Hope Is Alive

Sunrise, Aguas Dulces, Uruguay, 7 November 2018

Making Morning Ma-te

I place three cups

in the small microwave,

enough for the ma-te

cup and the thermos.

Six minutes should do it.

You’re not supposed to

boil it—82 Celsius

is optimum.

As I clean yesterday’s

ma-te out of the cup,

I think about today,

Election Day

in the U.S.

I rinse out the

ma-te cup,

rinse out the slender

bombilla, a kind of

silver straw.

Election Day.

The sound of the bell

on the microwave

brings me back

to earth.

Working quickly,

I put ma-te in

the cup,

educated

fingers knowing just

how much

of the lovely and

aromatic green powder

to put into the cup.

I fill the cup with

water and put the rest

into the thermos.

Walking out onto the

deck,

ma-te in hand,

I see three or

four fishing boats

on the water.

I haven’t seen that many

since California.

Do they still catch salmon

off the Pacifica

coast? I don’t know.

Election Day.

The Uruguayan workers

are at work on

our roof.

A cutting disk sings

in the wind.

Election Day.

They will rebuild

the “caballete,”

the same word that is used

for the easel that Sandy

brought from California,

and we will soon sell

if the election results

are favorable.

I love my morning ma-te,

but I’d gladly give it up

to have my country back.

197 Years

The book I'm reading
is 197 years old,
but in very
good condition.
Library binding,
Koine Greek
and Latin.
Maybe that's
the reason.

Reading Matthew in Hebrew X - Amen I say to you (slightly longer, edited version)

I haven't counted the occurrences of the Matthean formula "Amen I say to you" in the NT. I did look in Strong's concordance, but it lists only one. The reason is that Strong's is based on the KJV, where the expression has been changed to "verily," "truly," "in truth," or some such. Fortunately, others have counted the occurrences of this formula. It occurs 31 times in Matthew, 13 in Mark, and 6 in Luke. These numbers will, of course, depend upon which text is used.

In Greek, when the audience is plural the formula becomes "amen lego humin," and when singular it is "lego soi." There is an assonance in "amen/humin," which may have led some to believe that Matthew was originally written in Greek. The fact, though, is that the formula was already alliterative in Hebrew, as we have seen in Mt. 5.26:

אָמֵן אֹמֵר אֲנִי לָךְ

It sounds like "awmen omer ani lawch."

We will not be able to decide in which language Matthew was originally written on the basis of any single clue, but rather on the preponderance of the evidence.

According to A STUDENT'S VOCABULARY OF BIBLICAL HEBREW, by George M. Landes, the meaning of "amen" is "it is sure, certain."

The scarcity of "Amen I say to you" in Luke's gospel is, once again, due to Luke's editing of the Matthean material to make it less "Jewish," and more acceptable to the new, Gentile Christians. He did this by substituting expressions meaning "verily," "truly," "in truth," or sometimes, just leaving the formula out and writing "I say to you."

Mark has no problem with keeping the formula, but has less need for it, since his gospel is mostly narrative.

Reading Matthew in Hebrew IX

Psalm 22.2: Eli, Eli, lamah azavtani (Hebrew)

NA25 (Novum Testamentum Graece, Nestle-Aland; sorry I don't have a more recent edition): eli, eli, lema sabakthani (mostly Aramaic)

D in Mt. 27.46: heli heli lama zaptani / elei, elei, lama zaphthani (Hebrew)

D (Codex Bezae) is the only support for Hebrew.

Salkinson: Gives the words in Aramaic and then glosses them in Hebrew.

Delitzsch: Gives the words in Aramaic, though he keeps "eli," and then glosses them in Hebrew.

Shaprut's Hebrew Matthew: "said in the holy language" then gives the words in Hebrew.

The only ancient NT witness that supports Hebrew for Jesus' last words is D (5th-6th Century).

D (Codex Bezae) presents a text of the Western type, closely allied with the Old Syriac and the Old Latin. The Western text type probably originated in Antioch, and then spread across North Africa, eventually reaching Italy. It is the oldest NT text type.

As usual, Shaprut's Hebrew Matthew is supported by the Western text type, from which it was probably translated.

According to our theory, the earliest layer of Matthew, Matthew I, consisted mostly of sayings and was written in Hebrew. But this passage is narrative (so probably from Mark), and would have been part of Matthew III, which had been translated into Greek and then expanded. This passage is also part of the Triple Tradition (some version of it is found in Matthew, Mark, and Luke). Is there support for Hebrew in the corresponding verse in Mark (Mk. 15.34)? Yes. Both D and B (Codex Vaticanus, 4th Century, Alexandrian text type, and considered to be the best of the extant manuscripts) give the verb in its Hebrew form, not its Aramaic form.

Early Church historians, including Irenaeus, tell us that the Gospel of Mark had its origin in a series of public speeches given by Peter, and written down by Mark. The last words of Jesus are a quotation from Psalm 22.2, which is, of course, in Hebrew. Rabbi Yeshua was literate in Hebrew, and of course would have quoted it in the original. But Peter was a fisherman, and would have substituted the language that he knew best, which was Galilean Aramaic. But the story, also part of Mark's narrative, about someone thinking that Jesus was calling on Elijah, is more believable if Jesus' last words began with "eli, eli" (Hebrew), rather than "elohi, elohi" (Aramaic).

So how do Jesus' last words appear in Luke? That, too, is interesting, Lk. 23.44-49 gives the last words of Jesus, not as a quotation from Psalm 22, in either Hebrew or Aramaic, but as "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." Luke has, following Paul's instructions, edited the Markan narrative to make it less "Jewish" and more acceptable to the new, Gentile Christians.

(to be continued)

Reading Matthew in Hebrew - VIII

We have seen evidence (and there is more) that the sayings portion of Matthew was originally written in a Semitic language (Hebrew or Aramaic). The evidence that we looked at suggests that this earliest layer of Matthew (Matthew I) was written in Hebrew, and probably Biblical Hebrew. Literary devices such as alliteration are more easily observable in Delitzsch's Hebrew translation of the New Testament than they are in the mixed Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew of Shaprut's Hebrew Matthew.

So what, then is Shaprut's Hebrew Matthew? It is not some kind of original Matthew or Ur Matthew. It is a translation into Hebrew from either the Old Syriac or the Old Latin. We can say this with near-certainty because it omits the same verses as some of the texts in these two (closely allied) textual streams. In other words, Shaprut's Hebrew Matthew is based on a text of the Western type. Within this textual type, it seems to be closest to the oldest Old Latin texts, such as Bobiensis (k). This much we can say, but we don't know when it was translated, or how much modification it may have undergone for polemical purposes. Readings that have no support in any modern critical apparatus must be viewed with suspicion, but it would be a mistake to reject them all out-of-hand without considering whether they commend themselves for some inherent reason.

As to the other translation I've used, that of Salkinson, it has the advantage of being based on a great Greek text, that of Codex Sinaiticus (א), but its more periphrastic style often obscures literary devices that were probably part of the original Matthew I.

In general, I find Delitzsch's Hebrew translation to be of the most use, and it is the one I always start with.

ᎩᎦᎨ ᎠᎵᏍᏇᏓᏬ

ᎩᎦᎨ ᎠᎵᏍᏇᏓᏬ ᎨᏒᎠᏎ ᎤᏁᎬ ᏗᎬᎯᏓ. Ꮭ ᎠᏄᏬᏍᏚ ᎾᏍᎩᏁ, ᎠᎴ Ꮭ ᎠᏍᏓᏩᏛᏍᏚ ᎾᏍᎩᏁ.