The quest of the historical Jesus : $b a critical study of its progress from Reimarus to WredeSchweitzer, Albert
Religion
The quest of the historical Jesus : $b a critical study of its progress from Reimarus to Wrede
Schweitzer, Albert
Jesus Christ -- Biography -- History and criticism; Jesus Christ -- Historicity
Only since the appearance of Dalman’s Grammar of Jewish Palestinian
Aramaic in 1894 have we really known what was the dialect in which the
Beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount were spoken. This work closes a
discussion which had been proceeding for centuries on a line parallel to
that of theology proper, and which, according to the clear description of
Arnold Meyer, ran its course somewhat as follows.(188)
The question regarding the language spoken by Jesus had been vigorously
discussed in the sixteenth century. Up till that time no one had known
what to make of the tradition recorded by Eusebius that the speech of the
apostles had been “Syrian” since the distinction between Syrian, Hebrew,
and “Chaldee” was not understood and all three designations were used
indiscriminately. Light was first thrown upon the question by Joseph
Justus Scaliger († 1609). In the year 1555, Joh. Alb. Widmanstadt,
Chancellor of Ferdinand I., had published the Syriac translation of the
Bible in fulfilment of the wishes of an old scholar of Bologna, Theseus
Ambrosius, who had left him the manuscript as a sacred legacy. He himself
and his contemporaries believed that in this they had the Gospel in the
mother‐tongue of Jesus, until Scaliger, in one of his letters, gave a
clear sketch of the Syrian dialects, distinguished Syriac from Chaldee,
and further drew a distinction between the Babylonian Chaldee and Jewish
Chaldee of the Targums, and in the language of the Targums itself
distinguished an earlier from a later stratum. The apostles spoke,
according to Scaliger, a Galilaean dialect of Chaldaic, or according to
the more correct nomenclature introduced later, following a suggestion of
Scaliger’s, a dialect of Aramaic, and, in addition to that, the Syriac of
Antioch. Next, Hugo Grotius put in a strong plea for a distinction between
Jewish and Antiochian Syriac. Into the confusion caused at that time by
the use of the term “Hebrew” some order was introduced by the Leyden
Calvinistic professor Claude Saumaise, who, writing in French, emphasised
the point that the New Testament, and the Early Fathers, when they speak
of Hebrew, mean Syriac, since Hebrew had become completely unknown to the
Jews of that period. Brian Walton, the editor of the London polyglot,
which was completed in 1657, supposed that the dialect of Onkelos and
Jonathan was the language of Jesus, being under the impression that both
these Targums were written in the time of Jesus.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account