Freethought & Rationalism Archive

yalla · 09-14-2005, 02:35 AM

Yalla "He must have received 2 contradictory reports perhaps?
And decided to harmonise them without knowing which, if either, was correct?"

judge "What if someone who was present told the author of the confusion?"

Thanks for the response judge.
It seems to me that your second possible scenario tallies pretty closely with my suggestion that maybe "Mark" got his ideas from a confused witness.

But for that to be plausible then "Mark'' himself could not have been a witness. Just a second [or more] hand reporter.
Is that correct?

Aspirin99 · 09-14-2005, 04:51 AM

Judge, you keep referring to Mark as if you have absolute knowlege that it was not originally written in Greek. Why are you so sure of this?

GakuseiDon · 09-14-2005, 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aspirin99

It's also interesting that Matthew corrects Marks spelling.

Mark wrote: Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani

Matthew corrected: Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani

Of course, Matthew corrected Mark on several occasions.

I liked Moorcock's "Behold the Man" take on this. A time traveller goes back in time, can't find the historical Jesus, and decides to become Jesus. On the cross, he says something like (in English), "A lie, a lie, it's all such a lie!"

gregor · 09-14-2005, 06:15 AM

Aspirin - please don't encourage judge.

It appears to me that Judge has read on a web-site somewhere that the gospels were written in Aramaic first and then translated into Greek. It's a theory he likes and proselytizes wherever possible. When asked to prove this, he takes the arguments that he has read and posts them here. Then others dissect the arguments and judge cannot respond.

Aspirin99 · 09-14-2005, 06:41 AM

I see. I don't mean to derail the thread. Perhaps he will post a link to a thread where it was discussed here. IMHO, it just seems to be intellectually dishonest to state it so emphatically even if some evidence suggested it.

spin · 09-14-2005, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The form sabaxQani is not Hebrew and is quite similar to the Syriac $bqtny, suggesting that Aramaic is the source of the form found in the gospels,

Ahhh...but this is only suggested?

Where is your sure-footedness gone? :rolling:

Just so that you know the rationale behind "suggesting", I don't know of examples of qof being transliterated into Greek as chi. It is almost exclusively kaf that is transliterated into a chi. The qof ends up as kappa. I would therefore expect sabakQani from $bqtny. The chi in the Greek cannot be explained as I see it at the moment.

This also suggests that Mk was not transliterating at all, but perhaps transcribing into Greek what the writer heard and didn't know better.

spin

judge · 09-14-2005, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

This also suggests that Mk was not transliterating at all, but perhaps transcribing into Greek what the writer heard and didn't know better.

spin

Spin you have changed your story now!

Of course it comes from Aramaic. You can't bring yourself to admit it, only suggest it.

judge · 09-14-2005, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

Yalla "He must have received 2 contradictory reports perhaps?
And decided to harmonise them without knowing which, if either, was correct?"

judge "What if someone who was present told the author of the confusion?"

Thanks for the response judge.
It seems to me that your second possible scenario tallies pretty closely with my suggestion that maybe "Mark" got his ideas from a confused witness.

But for that to be plausible then "Mark'' himself could not have been a witness. Just a second [or more] hand reporter.
Is that correct?

Yes I could run with that.

I don't have a particular view, but as I mentioned I think even the gospels do not have him present.

judge · 09-14-2005, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aspirin99

I see. I don't mean to derail the thread. Perhaps he will post a link to a thread where it was discussed here. IMHO, it just seems to be intellectually dishonest to state it so emphatically even if some evidence suggested it.

Have I emphatically stated anything more than you did here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aspirin99

It's also interesting that Matthew corrects Marks spelling.

I mean we all state things to be true. You state that Matthew correct mark's spelling. I don't accuse you of intellectual dishonesty.

Is it intellectually dishonest to state Mark was written in greek too?

This issue has never been addressed by peer review.

We in the west follow protestants who follow Catholics. It is a tradition that that Mark was penned in greek, that's all. Aramnaic speaking christians have a different tradition. We in the west in our usual arrogance can't believe our tradition might be wrong. It's laughable. :rolling:

There is no evidence that this is the case. The greek translators even left some of it in the original Aramaic.

judge · 09-14-2005, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aspirin99

Judge, you keep referring to Mark as if you have absolute knowlege that it was not originally written in Greek. Why are you so sure of this?

I don't have absolute knowledge, but this is hardly a new idea.

Quote:

"I tried, for my own personal use, to see what Mark would yield when translated back into the Hebrew of Qumran. I had imagined that this translation would be difficult because of considerable differences between semitic thought and Greek thought, but I was absolutely dumbfounded to discover that this translation was, on the contrary, extremely easy. Around the middle of April, 1963, after only one day of work , I was convinced that the Greek text of Mark could not have been redacted directly into Greek and that it was in reality only the Greek translation of an original Hebrew.

(Jean Carmignac, "Birth of the Synotics", p. 1; the author was a scholar who worked for a decade on the Dead Sea Scrolls)

Or try this.

Was Mark written in Aramaic

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

09-14-2005, 02:35 AM	#31
yalla Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: oz Posts: 1,848	Yalla "He must have received 2 contradictory reports perhaps? And decided to harmonise them without knowing which, if either, was correct?" judge "What if someone who was present told the author of the confusion?" Thanks for the response judge. It seems to me that your second possible scenario tallies pretty closely with my suggestion that maybe "Mark" got his ideas from a confused witness. But for that to be plausible then "Mark'' himself could not have been a witness. Just a second [or more] hand reporter. Is that correct?

09-14-2005, 04:51 AM	#32
Aspirin99 Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: TalkingTimeline.com Posts: 151	Judge, you keep referring to Mark as if you have absolute knowlege that it was not originally written in Greek. Why are you so sure of this?

09-14-2005, 06:15 AM	#34
gregor Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 932	Aspirin - please don't encourage judge. It appears to me that Judge has read on a web-site somewhere that the gospels were written in Aramaic first and then translated into Greek. It's a theory he likes and proselytizes wherever possible. When asked to prove this, he takes the arguments that he has read and posts them here. Then others dissect the arguments and judge cannot respond.

09-14-2005, 06:41 AM	#35
Aspirin99 Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: TalkingTimeline.com Posts: 151	I see. I don't mean to derail the thread. Perhaps he will post a link to a thread where it was discussed here. IMHO, it just seems to be intellectually dishonest to state it so emphatically even if some evidence suggested it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.