From: eje@irenaeus.mlo.dec.com (Eric James Ewanco)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Qumran finding
Date: 2 Sep 92 02:27:34 GMT
Reply-To: ewanco@kalvin.enet.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

In article <Sep.1.03.09.17.1992.13281@athos.rutgers.edu>, jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler) writes:
From: jhpb@sarto.budd-lake.nj.us (Joseph H. Buehler)
Subject: Re: Qumran finding
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 03:09:18 GMT+5:00

> Fr. Carmignac was another Catholic Biblical scholar.  His work
> centered on the theory of the Hebrew/Aramaic language of the original
> Gospels.  Meaning, that he theorized that the Gospels were written,
> not in Greek, but in a Semitic tongue.  I'm not sure of the exact
> details, since it has been several months since "30 Days" covered
> this, so I may have it slightly wrong.  I do remember that he had
> hoped that Biblical scholarship by the year 2000 would be based on his
> groundwork.  When he died, he left his papers and research material to
> the Institute Catholique in France, since he had taught there so long.
> They refused to let anyone see it!!!

> The example in the 30 Days article from Fr. Carmignac's work covered
> the Gospel of St. John, in particular, a passage where there was
> wordplay in Aramaic/Hebrew that did not show up in the current Greek
> text.  It had to be translated into Aramaic/Hebrew for the wordplay to
> show up.  I don't recall any other details, sorry...

I thought this was exciting, too.  Well, actually I don't know if it was the
same scholar, now that i think about it, but this scholar had translated
Matthew into Aramaic and discovered that it was much, much easier than it
should have been given the disparity between Aramaic and Greek, and he found
plays on words that only existed in Aramaic, and other literary techniques that
made no sense in Greek but perfect sense in Aramiaic.  Then I read Eusebius,
who says quite explicitly that Matthew wrote his Gospel for the Hebrews "in
their own tongue".  No question in his mind.  So I'm thinking, why is this such
a hotly debated topic?  What's the big deal?  Matthew was written in a Semitic
language.  It's obvious. Case closed.

Also makes Matthew 16:18 come across very differently, and obviates the
argument that Petros and Petra are different words, since they are only
translations of the one word that only could have existed in the origianl
Semitic language, Kepha.

Eric
--
/=============================================================================\
| Eric Ewanco - Software Engineer For the rash and outrageous opinions ex-    |
| Digital Equipment Corp, Maynard MA pressed herein I alone am responsible;   |
| ewanco@kalvin.enet.dec.com they do not belong to DIGITAL(TM).  	      |
\==============================- 2 Th 2:15 -==================================/
    "...[T]he greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and
    organized at Rome by [] Peter and Paul, [is] that Church which has the
    tradition and faith which comes down to us after having been announced
    to men by the Apostles.  For with this Church, because of its superior
    origin, all Churches must agree ...  and it is in her that the
    faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition."
       -- St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, c. 180 A.D., 3,3,3.