James Crossley's blog Contact: jgcrossley10 - AT - yahoo - DOT - co - DOT - uk

Monday, June 25, 2007

Another quick response...on Aramaisms

Doug Chaplin this time...and could I possibly forgive the comment on Man U (cf. Mk 3:28-29)?

It all really involves Aramaisms. Doug says:

I was taken to task in the comments by James Crossley (what can you expect from a Man U fan?) who sees Aramaisms as absolutely vital for historical Jesus research. As I pointed out there:

"I am not remotely convinced that Aramaisms have any significant place in historical Jesus research. First, I think that the language of the Septuagint distorts the whole question. Second, I can imagine a Jesus-saying that actually enters the Greek tradition well-translated by a fluently bilingual follower of Jesus showing little trace of the source language. Thirdly I can imagine a saying of Jesus made up by an Aramaic speaking follower."

1,2 and 3 are correct, though, there are other, far better arguments than those in favour of Aramaisms not touched upon by Sanders and Meier (Doug refers to these) though to be fair there has been important stuff written since the two wrote their comments. But anyway, he is not answering anything I said so no need to continue on that.

On Mike Bird's blog (on the 12 Worst Ideas post), Doug also said,

I think I'm astounded by James Crossley's comment. (Not the Son of Man bit: it's a place where discussion of Aramaic idiom has a significnat place). I am not remotely convinced that Aramaisms have any significant place in historical Jesus research.

I hope poor Doug did not fall off his chair or anything like that in his astonishment. But he should not have done! For, once again, I did not make any judgement on Aramaisms, except for the son of man problem and how it is requires a concept of Aramaisms and Doug agreed with that. This is all I said:

On Aramaisms (Doug's no. 5), the son of man problem and the historical Jesus would be impossible without the concept of Aramaisms.

I do have views on Aramaisms but I haven't said much so I'll keep quiet for now. Just to say, that again poor old me has been told I've said something I haven't (I don't recall ever saying they were absolutely vital or anything like that!) in the space of a couple of days. But I'm strong, I think I can cope...

Anyway, it is all a welcome relief from these ******* floods now typical of the ******* English summer.


Anonymous steph said...

Blasphemy of that sort is an eternal sin.

At least disposing the importance of Aramaic in historical Jesus research lets those in favour off the hook of actually learning the language. Doesn't matter they don't know what they're arguing against because it ain't of any great importance eh?! Too bad if Jesus spoke it...

And England summer is **** and Notts is ******* and it's warmer in Wellington. It feels like I'm heading for my third winter in a row.

June 25, 2007

Blogger Doug Chaplin said...

James, I've cross-posted this comment on Mike's blog.
I seem to have misunderstood what you were saying. I read your first comment as meaning that Aramaisms were necessary both a) for the Son of man problem and b) for the historical Jesus. Your second comment implies you meant "the son of man problem as a specific issue in historical Jesus study." I have no problems with that if that's what you meant. But since I read you as saying more than that (i.e. my (b) above) my surprise (not outrage!) may have been exaggerated, but wasn't entirely fake.
I have, 'cos I'm nice like that, also updated my post to say I may have misunderstood you.
But don't overdo the injured innocence - you're beginning to sound like Fergie asking for a penalty when Ronaldo dives!

June 25, 2007

Blogger Doug Chaplin said...

Oh, and a note to Steph: I never implied anything about learning Aramaic. If I say a knife is pretty useless for eating custard, it doesn't mean I think it's useless for eating steak.

June 25, 2007

Blogger James Crossley said...

Thanks Doug and that is what I meant. But, please, injured innocence is the only thing I've got. And you're right I learned much from Fergie himself: why not go to the best????

July 02, 2007

Blogger Anders Branderud said...

"Historical Jesus"?!?

Just using this contra-historical oxymoron (demonstrated by the eminent late Oxford historian, James Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue) exposes your Christian-blinkered agenda--dependent upon 4th-century, gentile, Hellenist sources.

While scholars debate the provenance of the original accounts upon which the earliest extant (4th century, even fragments are post-135 C.E.), Roman gentile, Hellenist-redacted versions were based, there is not one fragment, not even one letter of the NT that derives DIRECTLY from the 1st-century Pharisee Jews who followed the Pharisee Ribi Yehoshua.
Historians like Parkes, et al., have demonstrated incontestably that 4th-century Roman Christianity was the 180° polar antithesis of 1st-century Judaism of ALL Pharisee Ribis. The earliest (post-135 C.E.) true Christians were viciously antinomian (ANTI-Torah), claiming to supersede and displace Torah, Judaism and ("spiritual) Israel and Jews. In soberest terms, ORIGINAL Christianity was anti-Torah from the start while DSS (viz., 4Q MMT) and ALL other Judaic documentation PROVE that ALL 1st-century Pharisees were PRO-Torah.

There is a mountain of historical Judaic information Christians have refused to deal with, at: www.netzarim.co.il (see, especially, their History Museum pages beginning with "30-99 C.E.").
Original Christianity = ANTI-Torah. Ribi Yehoshua and his Netzarim, like all other Pharisees, were PRO-Torah. Intractable contradiction.
Building a Roman image from Hellenist hearsay accounts, decades after the death of the 1st-century Pharisee Ribi, and after a forcible ouster, by Hellenist Roman gentiles, of his original Jewish followers (135 C.E., documented by Eusebius), based on writings of a Hellenist Jew excised as an apostate by the original Jewish followers (documented by Eusebius) is circular reasoning through gentile-Roman Hellenist lenses.

What the historical Pharisee Ribi taught is found not in the hearsay accounts of post-135 C.E. Hellenist Romans but, rather, in the Judaic descriptions of Pharisees and Pharisee Ribis of the period... in Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT (see Prof. Elisha Qimron), inter alia.

The question is, now that you've been informed, will you follow the authentic historical Pharisee Ribi? Or continue following the post-135 C.E. Roman-redacted antithesis—an idol?

February 16, 2010

Blogger FASHION BLOG said...

Fashion trends,Christian Louboutin outlet the total because of the times are different. May be available from Christian Louboutin high heels has been popular, much of beauty women of all ages, so far, the status of high heels as ever. The invention of high heels, the process is very interesting, is not the intention of the inventor to beautify women, and the result is "get humble as clever." A 15th century Venetian merchant who had a beautiful and charming wives, businessmen often have to go out to do business, it is feared his wife would go out to romantic, very distressed. A rainy day, he walked down the street, heel stick a lot of mud, and thus become difficult. Businessman was inspired to immediately invited people to make a pair of high heel shoes. Venice is the place for Watertown, the ship is the main means of transport, merchants can not wear high heels that the springboard for his wife to walk so that you can put her in home. Unexpectedly, his wife put on these shoes was very novel to accompany the servants, on board disembarked, play everywhere. High heels make her more graceful, Road see the people feel that wearing high heels walking posture is so beautiful, fashionable ladies to emulate stress,Christian Louboutin Evening high-heeled shoes will soon prevail again.

March 28, 2011


Post a Comment

<< Home