We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
It is not our purpose to re-open the discussion on the linguistic character of the different Semitic elements in the New Testament and to go into the problem whether a particular word spoken by Jesus such as εφφαθα is either Hebrew or Aramaic. Neither do we again want to raise the question of how many languages Jesus could speak or understand and which of these he normally used.1 Finally it is also not our intention to ascertain the exact meaning of such a debated phrase as Mαραναθά, whether this is ‘our Lord has come’ or ‘our Lord, come’.
[1] These two questions have been dealt with by Rabinowitz, I., ‘EΦΦAΘA (Mark vii 34) certainly Hebrew, not Aramaic’, J.S.S. 14 (1971), pp. 151–6Google Scholar, and by Emerton, J. A., ‘The Problem of Vernacular Hebrew in the First Century A.D. and the Language of Jesus’, J.T.S. 24 (N.S.) (1973), pp. 1–23.Google Scholar
[2] Lucian, , How to Write History ch. 19–21Google Scholar; cf. Kaimio, J., The Romans and the Greek Language (Helsinki, 1979), p. 297 n. 5.Google Scholar
[3] The instances are in 1. 13; 4. 10, 36; 10. 5,18, 32; 11. 13; 12. 12, 25; 13. 1, 9; 15. 22, 37. As we included such a case as Simon ‘the Zealot’ we might perhaps also add 9. 11; 10. 32; 13. 1; 21. 8, which are not really second names but are possibly used as such in these contexts. Luke also mentions two names of Romans at 18. 7; 23. 26; 24. 27 (Porcius Festus, after that 12 times Festus only: 25. 1 – 26. 32).
[4] For more instances of triple names I refer to my colleague van der Horst, P. W., Hellenistic Parallels to the Acts of the Apostles 1 1–26, a contribution to the Corpus Hellenisticum, in Z.N.W. 74 (1983), p. 25.Google Scholar
[5] For translated names see my Greek in Palestine and the Diaspora, CRINT 2 (Assen-Amsterdam 1976), p. 1052.Google Scholar
[6] Professions and army units: 4. 6; 9. 43; 10. 1, 6 (10. 32: n. 3); 18. 8; (21. 8: n. 3); 27. 1. Family ties: 1. 13, 14; 12. 2, 12; 13. 1. Provenance: 4. 36; 6. 5; (9. 11, 13. 1: n. 3); 18. 2, 24; 19. 29, 29; 20. 4 (6 persons); 21. 16; 27. 2. – Bar-Jesu is really a patronymic functioning as a first name like Bartholomaios (Mt. 10. 3); compare Bar-Timaios ‘the son of Timaios’ (Mk. 10. 46), which W. Bauer s.v. considers as mere doublets; the Peshitta has there: ‘Timaj the son of Timaj’. An untranslated patronymic is Bar-Jona (Mt. 16. 17); John has ‘Simon the son of Jona’ (1. 42).
[7] Cf. Schürmann, H., Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu den synoptischen Evangelien (Düsseldorf, 1968), p. 85.Google Scholar
[8] Cf. my Catalogues of Sins and Virtues Personified (NHCII5), in van den Broek, R. – Vermaseren, M. J. (edd.), Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions presented to Gilles Quispel… (EPRO vol. 91) (Leiden, 1981), pp. 324–6.Google Scholar
[9] O.c., pp. 85–6.
[10] Dockx, S. O.P., Chronologies néotestamentaires et Vie de I'É;glise primitive (Paris-Gembloux, 1976), pp. 12 ss.Google Scholar
[11] Riesner, R., Jesus als Lehrer (Wiss. Unters. z.N.T. 2. Reihe 7) (Tübingen, 1981), pp. 381–2.Google Scholar
[12] Seder Elijaha Rabba 28 (149).
[13] Strack-Billerbeck, I, p. 394, 2-b, ad Matt. 6. 4.Google Scholar
[14] Strack-Billerbeck, IV, p. 25 ad Mark 10. 51.Google Scholar
[15] Cf. Schulz, S., ‘Maranatha und Kyrios Jesus’, Z.N.W. 53 (1962), p. 125Google Scholar; for the connection with the eucharist he also points to 1 Cor. 11. 26.
[16] Birkeland, H., The Language of Jesus (Oslo, 1954), pp. 24–5.Google Scholar
[17] Rabinowitz, , o.c., pp. 155–6.Google Scholar
[18] Emerton, , o.c., p. 20.Google Scholar
[19] Hull, J. M., Hellenistic Magic and the Synoptic Tradition (S.B.T. Second Series 28) (London, 1974), pp. 116 ssGoogle Scholar; Smith, M., Jesus the Magician (S. Francisco, 1978), p. 145.Google Scholar
[20] According to Böcher, O., Christus Exorcista. Dämonismus und Taufe im Neuen Testament (BWANT 16/96) (Stuttgart, 1972), p. 90Google Scholar, the healing words were originally left in Semitic in order to preserve them in their ‘historically literal’ form, but were later seen as magical. That still leaves open the question why only these words should be preserved literally.
[21] Hull, , o.c., p. 85Google Scholar; Böcher, , o.c., pp. 89–90Google Scholar, and Dämonenfurcht und Dämonenabwehr. Ein Beitrag zur Vorgeschichte der christlichen Taufe (BWANT 10/90) (Stuttgart, 1970), pp. 175–6.Google Scholar
[22] Dölger, F. J., Der Exorzismus im altchristlichen Taufritual. Eine religionsgeschichtliche Studie (Paderborn, 1909, repr. 1967), pp. 56–8.Google Scholar
[23] Grant Loomis, C., White Magic. An Introduction to the Folk Lore of Christian Legend (Cambridge-Mass., 1948), pp. 103–4Google Scholar, quoting Guérin, P., Les Petits Bollandistes. Vies des Saints (Paris, 1880), 6 p. 421Google Scholar; cf. Hull, , o.c., p. 86.Google Scholar
[24] Edition Goldschmidt, L., vol. 9, p. 630Google Scholar; Strack-Billerbeck, IV pp. 534–5 does not point to the shift of language.Google Scholar
[25] Dixon, R. M. W., The Languages of Australia (Cambridge, 1980), p. 56.Google Scholar
[26] Comrie, B., The Languages of the Soviet Union (Cambridge, 1981), p. 15.Google Scholar
