Thoughts on Maurice Casey's new book

[beowulf]

That Jesus was a man born in Galilee Is not an old number. It is what the Christian religion says.

[stephan happy huller]

Not what the Marcionites and countless other early sects believed. Do you imagine that the Marcionite had Jesus the angel speaking Greek or Aramaic when quoting from the heavenly Torah? Come on. No one thinks about these things. The heavenly being quoted from the heavenly (= Hebrew) Torah. End of story.

Why isn't this clear to everyone. It's just an addiction to the 'Jesus was a man from Galilee, men from Galilee spoke Aramaic so the gospel was originally written in Aramaic which proves Jesus was a man from Galilee' claim. On and on this is said without acknowledging the circularity in reasoning.

My counter-argument is, the Church Fathers said that the proto-gospel was written in Hebrew and also this would fit both the priestly context of the same Gospel according to the Hebrews known through various sources and would also square with the visit by a heavenly angel known from the Marcionites and other sources. Whether I am right or not, Casey can't argue without the support of ancient witnesses and solely by means of a 19th - 20th century scholarly presupposition that 'a man from Galilee = Aramaic gospel = a man from Galilee.' The fact that the Semitic proto-gospel was written in Hebrew demolishes the central premise of the book.

[beowulf]

When Casey writes about a man in Galilee preaching in Aramaic the people should listen to him and the Christians should welcome his research

Gabriel spoke Greek and Aramaic
Talmud - Mas. Sotah 33a
A man should never pray for his needs in Aramaic. For R. Johanan declared: If anyone prays for his needs in Aramaic, the Ministering Angels4 do not pay attention to him, because they do not understand that language!

Now it was in Aramaic that it spoke! — If you wish I can say that it is different with a Bath Kol since it occurs for the purpose of being generally understood;12 or if you wish I can say that it was Gabriel who spoke; for a Master has declared: Gabriel came and taught [Joseph] the seventy languages.13

(4) Who convey the petitions to the Throne of Glory.
(12) And Aramaic was the vernacular of the period
(13) V. infra. Gabriel was exceptional; but the other angels were ignorant of Aramaic

[stephan happy huller]

Right, but you understand how to read this stuff, right. Let's look at the original Mishnah:

MISHNAH. THE FOLLOWING MAY BE RECITED IN ANY LANGUAGE: THE SECTION CONCERNING THE SUSPECTED WOMAN, THE CONFESSION MADE AT THE PRESENTATION OF THE TITHE, THE SHEMA', THE 'PRAYER', THE GRACE AFTER MEALS, THE OATH CONCERNING TESTIMONY AND THE OATH CONCERNING A DEPOSIT.

THE FOLLOWING ARE RECITED IN THE HOLY TONGUE: THE DECLARATION MADE AT THE OFFERING OF THE FIRSTFRUITS, THE FORMULA OF HALIZAH, THE BLESSINGS AND CURSES, THE PRIESTLY BENEDICTION, THE BENEDICTION OF THE HIGH PRIEST, THE SECTION OF THE KING, THE SECTION OF THE CALF WHOSE NECK IS BROKEN,18 AND THE ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE BY THE PRIEST ANOINTED [TO ACCOMPANY THE ARMY] IN BATTLE.

Do I need to explain the significance of this? We see the same pattern in the Qumran material. The sections dealing with sacrifice are always in Hebrew. The Mishnah goes on to explain:

WHENCE IS IT THAT THE DECLARATION MADE AT THE OFFERING OF THE FIRST-FRUITS [MUST BE IN HEBREW]? [IT IS STATED]. AND THOU SHALT ANSWER AND SAY BEFORE THE LORD THY GOD, AND ELSEWHERE IT IS STATED, AND THE LEVITES SHALL ANSWER AND SAY; AS THE LATTER MUST BE IN THE HOLY TONGUE, SO MUST THE FORMER BE IN THE HOLY TONGUE.

And then the next:

WHENCE IS IT THAT THE FORMULA OF HALIZAH [MUST BE IN HEBREW]? [IT IS STATED]. AND SHE SHALL ANSWER AND SAY, AND ELSEWHERE IT IS STATED, AND THE LEVITES SHALL ANSWER AND SAY'; AS THE LATTER MUST BE IN THE HOLY TONGUE. SO MUST THE FORMER BE IN THE HOLY TONGUE. R. JUDAH SAYS: [IT IS DERIVED FROM THE TEXT], AND SHE SHALL ANSWER AND SAY THUS — I.E., SHE MUST SAY IT IN THIS LANGUAGE.

I am not directing this at anyone in particular but it is so frustrating to deal with New Testament scholars who have no Fingerspitzengefühl for these matters. One can argue that Greek was the original language of the gospel. I am sure that position existed in antiquity. But the idea of Aramaic as the language of the proto-gospel goes against the evidence and is solely motivated by a specific historical agenda which is palpably neo-Protestant. It is the carriage leading the horse.

You can't posit a 'Jewish-Christianity' and then ignore what could and wouldn't be possible within a Jewish or even Samaritan community. Jews and Samaritans would have thought it only appropriate for a second Torah to have been written in Hebrew. The idea of a holy Aramaic text is so bonkers, it ignores the established Jewish attitude towards the Aramaic sections of Daniel. They aren't treated as scripture.

It's just fucking annoying to deal with - I am sorry 'white people,' Gentiles, whatever you want to call yourselves - who ignore the higher status for the Torah over the rest of the writings but moreover the utter implausibility of a holy Aramaic text. The Aramaic portions in Daniel and Ezra were considered a targum, that is a translation from a presumed Hebrew original, because they seemed to present themselves as such in Ezra 4.7, בותכ ןותשנה בתכו תימרא םגרתמו תימרא, 'and the document was written in Aramaic script and translated [into] Aramaic'.

The Tosefta understands this verse as a reference to a translation into Aramaic. All the mishnah says is that the Aramaic portions in Daniel and Ezra which were deemed to be translations defile the hands, but if they are retroverted into Hebrew just as the rest of the Scriptures do not defile the hands when set into translation.

Moreover it lays down the rule of the square script as indispensable to establishing acceptability. While the Aramaic portions of Daniel and Ezra were presumably always written in the square script, the Torah must still have been known in its palaeo-Hebrew variety at the time when the mishnah originated.

[beowulf]

Gabriel also spoke in Arabic.

Jesus never seemed to have spoken about sacrifices. What you are saying is that the Judaism of his time had very good reasons for hating his guts,--that’s fine, they still do.


Casey says the man spoke Aramaic and that is possible.

Did Jesus ever exist? That is a different story.

[stephan happy huller]

I don't understand all these tangents when speaking about whether Casey is justified in using circular logic with regards to the existence of an Aramaic gospel (a) unattested by the Church Fathers but (b) developed by Protestant theologians to establish him as a mostly ordinary historical man in order to in turn 'prove' that Jesus was an ordinary man in Galilee. It's circular and silly.

[stephan happy huller]

My previous point was simply that if the text was 'typically Jewish' you are effectively pushing to the side 'high Christology' at the time of the composition of the gospel. In other words, you assume it was some 'report' about a man named Jesus not intended to glorify him as a god, which is again a nice bit of ammunition for Protestants and neo-Protestant 'humanist' scholars, but where's the evidence for this? Where is this community of 'humanists' writing a factual report about a man named Jesus who spoke Aramaic because Galileans from Jesus's time spoke Aramaic?

[stephan happy huller]

When you follow the thread from the Church Fathers - the Church Fathers, not mythicists - back to a Hebrew text, high Christology is still intact, it's still a viable 'Grund' for the development of the gospel - in other words, the community that wrote the text could have believed that Jesus was a supernatural being. Does anyone besides me get the sleight of hand performed by people like Casey and accepted almost unquestioned by contemporary scholarship? It's incredible. The sources say one thing, but we say another because a few astute manipulators want the evidence to point in a certain direction and the rest of us ignore the trick because we want to believe in the result (i.e. a historical Jesus).

[beowulf]

There are no tangents: Christianity says Jesus was a Galilean man. Period .
There is no circular logic: the inhabitants of that region spoke Aramaic. Period
Researchers hunt for the hidden past as archaeologists do. Period

This thread is very noisy

[stephan happy huller]

I see so Casey is in your opinion justified in appealing to the existence of an unattested 'Aramaic gospel' to prove the existence of a historical Galilean man named Jesus even though the basis for said 'Aramaic gospel' solely rests on (a) the careless reading of the testimonies of the Church Fathers (who say the text was written in Hebrew rather than Aramaic and (b) the presumption that Jesus as a historical Galilean man would have spoken Aramaic.

The proto-gospel MUST HAVE BEEN written in Aramaic because 'Jesus was a Galilean man' AND this unattested Aramaic gospel can be used to decisively prove that Jesus was a historical Galilean man.

Rey, this is becoming ridiculous.