin 
   To: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com    
   Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 4:38 PM
   Subject: Re: [Lexicog] Re: When Semantics    Doesn't Matter
   

   Dear David and Fritz,

If anything, I intended that the original of    some parts (like four synoptic  Gospels and Acts) of the NT could be or    might be written in Palestinian Aramaic, perhaps Galilean dialect. I know that    most of the theologians today are convinced that so called Q-text (a    prototypal source of the NT) was written in Greek. But nobody saw this Q-text,    and it seems to me logical  that it could be written in the original    language of Jesus Christ and his disciples. Until the earliest text found, my    suggestion must remain as a suggestion. If the original text had be written in    Greek, I cannot understand an animosity of earlier Rabbis who saw the    Christian teaching as very harmful for Rabbinic Judaism. The Jews of Rabbinic    period (i.e. Hellenistic and Roman periods) did not have easy access to Greek    writings. If they knew Greek, this was a street language. It is true for    Palestine, but it is different for Alexandria and North African Jewish   
 settlements. 

   Necessities of life pushed Greek words into Hebrew and Aramaic as    loanwords, however it is not a proof of Palestinian Jews' proficiency in    Greek.

Hayim Sheynin
 
     
                       
 
       
---------------------------------
Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lexicography/attachments/20070703/a41089bf/attachment.htm>