We continue to learn the geography of Constantinople as Lucas and Hugh walk through the city. Wind blows from the hills above Galata. As they approach the Venetian district, a fellow Catholic asks directions to the forum of Amastrianon. Then he recognizes Lucas and a fight ensues. Lucas remembers chivalric romances with "...a single knight against a thousand paynim." (p.35) He was taught moves useful in fights by a Ch'an Buddhist monk in Cathay. (Ch'an moved to Japan and became Zen.)
After the fight, Lucas and Hugh agree to meet the following day "'...after the hour of nones.'" (p. 37) Lucas asks the rescued slave girl, "'Rhomaizeis?'" (p. 38) I googled this word and found it only here. Conversing in Genoese and humming a chanson, Lucas takes the girl to his lodging in the Phanar slums where he has presented himself as a sailor from the Morea because Venetians are still hated. For example, the fleet of Giustiniani had harried only four years previously.
The historical facts and details are like currants in a very rich fruit cake.
13 comments:
By late Classical times, "Hellene" -- the previous word meaning "Greek" -- had come to mean "pagan" instead, in common parlance. Ordinary Greek-speakers called themselves "Romans", and their language "Roman" too. They continued to do so down to the 19th century.
Reviving "Hellene" was at first an intellectual fad, part of the neo-Classicism which characterized Europe at the time, and also part of the rebirth of Greek nationalism.
Strange because, in religious terms, there was a clear distinction between Roman and Orthodox.
Recently, I went around asking this stupid question, "Does the Greek Orthodox Church read the New Testament without needing to translate it?" But, of course, they would not understand it in the original.
Kaor, Paul!
I don't think it's that strange! Not when you recall how long and LONG the Roman Empire, both when United and then the Eastern Roman Empire, had ruled. The Greeks themselves were Romanized, after all.
You mentioned how Lucas had learned methods of fighting from Ch'an Buddhist monks. But take note as well of how deftly and expertly Brother Hugh fought, despite his lameness. Recall how skillfully that warrior monk used his staff as a weapon.
I don't understand the second sentence of your last paragraph. I thought Greek reading and speaking Greek Orthodox Christians would understand the New Testament in GREEK. All of the NT, except possibly Matthew (which some think was originally written in Aramaic), was written in Greek.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But the Greek of 2000 years ago is not intelligible now.
Paul.
(A Biblical scholar told me that students of the NT need to know enough Aramaic to enable them to deduce a possible original form of statements that were originally made in Aramaic.)
Kaor, Paul!
Do you mean the SPOKEN Greek of 2000 years ago would not be intelligible to Greek SPEAKERS of today? I can see that! And has the written Greek of two millennia ago become like Old English to the Greeks of today?
And I agree with your second comment. Matthew and other parts of the NT were written by men whose original language was Aramaic. And that would affect how they wrote in Greek.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
An Orthodox Greek man told me that modern congregations would not understand the New Testament if it were read to them in the original.
Not only were the NT authors originally Aramaic speakers. Jesus was. That means that we read an English translation of a Greek rendering of his sayings that were originally in Aramaic. A scholar needs to be able to read the Greek and construct a plausible original Aramaic utterance.
The Evangelists sometimes reproduce Jesus' original words for verisimilitude and in case it matters, e.g., in a miracle, the exact words and syllables used might be significant. (They are significant in the case of magic spells. Miracles of healing etc might have been thought of in parallel with magical incantations.)
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And many "evangelical" Protestants don't seem to understand these linguistic nuances and subtleties. All that seems to matter to them is the King James Version, despite it being so antiquated and flawed.
But I never thought of Christ's miracles being like magical spells. For one thing He almost always healed a person by a simple command or gesture. No elaborate rites or incantations or even prayers were needed by Him.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Of course miracles are not like spells but nevertheless one commentary I read said that, when the miracles were being remembered and recorded, it might have been thought that it was important to reproduce the exact words and syllables used in case these were somehow significant for the efficacy of the miracle.
It is recorded that once, with a blind man, Jesus made a paste of soil and spittle and applied it to the man's eyes. At first the man saw indistinctly. Then Jesus applied more of the paste and the man saw clearly.
It is also recorded both that he could work no signs in his home town because people knew him there (he lacked charisma with them) and that his power diminished when great numbers came to be healed.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, I can see the Evangelists being careful to accurately describe how Christ healed persons.
As regards the repeated application of that paste to the blind man's eyes, I think a symbolic meaning was also intended. And, at another occasion, after applying that same kind of paste, Christ told the blind man to go and wash his eyes at the pool of Siloam, after which that man could see.
Not quite! Christ was also reported as healing a FEW persons in his home town. What Ir recall was Him being grieved by the DISBELIEF of most in his home town.
And large numbers of people were following Christ when the woman with the flow of blood touched the tassel of his cloak and was healed. The Lord felt power flowing from Him and stopped to ask who had touched Him.
Ad astra! Sean
The Greek that the early testaments were written in was Koine Greek, the common tongue of the Hellenistic era. Essentially in its written form it was a simplified Attic, though the sound-system had changed more.
By late Byzantine times the grammar had also changed enough that even the written form was not readily comprehensible to ordinary Greek speakers without study. Literate people studied the ancient tongue and tried (usually badly) to be classical, though in a much more florid rhetorical style.
Modern spoken Greek is about as different from Koine as Spanish is from Classical Latin -- though there's been a lot of deliberate re-borrowing of words and turns of phrase from Classical Greek during the last 200 years.
Kaor, learned friends!
I recall reading that there were riots (I think in the early twentieth century) over the publication of the New Testament in modern Greek. I don’t know the details, but I gather that some people were greatly offended by the holy texts being rendered into Demotic Greek instead of the original koine (which was colloquial in its time, rather than classical or archaic). Perhaps some people know more than I do about the matter.
Best Regards,
Nicholas
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Nicholas!
Mr. Stirling: Your remarks clarifies more exactly how New Testament Greek was different from both Byzantine and modern Greek. The analogy I've thought of being the differences Middle English has with modern English.
Nicholas: It does seem surprising that some Greeks RIOTED over the NT being translated from Koine to modern Greek. But, then, I recalled how some people also over St. Jerome's Vulgate translation of the Bible circa AD 400. Because they had become strongly attached to the Old Latin version. The more things change the more they seemed to stay the same!
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment