Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Albert & Julia Haig <albert_and_julia AT yahoo.com.au>]

> [PK]But I would dispute the relevance of the Peshitta (4th-5th century CE 
> Syriac version of the New Testament) here. I know that some people like to 
> claim that the Peshitta is at least to a large extent an original Aramaic 
> NT of which the Greek NT is a translation. But the scholarly consensus is 
> that the Peshitta is basically a translation of the Greek NT.

Yes, but it is obviously helpful as a source on the meaning of Aramaic terms, 
whether it is a translation or not. Indeed, if it is a translation, that may 
make it more useful for these purposes.

> [PK]An additional indication of this is the variation of the wording in the 
> four different places where this formula is quoted in the NT: Matthew 22:37 
> (3 words: "heart", "soul", "mind" (DIANOIA)); Mark 12:30 (4 words: "heart", 
> "soul", "mind" (DIANOIA), "strength"); Mark 12:33 (3 words: "heart", 
> "understanding" (SUNESIS), "strength") Luke 10:27 (4 words: "heart", 
> "soul", "strength", "mind" (DIANOIA)). It would seem that those who 
> rendered Jesus' words into Greek used varying strategies to translate 
> Hebrew LEBAB and ME'OD, or its Aramaic equivalents.

This is most readily explicable by Markan priority.

> [KP]Is it being assumed that in the encounter narrated in Mark 12:28-34 
> Jesus was speaking Aramaic rather than Hebrew?

No. It could be Hebrew or Aramaic. However, if Aramaic had a distinct and 
specific word for "mind" at this time which had no Hebrew analogue [which - 
note everyone please - is the main point that I am trying to determine], that 
would slightly favour Aramaic over Hebrew. Even if this passage represents 
some sort of midrashic development, why add "mind" when "lev" was always 
understood to include it in Hebrew anyway?

> [BJW III] In fact, evil, grief, conscience, bravery, wishdown, 
> understanding, though functions, the seat of the will, etc., all are used 
> of labab and leb.

That's my point exactly. Why add an additional term when lev covers it? What 
would the additional term have been, if it was Hebrew? What about Aramaic?

> [BJW III] In particular, the widely-held distinction between mind as the 
> seat of thing and heart as seat of feeling (esp.tender feeling) is alien 
> from the meaning these terms carry in the Bible.

Half-true - it's alien from the meaning these terms carry in the Old 
Testament. In New Testament Greek, there was some distinction, although it 
was much less pronounced than in classical Greek thought, due to the Hebraic 
influence on the former. It is questionable whether, for instance, nous and 
kardia are always used synonymously in the NT (sometimes they are, not 
always). That again gets to the point. Where does Aramaic stand in this 
regard?

> [BJW III] Harder makes it quite clear that dianoia, nous, etc. are not used 
> that often in the LXX,

But they are so used in the NT, and this supports my comments above.

> [HH] Someone has pointed out that Palestine was a multi-lingual context. 
> Isaiah centuries earlier had spoken of "Galilee of the Gentiles," and the 
> Seleucid rulers had striven to inculcate the love of things Greek. The NT 
> is Greek. I see no difficulty in assuming  that Jesus knew Greek and was 
> familiar with the LXX. Nor do I have difficulty imagining that he spoke in 
> more than one language and may have preached in Greek at times.

I've read such arguments, and I remain completely unconvinced. The idea that 
Greek was spoken by Palestinian Jews in anything but exceptional cases is 
extremely hard to believe, and the idea that the LXX would be employed by 
people such as John the Baptist and Jesus in discussions with Pharisees even 
in circumstances where it contradicts every Hebrew and Aramaic text that we 
have, is far-fetched. From the earliest record of Christian-Jewish 
interactions, at least since Justin Martyr, when Christians cited the LXX in 
cases where it contradicted the Hebrew, the Jews would immediately respond by 
gleefully pointing out this defect. Why would the Pharisees not similarly 
respond to John the Baptist or Jesus? As anybody who has tried knows, the 
ability to be fluently bilingual (excepting closely related languages such as 
Hebrew and Aramaic) or trilingual is difficult, and in a society which had a 
high rate of illiteracy and little formal education, there are good reasons to
 express scepticism about this. Furthermore, the ability to retain fluency in 
a second language depends in all but exceptional cases upon one's having 
continuing contact with people who speak that language as their 
mother-tongue. But even if you remain convinced that Jesus sometimes spoke 
Greek to the Pharisees, for the sake of the present argument, since arguing 
the issue would be way off forum, let's assume that he was speaking in 
Aramaic or Hebrew, and see if there is a possible solution.

> [HH] Even if Jesus were speaking Aramaic on this occasion, he might 
> conceivably have been motivated to insert this idea of mind into a citation 
> of Deut 6:5.

This is what I'm trying to get at. Although Jesus had challenged people to 
use their minds, that doesn't tell us whether he could have distinguished 
mind and heart in Aramaic. In Hebrew usage, "lev" would have done perfectly 
to mean mental sharpness of the mind. But I'm not sure about Aramaic.

> [YL] Please define what you mean by "mind" in English, and then we'll see 
> if there is a Hebrew word, biblcial or otherwise, that has more or less the 
> same meaning. Does "mind" mean "brain", "sense" or "thought"? Or did you 
> have something else in mind. Would you mind elaborating, so as to put our 
> minds at ease? Or should we just mind our own business?

No, I don't mind :) Really, though, it doesn't matter too much what I mean by 
mind, but what the author of Mark meant when he used it (dianoia) and 
distinguished it from kardia. My question can be phrased like this: was there 
a word in 1st century Aramaic that clearly meant the mind as let's say the 
"organ of thought" as opposed to the more inclusive term heart.

Thanks, everyone.

All the best,

Albert Haig.


                
---------------------------------
On Yahoo!7
  Dancing With the Stars: Win tickets to the Grand Final! 
>From kwrandolph AT email.com  Tue Apr  4 09:48:04 2006
Return-Path: <kwrandolph AT email.com>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from webmail-outgoing.us4.outblaze.com
        (webmail-outgoing2.us4.outblaze.com [205.158.62.67])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 054124C013
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Tue,  4 Apr 2006 09:48:04 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from unknown (unknown [192.168.9.180])
        by webmail-outgoing.us4.outblaze.com (Postfix) with QMQP id
        805011800DC6
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Tue,  4 Apr 2006 13:55:54 +0000 
(GMT)
X-OB-Received: from unknown (205.158.62.182)
        by wfilter.us4.outblaze.com; 4 Apr 2006 13:55:54 -0000
Received: by ws1-6.us4.outblaze.com (Postfix, from userid 1001)
        id 645F21CE305; Tue,  4 Apr 2006 13:55:54 +0000 (GMT)
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: "Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
To: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 08:55:53 -0500
Received: from [69.227.55.194] by ws1-6.us4.outblaze.com with http for
        kwrandolph AT email.com; Tue, 04 Apr 2006 08:55:53 -0500
X-Originating-Ip: 69.227.55.194
X-Originating-Server: ws1-6.us4.outblaze.com
Message-Id: <20060404135554.645F21CE305 AT ws1-6.us4.outblaze.com>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Flying or Darting in Isaiah 14:29 and 30:6
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 13:48:04 -0000

Jack:

What makes you think that they were rare? Could it=20
be that sighting such creatures was then so common=20
that it did not merit special mention?

Grant you that today such sightings are rare, but=20
in http://www.s8ing.com one of the pages mentions=20
that less than 200 years ago in Wales a flock of=20
pterosaurs was known in a certain area and sighting=20
them was common. In fact it was reported that they=20
were killed off by people because they were such=20
nuisances to the local farmers. So why not also in=20
other parts of the world, such as ANE?

I notice that in my original response I was not=20
clear, but I meant pterosaurs too.

Karl W. Randolph.

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: tladatsi AT charter.net
>=20
> www.rae.org/pteroets.html
>=20
> Pterosaurs huh?  Based on the text and context I would disagree.=20=20
> Something as unusual as pterosaurs would, I think, be remarked upon=20
> by the author of Isaiah.  I would expect that if a pterosaur were=20
> seen in the ANE, it would be an unusual event.  Some much so that=20
> the author would draw attention to it in some way.  Yet the text=20
> betrays no special concern with these flying serpents, they appear=20
> nothing more than a metaphor for something dangerous and venomous,=20
> something to be avoided but not unusal.
>=20
> --
> Jack Tladatsi

--=20
___________________________________________________
Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/