[B-Greek] How Markos reads the LXX (was future indicative inJonah 1:11 (Joseph Justiss)

Jack Kilmon jkilmon at historian.net
Sat May 21 15:15:12 EDT 2011



-----Original Message----- 
From: Barry H.
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 1:21 PM
To: Jack Kilmon ; b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] How Markos reads the LXX (was future indicative 
inJonah 1:11 (Joseph Justiss)


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon at historian.net>
To: "Barry H." <nebarry at verizon.net>; <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 1:58 PM
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] How Markos reads the LXX (was future indicative
inJonah 1:11 (Joseph Justiss)


> I understand. Our ancient "God-fearers" like the rest of the population 
> was 95+% illiterate nor could afford a Codex Sinaiticus nor would be 
> interested in a text critical view of what a presbyteros was reading to 
> them.
> That is not the case in today's literate society.

You are advancing as confident fact what is in a great deal of dispute.

JK] Hi Barry.  I would agree to SOME dispute but not to a great deal of 
dispute.  One source, if you are interested, is:
http://faculty.biu.ac.il/~barilm/illitera.html

> One of my best examples of a translation that without appeal to Aramaic is 
> downright silly is Luke 14:26.  I will transliterate the Greek and 
> phoneticize the Aramaic since I am not sure Hebrew and Greek fonts unicode 
> here.

Jack, we don't have an Aramaic original.  I know it's a thing of yours, but
retroversion to understand what someone might have said is a flawed
methodology.  How do you know that Luke's Greek (which is perfectly
understandable, good Greek) doesn't reflect the intent of what Jesus may
have originally said?  Now, I know you can come up with some sort of
defense, but really, you don't know, not for sure.  Your Aramaic is just a
guess, really.  It may be a really educated, well thought out guess, but a
guess nonetheless.

JK]  There were no Aramaic originals to any of the NT books since they were 
authored in Greek. There were only Aramaic source materials, oral and 
written, beginning with Jesus.  You are correct, of course, that with 
anything in the ancient world, we cannot know for sure.  Even those things 
written in Greek that are attributed to Jesus as what he said and what he 
did are not reliable.  In order to arrive at a degree of confidence, say 75% 
or more, we have to use tools other than just translating the Greek, all 
written by folks who wouldn't have known him (had he been still alive) if 
they tripped over his sandals.  I would not say reconstructing translational 
Greek to the source language is as much flawed as difficult but it is the 
only methodology for getting at the ipsissima vox Iesu.

But I suspect we are getting into extra-B-Greek sort of issues, so I'll stop
there and let you have the last word, if you like.

JK]  Only that I do not think the source languages behind Biblical Greek 
should be extra-B-Greek issues given that B-Greek by its very nature is 
translated Hebrew and Aramaic save for some NT narrative and epistles.

Jack Kilmon. semper authentica in Chaldaica sonat....  :)



N.E. Barry Hofstetter, semper melius Latine sonat...
Classics and Bible Instructor, TAA
http://www.theamericanacademy.net
(2010 Salvatori Excellence in Education Winner)
V-P of Academic Affairs, TNARS
bhofstetter at tnars.net
http://www.tnars.net

http://my.opera.com/barryhofstetter/blog
http://mysite.verizon.net/nebarry




More information about the B-Greek mailing list