If the synoptic gospels are three different translations of a common Hebrew or Aramaic source

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 1165
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: If the synoptic gospels are three different translations of a common Hebrew or Aramaic source

Post by mlinssen »

Stuart wrote: Thu Jul 01, 2021 9:37 am mlinssen,

You have not defined the audience, just listed a few differences (we all see those) in the narrative without really tying them to any theological camp or system. And no explanation of where they came from.

The question was who was this directed, and why would the theology make a difference to them?
Whoops! You're right, sorry

Luke addresses the Marcionites / Thomas supporters, basically everyone who "followed this religion" in the broadest sense of the word before it got hijacked and Judaized by Mark / Paul ff.
Later on we'll see that John does the same.
Matthew addresses the "new customer base", so to say: Judeans and Judaics, those (not too) well versed in the Tanakh and such. In theory, the people that weren't allowed to prescribe their religion after Bar Kokhba and were desperately in need of another one

Basically, Luke's audience doesn't care at all about anything Judaic. And Matthew's cares very much, and as such it is Matthew who fixes Mark's "declaring all foods clean" and turns it into "eating with unwashed hands is fine".
Likewise, it is Matthew who fixes Mark's "making the two one" by putting words into God's mouth, the words of the narrator of Genesis. But Luke doesn't go near that because it is obvious Thomasine material

Judas is the only name in the Prologue to Thomas, and it is highly likely that his text became known under that name first - but it is unclear how much of that matters if Marcion sits in between. Marcion seems to not even mention Judas, so Mark must have invented his part and role

The trick is that - in principle - all of Mark is historic record in the sense that it was written and known by the time that the others did their thing, so there was some room to manoeuvre, but not much. Luke manoeuvres in the direction of Thomas (for argument's sake, at least that is an extant text that we have, although it is likely that he moved towards Marcion), Matthew manoeuvres in the direction of Judaism / Paul
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 4173
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: If the synoptic gospels are three different translations of a common Hebrew or Aramaic source

Post by neilgodfrey »

Can anyone recommend titles worth reading that address the quality and style of Greek as found in the various canonical gospels and acts?
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5643
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: If the synoptic gospels are three different translations of a common Hebrew or Aramaic source

Post by Peter Kirby »

neilgodfrey wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 4:29 am Can anyone recommend titles worth reading that address the quality and style of Greek as found in the various canonical gospels and acts?
Horae synopticae : contributions to the study of the Synoptic problem (J. C. Hawkins, 1899 - online)

The style and literary method of Luke, I. The Diction of Luke and Acts (H. J. Cadbury, 1920 - online)
The Making of Luke-Acts (H. J. Cadbury, 1927)

"Notes on Marcan Usage" (C. H. Turner, 1924-1928 - online)

"On the Vocabulary of Marcion's Gospel" (Knox, 1939)
Marcion and the New Testament (Knox, 1942)

A Study of Latin Words in the Greek New Testament (Esther L. Benjamin, 1949 - online)

The Greek of the Gospel of Mark (John C. Doudna, 1961)

The Gospel according to St. Mark (Vincent Taylor, 1966)

Grammar of New Testament Greek, Volume 4: Style (J.H. Moulton, 1976)

Redactional Style in the Marcan Gospel (E. J. Pyrke, 1978)

Clumsy Construction in Mark's Gospel (John C. Meagher, 1979)

A Stylometric Study of the New Testament (Anthony Kenny, 1986)

"The Language of the Gospel of Matthew" (Neotestamentica, J Engelbrecht, 1990)

The Language and Style of the Gospel of Mark (J. K. Elliot, 1993)

"Markan Idiolect in the Study of the Greek of the New Testament" (Rodney J. Decker, 2009 - online)

"Hellenistic Greek and the New Testament: A Stylometric Perspective" (JSNT, David L. Mealand, 2012)

"The Assumed Authorial Unity of Luke and Acts: A Review Essay" (Neotestamentica, Parsons and Gorman, 2012)

"Latinisms in the gospel of Mark" (Ben C. Smith, 2015 - online)

I haven't tracked down all these references and read them, so consider this only a prospective recommendation.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 4173
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: If the synoptic gospels are three different translations of a common Hebrew or Aramaic source

Post by neilgodfrey »

Peter Kirby wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 4:50 pm
I haven't tracked down all these references and read them, so consider this only a prospective recommendation.
Thanks, Peter. That list has kickstarted my search for certain specifics.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5643
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: If the synoptic gospels are three different translations of a common Hebrew or Aramaic source

Post by Peter Kirby »

neilgodfrey wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 7:42 pm
Peter Kirby wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 4:50 pm
I haven't tracked down all these references and read them, so consider this only a prospective recommendation.
Thanks, Peter. That list has kickstarted my search for certain specifics.
What specifics were you wanting to investigate? Now you have me curious...
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 4173
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: If the synoptic gospels are three different translations of a common Hebrew or Aramaic source

Post by neilgodfrey »

I want to be sure that the Greek of Luke, (others, too, but Luke at very least) can possibly be a plausible translation of a Hebrew original. The idea sounds too crazy to countenance, but Dubourg made a few points that rattled me just a wee bit.

I was a bit fearful that as I delved into Dubourg's 2 volume book (an effort, since I struggle with French even with machine translations to help) I would find circularity and baseless speculations at the heart of ideas. I have been reading other French authors with similar ideas but have never got to the origins of their hypothesis that the gospels, at least, were originally written in Hebrew. Reading analyses of this or that passage is far from satisfying because those analyses are resting on assumptions that must have been addressed somewhere else to be valid. So I've taken some time out to read what the Greek professors have said about the style of the gospels and other NT works to see if D's argument might have any chance of a foundation. How valid is it that the gospels are written with a grammar and style that more closely resembles Hebrew than the sophisticated works we know from the Classics.
Last edited by neilgodfrey on Mon Jul 05, 2021 10:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5643
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: If the synoptic gospels are three different translations of a common Hebrew or Aramaic source

Post by Peter Kirby »

Interesting. Thanks! Looking forward to seeing what you find.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 1165
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: If the synoptic gospels are three different translations of a common Hebrew or Aramaic source

Post by mlinssen »

neilgodfrey wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 10:11 pm I want to be sure that the Greek of Luke, (others, too, but Luke at very least) can possibly be a plausible translation of a Hebrew original. The idea sounds too crazy to countenance, but Dubourg made a few points that rattled me just a wee bit.

I was a bit fearful that as I delved into Dubourg's 2 volume book (an effort, since I struggle with French even with machine translations to help) I would find circularity and baseless speculations at the heart of ideas. I have been reading other French authors with similar ideas but have never got to the origins of their hypothesis that the gospels, at least, were originally written in Hebrew. Reading analyses of this or that passage is far from satisfying because those analyses are resting on assumptions that must have been addressed somewhere else to be valid. So I've taken some time out to read what the Greek professors have said about the style of the gospels and other NT works to see if D's argument might have any chance of a foundation. How valid is it that the gospels are written with a grammar and style that more closely resembles Hebrew than the sophisticated works we know from the Classics.
Nothing wrong with crazy ideas really, but what is your working hypothesis that leads you to this?

If you have a crazy idea that is based on a crazy hypothesis, you might get lucky - as I did - but chances are that no one will believe you.
Which doesn't really matter, as opinions are just that and they change along with time, but I'm interested in hearing it anyway

One thing that has always prevented me from going down the rabbit hole where you're going is the abundance of loanwords for words that had been existing for ages in the native language itself, for example

μαστίγιο

Check https://biblescan.com/searchstrongs.php?q=whip and then ask yourself why, even though Mark mentions the event off-hand, the Latin "loanword" φραγελλόω is used
StephenGoranson
Posts: 607
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: If the synoptic gospels are three different translations of a common Hebrew or Aramaic source

Post by StephenGoranson »

I mention without necessarily endorsing the following: if interested in a proposal of a Hebrew biography of Jesus used by Luke (and Luke as prior to Mark and Matthew) see works by Robert L. Lindsay and David Flusser and some of their students; searching “Jerusalem School hypothesis” or “Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research” will lead to bibliography.
Post Reply