spin

The only thing I should give up is expecting people to read in context. I go into further detail in this thread about the Latin evidence in Mark without getting near exhaustion of the variety of evidence.

I guess I should stop expecting that judge will get beyond the gormless sniping. /Ignore on

judge

Here is a portion of Mark in greek and english.
It displays the same peculiarities.

και ο ιησους μετα των μαθητων αυτου ανεχω�?ησεν π�?ος την θαλασσαν και πολυ πληθος απο της γαλιλαιας {ηκολουθησεν} και απο της ιουδαιας
και απο ιε�?οσολυμων και απο της ιδουμαιας και πε�?αν του ιο�?δανου και πε�?ι τυ�?ον και σιδωνα πληθος πολυ ακουοντες οσα εποιει ηλθον π�?ος αυτον

Jesus withdrew to the sea with His disciples; and a great multitude from Galilee followed; and also from Judea, and from Jerusalem, and from Idumea, and from beyond the Jordan, and from Tyre, and from Sidon, a great number of people heard of all that He was doing and came to Him.


Apparently this forum is supposed to be about evidence, but all we get from Vork is speculation that maybe, possibly "heart of darkness" has something similar.

So rather than being rational Vork makes his mind up first then speculates there might evidence to support his claim.

judge

If the best example you can come up with that mark was written in Rome is that it contains the word praetorium, when in the story someone is taken into custody by Roman soldiers and delivered to a Roman bureaucrat then you need to give up.

sschlichter

I guess the sarcasm was lost on you. My silly comment was a copy and paste of yours.

I am dependent on this type of research and I am unwilling to only purchase books that you (an opinion on the internet) will deem scholarly. The following references were supplied in what I provided. I am not sure I understand what your issue is with the Internet. The only person not providing citations here from 'books' is you.

Joseph Henry Thayer, "Language of the New Testament," in A Dictionary of the Bible edited by James Hastings, vol. 3 (Edinburgh, 1898), p. 40

3.Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World, by Adolf Deissmann. Translated by Lionel R.M. Strachan. 2nd edition, translated from the fourth German edition of 1922. (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1927), p. 131.
4.ibid, p. 132.
5.ibid, p. 141.
6.James Hope Moulton, "New Testament Greek in the Light of Modern Discovery," in Essays on Some Biblical Questions of the Day by Members of the University of Cambridge edited by H.B. Sweete (London: Macmillan, 1909), reprinted in The Language of the New Testament: Classic Essays edited by Stanley E. Porter (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), p. 81.
7. "New Testament Semitisms," The Bible Translator 39/2 (April 1988), pp. 215-223.
8. Jan de Waard and Eugene Nida, From One Language to Another: Functional Equivalence in Bible Translating (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1986), p. 92.

maybe some other time

judge

Of cousre there are many semitic idioms in Mark too. Maybe that means Mark was written for a semitic audience and not in Rome?
One occurs in Mark 2:19 where the "sons of the bridegroom" are mentioned in the greek text.

sschlichter

modern translators seem to agree with you. many of them recognize the idioms and make the english more presentable.

Vorkosigan

What neither of you seem to get is that Steve just drove a truck through judge's point. It's almost comical.

Vorkosigan

Adam

And spin complains about moving goal posts! You and spin would have me prove every sentence I write to that level of certainty?

I was satisfied showing that Q (the earlier portion Q1) appears in gMatthew and gLuke (and gMark as well) similarly enough that it could not have been from oral tradition but not close enough to be all copied from a Greek source. (Q2 does show similarities requiring a shared Greek text.) Given the present state of archaeology, we can't get more proof than that, but of course it's not the 100% you demand before even considering it to be evidence.

As for John Mark as author of the Passion Narrative, I'm really saying that the source text underlying the gJohn version traces back to the other disciple known to the High Priest. John Mark is the most likely identifiable person, but I can't cite a hundred references because I'm saying I came up with this insight from my own studies and cogitations. The internet shows that Barbara Thiering came up with him as the author (but of all of gJohn) and also as the Beloved Disciple. My view makes better use of textual and source criticism. Once that is recognized, the question becomes, "Who would be a better candidate for this role (of disciple-kinown-to-the-high-pirest and author of the Passion Narrative he alone could have best witnessed)? You guys even by your preconceptions cannot dismiss the Passion Narrative as fictional, as there's no supernatural in it, unless you expand it to include John 20 (and I do), so who wrote this source within the gospels? The Signs Source is a recognized segment, so who wrote it? At least in this case you have your preconceptions that it cannot be my candidate (Andrew), because there are miracles. How did the Discourses (the third source in gJohn) get the Gnosticism applied to Jesus personally and then interweaved with the first two? (My explanation is Nicodemus as the tendentious scribe, another idea original with me.) (For this part I did show the changing point of view that "proved" it must have been written while Jesus was alive.) I have answers, can you propose someone else? How do you explain that the Johannine epistles relate only to the remaining portions? And with his writings reduced to just these, what argument remains against attributing the rest to John the Apostle? Other than that he was too good a man to have included in his edition all the lies from the Signs source? The easiest explanation for all these is that each of the four main parts came from an eyewitness--except that this cannot be true because supernatural events are attested, even the Resurrection of Jesus!

Vorkosigan

Not much for reading arguments, are you?

In other words, this is an assertion with no evidence whatsoever to back it up.

Did we read the same Passion narrative? In my text there is supernatural fulfillment of prophecy, the sun going dark, the temple veil tearing, etc.

...whoever wrote the Psalm and Daniel, which it is based on, and the first of the Hellenistic historical romances, which it also draws on. There's no "source" in it.

Miracles have nothing to do with it! Miracles don't mean a thing as far as sources as concerned!

Adam, the supernatural claims are meaningless as far as attestation is concerned, only you mentioned them, I have never deployed them as an argument against the idea of an eyewitness source.

The real issue is the literary structures, including paralleling, recursive structures, conventions, vocabulary, foreshadowing, and similar. That is what spin and I have been pointing out. The story very obviously comes from a single hand, most likely that of the writer of Mark -- I have no idea what spin thinks, though, you'll have to ask him.

Even showing that there is a source for the story doesn't mean that it is true or from an eyewitness. Lots of texts are based on false or misunderstood testimony.

Stop talking about the supernatural, you're the only one interested in it.

Vorkosigan

spin

Why do bugs on pins squirm so much?

There is no real problem with internet research if you know what the fuck you are talking about.

You wouldn't need this little fudge if you knew what you need to know before you say things.

In the play "King Lear" a character called "the Fool" gives some advice to the king, one of which being,

"Speak less than thou knowest".

(This is against the tendency to say more than you know. Sage advice.)

And what are you going to do with them?

As I've already indicated I have no problem with the internet.

If I supply material from the original texts, what better is there?

It's just another of your poor assumptions down the gurgler.