Yuri Kuchinsky

You should explain this a bit more.

Where Greek has "Herodians", the Old Syriac Mk 12:13 is using an expression /d'byt hrwds/ = "of the house of Herod". Parallel OS Mt 22:16 is using a different expression, /(b:d) d'hrwds/ = "servants of Herod"

So how does this help your case?

So, yes, by all means, let's look at some specific cases. Enough of generalities.

Yuri.

spin

This hasn't got a thing to do with the fact that a Greek Matthew was using a Greek Mark -- other than to show that though Greek Matthew used Greek Mark, those responsible for the Syriac give no indication that these texts are related source-wise, giving different forms for which the Greek has a single one, which shows that it is more likely that the Syriac is a translation not recognizing the relationship between the two texts and translating as seen best on the individual example, for it is much harder to propose that Greek translators of separate texts collaborated on the use of a term. The best you will be able to argue is that at some hypothetical time after they got into Greek some scribe decided to harmonize the particular term. Occam's razor makes Greek Matthew reworking a Greek Mark much more probable than a later cross-fertilization.

Your Old Syriac examples help against you.


spin

Yuri Kuchinsky

I see no evidence that Matthew was based on Mark. It's much more likely that both depend on a common source.

Yuri.

spin

Where did Greek Matthew get the term "Herodian"?


spin

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hi, rlogan,

In my view, both Mt and Mk depend on a common source, that was produced in Jerusalem ca. 100 CE, perhaps a bit earlier than 100 CE. This common source "M" was produced by the Jerusalem Church.

But the earliest gospel probably was produced in Syria, and is best preserved by Lk.

Those who had produced these earlier source documents probably included the disciples of the original disciples of Jesus.

I'm not interested in the historicity of Jesus debate right now. My working hypothesis is that there was a HJ.

Regarding this whole debate, here's a good quote from Bertrand Russell for you,

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way."

Regards,

Yuri

Yuri Kuchinsky

Mt made it up, and then Mk borrowed it from Mt.

Or they both borrowed it from a common source.

You can prove nothing with an argument like this.

Yuri.

spin

And then used it where Matthew didn't, right? -- because he liked the term?

Whatever the case, if you posit the above you don't hold to an Aramaic or Hebrew original, though you say:

IMO what is obvious is that both Mt and Mk were based on a shared source, that could very easily have been in Aramaic or Hebrew.

Bye-bye to the Aramaic or Hebrew source.

It is merely an example, but you know what's available. What I'm horrified about is that you must realise a relationship between Matthew and Mark source-wise -- without specifying what that source relationship may be -- and yet you can posit an Aramaic or Hebrew origin for them.

Have I misrepresented you?


spin

Amaleq13

Why would the Jerusalem Church produce a story that depicts their "pillars" in such a generally poor light?

If it is the earliest, why would the author refer to "many" earlier versions of the story?

Do you explain the Luke-Josephus similarities as the latter copying from the former?

judge

I don't think Ephraem and Aphrahat are in the same boat. Because Aphrahat is COE he should be expected to quote peshitta. Ephraem was from a different tradition. This tradition was using the diatessaron up to Rabullas time (at least in part). Not to mention the theological influences. There fore we cannot expect Ephraem to quote the peshiita where the goepels are concerned.

Interesting can you give an example?

Thanks

judge

There is some evidence the peshitta existed though I do not know what portions, if any, of Paul are referred to (I might try to find out)

from here

Hi again, Andrew. Where does Aphrahat quote the peshitta of Paul "rather loosely"? The example I provided is word for word.


Thanks.