Re: Jesus and Aramaic

Although I am not John, I will comment.  I have recently used Isbel's 
book and doubt that it will help at all in the present discussion.  
The bowls are late, up to the fifth century CE.  They are all in 
Aramaic, and the magical parts seem to be names, such as YHWH, aside 
from the incantations themselves.  Isbel book presents a very brief 
history of the study of the bowls and then presents a translation of 
of the bowls that he could locate.  He presents very little 
discussion of the use of Aramiac as the language of the incantations 
and no attempt is make to place them within any historical 
or sociological context.  The book is almost exclusively philological 
in nature and is even sparse on that front!

Glenn Wooden
Acadia Divinity College
Wolfville, N.S.

> John,
> Interesting note! I believe there is a book by C. Isbel on Aramaic 
> Incantation bowls. Do you know it, and if so, how might this be related 
> to the discussion?
> John Rook
> McMaster
> On Wed, 23 Mar 1994, John C. Hurd wrote:
> > In response to the last posting in this area:  no one seems to have
> > picked up on the fact that the Aramaic tags in the NT are not there
> > because of dramatic emphasis but because they are in contexts which
> > are either (1) liturgical or (2) miraculous (magical).  Both
> > traditions are enormously conservative (and not so different).  When
> > you want to cure someone, it is important to have the *real* words of
> > power and that means the words in their original language.  Those who
> > want the actual words of Jesus cannot do better than these -- and
> > these words are in Aramaic.
> > -- 
> > *****************************************************************
> > * Prof. John C. Hurd            Internet: hurd@epas.utoronto.ca *
> > * 49 Wanless Ave.               Office tel.: (416) 485-2429     *
> > * Toronto, Ont.  M4N 1V5        Office fax:  (416) 485-7320     *
> > *****************************************************************
> >