FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-04-2012, 05:36 PM   #11
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Orlando
Posts: 2,014
Default Grooving and Pies to the Face

Hi stephan huller,

We can agree, it is quite probable that there are Aramaisms and Hebraisms in the New Testament. However, figuring out when they were put there is the problem. It is not easy figuring out where or when things become popular.

Take the word "groovy." It had two periods of popularity, from the mid 20's to the mid 40's and the mid 60's to the early 70's. It had slightly different meanings in each of its periods of popularity. From Wikipedia, "Groovy":

Quote:
Groovy (or, less common, "Groovie" or "Groovey") is a slang colloquialism popular during the 1960s and 1970s, springing out of a culture.[citation needed] It is roughly synonymous with words such as "cool", "excellent", "fashionable", or "amazing", depending on context.

The word originated in the jazz culture of the 1920s, in which it referred to the groove of a piece of music[1] and the response felt by its listeners. It is a reference to the physical groove of a record in which the pick-up needle runs. Popular culture heard it at least as early as 9/30/41 Fibber McGee and Molly radio show, when band leader, Billy Mills, uses it to describe his summer vacation. It first appeared in print in Really the Blues, the 1946 autobiography of the jazz saxophonist, Mezz Mezzrow.[2] The word appears in advertising spots for the 1947 film Miracle on 34th Street. The term in its original usage had largely vanished from everyday use by 1980
Words are polysemous and pick up and drop meanings through time. So do rituals.

For example, pie throwing is associated with slapstick movies and silent film comedy. My personal research shows that it was originally associated with divorce. Newspapers in the late 1890's and early 1900's routinely carried stories of a man or woman suing for divorce because their spouse had thrown a pie in their face. although it was used in at least half a dozen films as a gag between 1907 and 1913, it was not associated with films until late 1913 or early 1914 when it was used to describe a film with rough and rude slap stick comedy. In 1914, Charlie Chaplin became the most popular comedian in the world. Some critics thought he was a great artist, but others dismissed him as a pie-throwing comedian. In fact, in 1914, in his first 35 films, Chaplin had only thrown 3 pies among his 1,000 or so gags. In 1915, the term became associated with Mack Sennett and the Keystone Company that he ran. (Chaplin had started with Keystone in 1914.) Sennett apparently thought it was a funny gag and willingly took credit for it, although it was probably used in his films no more than in several other film company's comic films in 1913 and 1914. Because the term was now associated with the type of successful slapstick humor of Keystone, the gag continued to be used, albeit less often. The coming of sound did nothing to stop its popularity with comedians like Laurel and Hardy and the Three Stooges. While after 1915, it has been associated only with the heavily physical slapstick humor of Sennett and Keystone, starting from the mid-30's it started to be associated with all silent film comedy. In fact, less than 1% of silent film comedies actually used pie-throwing (under 100 out of 10,000 would be my guess).

Trying to trace the history of terms and rituals from the 20th century is surprising and difficult. Trying to trace such terms and rituals in the First century is fantastically more difficult.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin


Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
It is one thing to argue that there are problems with some of the models for an Aramaic underpinning to the gospel, it's another thing to argue that the idea of Aramaisms in the gospel is completely untenable. For me, whenever I come across interpretations of the gospel in Ephrem or any early Syriac source I am convinced that at least some of these word plays and word associations existed outside of any original association with the Greek language.

Even basic Christian concepts like 'evangelist.' Is anyone really going to argue that Isaiah's mevasser doesn't stand behind the concept of 'evangelist'? And if so how is the concept of the 'gospel' not derived from the same root? And what of Jesus's announcement in the synagogue of the 'year of favor'? These very same concepts come together in the 11Q13 Melchizedek scroll? Totally unrelated? A late second century invention? I just can't buy that. And if not the late second century when did this 'conspiracy' to invent an Aramaic underpinning to the existing gospels arise and for what reason?

Irenaeus's gospel citations tend to agree with the Old Syriac. I consider Irenaeus to be among the oldest witnesses to the gospel. Who are the earlier 'Greek witnesses' upon which Irenaeus's tradition rested? Polycarp? A guy who witnessed a tradition which kept the Passover in Easter? It is 'unlikely' that this Judaizing-Christianity that Polycarp and Irenaeus belonged to didn't preserve their scriptures in Syriac or Aramaic? Really?

It is one thing to say that the Aramaisms in Mark are artificial and contrived. It is another thing to say that there is absolutely no Aramaic (or possibly Hebrew) underpinning to the gospel.

The fact that I can't prove its existence or exact shape or form does not mean that it never existed.
PhilosopherJay is offline  
Old 12-05-2012, 12:52 AM   #12
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: England
Posts: 5,629
Default

One difficulty is involved in claiming that if a (presumably) Aramaic-speaking writer like Mark included Aramaisms, then these Aramaisms must come from Jesus, because Jesus spoke Aramaic.
Steven Carr is offline  
Old 12-05-2012, 09:23 AM   #13
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Auburn ca
Posts: 4,269
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Carr View Post
One difficulty is involved in claiming that if a (presumably) Aramaic-speaking writer like Mark included Aramaisms, then these Aramaisms must come from Jesus, because Jesus spoke Aramaic.
Is there anything credible that states the unknown author or scribe of Gmark was "aramaic speaking" and not just copying a previous source such as oral tradition from aramaic sources?
outhouse is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:23 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.