Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 01-11-2005, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

His knowledge of Latin doesn't even have him stringing even two words together

He apparently knows the meanings of the words he uses. Does it make sense to assume that these are the only words in Latin that he knows?

You seem to be avoiding the more important point that the goal you attribute suggests the author would want the story to be in Greek from the outset.

Chris Weimer · 01-11-2005, 02:30 PM

judge - quick question - does your position include having the entire NT written in Aramaic?

rlogan · 01-11-2005, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

It seems difficult to believe Jesus would have ministered in greek don't you think?

Agree completely, judge. But not on the basis of the Josephus passage you cited. It is upon the basis that there was no Jesus of the gospels.

The Jesus of the gospel of Mark, for example, is written of by a real dorker as far as geography is concerned. It tells us that the story was written by a foreigner.

And thus a speaker of a different language. Greek.

judge · 01-11-2005, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cweb255

judge - quick question - does your position include having the entire NT written in Aramaic?

Presently, I think that 22 books were penned in Aramaic. This is the usual protty NT minus 2 & 3 John, Jude, 2 Peter and Revelation.

The Aramaic speaking COE never had any record of these books originally.

judge · 01-11-2005, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

Agree completely, judge. But not on the basis of the Josephus passage you cited. It is upon the basis that there was no Jesus of the gospels.

The Jesus of the gospel of Mark, for example, is written of by a real dorker as far as geography is concerned. It tells us that the story was written by a foreigner.

And thus a speaker of a different language. Greek.

IO have looked at this before but may have another look, what blunders are there in the greek texts and would these have necessarily been in an Aramaic original?

Bear in mind that vowels were added to Aramaic texts centuries later, and this seems at times to be the cause of mistranslation.

CX · 01-11-2005, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

It seems difficult to believe Jesus would have ministered in greek don't you think?

There are two problems with this line of reasoning. Firstly, what is or is not difficult to believe is not part of a rational argument. Secondly, and I know this has been repeated ad nauseum, but the language spoken by Jesus has no bearing on the the eventual language used to write about him decades later by Gentile converts.

rlogan · 01-11-2005, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

IO have looked at this before but may have another look, what blunders are there in the greek texts

There has been a thread or two on this over the last year and halfd that I've been here. Peter Kirby's site has a brief description of the general problem:

Quote:

The author of the Gospel of Mark does indeed seem to lack first-hand knowledge of the geography of Palestine. Randel Helms writes concerning Mark 11:1 (Who Wrote the Gospels?, p. 6): "Anyone approaching Jerusalem from Jericho would come first to Bethany and then Bethphage, not the reverse. This is one of several passages showing that Mark knew little about Palestine; we must assume, Dennis Nineham argues, that 'Mark did not know the relative positions of these two villages on the Jericho road' (1963, 294-295). Indeed, Mark knew so little about the area that he described Jesus going from Tyrian territory 'by way of Sidon to the Sea of Galilee through the territory of the Ten Towns' (Mark 7:31); this is similar to saying that one goes from London to Paris by way of Edinburgh and Rome. The simplist solution, says Nineham, is that 'the evangelist was not directly acquainted with Palestine' (40)."

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html

second part of question:

Quote:

and would these have necessarily been in an Aramaic original?

Any argument you would make for Aramaic escaping this general problem would be untenable.

judge · 01-11-2005, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

There has been a thread or two on this over the last year and halfd that I've been here. Peter Kirby's site has a brief description of the general problem:

Quote:

The author of the Gospel of Mark does indeed seem to lack first-hand knowledge of the geography of Palestine. Randel Helms writes concerning Mark 11:1 (Who Wrote the Gospels?, p. 6): "Anyone approaching Jerusalem from Jericho would come first to Bethany and then Bethphage, not the reverse.

Here is Mark 11 in Aramaic , as you can see it does not indicate which came first geographically, only that they headed toward both.

This does not appear to be a compelling argument IMO, at least in regard to Mark 11.1.

Diogenes the Cynic · 01-11-2005, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Here is Mark 11 in Aramaic , as you can see it does not indicate which came first geographically, only that they headed toward both.

This does not appear to be a compelling argument IMO, at least in regard to Mark 11.1.

Translating the Greek to Aramaic does not make the mistake disappear.

DramaQ · 01-11-2005, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Here is Mark 11 in Aramaic , as you can see it does not indicate which came first geographically, only that they headed toward both.

Yeees.... wouldn't it make sense that when the work was translated into Aramaic that they corrected the geographical error found in the Greek text?

Or are you suggesting that it's more reasonable that it was translated from Aramaic into Greek and they ADDED the geographical error?

dq

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-11-2005, 02:30 PM	#122
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	judge - quick question - does your position include having the entire NT written in Aramaic?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.