11-14-2003, 04:12 AM
This isn't a split word, but an inter-synoptic variance, so I figure I should post it here. :-)
----------
Original article I wrote at: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.AramaicNT.org/index.php?PAGE=Luke/SimonTheZealot">http://www.AramaicNT.org/index.php?PAGE ... nTheZealot</a><!-- m -->
----------
Simon The Zealot
Luke Utilizes A Working Knowledge Of Aramaic
Introduction
If it were not for the Gospel of Luke, the vocabulary of the Greek New Testament would rest upon a mere 800 words.(1) When Luke's work is taken into account, however, we depart from a number that is far under what most linguists say is necessary to be fluent in a language, and rise to a mind boggling number of words which are unique to his pen alone.
But Syria, the traditional place of Luke's residence, is a country that birthed the language of Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic spoken in Jesus' lifetime, incorporated several centuries B.C. after its invasion by the Persian Empire. Why would Luke, who is traditionally a Syrian physician, write in litterary Greek about an Aramaic figure? By looking at the text of his Gospel in comparison to the other Synoptics, we can draw the conclusion that he did, in fact, know the Aramaic language due to the following quirk in the text.
The Quirk
Out of the three Synoptic Gospels which tell the story of Jesus appointing twelve Apostles (/shleekke'/ : Sent Ones in Aramaic), Luke is the only book to label the last Simon as /zeloten/ : 'The Zealot'. Matthew and Mark refer to the last Simon mentioned as /kananites/ : 'The Canaanite'. So, you can see the oddity, since modern textual criticism theory states that Luke and Matthew used Mark as one of their sources. Why would Luke edit Mark's words where Matthew keeps them the same?
The Evidence
The first rule of editing is not to edit something without good cause. What cause could Luke possibly have? Taking a look at the original language, we find something interesting:
In Aramaic, the word for "Canannite" is /qnonoyo'/, and when we take off the /yo'/ suffix, we are left with the word /qnono'/ : Canaan. We can immediately see how this could be confused with /ttnono'/ : Zealot, as the only thing that seperates the two words is that one starts with a "glottal K" (Qoof) where the other starts with a "pallatialized T" (Tteyth), two sounds which can be confused by ear. In most Aramaic scripts, these letters also look somewhat similar.
Conclusion
Given the evidence, we can draw one of two conclusions based upon current New Testament theory:
Conclusion A:
Luke substituted an Aramaic word which sounded similar to "Canaanite" to make Simon out as a "Zealot" in an attempt to avoid the potential embarassment of a non-Jew being counted amongst the original 12 Apostles.
Conclusion B:
Luke tried to mask a blunder, whereby Mark mistook Simon to be a Canaanite where he was just given a knickname similar to the rest of Jesus' core group.
Further Thought
With either conclusion, we must accept that Luke had a knowledge of spoken Aramaic, at the very least. Due to other inconsistent blunders that are apparent in the Greek texts, this particular instance would lead to a conclusion that Luke was either authored by a Greek/Aramaic bi-lingual scribe, or that it was a translation from an Aramaic source document, of whose translator did not catch every nuance of the language.
Footnotes:
This number is currently being confirmed. (back)
----------
Hope you all think this neat, too :-D
Shlomo,
-Steve-o
----------
Original article I wrote at: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.AramaicNT.org/index.php?PAGE=Luke/SimonTheZealot">http://www.AramaicNT.org/index.php?PAGE ... nTheZealot</a><!-- m -->
----------
Simon The Zealot
Luke Utilizes A Working Knowledge Of Aramaic
"And [he] chose twelve of them whom he called Apostles:
Simon, whom he named 'Rock,'
and Andrew, his brother,
and James,
and John
and Philip
and Bartholomew
and Matthew,
and Thomas,
and James, Alpheus' son,
and Simon, who was called 'The Zealot,'
and Judas, James' son,
and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor."
-Luke 6:13c-16
Simon, whom he named 'Rock,'
and Andrew, his brother,
and James,
and John
and Philip
and Bartholomew
and Matthew,
and Thomas,
and James, Alpheus' son,
and Simon, who was called 'The Zealot,'
and Judas, James' son,
and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor."
-Luke 6:13c-16
Introduction
If it were not for the Gospel of Luke, the vocabulary of the Greek New Testament would rest upon a mere 800 words.(1) When Luke's work is taken into account, however, we depart from a number that is far under what most linguists say is necessary to be fluent in a language, and rise to a mind boggling number of words which are unique to his pen alone.
But Syria, the traditional place of Luke's residence, is a country that birthed the language of Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic spoken in Jesus' lifetime, incorporated several centuries B.C. after its invasion by the Persian Empire. Why would Luke, who is traditionally a Syrian physician, write in litterary Greek about an Aramaic figure? By looking at the text of his Gospel in comparison to the other Synoptics, we can draw the conclusion that he did, in fact, know the Aramaic language due to the following quirk in the text.
The Quirk
Out of the three Synoptic Gospels which tell the story of Jesus appointing twelve Apostles (/shleekke'/ : Sent Ones in Aramaic), Luke is the only book to label the last Simon as /zeloten/ : 'The Zealot'. Matthew and Mark refer to the last Simon mentioned as /kananites/ : 'The Canaanite'. So, you can see the oddity, since modern textual criticism theory states that Luke and Matthew used Mark as one of their sources. Why would Luke edit Mark's words where Matthew keeps them the same?
The Evidence
The first rule of editing is not to edit something without good cause. What cause could Luke possibly have? Taking a look at the original language, we find something interesting:
In Aramaic, the word for "Canannite" is /qnonoyo'/, and when we take off the /yo'/ suffix, we are left with the word /qnono'/ : Canaan. We can immediately see how this could be confused with /ttnono'/ : Zealot, as the only thing that seperates the two words is that one starts with a "glottal K" (Qoof) where the other starts with a "pallatialized T" (Tteyth), two sounds which can be confused by ear. In most Aramaic scripts, these letters also look somewhat similar.
Conclusion
Given the evidence, we can draw one of two conclusions based upon current New Testament theory:
Conclusion A:
Luke substituted an Aramaic word which sounded similar to "Canaanite" to make Simon out as a "Zealot" in an attempt to avoid the potential embarassment of a non-Jew being counted amongst the original 12 Apostles.
Conclusion B:
Luke tried to mask a blunder, whereby Mark mistook Simon to be a Canaanite where he was just given a knickname similar to the rest of Jesus' core group.
Further Thought
With either conclusion, we must accept that Luke had a knowledge of spoken Aramaic, at the very least. Due to other inconsistent blunders that are apparent in the Greek texts, this particular instance would lead to a conclusion that Luke was either authored by a Greek/Aramaic bi-lingual scribe, or that it was a translation from an Aramaic source document, of whose translator did not catch every nuance of the language.
Footnotes:
This number is currently being confirmed. (back)
----------
Hope you all think this neat, too :-D
Shlomo,
-Steve-o