Chris Weimer

A certain user, judge, has been erroneously claiming for some time that Aramaic primacy of the New Testament has not been peer-reviewed. It's complete and total bullshit. Aramaic primacy has indeed been discussed in countless articles in numerous journals. It still is not accepted. Still. Decades upon decades.

His excuse? He blames the establishment. Nevermind that the establishment has been willing to change before, that we've gone through numerous changes as it were. How long was the Augustinian view in place before it was finally changed? Q is changing by the second. Heck, even ideas of who is Jesus changes all the time. Finally, many scholars, I throw myself in there with my paper on Matthew, have establishment-challenging views. In time, the position with the best evidence usually wins.

Articles I dug up challenging the status of the original language of the New Testament:

[book review] reviewing: Zimmerman, Frank. The Aramaic Origin of the Four Gospels. reviewed by Talbert, Charles H. Journal of the American Oriental Society vol. 101, no. 4 (1981): 450.

Review: negative. Criticizes Zimmerman for inability to come to terms with the idea that "Semiticism does not equal Aramaic priority" (I think judge still has this problem.)

[book review] reviewing Lamsa, George M. New Testament Commentary from the Aramaic and the Ancient Eastern Customs. reviewed by Wikgren, Allen. The Journal of Religion vol. 26, no. 1 (1946): 74-75.

Review: negative. Notes entire lack of scholarship done by Lamsa; remarks on the book looking more like a devotional than a proper commentary.

Olmstead, A. T. "Could an Aramaic Gospel Be Written?" Journal of Near Eastern Studies vol. 1, no. 1 (1942): 41-75.

Olmstead raises the possibility of the gospels originally being written in Aramaic and provides some good evidence for it, some bad. He frowns on the "mistranslations" that many Aramaic primacists tend to use. Definitely necessary reading for beginning Aramaic New Testament studies.

Torrey, Charles C. "The Aramaic of the Gospels." Journal of Biblical Literature vol. 61, no. 2 (1942): 71-85.

Charles Torrey, foremost in his day in advocating Aramaic primacy of the New Testament, essentially supplements Olmstead's article above.

Goodspeed, Edgar J. "The Possible Aramaic Gospel." Journal of Near Eastern Studies vol. 1, no. 3 (1942): 315-340.

One of the more important articles, this early paper by prominent New Testament critic Edgar J. Goodspeed demolishes many of the accusations of Aramaic primacists as to the viability of the gospels being written in Greek.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. "The Aramaic Language and the Study of the New Testament." Journal of Biblical Literature vol. 99, no. 1 (1980): 5-21.

A proponent of Aramaic primacy, Joseph Fitzmyer was once the president of the SBL and also the CBA. An eminent scholar, Fitzmyer has produced numerous articles to peer-reviewed journals. This alone should demolish the idea that Aramaic priority has not been peer-reviewed. In the article, Fitzmyer raises plenty of questions, but ultimately refuses a certain conclusion other than that there is perhaps an "Aramaic substratum" to the gospels. He cautions against assuming too much.

Filson, Floyd V. "How Much of the New Testament Is Poetry?" Journal of Biblical Literature vol. 67, no. 2 (1948): 125-134.

Filson discusses the idea that the New Testament in Greek may be the result of translated Aramaic poetry, an idea many Aramaic primacists have run away with, but alas, comes to the rightful conclusion that there is no such evidence for the theory.

Torrey, Charles C. "The Aramaic Origin of the Gospel of John." The Harvard Theological Review vol. 16, no. 4. (1923): 305-344.

Charles Torrey investigates whether the Gospel of John was written in Aramaic. He comes to a positive conclusion.

Burrows, Millar. "The Original Language of the Gospel of John." Journal of Biblical Literature vol. 49, no. 2. (1930): 95-139.

Millar Burrows, himself a student of Charles C. Torrey, provides a very deep inspection of whether the Gospel of John is a document translated from Aramaic, partially from Torrey's article, partially from other articles. His conclusion is the intermediate position - "based on Semitic sources", and states that the works of Torrey et al. (already extensive) were far overstated, that there was not enough evidence to state emphatically that the Gospel was a translation.

Burrows, Millar. "Principles for Testing the Translation Hypothesis in the Gospels." Journal of Biblical Literature vol. 53, no. 1. (1934): 13-30.

I urge everyone considering the Aramaic Question to read this first. He provides a guideline for whether a literary gospel in Aramaic was composed first before being translated to Greek. While some points, not yet certain at the time of writing, are now being confirmed, not all are yet. More research, of course, needs to be done. Most importantly, Burrows emphasizes the need to keep those studying the text to be familiar with the languages (pp. 7-8).

de Zwaan, J. "John Wrote in Aramaic." Journal of Biblical Literature vol. 57, no. 2. (1938): 155-171.

de Zwaan's article is actually a long book review of Torrey's Our Translated Gospels. In it, he finds Torrey an excellent scholar not to be "neglected", but that overall his theory does not hold up so well.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Is all this enough to demonstrate that Aramaic priority has gone through peer review process, and like many other theories, has not reached a consensus? I mean, we're talking about a theory that was being written about from the earliest part of the 20th century, in peer-reviewed journals (I did find some 19th century articles, but the theory wasn't in full bloom until the early 20th century). What's this nonsense about it not being evaluated? What's this nonsense about the old guard protecting their interests? Oh yeah, nonsense. That's what it is. Nonsense.

jgibson000

Yep. And it's another instance of what I find is all too common here -- lots of pontification by an IIDB members who, despite the air of authority and the tone of absolute certainty they adopt when they post, are not only woefully unfamiliar with the literature and scholarship out there on the topics on which they pontificate, but who do most of their "research" on the internet, cannot tell a credible internet source from a bad one, and who lay claim to knowledge and an expertise in matters Biblical that they quite evidently do not possess.

Spare us, please!

I wonder if posters such as this one -- and others similar to him -- might resolve for the new year to actually take the time to read/consult a book or two on their favourite hobby horses before they grace us with their "insights" and what they know to be "the truth"?

Jeffrey

HeretiKc

Pwned.

spin

You should be used to this if you hang out with the opposition. :Cheeky:


spin

jgibson000

I suppose I should. But it's sad given II's purported aims and its claims to be interested in, and intent to promote, a high caliber of discussion and level of inquiry.

It's also exceedingly ironic given that those in "the opposition", like, say, Joseph Wallack and Ted Hoffman/Jacob Aliert, "Malachi151", and others who are woefully uninformed, under-read, and basically ignorant of, and unfamiliar with, the scholarship on the topics they pontificate about, often make claims not only about how stupid, uninformed, agenda driven, cowardly, and biased their opponents are, but also about how they are intellectually, educationally, rationally, and, in the way their judgment and thinking is reputedly unclouded by bias, fundamentally superior to those they deem "apologists.

At least this year we've been spared much of the "Christianity is just warmed up Mithraism" nonsense that usually flares up as Yuletide approaches.

Jeffrey

gregor

So we can't reference Archara S and the enigmatic Graves' "The World of Sixteen Crucified Saviors"?

jgibson000

If by "referencing" them, you mean accepting what they say as true and well informed, then no -- not without showing a profound gullibility, a lack of independent and critical thought, an unfamiliarity with how much cooking of the evidence A and G engage in and/or with the primary sources they misquote and misrepresent, and a willingness to be led by charlatans.

JG

spin

Fortunately, I've spent some time here and I've seen that people will learn, even be willing to learn from their mistakes, but you try even the more scholarly RS forums and mailing lists and there are lines which generally cannot be crossed, let alone the general run of the mill nutter christian sites around the web. You get the one forum here which caters for all-comers and I think the standards are better than can be expected from general christian discussion forums.

(Just to clarify when I posted the opposition referred to the christian sites.)

You sound somewhat jaded, though I see no reason for it. Some of their claims I agree with, so I guess you can label me with them. If you hold this view of the standards of this forum, I don't really see what you can gain out of participating.

That's just evidence that people learn here. You go over to the opposition and deal with the trite crap that they purvey at this time of year. I prefer less schlock.

Now you've had your opportunity to vociferate against II members, can you hitch up your pantyhose and get back to business, assuming that you have some business to get back to?


spin

spin

Ummm, Gregor was being tongue-in-cheek. ( :Cheeky: ) No-one thinks anything of Acharya S around here, nor will you find many going within a barge poll's length of Graves. Just check the archives.


spin

rlogan

I have an Acharya S. shrine over by my teletransporter.


Interesting that some of the articles assert an aramaic "substratum". Personally, I think it was ebonics.