judge

Go back and re-read these passages and think about what you have written.



Mark gives two different dialects of Aramaic.

The words of jesus are in the gallilean dialect of Aramaic. Mark gives the actual dialect spoken by Jesus and then explains it in the more standard dialect.

Do you understand that two different dialects are involved here.
Apparently not :rolling:

You really need to learn some Aramaic rather than using your armchair biblical hebrew skills to try to understand these issues.

Yuri Kuchinsky

So why would Aland show a parallel if there's no parallel?

Yuri.

Diogenes the Cynic

You'd have to ask him that.

If you don't detail for us the methodology or argumentation by which Aland reached his conclusions then it's difficult to respond to.

spin

Latest Doh! You go back, reread the thread and see that I've already noted this.

You have no way of knowing whether the first version in Mk is the Galilean dialect or not, but the same dialect is used in Pesh. Mt without translation, showing that such a translation was superfluous. In fact the only difference in the two forms in Mk is that the original is )YL "Il" while the other is )LHY "my god". It makes sense to translate a stray Aramaic phrase in Greek, but not from one dialect to another when the original is so transparent. Grk Mt is plainly dependent on Grk Mk as a source, as it is throughout much of the gospel. But it is a lame excuse at best to say that Pesh. Mk needed to translate )YL )YL LMN) $BKTNY as )LHY )LHY LMN) $BKTNY.

If you had actually read what has been written to you, you would note that you are being ridiculous with this paltry attempt at quibbling. :wave:

BWA-HA-HA.


spin

Ted Hoffman

As Toto would probably put it, Aland is not God yet. Plus, you have no idea who spin is, or what spin has studied and done. So, dont assume everybody is some amateur slamming away at the keyboard.

Stick to the argument, demonstrate the parallels if you really do understand Aland.

Chris Weimer

I believe you said it best when you mentioned in one of your articles that even experts can make mistakes (although I believe you were referencing paleographers). The fact remains, Aland is not perfect, you don't have his reasoning, ergo we cannot accept your arguments. Now if you have a reason why we should take them as parallels without the appeal to authority fallacy, then by all means do share. Until you can produce, I'm afraid you're at a loss.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Aland usually expresses the consensus of NT scholarship. If anyone wants to go against the consensus, then they have the burden of proof.

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Not really.

I have over 1000 passages where Mt and Lk agree against Mk (the Anti-Markan Agreements of Mt and Lk). In most of these passages, the dependence of Grk Mt on Grk Mk is highly unlikely.

Yuri.

spin

This sort of thing reminds me of the cat which digs its claws into anything rather than get a needed wash.


spin

spin

Why does the writer of Mark dumb down the grammar, when all that is necessary is to copy a more competent user??