The Expository Times http://ext.sagepub.

com/

An Aramaic Approach to the Synoptic Gospels

Maurice Casey The Expository Times 1999 110: 275 DOI: 10.1177/001452469911000902 The online version of this article can be found at: http://ext.sagepub.com/content/110/9/275.citation

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for The Expository Times can be found at: Email Alerts: http://ext.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://ext.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - Jan 1, 1999 What is This?

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

275

early. (I

do not see how such a source could have been written later than c. 40 CE, when the Gentile mission was such a great success that it would have to be taken note of. A date earlier than this is surely more probable, p. 259.) Following on from this he proposes an early date for Marks Gospel. (The portrayal of this document as flimsy post-70 fiction is the unsatisfactory consequence of reading it in the light of literary theory which has emerged from the study of modern fiction, pp. 259f.) Had Mark written as late as 65 CE, he would surely have altered the text in the same way that Matthew and Luke did. A date for the Gospel as early as c. 40 CE must be regarded as highly probable. He also sees his study as providing further evidence for the priority of Mark, and he manages to explain many of the minor agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark on the basis of his reconstructed Aramaic. This is a most important study, but I have several questions and one hope. My questions are these. First, if Mark was indeed written in 40 CE, and the other two Synoptic Gospels somewhere around 70, how does he picture the development of a Synoptic-type Christianity during the intervening thirty years? If, as the canon suggests, a Pauline Christianity quickly became dominant, how did the religion of Matthew and Luke survive? Second, at one point Casey claims that Marks text was not revised after the translation was done, and adds: This should be treated as part of the evidence that his Gospel was never finished (p. 135). Presumably he holds that 16:8 was not the intended conclusion of the Gospel. I wonder what he supposes Mark would have recounted had he completed his work. Third, Casey has deliberately selected four passages where his method can be effectively applied. What differences would it make if it were applied to all the sayings of Jesus recorded in the Synoptic Gospels? Can, indeed, it be done? Fourth, I read the book in the light of his earlier study, From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God (1991, see ET 103, 1991/92, 33f), and I wonder again what, now that he has made these studies of the Aramaic teaching of Jesus, he imagines a Christianity that is a viable option for honest and wellinformed people today would look like. And my hope? The large sections of unpointed Aramaic make it difficult for readers who are not fluent in the language. Transliteration is no answer (as Casey rightly observes in relation to studies by some other scholars), but pointing his reconstructions would have helped those who know Hebrew but are insecure in Aramaic. What we now need, however, is for Casey to write a book which incorporates his findings but is tuned

An Aramaic

Approach to the Synoptic Gospels

BY DR MAURICE CASEY, UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM

The

Synoptic Gospels are written in Greek, though Jesus spoke Aramaic. Moreover, Jesuss ministry was exercised among Jews, whereas, by the time the Synoptic Gospels
written, many of Jesuss followers were Gentiles, and both Mark and Luke show traces of Gentile identity. It follows that the change in language from Aramaic to Greek was part of a cultural shift from a Jewish to a Gentile environment. Shifts of this kind are very familiar to scholars whose field is Translation Studies. In that field, it is axiomatic that language is a significant part of culture, and this main point now goes unquestioned because of the mass of evidence on which it is based. The quest of the historical Jesus has, however, proceeded as if this were not the case. Scholars usually study the text of the Gospels in Greek, and very few of them have troubled much with the Aramaic level of the tradition. If we wish to recover the Jesus of history, however, we ought to see whether we can reconstruct his sayings, and the earliest accounts of his doings, in their original Aramaic. This should help us to understand him within his own cultural
were

background.
This task has traditionally been very difficult, since very little Aramaic survived from the time of Jesus. This situation has now been completely altered by the publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls. In Aramaic Sources of lvfarks Gospel I have sought to lay down a methodology for this work, as it has now become possible. The purpose of this article is to indicate briefly, in English, what can now be done, and to respond to the questions raised by Dr C. S. Rodd in his review of this book. The Scrolls now provide us with a core of Aramaic of the right period and culture. Moreover, most of the words in the Dead Sea Scrolls are used in other dialects too. This means that they are not specific to the dialect of Judaea as opposed to anywhere else, and can reasonably be used to reconstruct the Galilean Aramaic of Jesus. Previous attempts to use Galilean Aramaic suffered badly from the late date and corrupt nature of the source material, and invariably used a high proportion of material which was not Galilean at all. Now, however, the problem of dialect is much less serious than it seemed previously. It should
1 This book was written, and some of the other research discussed in this article was done, in 1994-96, when I held a British Academy Research Readership awarded for this purpose. I am extremely grateful to the Academy for this award, which enabled me to complete a major piece of research.

general readership - perhaps pursuing further the quest of the historical Jesus which he mentions right at the end of the book. Because of the importance of this approach for the life and teaching of Jesus I have asked Dr Casey to respond to my questions.
to a more

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

276
now

also be accepted that Aramaic was a very stable language, both before and after the time of Jesus.

we can work carefully with words not found in the Scrolls, especially those from an earlier period. This Aramaic is not pointed, for pointing is a system of vocalization which originated at a later date. This is why I have so far refrained from pointing my proposed reconstructions, though I can see that pointing would make them more intelligible for New Testament scholars. Many of the Scrolls are written in Hebrew. We must infer that some people knew both Aramaic and Hebrew over a period of centuries before and during the time of Jesus. Naturally, therefore, there are Hebraisms in the Aramaic Scrolls. Hebraisms in the Gospels have often been regarded as evidence that their sources were written in Hebrew rather than Aramaic. This should no longer be accepted. For example, at Mark 14:25, some manuscripts have readings which may be literally translated on the following lines: I/we shall not add to drink of the fruit of the vine ... This is a Hebrew idiom for I/we shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine ... This Hebrew idiom, however, occurs in Aramaic in 4Q 198 (Tob 14:2), and it is implied at 1 I Q Targum Job XXV.8 (Job 34:32). It is therefore perfectly consistent with Marks source being Aramaic, not Hebrew. Its presence in a document which uses the straightforward Greek word palin no less than 28 times is also evidence that the translator was suffering very badly from interference, so much so that this is evidence that his source was written rather than oral. This is one of the ways in which the unchanged evidence of the Gospels must now be seen in a different light. This is the next major point. All the work on the Aramaic of the Scrolls would be to no avail, if the Synoptic Gospels were really Greek fiction, or if all of them had been so heavily edited that Aramaic sources were irrecoverable. There is, however, substantial and decisive evidence that parts of Marks Gospel, and to a lesser extent parts of Matthew and Luke, are literal translations of written Aramaic sources. This follows from an argument of cumulative weight. Firstly, the Scrolls provide part of the evidence that Aramaic was the lingua jranca of Jesuss environment, the language which he would have had to use in teaching normal Jews, and the natural language for his first followers to use when they reported his life and teaching. Secondly, there are many reasons for supposing that some passages of the Synoptic Gospels are generally accurate accounts of what Jesus or his disciples, or both, said and did. They are, therefore, just the sort of passages to be transmitted in Aramaic, quite different from the secondary narratives of the Fourth Gospel, many of which originated in Greek. Thirdly, there are many details in such passages which are explicable only if they are part of translations of written Aramaic sources.

Consequently,

For example, the story of Peter denying Jesus has a perfectly good Sitz im Leben in the events of the time, but the early church had no reason to make it up. Mark ends this story by saying of Peter, And throwing, he wept (Mark 14:72). In normal Greek, the word which I have translated throwing (epibalbn) is just as much nonsense as it is in English. The explanation is to be found in Syriac, a group of Aramaic dialects spoken later than the time of Jesus, but with many words and constructions in common with the Aramaic of his time. Here, a word for throwing is used for throwing threats and curses, much as in English we may hurl abuse. Moreover, in normal Aramaic script it differs by only one letter from the word for began, and these two letters (resh and daleth) were often confused. We must infer that Marks source read And he began to weep. It was slightly misread, so that Mark reads And throwing, he wept. This was not however a silly mistake. It is the natural and normal work of a bilingual translator suffering from interference. He did throw threats and curses in his native Aramaic, and he knew from his translation of the previous verse that Peter had been doing just that. It was the influence of the Aramaic text in front of him which made him assume that you could throw threats and curses in Greek as well. This is also a good example of how Aramaic extant later than the time of Jesus can be fruitfully used. Finally, this is a relatively simple example of a single word: this indicates how complex a task this research is. The results of studying four complete passages, reported in Aramaic Sources ojMarks Gospel, are quite dramatic. Mark 9:11-13 has become fully intelligible for the first time, and casts new light on Jesuss understanding of John the Baptists death. The difficulties of Marks Greek text result from the work of a translator who was landed with the translators nightmare, a passage which, by the very nature of the two languages and the differences between the source and target cultures, simply will not go smoothly from the one language into the other. The reconstruction of the other three passages (Mk 2:23-3:6; 10:35-45; 14:12-26) also has dramatic results. In each case, the whole passage emerges as a unified whole. It has also become infinitely easier to locate each passage in Jesuss own culture, first century Aramaic-speaking Judaism. New arguments for the historicity of each passage follow. This is because each passage so interpreted has an excellent Sitz im Leben in the ministry of Jesus, whereas conventional arguments for splitting these passages up and treating parts of them as secondary are generally dependent on reading them in Greek with Gentile assumptions. We find Jesus immersed in detailed halakhic disputes over whether Peah may be taken on the Sabbath, and whether healing is permitted that day (Mk 2:23-3:6). We can understand better the entirely reasonable nature of Jacob and Johns request to sit on his right and left in his glory (Mk 10:35-45). At the end of his ministry, we find him celebrating Passover, not

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

277
the Christian Eucharist (Mk 14:12-26). It follows that this work is essential if we are to end the quest of the historical Jesus by finding him. We can now approach Dr Rodds third question: Casey has deliberately selected four passages where his method can be effectively applied. What differences would it make if it were applied to all the sayings of Jesus recorded in the Synoptic Gospels? Can, indeed, it be done? No, it cannot. Some sayings are secondary, and originated in Greek. For example, a comparison is made between the days of Noah and the days (Luke) or parousia (Matthew) of the Son of man (Mt 24:37-9//Lk 17:26-7). This makes excellent sense in the Gospels as they now stand. In both of them, the term Son of man is a term for Jesus alone. They both hoped fervently for his second coming, which is anticipated here. They wrote for churches which were small minorities between the Jewish and Gentile worlds, and consequently were happy to contemplate judgment on the rest of the world, as in the days of the Flood. The saying therefore has an excellent Sitz im Leben in the Gospel tradition, and was naturally rewritten by both evangelists because it was existentially relevant to their current situation. A satisfactory Aramaic reconstruction cannot however be made, because the Aramaic term bar I)nash(d ) always has a general level of meaning, which cannot be found in an Aramaic reconstruction of this verse. At the same time, this comparison has no Sitz im Leben in the teaching of Jesus, who hoped for the coming of the kingdom and did not look into the distant future for his own return. There are, however, many other passages which can be fruitfully studied by reconstructing their Aramaic sources. My next contribution is planned as another book, An Aramaic Approach to Q, which I hope to have completed before this article is published. The present state of research into Q varies from the chaotic to the bureaucratic. At the chaotic end of the spectrum, there is no agreement as to whether Q existed, nor as to what it was, if it did. At the bureaucratic end of the spectrum, an amorphous group of scholars have agreed that it was a Greek document. It was produced by a Q community, whose concerns can be worked out from it. Some of these scholars suppose that this Q community did not have an atonement theology, on the ground that Q has no passion narrative. Many scholars who believe this also believe that Q was the first Gospel, and that its picture of Jesus was that of a sort of cynic philosopher. As we narrow down the group of scholars to more detailed agreements, we see an increase in the number of common judgments made in the interests of a consensus of a group, with quite inadequate attention to evidence or argument. We also see the large scale omission of Aramaic, mostly by scholars who cannot read the language Jesus spoke. This situation is completely unsatisfactory, and should be brought to an end by careful study of the Aramaic substratum of the Q material. This is more fruitful in

instituting

passages than in others. We have already noted one Q passage which originated in Greek. Paradoxically, however, it is passages which are verbally almost identical in Greek which are often easiest to reconstruct, because these are passages which Matthew and Luke have not edited heavily. Take, for example, Matthew 11:4-6//Luke 7:22-23, Jesuss reply to John the Baptists uncertain question as to whether he was the person whom John expected to come. This has an excellent Sitz im Leben in the ministry of Jesus, and an Aramaic source can readily be reconstructed from the almost identical Greek of the two evangelists. In this case the Aramaic source does not cast a great deal of additional light on the passage: the process of reconstruction simply adds to the arguments for supposing that the words of Jesus are genuine, by showing that they could be spoken and transmitted in the language in which Jesus taught. More can be gained from studying passages such as Matthew 23:23//Luke 11:42, where Matthew and Luke have made or used two different translations. Here Matthew correctly has scribes and Pharisees tithe dill so that the priests who served in the Temple would have some. Luke, however, by misreading one letter, has them tithe rue, which is ridiculous. It grows wild, and from Lukes perspective one sort of rue is not good as a spice for food, and another is for making wicks. Luke continued editing vigorously, replacing cummin with every herb, which makes the Pharisees a bit silly too, since the tithing of every herb was not necessary. Matthew has Jesus complain that they overlook the heavier things, so he translated the Aramaic homerayya. This has cultural ramifications which can only be sketched briefly here. From our perspective the word has two meanings, which we generally represent by two different words, in English perhaps weighty and stringent. So the heavy of heavies may be Honour thy father and mother, or Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. These commandments are obviously very important, so they are b 6merayy3 . On the other hand, or equally, depending on our perspective, Rabban Gamaliels house were said to be stringent with themselves, and light, or rather lenient, towards Israel. This was because they let Jews in general bake large loaves on festivals, the ruling of Bet Hillel, while they themselves baked only thin cakes, the ruling of Bet Shammai. It follows that orthodox Jews will have thought they were doing the stringent things ( b 6merayyd 1 when they tithed mint, dill and cummin. The Aramaic word do (-bad) also forms an unavoidable pun with overlook and transgress(&dquo;bar ), which forms an unavoidable pun with tithe (&dquo;sar ). From the perspective of orthodox Jews, people who overlooked (&dquo;bar ) mint dill and cummin, transgressed (&dquo;bar again) the stringent things (homerayya) of the Law. Jesus ordered them to look at matters the other way round, by doing (&dquo;bad ) the important things
some

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013

278

(I;merayy), justice mercy and faith, and not overlooking/transgressing (&dquo;bar ) the others, the tithing of mint dill and cummin. Luke misread mercy as love, again a difference of only one letter, and edited vigorously to give the love of God in place of both mercy and faith. In this passage, therefore, a massive amount of new knowledge can be gained by careful study
of the Aramaic substratum of Matthew and Luke. This enables us to see Jesuss teaching more accurately in its original cultural context. Moreover, we can see Matthew and Luke following translating and editorial procedures which fit the somewhat different Christian environments for which they wrote. Finally, the fact that this part of Q was transmitted in Aramaic and is not found in common order means that we must adopt a more chaotic model of Q than has become conventional. Rodd ends his review by suggesting that I should write a book incorporating my findings but tuned to a more general readership, perhaps in quest of the historical Jesus. This is indeed a major task to be undertaken at once, and I have begun it. The great advantage of careful study of the Aramaic substratum of the Synoptic Gospels is that it permits a more accurate account of the life and teaching of Jesus to be obtained. The result will inevitably be the portrayal of a figure who is more immersed in the Judaism of his time than is conventional. This will raise very sharply Rodds fourth question. Recalling my previous book From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God (1991, reviewed in ET 103, 1991/92, 33f), he wonders what I would imagine a Christianity that is a Iviable option for honest and well-informed people would look like, in the light of this more recent work. This is a more difficult question every year. The Jewishness of Jesus has proved very difficult for many Christians to come to terms with. There is moreover no doubt that a more Jewish figure, more immersed in Judaism than Christians generally like to see him, is emerging from this work. From a theological perspective, this might be thought appropriate if the Son of God were genuinely incarnate among the chosen people. Even to suggest that, however, is to distance oneself radically from the Jewish community, who have maintained through centuries of persecution that the deity of a man is quite unJewish. Moreover, they seem to have done so because they were conditioned by their existing adherence to the oneness of God, and from a theological perspective that may be regarded as God revealing his oneness to them. Whatever we do, however, we should not respond to the difficulty and profundity of these issues by ignoring the results of historical research from which a more accurate picture of the historical Jesus can be drawn. Quite where that will leave honest and well-informed Christians remains to be seen. Rodds first question raises very broad general questions about the development of Christianity in the first century. If my proposed date for Mark, c. 40 CE, is

then some questions will need rethinking. These include the dates of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Rodd raises particularly the relationship between the development of a Synoptic-type Christianity and a dominant Pauline Christianity. His question arises naturally from the bulk of contemporary scholarship, but some minority views should perhaps be preferred in response to it. Whereas the Fourth Gospel is a product of the Johannine community, both Matthew and Luke contain accounts of the life and teaching of Jesus which may well have been read eagerly in churches some of whose members believed in the main points of Pauline theology too. We should not infer from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke the existence of narrow Matthaean and Lukan communities, who believed only in the contents of each of these documents. Equally, Pauline Christianity was more varied than is sometimes allowed. Corinthian Christians may not have had too much need for justification by faith, central though it was elsewhere. Moreover, Paul quoted the teaching of Jesus as authoritative ( Cor 7:10-11 ), and sought to control the behaviour of the Corinthians by reminding them of Jesus traditions transmitted to them long ago ( Cor 11:23-25). In general, therefore, Christianity in the years immediately after the writing of Mark was a quite varied phenomenon in which the narrative accounts of Matthew and Luke surely found the natural home which they have enjoyed ever since, among Pauline Christians as among others. Rodds second question arises from an unexpected aspect of the work which I have done. When Matthew and Luke encounter peculiarities like throwing, he wept (Mk 14:72, above), they alter them, as any self-respecting monoglot Greek would do. Both of them also omit the incomprehensible, and edit for their churches. Mark has not removed so many peculiarities, and has edited some passages so little, as to imply that these passages are first drafts of translations incorporated in an unrevised document. This coheres with the lack of a normal ending. Despite theories to the contrary, therefore, I would interpret Mark 14:28, 16:7 to mean that Mark intended to write an account of the risen Jesus in Galilee, as Matthew did. In sum, therefore, the publication of all the Aramaic Dead Sea Scrolls permits us to do far more work on the Aramaic sources of the Synoptic Gospels than was previously possible. The completion of this work should now be regarded as an urgent task which should be completed within a few years. It enables us to raise significantly the level of proof that Jesus and his disciples said and did some of the things attributed to them. A more Jewish picture of Jesus than is conventional, and indeed a Jesus more immersed in first century Jewish issues than is conventional, is emerging from this work. This may be expected to have far-reaching consequences for our understanding of his significance.

right,

Downloaded from ext.sagepub.com by guest on January 28, 2013