Toto

The essay "Why the Criterion of Semitisms Cannot Deliver Authenticity" by Loren Stuckenbruck from Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity (or via: amazon.co.uk)

is available on academia.edu:

http://www.academia.edu/2226625/_Sem...Jesus_Research

Vorkosigan

What? Another criterion can't deliver authenticity? Say it ain't so!

Positive criteria can't deliver authenticity.

ApostateAbe

The title of the article is misleading. The conclusion states that the criterion of Semitisms can not deliver authenticity on its own, but it can be used to help reinforce a hypothesis established with other criteria.

And that is true for every criterion. With every criterion, you can find things wrong with it. You can find alternative possibilities. You can find cases where the criterion clearly fails (on its own). The criteria are best used in combination, because no single criterion works all of the time. Each criterion merely increases the probability of a given conclusion. When you have many criteria working together in favor of a single conclusion, then the conclusion is most probable, regardless of the failings of each particular criteria.

If you implicitly accept the logical fallacy, "This method of argument fails some of the time, therefore we should not use it any of the time," then of course you will have no criteria left. You would be obliged to accept that the hypothesis of outer space alien slavemasters began Christianity is just as likely as the hypothesis of a historical Jesus. After all, we cannot use such criteria as plausibility or contextual credibility. Those criteria fail at least some of the time. Sometimes, incredible things happen in history. :huh:

outhouse

And I agree.

More then anything else, is it not agreeing with what modern scholarships already state? just getting into detail of Loren's version of why?

Adam

Three in a row of us agree. Is that a record for FRDB?
So yes, it's a great summary, well worth reading. Are any other chapters from that book available to us? Stuckenbruck directs us to them as more important for HJ studies.

Sheshbazzar

Be careful with the circle jerk boys. Wrapping your hand too tightly around one another's 'conclusions' is likely to leave you with a sticky mess on your hands.

ApostateAbe

Yeah, someone needs to make a good counterpoint to upset the groupthink, but I don't know who would be up to the task.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Toto,

Good article.

The article seems to argue that since we do not know the mixture of Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew that was spoken in early First Century Judea, we cannot say when we find a seemingly Aramaic or Hebraic phrase that we are getting closer to an historic Jesus. The text could have moved more towards Aramaic and Hebraic phrases at a later stage.

To use a cinematic example, the use of Aramaic in The Passion of Christ (Gibson, 2004) does not make the movie more authentically historical than Jesus Christ Superstar (Jewison, 1973) or King of Kings (Ray, 1961).

It is quite possible that the text was written in Greek, but a later writer who was more fluent in Aramaic or Hebraic rewrote the text to make it more authentic sounding.

In the same way, the movie Dances with Wolves (Costner, 1990) had the Native Americans speaking Lakota, whereas they often spoke broken English or gibberish in earlier movies.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

stephan huller

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.

Sheshbazzar

I view the Gospels as being a 'Mulligan stew'. Of course they had a few onions of contemporary Aramaic tossed into the pot. but the beans were provided by the Greek, The seasoning came from Latin, while most of the meat came from the Hebrew Tanaka.