Re: CHAT dating the Gospels (was: Languages in Gibson's Passion)

On Friday, March 12, 2004, at 11:02 AM, Peter Bleackley wrote:

> Staving Ray Brown:
[snip]

>> Interesting - can you tell us more? Even if it is genuine, it confirms
>> the
>> presence of a titulus (i.e. the Gospel writers didn't make it up);
>> indeed,
>>  it wasn't exactly an uncommon practice. Personally I can see no good
>> reason for doubting it in the case of Jesus.
>
> I saw an article about the claimed Titulus in a newspaper, probably the
> Independent. Searching their archives might uncover it. The article also
> mentioned that two Gospels mention the Titulus, that they give the
> languages in different orders, and that the order on the alleged Titulus
> corresponds to neither of them.
All four Gospels in fact mention a placard or inscription placed above
Jesus, but only John's uses the word 'titlos' (<-- latin 'titulus') - not
that that is particularly significant. But I find I was wrong in just
saying John's Gospel was the only the one to mention the three languages
(I consulted an English translation that, oddly, left it out in Luke). On
consulting the Greek NT, I find Luke also states that the inscription
(epigraphe:) was written in Greek, Roman and Hebrew letters (grammasin
helle:nikois kai rho:maïkois kai hebraïkois) - the only language written
at that time in Roman letters was Latin.

Luke's listing of the scripts is in exactly opposite order of John's
listing of the languages. But neither writer explicitly states states
'this is the exact order', merely that the inscription appeared in three
versions.
 =========================================================================
On Saturday, March 13, 2004, at 12:34 AM, Ph. D. wrote:

> Ray Brown wrote:
[snip]
>> So am I - Ph.D.'s dates are rather later than those normally given. We
[snip]

> First, let me admit my mistake. The gospels were written between 60 CE
> and 100 CE, not sixty to one hundred years after the fact. I was failing
> to
> take Jesus' age at the time of the crucifixion into account.
Right - we're in agreement on this, then   :)
  <snip>

[snip]
> I make no claim to being a Biblical scholar. All I know about this is what
> I've read in various publications. It seems that every time I read an
> article
> (by an academic), it mentions that the gospels were written between 60
> and 100 CE, and at least once I recall reading that this was determined
> by linguistic analysis.
Yep - linguistic analyses, what is said by ancient writers like Eusebios,
papyrus finds etc.

[snip]
> forget, and sometimes they have an agenda to promote. These gospel
> stories would have been told to all new converts, so who knows how
> they may have changed by the time someone decided to write them
> down?
It's because of possible changes that the synoptic (1st three Gospels)
were written. There is no good reason to doubt the authorship of Luke's
Gospel and we know from Paul's letters that Luke mixed with actual
Apostles of Jesus; also, as I've said, part of Luke's "Acts of the
Apostles" have the appearance of being based on his own 1st person diary
accounts. Nor is thee any reason to suppose that John Mark was not the
author of Mark's Gospel. It has been held that Mark acted more or less as
a scribe for Peter, but this view is now questioned I believe. But a
strong Petrine connection is likely. At any rate John Mark clearly had
direct contact with 1st generation Apostolic sources.

What I'm saying is that at least two of the Gospels were not written by
the next generation of converts but by people who had direct contact with
those who had been with Jesus during his ministry.

Matthew's Gospel is more problematic as we do not know it's author. There
was an ancient tradition that the Apostle Matthew was the first to put the
Gospel into writing and that he wrote his Gospel in Aramaic. No trace of
the 'Aramaic Matthew' has survived. It is possible that our Greek Matthew
is a recension of the Aramaic Matthew made in the light of Mark's account;
  this would account for the name Matthew being attached to the Greek  as
well as the tradition that Matthew's Gospel was the first.

Oddly, perhaps, the Gospel not published till about 100 CE may well be the
most accurate of all since, as I said, it is likely to have been the
posthumous editing and pubilcation of accounts derived from an eyewitness
of all the events, namely John son of Zebedee.

> I recently read somewhere, in a discussion of the Gibson film, that the
> Bible makes Pilate seem reluctant to execute Jesus,
All four Gospels mention that Pilate wanted to free Jesus.

> while in reality
> Pilate was ruthless and eliminated anyone who gave any hint of
> being a political threat to Rome.
Well, yes - but it seems that Pilate didn't actually think Jesus was a
political threat to Rome. He probably regarded him as a rather cranky but
harmless itinerant preacher. Pilate would be more concerned with zealots
who promoted armed resistance.

But Pilate's wanting to release Jesus was surely no more than wanting to
have done with what he regarded as a minor and troublesome event. When he
realized things were getting out of hand he changed his mind.

But IMO Pilate comes over as indifferent to the fate of individuals and I
get the impression that Pilate was pretty contemptuous of the Jews he
governed anyway. His apparent insistence on calling Jesus "King of the
Jews" on the placard above the cross is surely intended to mock and insult
all those read it. Why else bother to make sure it was not only in Latin
(the official lang of the Empire), but also in Greek, the language of Jews
of the Diaspora, and Aramaic, the language of the Jews of Galilee & Judaea?

He comes across to me as cold, contemptuous of the people he governed and
interested only in looking after himself.

> The writer's opinion was that the
> writer of that gospel account (writing soon after the destruction of
> Jerusalem) was trying to put the blame on the Jews rather than on
> Rome. That's what I mean by an agenda to promote.
Mark's Gospel was probably written before the destruction of Jerusalem.
Matthew is the only one to recount the story of Pilate washing his hands
and the crowd shouting "His blood be on us and our children". It has been
observed that Matthew's Gospel is more directed towards Jewish readership
than the others (and if it's based on an Aramaic original, this is not
surprising) and so the agenda is not so much to let Rome off the hook
(after all Pilate authorized the crucifixion) but to persuade Jewish
readers to examine themselves and convert.

On the other hand, Luke, which was also probably published after the
destruction of Jerusalem, just shows Pilate giving in to the wishes of the
crowd with no washing of hands etc. The account hardly exonerates Rome.
But Luke was writing for "most Excellent Theophilus" (kratiste Theophile).
"Theophilus" (a name which ambiguously can mean 'loved by God' or 'lover
of God') is generally assumed to be a pseudonym. Some take it as meaning
"you, dear reader" - but it would be odd to refer to the reader as
'kratiste', a title given to those of senatorial rank.

It has been suggested that Theophilus may have been a Roman senator who
had been impressed by Paul during his trial in Rome under Nero and who had
asked Luke about the Gospel and the new Christian religion. It would
explain why the 'Acts of the Apostles' stops short of Paul's trial and his
eventual execution. It's an attractive theory but, alas, we'll probably
never find evidence to prove or disprove it.

> Again, I make no claim to be a Biblical scholar. I'm just making
> some observations. I may very well be totally wrong.
I doubt it. Short of time-travel none of us can be sure of all the details
- we can only make reasonable inferences.

But to return to where this thread started (and matters linguistic :) I
think it is:
- beyond all reasonable doubt that we'd have heard Koine Greek spoken;
- the Sadducees and Pilate would almost certainly have communicated in
Koine Greek;
- any Latin we might have heard spoken in this hellenized part of the
Empire would certainly not be in the later, ecclesiastical pronunciation;
- it is not likely that Pilate would've bothered himself to learn Aramaic
or even have been interested in doing so;
- it is not at all likely that Jesus would have conversed with Pilate in
Latin (and certainly not in a pronunciation not current at the time);
- when Pilate addressed the crowd he would've done so in Greek and either
used an interpreter or relied upon sufficient people in the crowd
understanding Greek and thus doing whatever interpreting was necessary for
those who didn't understand;
- it is possible that Jesus growing up in this part of the Empire might
have acquired enough Koine Greek in his 30 years to be able to converse
directly Pilate - if this wasn't so, Pilate would've used an Greek-Aramaic
interpreter.

As for dating the Gospels, we both seem to be in agreement, so perhaps it'
s time to return to conlanging :)

Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
ray.brown@freeuk.com    (home)
raymond.brown@kingston-college.ac.uk   (work)
===============================================
"A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
interfere with language."         J.G. Hamann, 1760

Replies