Amaleq13

What is the other way to read it? The author gives the term in Aramaic and, again, in a different language. I see no other way to understand this except that the author expected his readers to understand the concept better by the repetition in the second language. This, in turn, would seem to suggest that he assumes his readers are more familiar with the concept in the second language.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Well, my dear cweb, I think Aland's Synopsis will trump both of our opinions here...

Best,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Furthermore, in regard to this argument by spin about the significance of this nomikoi/grammateis divergence in Lk, here's another problem that I've found with it.

This is similar to my previous point about Lk 10:25 using nomikoV, paralleled by nomikoV in Mt 22:34. Since Lk 10:25 is not a unique Lukan passage (as Aland's Synopsis confirms), this seems to present a problem for Spin's theory.

Another such problem is with Luke 11:52. It's rather difficult for me to believe that this passage is not paralleled in Mt 23:13...

(RSV) Luke 11:52 Woe to you lawyers [nomikoiV]! for you have taken away the key of knowledge; you did not enter yourselves, and you hindered those who were entering."

(RSV) Matthew 23:13 "But woe to you, scribes [grammateiV] and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in.

So this sure seems to be a parallel (although, in this case, Aland's Synopsis doesn't quite consider this as a direct parallel, since Mt 23:13 passage is given in small print).

Regards,

Yuri.

Chris Weimer

Please share, Yuri, for I do not own the book "Aland's Synopsis"

Chris Weimer

Once again, Yuri, it obvious divergences (gnosis/Kingdom of Heaven) reflects the two different sources which not only explains that but also the nomikoi/grammateis as well. Where we should find nomikoi-nomikoi or grammateis-grammateis agreement should be in exact parallels, i.e. where Luke took directly from Matthew (or vice versa).

Regards, cweb255

Judaeo-Christian Culture and Criticism

Yuri Kuchinsky

If you don't have a copy of "Aland's Synopsis", and if you're really interested in the Synoptic problem, then you're really wasting plenty of your time...

http://www.bibletexts.com/reviews/bi...is4gospels.htm

Synopsis of the Four Gospels (edited by Kurt
Aland, New York: United Bible Societies,
1987, ABS Catalog #00104005 ) - This
outstanding resource shows in four parallel
columns a verse-by-verse comparison between
accounts and teachings in the four gospels.

There's an English only version (the cheapest), a Greek only version, and an English-Greek version.

Yours,

Yuri

Chris Weimer

I only have so much to spend, I still have to buy several other books, but yes, it is on my list of books to get (hopefully with the holiday money I'll have next friday). But would you care to possibly enlighten us on what Aland has to say?

judge

Perhaps the author think ir may help some readers. As this gospel was to go into all the known world this is not surprising.


Not really it may be that the author thinks it may help some readers.
This analysis of the Aramaic does not show that the original was in greek, that is my point.

Spin argues here that by examining the Aramaic he can show the original was in greek.
It is just not a very strong argument.

Amaleq13

If that was the intent, you would think the author would write the whole thing in a language that was understood by "all the known world" (ie Greek). An Aramaic Gospel seems to imply a more limited intended audience.

This particular sentence seems to assume fluency in the language in which the bulk of the story is written but a greater understanding of the explanatory language. Whether the "bulk language" was Greek or Aramaic, this evidence suggests the text was written with a Roman audience in mind.

Now, does it make more sense for the author to expect his Roman audience to be fluent in Greek or Aramaic?

judge

You are assuming that the author would have been able to write fluently in greek. I do not expect that a first century jew would have been fluent in greek.

Josephus gives us reason to think this would not be the case.

From here