[B-Greek] re: mamonas-wilcox

R Yochanan Bitan Buth ybitan at mscc.huji.ac.il
Wed May 12 14:55:34 EDT 2004


> I see you have already had an answer to this question, but would point out

>that the Anchor BIble Dictionary [ article by Wilcox ] takes a different 
>view on the Aramaic/Hebrew question.
>
>  >>All of this supports the view that Semitic material is to be found in 
>the tradition preserved here by Luke. Because the Greek form of the word is

>MAMWNAS, it is on balance more probable that it reflects the Aram MMWN' 
>(pronounced _mammona_) than the corresponding Hebrew.<<
>
>Maurice A. O'Sullivan
>[Bray, Ireland]

Shalom Maurice,
Thank you for the Anchor Bible reference [MAMMON]. Wilcox' survey and
conclusion on Luke is quite good. He cited Hebrew Qumran material and some
of the Hebrew Mishnaic material. It is a nice job. All of his evidence
reflects the same view as mine on using contemporary Hebrew [and Aramaic]
material. 
(NB: He only cited from Hebrew texts in his MAMMON article. Rather
interesting for a word attributed to Aramaic. Pretty remarkable agreement.)

His 'balance' is a little wobbly at the end, though. 
HEBREW loan words into Greek regularly took -A- suffixes, sometimes because
of Aramaic cognates with wider Greek-Aramaic interface (from the Black Sea
to Egypt), sometimes for simple euphony. For example, in the LXX the very
Hebrew PESAH is often PASXA in Greek. Not because the LXX is from Aramaic.
It was from Hebrew. But Greek preferred the PASXA form. Hebrew ShEHAR 'beer'
shows up in the LXX (and in Luke) as . . . SIKERA. 
Wilcox was quite right in citing the Hebrew literary sources, but the Greek
comment was misapplied by intending it to be diagnostic in distinguishing
Aramaic from Hebrew. There are distinguishing marks in Greek dress, but that
isn't one of them.  [[While he cited Luke 16, he may have been unaware of
the fact, or chose to ignore, that 100% (not 99!) of all story parables in
rabbinic literature are in Hebrew (thousands extant, several hundred 'king'
parables alone), even though Amoraic literature (200-500 CE) frequently uses
Aramaic for stories (but not for story parables).  Of course, one might say
that Lk 16 is not labelled a parable. That's fair. But Lk 15:3 is labelled
"PARABOLH" followed with 15:8 H 'or ...(woman and coin)', 15:11 EIPEN DE
'and he said (lost son)'and Lk 16 says ELEGEN DE KAI "and he was also
saying".]]

Anyway, he and I are agreed that the Hebrew commentary in the Mishna is
significant for understanding MAMWNAS. And we would probably also be agreed
that students of the gospels are well served from a fluent control of Greek,
Hebrew and Aramaic, these three. Most significantly, we agree that the Luke
16 material probably reflects sources that go back to something Semitic. 

If you come to Gronigen SBL this July, I will have some extended data to
present on "Re-doing Dalman: A Hebraic Approach to Luke with an Application
to the Parable of the Vineyard, Tenants, and Son ".

YISGE SHLAMXON (=PLHQUNQEIH H EIRHNH UMWN =Hb shalom rav)

Randall Buth

Randall Buth, PhD
Director, Biblical Language Center
www.biblicalulpan.org
and Director, Biblical Studies in Israel
Hebrew University, Rothberg International School
ybitan at mscc.huji.ac.il






More information about the B-Greek mailing list