Amici,
Dunno if you read, a couple of months ago, of some two-millennia-old Biblical fragments recently discovered in caves in the Judean desert. One of them (Zechariah 8:16-17) was ... except for the Tetragrammaton ... written in Greek.
Greek was the lingua franca of the Mediterranean world. Rome was the largest Greek-speaking city in that world. Non-Greek languages survived in circumstances of bilinguality. Think Palestine ... think Wales ...
But we know that Christ spoke Aramaic. This raises an interesting question. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke contain long passages which are more or less verbally identical.
IF YOUR ARE SPEED-READING THIS, YOU MIGHT AS WELL SAVE YOURSELF TIME BY GIVING IT UP NOW.
Now: if you ask three people to translate a single text into a different language, it is highly improbable that their three renderings will be verbally identical, even reproducing the same word-order. In a classroom, you will work out whose work was passed around and then plagiarised by the other "students". Time was when, at this point, the cane came out of the cupboard. Not that I ever used one. I relied on Mental Cruelty.
So, clearly, one needs an answer to the problem of the Three Synoptic Gospels. Who did the original translation of the words of the Lord from Aramaic into Greek? Mark is shorter and cruder, so he is clearly first. The other two borrowed from him. What about passages in Matthew and Luke which are not borrowed from Mark? It stands to reason that they were taken from a now-lost work which wiser men than me (or you) have called 'Q'.
Bingo! You have solved "the Synoptic Problem".
But do we know that Christ spoke Aramaic? Of course we do. Mark records him as using the Aramaic Talitha Coum(i) when raising Jairus' daughter. And Abba and Ephphatha. QED.
Um ...
But why does Mark only record a few odd Aramaic words? Modern Scientific Commentators go shifty at this point. Do these words safely record Christ as an Aramaic speaker ... or do they neatly record some rare occasions when a habitual Greek-speaker spoke Aramaic instead?
In conditions of bilinguality, the 'old' language ... Welsh or Aramaic ... may still be used round the hearth, in families, by women and children. The chaps will use the big, cosmopolitan language ... English, let us say, or Greek. But when turning to babies, young girls, the handicapped, they might well use the 'informal' local language. I have heard educated speakers of 'Establishment' English automatically using the Glottal Stop when they address children or minorities which they (perhaps unconsciously) despise.
I have a fair bit more to say on all this. But first let me dispose of the 'Priority of Mark' ...shorter, cruder, therefore clearly first of the Gospels to have been written.
A great Oxford papyrologist called Peter Parsons once gave a paper, not on any biblical subject, but on Classical Literature. Particularly the chronology of the plays of Aeschylus. Recent papyrological discoveries had revealed that the Supplices was quite late in the playwright's oeuvre. But it had always been assumed that it was among his first plays ... because of its 'primitive' structure etc, etc..
Parsons adduced other examples of the dangers of facile a priori assumptions.
One of the problems about Modern Scientific Biblical Scholarship is that those involved in it are often much too proud to take any notice of those outside their own narrow, precious, specialty. Particularly of us Classicists! More on this later.
If Christ habitually spoke Greek, then the 'Synoptic Problem' disappears into thin air. Massive numbers of 'learned' books and articles are ... Crass. No; we do not need another imaginative reconstruction of 'Q'.
And the 'new' Judean manuscript makes clear (what we well knew already) that Christ would not have been the only faithful Jew to speak Greek. Indeed, consider the varied names recorded of His disciples. PHILIPPOS is not only a Greek name; it is redolent of the Macedonian North Greek culture which became part of the common Hellenic currency of the regions which had been conquered by Alexander the Great and ruled by his 'Successors'. 'ANDREAS is Greek for ... no; I will leave to you the fun of speculating. You might enjoy including in your speculations the names of the Hellenised Chief Priests mentioned in the Books of the Maccabees.


But he is not “all-seeing” and he wasn’t given good advice before or after how to prevent, or deal with, election fraud. Rudy Giuliani was great in his day, for example, and could be soncisered an “Elder” with a lot of wise counsel, yet Rudy should not have been involved in stopping the steal, we now know. But in general, it is so shocking how President Trump was played by so many, and many of them he, himself, picked to serve in his Administration. In hindsight, we know now that he should have fired a huge swath of the bureaucracy (i.e. those that could be fired) and that includes all the public health bigshots. We think of the FBI/CIA types, but it probably wouldn’t have occurred to President Trump or his closest MAGA supporters that the public health people and the government “science” were foul, rotten, diseased in themselves, utterly corrupt and heinous, as Fauci clearly is. (Of course, the GOPe would have gone ballistic had he fired on the necessary scale, but they were and are an essential part of the problem.)
But I do fault him personally for two actions. First, listening to Fauci at Easter, 2020, when the President “cancelled” Easter, etc. First of all, never react in panic. Panic can be as deadly as whatever the problem is supposed to be. It is a very delicate balance. For example, his cancelling flights from China was brilliant; his cancelling the economy was not.
Trump should also have known enough to know that lockdowns are not the traditional way to deal with a contagion, but something new, in fact, CCP-inspired. He should have realized that for every percentage drop in employment, suicide increases, all that. He should have stood firm with the timeless truth that wrecking the economy would be as dangerous as anything else that could happen because it is a truism that a healthy economy can deal with most any problem whereas a crashed economy is unable to support a nation in need.
The second thing I fault him for is not clearly saying (and repeatedly saying, again and again) something like: “We’re on Trump time to get vaccines ready, but I must also carefully caution EVERYONE that these will be ‘Emergency Use Authorization’ only, and I personally cannot recommend anyone actually take them. It’s your choice, but beware. Rush jobs may work and they may not. And please carefully note that Congress has made these drug companies immune from lawsuits arising from their creations.”
Now he’s still lauding the vaccines, and the Left will not hesitate to use that against him should ever increasing numbers of people die of the vaccines (which is a strong possibility). Praising these vile potions is the worse thing Donald Trump has ever done, and I am afraid it will haunt him for the rest of his life.
Otherwise, I’ve no complainst except maybe he should have delved into Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin, by which I mean into the weird push-back against them. It was an odd thing then, and we know now why Fauci, etc., were so against these drugs.
Bottom line: the U.S. Federal Goverment is famously incompetent for a reason: it is run by the most ruthless yet worthless notwits and grifters. Admiral Yammamoto famously made it known he thought the Imperial Army was led by incompetents and crazies, but that Army's commanders are Solomonic in comparison to the "ejits" we have in commend of the United States of America. From the lowest to the highest, Zhou Biden, Moron in Chief. This can't last much longer.
An Préachán