F
FrJohnB
Guest
Deviled ham?AMEN! I like to think of this incident as the first “deviled ham.”
You kill me sometimes Padrej
- Status
You kill me sometimes Padrej
E
Erich
Guest
Several German-speakers I know warn against mixing languages thusly:
“Man soll nie zwei Languages zusammen-putten.”
P
Petergee
Guest
OK sorry for misunderstanding you.
OK but if so, why does St Paul (writing in Greek to Greek-speaking Gentiles) call him “Cephas”. ISTM the only logical explanation is that Jesus called St Peter “Kepha” and that he became known by this name by Jews and then by Gentiles.
I don’t know why St Matthew says “Petros” instead of Kepha/Cephas, but if Jesus had used “Petros” when He said this, I can’t imagine why it would then be back-translated into Aramaic as Kepha/Cephas and that the latter form would then even become widely known and used among Gentiles in lands far away from the Holy Land.
Of course Jesus probably repeated His statement more than once, maybe He said it first in Aramaic to St Peter and then later talked about it in Greek to a wider audience?
F
FrJohnB
Guest
I think we can agree on what you have here.
S
schaick
Guest
We know that Jesus spoke with Pilate who spoke Greek:
Mark 15;2-5; Matthew 27:11-14; Luke 23:3; John 18:33- 38
The centurian more then likely spoke Greek over Aramaic:
Matthew 8
5When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. 6"Lord," he said, “my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering.”
Mark 7
26The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.
Disciples spoke Greek:
John 12
20Now there were some Greeks among those who went up to worship at the Feast. 21They came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, with a request. “Sir,” they said, “we would like to see Jesus.” 22Philip went to tell Andrew; Andrew and Philip in turn told Jesus.
Acts 6
1In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. 2So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, "It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables
P
Padrej
Guest
I wanted to chime in with info from a book I just acquired that is germane to what has been discussed.
The book is “Encountering Jesus in the New Testament” from Ave Maria Press (Copy write 2003&2009) and has an imprimatur from the Most Reverend John D’Arcy.
On the issue of the LXX being used in the synagogue: page 59
“Although sacred scriptures were read in Hebrew, in Jesus’ day many people did not understand Hebrew. So the scriptures were translated into Aramaic paraphrases known as Targums when Hebrew texts were read aloud in the synagogue.” **Notice NO mention that Jesus read the LXX. ** This would also explain the difference in the Mazoreitc text and what is quoted in the Gospel.
This same page and the following mention that Jesus would have spoken Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek.
On the origins of Matthews Gospel: Page 140
The text mentions first that Matthews gospel was compiled from sayings in Aramaic according to Papias in AD 124 Irenaeus and Origen also mention the Aramaic origin. THEN it goes on to say, “Almost all scholars agree the gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek. Thus the traditions cited above by later Christian writers must not have been referring to the Gospel itself, but to one of Matthews sources, which could well have been a collection of Aramaic sayings used by the evangelist in writing the Gospel. However if the collection survived it has been lost.”
The book is “Encountering Jesus in the New Testament” from Ave Maria Press (Copy write 2003&2009) and has an imprimatur from the Most Reverend John D’Arcy.
On the issue of the LXX being used in the synagogue: page 59
“Although sacred scriptures were read in Hebrew, in Jesus’ day many people did not understand Hebrew. So the scriptures were translated into Aramaic paraphrases known as Targums when Hebrew texts were read aloud in the synagogue.” **Notice NO mention that Jesus read the LXX. ** This would also explain the difference in the Mazoreitc text and what is quoted in the Gospel.
This same page and the following mention that Jesus would have spoken Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek.
On the origins of Matthews Gospel: Page 140
The text mentions first that Matthews gospel was compiled from sayings in Aramaic according to Papias in AD 124 Irenaeus and Origen also mention the Aramaic origin. THEN it goes on to say, “Almost all scholars agree the gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek. Thus the traditions cited above by later Christian writers must not have been referring to the Gospel itself, but to one of Matthews sources, which could well have been a collection of Aramaic sayings used by the evangelist in writing the Gospel. However if the collection survived it has been lost.”
F
FrJohnB
Guest
I will have to get a copy of that book. Here is a link to Ave Maria Press
avemariapress.com/itemdetail.cfm?nItemid=963
It looks like a decent book to have in my collection. From what I have read it also agrees with the catechism and is produced by the congregation of the Holy Cross.
I find it interesting that it notes that “almost all” scholars agree to the Gospel of Matthew being put forth in Greek first. This has got to be one of the newer Catholic books on theology that admits this and says that Matthew used Aramaic “sayings.” This makes sense as the audience of Matthew’s Gospel were certainly Greek speaking Jews and Gentiles.
P
Padrej
Guest
The Book does quote the Catechism quite a bit and is very insightful to me in learning Catholic thought.
Many times the book mentions that Jesus was an Aramaic speaker, BUT the common language of the day was GREEK and he would have known it in order to conduct any business as a carpenter and while he was in Egypt, the Jews there only spoke Greek. The book does question if He spoke Latin to Pilate, but it goes on to say that this was unlikely. However the sign over Christ’s head on the cross were written in the languages of those who would be passing by.
P
Petergee
Guest
And apparently also no denial of the possibility?
IIRC the three ancient writers mentioned don’t refer to a “collection of sayings”. They actually say that St Matthew first composed his gospel in Hebrew/Aramaic.
P
Padrej
Guest
F
FrJohnB
Guest
PeterGee
It appears that this is one of the modern books of Catholic teachings that has met approval. I do not think that it detracts from the fact that Papias, Irenaeus and Origen believed in an Aramaic origin to the Gospel. The book CLEARLY states this. The problem for Bible scholars TODAY is that NONE of these things exist not even in fragment form that we can point to and say, “AHAH There it is.” Notice the quote carefully is “Almost all scholars agree the gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek” That means there are some out there that still work on the assumption that there was an Aramaic copy.
As time goes on we uncover more and more evidence about the Bible. If we find evidence that overwhelmingly proves that something we have held to for centuries is incorrect do you still cling to the incorrect item just because that is the way it has always been? EXAMPLE: For centuries everyone thought that the sun revolved around the earth, even the Catholic church; do you still believe this? OR shall we still continue to condemn Galileo as a heretic? John Paul II finally removed that stigma admitting the Catholic church was incorrect to condemn this. Why then when a council of Catholic bishops (as Padrej points out) puts their stamp of approval on something do you seem to question their decision? They have not downplayed the role of these aforementioned persons only to show that new evidence has come to light and this is what today’s scholars believe.
L
LongJourney
Guest
Gospel to the Hebrews only exists in fragmentary form today. Many believe Matthew wrote it in Aramaic.
earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelhebrews-mrjames.html
P
Padrej
Guest
I also want to add from the first page of the same book, *“The Subcommittee on the Catechism, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, has found that this catecetical text, copyright 2009, to be in conformity with the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Nihil Obstat: the Reverend Michael Heintz
Censor Liborum
Imprimatur: Most Reverend John M D’Arcy
Bishop of Fort Wayne-South Bend.
The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are official declarations that this book is free of doctrinal or moral error.” *
To your query on “no denial of possibility” I would have to add upon further research of this book that it totally leaves out the possibility that Jesus read the LXX but it is specific that what was read in the synagogue was Hebrew and translated into Aramaic (Targums). Thus, this book agrees that the LXX was out of use in the synagogue and used only by Greek speaking Jews.
I must admit that I am finding the book highly fascinating and well written.
P
Petergee
Guest
That may well be the opinion of that author (who is 2000 years removed from the events in question). I am certainly not obliged to agree with him.
I don’t have the exact quotes from those 3 Early Church Fathers to hand, but I do have one from another ECF, the greatest scripture scholar of ancient times, St Jerome (4th century) who had access to many works which were subsequently lost by the ravages of the Moslems etc:
*“The New Testament - This was undoubtedy composed in Greek, with the exception of the work of Matthew the Apostle, who was the first to commit to writing the Gospel of Christ, and who published his work in Judaea in Hebrew characters.” *
That is, if you accept the theory that Mark’s gospel was written first - a theory first proposed in the early 20th century and which I reject.
Perhaps you do not understand that a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur do not mean that those who have given their names to these declarations agree with or endorse all, or indeed ANY, of the statements made in a book. They mean** only** that they certify that the book does not teach anything which is contrary to established Catholic doctrine. This is the ONLY sense in which they “approve the content”.
P
Petergee
Guest
That could be true of general scientific knowledge which has expanded greatly. It is hard to see how modern evidence could overturn the testimony of those closest to the events about how the New Testament was written.
Incorrect. Many, most or all Catholics may have believed that. The Catholic Church, as such, has never had an official opinion on the matter.
Again incorrect. The only people who ever condemned Galileo as a heretic were Protestants. Galileo remained lifelong a devout Catholic in good standing, died after reciving the Last Rites and a personal blessing from the Pope, and received a lavish Catholic funeral and glorious tomb in a great Catholic Basilica.
A subcommmitteee of a national episcopal conference is not a “Council of Bishops”. And I’m sure the subcommittee’s members did not intend to “put their stamp of approval” on every opinion expressed in the book. Much less say that Catholics are required to agree with it. And even if they did they would not have the authority to do so.
P
Petergee
Guest
No, that’s noot what it said, that’s your conclusion. Apparently based on your apparent belief that there was never even one Hebrew or Aramaic copy of the LXX. Where are you getting that?
L
Le_Cracquere
Guest
Greek was a major lingua franca of the Roman East, but it wasn’t a universal accomplishment, to judge by many contemporary writings. Ordinary tradesmen and labourers (like Jesus and many of the Apostles) seemed to run the gamut from fully conversant in Greek to nigh-monolingual in Aramaic.
Jesus being who He was and is, He probably could have been conversant in whatever language He pleased. If, however, He eschewed His omnicompetence in this area as He did various other divine privileges, His Greek could have been fluent, heavily accented, or even halting–though that seems hard to credit. Still, something about the enigmatic non sequiturs that marked His conversation with Pilate makes me think of two men conversing in a language in which neither was wholly comfortable.
One hypothesis that I feel much surer about is that St. Peter’s Greek was highly idiosyncratic or absent altogether: it would explain why his reminiscences were largely channelled through Mark, and why his epistles were dictated to secretaries.
Jesus being who He was and is, He probably could have been conversant in whatever language He pleased. If, however, He eschewed His omnicompetence in this area as He did various other divine privileges, His Greek could have been fluent, heavily accented, or even halting–though that seems hard to credit. Still, something about the enigmatic non sequiturs that marked His conversation with Pilate makes me think of two men conversing in a language in which neither was wholly comfortable.
One hypothesis that I feel much surer about is that St. Peter’s Greek was highly idiosyncratic or absent altogether: it would explain why his reminiscences were largely channelled through Mark, and why his epistles were dictated to secretaries.
- Status