Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rev 11: my 2nd witness
I searched for 'ג ב ר' in
_A Dictionary of Samaritan Aramaic_ (2 vols.) by Abraham Tal

sorted by pages, and see on page 126 an entry; similar searches for "epithet" and "ditgabbar" yielded more material, as did a google search for "gebürtak":
"גבר כוח, יכולת might, strength א"י ואתגברו מייא - קת"ג בר ז 18. סוא"י אתגבר ואתחיל - דב לא 7] -> איש man -» כינוי לאלוהים epithet of god [השי גבורה' בעברית. א"כ] קל עבר: וגבר - שמ יז 11 C. אגברו - בר ז 18 [א פרוסתטית או אתפעל?"

"man -» כינוי לאלוהים epithet of god [השי גבורה' בעברית. א"כ] קל עבר: וגבר - שמ יז 11 C. אגברו - בר ז 18 [א פרוסתטית או אתפעל? Prothetic Aleph or Etpaffal2] אתפעל עבר: דאתגבר ditgabbar - ע"ד כג 62."

"ditgabbar - ע"ד כג 62. עתיד: תתגבר (נסתרת) - ת"מ 253א. בינוני: מתגבר - ת"מ 20א. מגברה (נ) - שמ לב 18. מתגברין mitgabbäron - א"ג 84. גבור gibbor - ע"ד כז 9. גבורה גבורתך (+נוכח) gebürtak."

"מגברה (נ) - שמ לב 18. מתגברין mitgabbäron - א"ג 84. גבור gibbor - ע"ד כז 9. גבורה גבורתך (+נוכח) gebürtak. גבוראתה (ר) geburäta - מ ט 10-9."

Page 127 has
"5 לציון ההדדיות marker of reciprocity ואפרדו גבר מלות אחיו A ויפרדו איש מעל אחיו they - Separated themselves the ... ג(י)בר ש"ע ז n. m. qittal גיבור mighty one [א"י כנמרוד גיבר בחטאה - נ בר י 9] הוא הוה גיבר עצאי הוא היה גיבור ציד he ..."

"qittal גיבור mighty one [א"י כנמרוד גיבר בחטאה - נ בר י 9] הוא הוה גיבר עצאי הוא היה גיבור ציד he was a mighty one in hunting - בר י 9 ומנך כל גברים יזעו וירתתו וממך כל ..."

After x-ing out the search results, the full page was displayed.
On 126:
g-b-r .... might, strength.... man.... epithet of God

next entry:
_ _ g-b-r .... to prevail.... prevailed

next entry:
_ _ _ _ _ g-b-r .... to prevail

On 127:
mighty.... _epithet of God_.... the Lord is mighty in war.... the great, the mighty, and the awesome God

next entry:
might.... His great might.... Divine Power.... Ten Commandments from the mouth of the Divine Power through the prophet

next entry:
g-b-r .... man.... man found him....
2 _marker of indefinition_ two daughters who have not known man.... no man is with us
3 _marker of character or origin (in collocations)_ capable men.... trustworthy men
4 _distributive_ each with its language
5 _marker of reciprocity_ they separated themselves the one from the other

next entry:
mighty one.... he was a mighty one in hunting

next entry:
g-b-r-h .... might.... the might of the enemies

next entry:
power.... the might of His goodness and power of His might

next entry:
g-b-r-t .... mistress.... go back to your mistress

Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
Do you disagree with any of this?:

"The Original Language of the Gospels" by Edgar J. Goodspeed (Oct 1934)
Also in
_Contemporary Thinking About Jesus: An Anthology_, compiled by Thomas S. Kepler (1944), 429pp., on 58-63, 58-59
But the greatest difficulty with the method was that there seemed to be no historical occasion likely to have called forth the Aramaic Gospel it assumed, especially at so early a date as it claimed-- 50 or 52 A.D.

This is the core of the problem. How did such a Gospel come to be written? The Gospel is Christianity’s contribution to literature. It is the most potent type of religious literature ever devised. To credit such a creation to the most barren age of a never very productive tongue like Aramaic would seem the height of improbability.

For in the days of Jesus the Jews of Palestine were not engaged in writing books. It is not too much to say that a Jerusalem or Galilean Jew of the time of Christ would regard writing a book in his native tongue with positive horror. Even a century before, a Jew who wrote a book felt obliged to put it under the name of some ancient worthy like Enoch, the seventh from Adam, or to claim as its author some ancient Jew of what was called the Prophetic Period, which was understood to extend from Moses to Ezra, and from which it was believed all sound books on religion must come.

This aversion to writing books was not merely negative. It was positive. They had plenty of things to say and they said them, but they would not write them. Those were the days when the famous oral amplification of the Jewish Law was being developed by such masters as Hillel and Shammai. But the Jews would not write it; they memorized it. It seemed an act of impiety to write it, for then it might seem to rival the Scripture itself.

Those days also witnessed the translation of the Hebrew Law into the Aramaic vernacular. But this too remained unwritten for generations. Indeed, it is impossible to realize the fantastic unreality of the first-century Jewish attitude toward writing books.

There is a rabbinical story that about 50 A.D. Gamaliel the First, the grandson of Hillel, saw a written copy of an Aramaic translation of Job, and immediately had it destroyed. The story may not be true, but its intention is obvious: if anyone was wicked enough to write down the Targum on Job, it must be destroyed. This was the orthodox Jewish attitude toward writing books in Aramaic, in Jerusalem about the middle of the first century. If anything could heighten the picture, it is the behavior of Jews of that very period who escaped from these narrowing walls into the great Greek world of the day. Such men wrote books freely, but they wrote them principally in Greek. There is a peculiar irony in this, that gifted Jews should have to turn to Greek as a medium of literary expression. But Philo, Paul, and Josephus tell the story. They wrote, but they wrote in Greek.

Of the Jewish Apocrypha written within a century of the life of Jesus, the great majority were composed in Greek, not Aramaic, and it seems abundantly clear that in the times of Jesus the Jews were not writing books in Aramaic; indeed, they were actually resorting to the strangest devices to avoid doing so.

Even if the Jews had been given to Aramaic composition, and contemporary Aramaic literature had been a garden instead of a desert, the early Christians could hardly have contributed to it. They were constantly overshadowed by the sense of imminent catastrophe. The Messianic Advent overhung them like a huge wave of fate, threatening-- or promising-- to break at any moment. It was their urgent task to hasten about the ancient world warning men of what was at hand. Clearly it was no time for writing books.

II ....

Searching the Scriptures - Society of Biblical Literature, on 34-35
The 1934 meeting (seventieth) was a lively affair. Attention was focused on the well-known views of the Aramaic scholar Charles Cutler Torrey, remembered by a member as one who had "a Zeus-like appearance and spoke like an oracle." Torrey had recently published his book _The Four Gospels, A New Translation_ (1933), which James A. Montgomery had made the subject of a sympathetic review essay.^8 [8: "Torrey's Aramaic Gospels," 53 (1934) 79-99.] Montgomery noted that the essay accompanying the "chaste and charming" rendition was the fruition of a number of scattered monographs and notes the Yale professor had produced over twenty years. He concluded that Torrey had proven his case for him.

Torrey's arguments, linked with a combative style, forced NT scholars to deal seriously and competently with this revolutionary contribution to NT studies. And deal they did. At that meeting E. J. Goodspeed, H. J. Cadbury, and D. W. Riddle took up the challenge. For several years Torrey continued to enliven, if not polarize, the meetings: Hellenists and Hebraists of the primitive church _redivivi_. Some of the older members of the Society today can recall the supreme self-confidence of Torrey in debate:
"If there is any one here who is competent to challenge these conclusions, let him speak. But I am sure there are none such here."

Goodspeed charged that the maverick translation was in defiance of the scholarly ideal and "at variance with our whole New Testament science-- textual, grammatical, literary and historical." As with the Paulinist's treatment of the sects in the Pastorals, argumentation was often by denunciation, entertaining but not overly instructive. Montgomery's plea for an unprejudiced discussion for the most part went unheeded.
"any sources that postdate World War II?"
_From the Stone Age to Christianity_ by William Foxwell Albright (1940; 2nd edition 1946; with minor changes and a new introduction 1957), 432pp., on 388.  From the 1946 copy on 298-299 of
The Book of John stands apart from the synoptic Gospels, as recognized since the time of Origen (third century A.D.). In view of the extremely late date to which it has often been assigned, Torrey’s demonstration that it rests on an Aramaic substratum has been peculiarly resented by many New Testament scholars, though it has been enthusiastically accepted in principle by men of the standing of J. de Zwaan (1938).

"John Wrote in Aramaic" by Johannes de Zwaan (1883-1957) of Leyden University _Journal of Biblical Literature_ Vol. 57, No. 2 (Jun., 1938), pp. 155-171 (17 pages)

"The Aramaic Origin of the Gospel of John" by Charles C. Torrey _The Harvard Theological Review_ Vol. 16, No. 4 (Oct., 1923), pp. 305-344

"The Original Language of the Gospel of John" by Millar Burrows _Journal of Biblical Literature_ Vol. 49, No. 2 (1930), pp. 95-139

"The Original Language of the Gospels" by Samuel I. Feigin _Journal of Near Eastern Studies_ Vol. 2, No. 3 (Jul., 1943), pp. 187-197

"Could an Aramaic Gospel Be Written?" by A.T. Olmstead _Journal of Near Eastern Studies_ Vol. 1, No. 1 (Jan., 1942), pp. 41-75

"The Aramaic of the Gospels" by Charles C. Torrey _Journal of Biblical Literature_ Vol. 61, No. 2 (Jun., 1942), pp. 71-85

"The Possible Aramaic Gospel" by Edgar J. Goodspeed
_Journal of Near Eastern Studies_ Vol. 1, No. 3 (Jul., 1942), pp. 315-340

"The Aramaic Language and the Study of the New Testament" by Joseph A. Fitzmyer
_Journal of Biblical Literature_ Vol. 99, No. 1 (Mar., 1980), pp. 5-21

"Arameans, Aramaic, and the Bible" by Raymond A. Bowman
_Journal of Near Eastern Studies_ Vol. 7, No. 2 (Apr., 1948), pp. 65-90

_From Burney to Black: The Fourth Gospel and the Aramaic Question_ by Schuyler Brown
_The Catholic Biblical Quarterly_ Vol. 26, No. 3 (JULY 1964), pp. 323-339

"Hebrew, Aramaic, and the Greek of the Gospels" by W. Leonard Grant
_Greece & Rome_ Vol. 20, No. 60 (Oct., 1951), pp. 115-122

"Qumran Aramaic, Corpus Linguistics, and Aramaic Retroverstion" by Edward M. Cook
_Dead Sea Discoveries_ Vol. 21, No. 3, Aramaic Literature and Language in the Dead Sea Scrolls (2014), pp. 356-384

"Fact and Fancy in Theories concerning Acts: Concluded" by Charles C. Torrey
_The American Journal of Theology_ Vol. 23, No. 2 (Apr., 1919), pp. 189-212

"The Name 'Iscariot'" by Charles C. Torrey
_The Harvard Theological Review_ Vol. 36, No. 1 (Jan., 1943), pp. 51-62

"Stray Notes on the Aramaic of Daniel and Ezra" by Charles C. Torrey
_Journal of the American Oriental Society_ Vol. 43 (1923), pp. 229-238

"The Question of the Original Language of Qoheleth" by Charles C. Torrey
_The Jewish Quarterly Review_ Vol. 39, No. 2 (Oct., 1948), pp. 151-160

"Notes on Torrey's Translation of the Gospels" by Ralph Marcus
_The Harvard Theological Review_ Vol. 27, No. 4 (Oct., 1934), pp. 211-239

"Professor Marcus on the Aramaic Gospels" by Charles C. Torrey
_Journal of Biblical Literature_ Vol. 54, No. 1 (Mar., 1935), pp. 17-28

"Is Acts I-XV. 35 a Literal Translation from an Aramaic Original?" by A. A. Vazakas, Charles C. Torrey
_Journal of Biblical Literature_ Vol. 37, No. 1/2 (1918), pp. 105-110

_The Apocalypse of John_ by Charles C. Torrey
Review by: Ernst Haenchen
_Gnomon_, 32. Bd., H. 4 (1960), pp. 370-371

"Julius Wellhausen's Approach to the Aramaic Gospels" by Charles C. Torrey
_Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft_ Vol. 101 (n.F. 26) (1951), pp. 125-137

"Fact and Fancy in Theories concerning Acts" by Charles C. Torrey
_The American Journal of Theology_ Vol. 23, No. 1 (Jan., 1919), pp. 61-86

"Semitisms in Codex Bezae" by James D. Yoder
_Journal of Biblical Literature_ Vol. 78, No. 4 (Dec., 1959), pp. 317-321

"Un groupe d'aramaïsmes dans le texte grec des Évangiles" by A. J. (Arent Jan) Wensinck
(1882-1939), (1936), 12pp.

"The Logic of the Theory of Translation Greek" by Donald W. Riddle
_Journal of Biblical Literature_ Vol. 51, No. 1 (1932), pp. 13-30

"The Aramaic Gospels and the Synoptic Problem" by Donald Wayne Riddle
_Journal of Biblical Literature_ Vol. 54, No. 3 (Sep., 1935), pp. 127-138

"The Mechanics of Translation Greek" by J. Merle Rife
_Journal of Biblical Literature_ Vol. 52, No. 4 (Dec., 1933), pp. 244-252

"Principles for Testing the Translation Hypothesis in the Gospels" by Millar Burrows
_Journal of Biblical Literature_ Vol. 53, No. 1 (Apr., 1934), pp. 13-30

"The Septuagint as a Translation" by Elias J. Bickerman
_Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research_ Vol. 28 (1959), pp. 1-39

_The Impact of the Dead Sea Scrolls_ by Joseph A. Fitzmyer (2009), 148pp., on 45, 50
....there are now two copies of the targum of Job
(4QtgJob [4Q157] ["dated to the first century A.D." - 50];
11QtgJob [11Q10]) ["dated to the last half of the first century B.C." - 50],
and one of the targum of Leviticus
(4QtgLev [4Q156]) ["dated to the second century B.C." - 50]
These texts are important because they show that targums were being written down already in pre-Christian times, whereas it was often thought that it was forbidden then to put them in writing.

_Syntactical Evidence of Semitic Sources in Greek Documents_ by Raymond A. Martin (1974, reprinted 2004), 165pp., on 108 [if the page doesn't load, have your browser show the desktop view]
....16 sections of Acts 1:1-15:35 were clearly seen to be translation Greek
(1:15-26; 2:1-4; 4:23–31; 5:17-26; 5:27–32: 5:33–42; 6:1-7; 6:8-15; 7:9-16; 7:17–22; 7:30–43; 9:10–19a; 11:1-18; 13:16b–25; 13:26–41; 14:8–20)
and 6 other passages in Acts 1:1-15:35 were seen to be probably translation Greek
(2:29-36; 2:37-42; 7:1-8; 7:44–50; 9:19b–22; 9:32–35).
“stand on the issue of Marcan priority?”
I think Mark made use of Matthew and Luke, and added a little bit of material.

"You mean deleted a lot of material, don’t you?"
A little bit of material is unique to Mark, and was incorporated into Mark by Mark.
When meandering through Matthew and Luke, Mark selected material from Matthew and Luke to incorporate into Mark's account.
I wouldn't say Mark "deleted" material.

If I write a paper and quote a lot from 10 different books and articles, I selected material from those 10 items to incorporate into my paper.
I wouldn't say I "deleted" material from those 10 items.

A chart in this book illustrates the path that Mark took in compiling his gospel using material from Matthew and Luke.

_A History and Critique of the Origin of the Marcan Hypothesis 1835-1866: A Contemporary Report Rediscovered_ (1993)

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)