avi

Many Thanks Toto. Much appreciated. I will look into it, a bit later, when I have more time available....

avi

stephan huller

I prefaced my statement with as only a possibility. Let's start with a couple of points though:

Why do traditional NT scholars inevitably overestimate a Greek context for Christianity? A: They are functionally illiterate in Aramaic.

Seriously. Irenaeus posits a chain from himself back through to Polycarp and then John. Polycarp emphasized maintaining Jewish rituals in Christianity. The Life of Polycarp identifies him as a native Semite who functioned in Aramaic. Polycarp's gospel of choice seems to have been the Gospel of the Hebrews which was an Aramaic gospel. Irenaeus argues that this was the gospel behind Matthew which was the first gospel per se. Irenaeus also discourages speculating in Greek when Aramaic was original language of the disciples. Irenaeus also identifies himself as a guardian of this original 'apostolic teaching.'

The idea that Irenaeus COULD speak Aramaic is witnessed in the Apostolic Preaching text. The fact that his translators were totally inept when it came to Aramaic and Hebrew is witnessed in several places in Against Heresies. Indeed Irenaeus seems to be alluding to complicated rules governing the spelling of words of Aramaic among the Samaritans at one point (see his 'Mamuel' comments) but the translator has completely obscured the original meaning.

The question is whether the language Irenaeus used to write his text could have been described as a 'barbaron dialekton' in the introduction of Against Heresies. The traditional way of describing these comments is that his Greek had become corrupt from living in Lyons. But is this really plausible?

The fact that no one has suggested Irenaeus might have worked out his original lectures in Aramaic isn't an argument against it. When Cureton found shorter Syriac letters of Ignatius scholarship has argued that these are 'shortened versions' of the Greek original. I don't buy it because most of the people studying Ignatius likely find it inconvenient to learn a new language.

I hate to always use crude examples but I find they cut to the chase. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe many people find them distracting. Nevertheless it would be like someone with a small penis writing a book which argues that women don't care about the endowment of their partners. Is this a scientifically verified fact or is this just a man with a small penis talking?

Again, the fact that no one has argued for Irenaeus (a name which could be argued to be a Greek translation of Shlomo just as Polycarp could represent 'Ephraim') being an Aramaic speaker has less to do with the implausibility of the argument rather than the fact that few Patristic scholars are capable of formulating such an argument.

Roger Pearse

I am told that Arabic and Syriac are closely enough related that one modern Syriacist has never bothered to learn Arabic for his trips to the near east -- he just speaks Syriac and most people understand him.

I don't know Hebrew, but surely it too is a semitic language, and anyone doing NT studies must know this language. Surely learning Aramaic is relatively trivial?

Syriac texts are sometimes printed in Hebrew letters, by the way -- because everyone knows the Hebrew alphabet.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

stephan huller

Well let's consider the example of Irenaeus for a moment. Almost everyone says that he employed Hegesippus's hypomnemata in Book Three Chapter Three. Eusebius demonstrates that Hegesippus main point was to argue that the Jerusalem Church founded by the family of Jesus continued down to 147 CE. This apparently was the true foundation of Christianity according to the author and to a degree Irenaeus employed this text in his Against Heresies to bolster the case for Roman primacy just as he develops the argument in the same book that while there are four gospels the first gospel - Matthew - has the Gospel of the Hebrews standing behind it AND MOREOVER the Gospel of the Hebrews was by implication the gospel of Peter and Paul.

How could that argument for Jerusalem primacy have been made in any other language other than Aramaic? In other words, one would assume in part that the ORIGINAL argument for Jerusalem primacy was made in Aramaic IF NOT Hegesippus's argument in the hypomnemata.

Yet I do think that the hypomnemata were written in Aramaic because of this passage:

"therefore, they called the Church a virgin, for it was not yet corrupted by vain discourses. But Thebuthis, because he was not made bishop, began to corrupt it."

Of course most scholars just recycle the report as it now stands without noting how strange the name 'thebuthis' seems to be. Credner (Einl. in d. NT i. ii. 619) rightly argues however that thebuthis is not a person, but a collective idea, Aramaic opposition, reluctance, especially abhorrence of the stomach, nausea, hence vomitus, and then generally filth, dirt, much the same as spilades Jude 12; spiloi 2 Peter 2.13.

The point is that if Irenaeus employed the hypomnemata he probably could speak Aramaic. This is reinforced in several places in Against Heresies.

So the ultimate question comes down to WHAT DID IRENAEUS MEAN when he apologized to his readership for writing in a barbaron dialekon? That he was using a 'barbarous form of Greek'? That seems all too convenient. Let's look to another example of his employment of the term dialekton. OMG! It appears in that same Book Three Chapter Three:

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialekton, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church [AH 3.3.1]

So the Gospel of Hebrews was also composed in 'barbarous Greek'? I think not ...

If Christianity wasn't some 'made up religion' as the mythicists here claim we'd have to expect that as we go back in time the number of Christians speaking and writing in Aramaic has to go up. I don't think Christianity was entirely made up. Therefore I would not be surprised if Irenaeus spoke Aramaic. I am wondering - though not certain - whether he might have written his original lectures in Aramaic.

stephan huller

And to Roger's point. Yes someone with some basic knowledge of one Semitic language can muddle his way through some texts but there are important differences. An example to note. MacDonald tried to translate the works of Marqe the Samaritan not being able to speak Aramaic let alone Samaritan Aramaic. The result was disastrous but it was published.

Another reason scholars resist the Aramaic origins of Christian literature is the fact that it necessarily relies on a speculative reconstruction of the original sources. But what imbecile would argue for the idea that 'gospel' is a Greek term? Oh wait, there are a lot of imbeciles apparently.

The question is who is likely to give a fair hearing to the idea of whether the word 'gospel' is a Greek or Aramaic term. New Testament scholars? That's like asking Americans to decide which is the best country in the world. Difficult to figure what the answer might be ...

But for those who are interested - The Samaritan Arabic commentary on the Torah, on Leviticus XXV:9. Slightly condensed and slightly re-arranged translation. “The High Priest and the King acting together are to send heralds out on the Day of Atonement to go into all countries over the next six months blowing the shofar in every land and region [not just Canaan] with the announcement [bashâ’ir, plural of bashîrah] of the information of the approach of the Jubilee Year and the release of captives SO THAT IT REACHES THE WHOLE NATION”. The Arabic bashîrah = the Hebrew bassorah. The person doing it is the mubashshir = Hebrew mevasser, or the bashîr. Notice carefully that the bashîrah is not the information, but the announcement of it. IMO this is the connotation of the Greek euangelion. Notice that the meaning only becomes clear and sharp in the context of the SAMARITAN halachah.

But how is this defendant going to get a fair hearing?

mountainman

Q: Why do traditional NT scholars inevitably overestimate a Greek context for Christianity?
A: They are drawing their conclusions from the available evidence with minimal conjectures.

stephan huller

Yeah 'avoiding conjecture' like the fox in Phaedrus:

Driven by hunger, a fox tried to reach some grapes hanging high on the vine but was unable to, although she leaped with all her strength. As she went away, the fox remarked, 'Oh, you aren't even ripe yet! I don't need any sour grapes.' People who speak disparagingly of things that they cannot attain would do well to apply this story to themselves.

Perhaps I should have used this instead of my 'endowment' example earlier.

avi

Thank you for this link, Toto:
Umm, well, I can discern, in the fragment, sure enough, the Greek words:
"Kai eiden" and I can see three or four other words, like "tou", and "ton"....

I am willing to be persuaded that this fragment could represent Matthew 3:16-17, as those folks maintain.

What I cannot accept, without some kind of clarification, is the idea that this text of Matthew, is found in AH by Irenaeus. Where's the evidence? Since both Hippolytus, Tartullian, and Epiphanius all claim to write on similar subjects, drawing at least inspiration from "Irenaeus"' AH, then, why couldn't this fragment represent one of their manuscripts?

If there is not something more substantial to this fragment, why not simply claim that the text represents Mathew 3:16-17, and call it a day....? Why drag AH into the discussion?

avi

stephan huller

And my apologies for not citing the correct Greek wording, I was sloppy and rushed (as always):

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own language (Greek te idia dialekto auton), while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.[AH 3.3.1]

The question now is whether Irenaeus's use (or his translator's translation) of διάλεκτος here in Book Three should cause us to rethink the statement in the introduction that:

Thou wilt not expect from me, who am resident among the Delphois/Keltae and am accustomed for the most part to use a barbaron dialekton, any display of rhetoric, which I have never learned, or any excellence of composition, which I have never practised, or any beauty and persuasiveness of style, to which I make no pretensions.[AH pref.3]

I have just went through Harvey's critical edition and notice that he suggests something closely related to my theory (always good to find the guy who wrote the book on Irenaeus agreeing with you). I will cite it for those who want to hear it. Here is Smith's response to that claim:

Harvey conjectures that his mother tongue was Syriac, but the grounds alleged for this hypothesis are quite inadequate to prove it or to establish his supposed familiarity with the Syriac version of the New Testament (Harvey, Prolegomena, I. cliii. sq. Index of Words, ii. 551). The alleged translation of formulas of Aramaic formulas of prayer and invocation in the section against the Valentinians of his work Contra Haereses (i. 21, 3) are rather arguments against than for an acquaintance with Syriac The way moreover in which Irenaeus handles the Greek language is no proof whatsoever of a want of complete familiarity with it. If he excuses himself for want of literary training or for deficiencies in the art of rhetorical exposition that proves as little his non-Hellenic origin as his further designation of himself as one who habitually conversed in a barbarous language

Smith goes on to argue that

the reference evidently being in the latter case to such a use of a Celtic dialect in daily intercourse, and probably in public ministrations also, as a residence in Gaul made matter of necessity.

But to me this is ludicrous. Harvey is always pointing to the fact that Irenaeus's scriptural citations resemble the Syriac recension. I have to admit that I got my sense that Irenaeus was writing in Aramaic from those same prayers mentioned by Harvey. The obvious fact is that the translator didn't know what the fuck he was doing. This can't be Irenaeus. But then the question arises why is only this part of the text mangled.

Could it be that the main work was written in Syriac and the prayers were cited in Aramaic (i.e. written in Hebrew letters)? Clearly the translator goofs up every time the discussion shifts to Hebrew or Hebrew letters. Of course the other suggestion (which is Harvey's suggestion) is that Irenaeus is attempting to write in Greek but is apologizing in the introduction for not being competent to do so.

The original language could have been Greek I guess but I am increasingly certain that the 'screw up' part in the text is whenever Hebrew letters were originally used by Irenaeus. The prayers of the Marcosians for instance. Could Irenaeus have published a text mainly written in Greek letters with periodic references to things spelled out in Hebrew letters? I guess, but Syriac would seem more natural.

The question of course would be what letters were used to write out Syriac in this period. I don't think we know much about that. The question then is whether 'colarbasus' is a mistake on the part of the Greek translator incorrectly translating something a Hebrew concept preserved in Greek in the original MS (as most hold) or now - whether Irenaeus was wrote 'all four' in some dialect of Aramaic and the Greek translator wrongly took it as a personal name.

I think the latter.

Indeed Irenaeus writing in a Semitic language criticizing the Marcosians for developing their kabbalah in Greek letters makes sense especially when connected with his criticism in Book Two that Jesus real name wasn't Ἰησοῦς but a two and a half letter name - i.e. ישו 'Yeshu' which somehow forms an acrostic or something which means 'Lord of heaven and earth.' Still can't figure out that one but my mentor tells me it might have something to do with Genesis chapter 2.

stephan huller

http://books.google.com/books?id=5vR...enaeus&f=false

I have never read this book but it is on my shelf waiting for the day that I have some spare time. I imagine the author deals with all aspects of Irenaeus's use of Matthew.