Tue Mar 26 19:16:44 1996

From majordom  Tue Mar 26 19:16:44 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA00910; Tue, 26 Mar 1996 19:16:44 +0500
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 19:13:51 -0500 (EST)
From: Maurice Robinson 
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: James
In-Reply-To: <960326163100_455437122@mail02.mail.aol.com>
Message-Id: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 2183
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu



On Tue, 26 Mar 1996 HuldrychZ@aol.com wrote:

> So, sans "grin", why the apparent hostility to the idea that  James was
> originally written in Aramaic?  The supposed Aramaic Matthew is making some
> progress, isn't it?

(With the appropriate grin) For the sake of NT textual criticism, I hope
not.  All our MSS are in Greek; the Aramaic equivalent in the Syriac
version are clearly later, and obviously reflect translation FROM Greek
and not merely a perpetuation of an Aramaic original.  I see no reason to
suppose either an Aramaic original of either Matthew or James within a
church whose missionary purpose (even in those books writing to Jews) was
to communicate not only to those who spoke Hebrew or Aramaic, but to a
wider audience.  Especially in the case of documents written to Jews
scattered abroad, the need for using Greek would be paramount, and I do
not think that either Matthew or James had an overwhelming concern to
limit the message and impact of their works to Palestinian
Aramaic-speaking Jews or Jewish Christians.  More pertinently, Lamsa's 
claim that the entire NT was written in Aramaic (still published in 
reprints of his books as "fact") has been clearly debunked long ago.

> Kittel dated James very early, didn't he?  The language of the epistle in the
> canon is not specifically Greek, is it?

No declaration is made regarding the language of the canon until you get 
to the Reformation era confessions, where "the OT in Hebrew and the NT in 
Greek" are specifically mentioned (to address specifically Roman Catholic 
claims regarding the Vulgate).  Nevertheless, only a very few fathers 
claim more for even Matthew than Papias stated, and the "logia" mentioned 
may merely have been personal notes rather than the entire gospel.

James also does not well reflect "translation Greek", which argues
strongly for its original language being Greek. 


_________________________________________________________________________
Maurice A. Robinson, Ph.D.           Assoc. Prof./Greek and New Testament
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary     Wake Forest, North Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Back