Orthodox_Freethinker

Those who prefer the Alexandrian text-type assert that the original Mark did not contain the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. This argument would perhaps bear more weight if the Aramaic Peshitta did not corroborate the Byzantine manuscripts:

This is Mark chapter 16 in the Aramaic along with the English translation:
http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/Arama.../Marqsch16.pdf

This is Mark 16 in the Lamsa Bible:
http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/Arama...ark/Mark16.htm

This Mark 16 in the Etheridge Bible:

"BUT in the morning of the first day in the week, they came to the sepulchre when the sun had risen, and they said between themselves, Who will roll away the stone for us from the door of the sepulchre ? * And they looked and saw that the stone was rolled away, for it was very great. And they went into the sepulchre,* and saw a youth sitting on the right. And he was clothed in a white robe. And they were astonished. But he said to them, Fear not ! Jeshu Natsroia you seek, he who was crucified, he has risen; he is not here. Behold the place where he lay. But go, tell his disciples and Kipha that, behold, he goeth before you into Galila; there shall you see him as he told you. And when they had heard, they fled, and went forth from the sepulchre, for astonishment and tremor had seized them; and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid.
But in the morning of the first day of the week he arose, and was first seen by Mariam Magdalitha, she who had seven devils cast out from her. And she went and declared to them who were with her, who mourned and wept. And they, when they had heard what they told, that he lived and had appeared to them, believed them not. After these things he appeared to two of them in another fashion as they walked and went to a village. And they went and told the rest, neither did they believe.

BUT afterward he appeared to the eleven as they reclined, and he reproved the littleness of their faith and the hardness of their heart, because those who had seen that he had arisen they had not believed.
And he said to them, Go into all the world, and proclaim my gospel to every creature: He who believeth and is baptized is saved; and he who believeth not is condemned. And these signs shall follow those who believe: In my name they shall cast out devils, and with new tongues shall they speak; and serpents they shalt take up; and if the poison of death they drink, it shall not hurt them; and their hands shall they lay upon the sick, and they shall be healed.
But Jeshu our Lord, after he had spoken with them, unto the heavens ascended, and sat on the right hand of Aloha.
And they went forth and preached in every place, and our Lord helped them, and confirmed their words by the signs which they wrought.

Finished is the Holy Gospel, the Preaching of Markos; which he spake and preached in Roman at Rumi."
http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/Arama...ridge_mark.htm


My contention would be that the minority text, the Alexandrian manuscripts, is simply a poor transmission of the original and this explains why much of Mark 16 is missing in that text type.

Iskander

Your post is most interesting and welcome piece of information.
I knew about the Syriac or Eastern Aramaic Bible but I thought these texts were no longer available.

My knowledge of the bible comes mainly through the Jewish Study Bible (JPS 1985) Stone’s Tanach and The Torah of the Union for Reform Judaism.
I use The New English Bible 1970 for the Greek Testament

Since reading you post I have googled Aramaic Peshitta and found the following jewel:

“Thousands of passages, which were obscure and meaningless through mistranslations, become clear and meaningful when translated from the ancient Peshitta manuscripts�

Is the Pashitta Bible available for sale in an English translation?
Could you kindly direct me to appropriate links?

Thank you for your posts I enjoy reading them

Orthodox_Freethinker

The Lamsa Bible is the most widely trusted English translation of the Aramaic original:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...ternetinfidels

You're welcome. I only wish that more people were aware that the Greek may not always be the most reliable.

Steven Avery

Hi Iskander, You can read three Aramaic NT translations and one interlinear at http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/ . Generally the bookstores have the Lamsa, including his Tanach. The Peshitta is far closer to the Greek Byzantine Text that gave us the historic Bibles, the Geneva, the King James Bible, than to the modern versions. So it is far superior to the modern versions, if you put aside the issue of five books that many peshitta afficiondos will consider non-canonical. However, the claimed aramaic primacy and superiority arguments tend to fall apart on examnation, the Peshitta was a translation from a reasonably good Greek text, probably around 200 AD. Others say as late as 400 AD.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Orthodox_Freethinker

Not if you realize the absurdity of the Son crying that He had been forsaken by the Father. In the original Aramaic, Jesus triumphantly proclaims, not "Why have you forsaken me?", but "For this (dying on the cross for the salvation of humankind) I was spared!"

Another absurdity due to transliteration is the "camel through the eye of a needle" when the proper translation is "rope through the eye of a needle."

Iskander

Thank you Orthodox_Freethinker and praxeus

Vorkosigan

The writer of Mark had an adoptionist position; that is why the use of My God, my god, why have you forsaken me? makes more sense than the Peshitta, which is clearly secondary and derivative of later theology. Further, the citation there is of Ps 22, which was used to construct much of the crucifixion tale. The writer of Mark frequently cited the texts that he paralleled to construct his tale. The idea that the long ending of Mark was original to the gospel is laughable, taken seriously only by conservative scholars. It is theologically, structurally, and stylistically non-Markan.

Vorkosigan

Steven Avery

Actually Lamsa came up with the "for this I was spared" (footnote: this was my destiny) translation.

The historic Peshitta translation was "forsaken", simply look up Etheridge and Murdock. Apparently the aramaic issues are quite murky, despite the bravado of today's internet peshitta afficiondos.

Exactamente. Lamsa fudged around there "Why has thou let me to live" , putting his Peshitta in opposition the Hebrew Tanach as well as the NT. Error begets error.

Who have an overwhelming manuscript case to go along with other issues, which I believe we covered some on a thread earlier this year. (or was that just the Pericope Adultera). Anyway, I must admit I find it amusing that somebody who thinks that Mark was written essentially as theater (or whatever you call it) in a foreign country by someone personally unfamiliar with any Jesus or Israel, as a fictional writing for an emerging cult, is now concerned with the theological dissection of the purity of the fiction drama writing.

Shalom,
Steven
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Vorkosigan

I must admit I find it disturbing the way you keep twisting that. Never did I say that it was written essentially as theater. I said it was written to be performed, a very different claim (performance can be baptismal, liturgical, recruiting, etc). The claim that Mark is some kind of performance is routine among mainstream exegetes of Mark. As for being written by someone unfamiliar with Jesus and Palestine, that is obvious from the text and controversial only among conservatives. A perfectly acceptable mainstream view. I can't fathom what's wrong with me considering the theology of the writer of Mark, any more than I might consider the theology of the Hou Han Shu or the I Ching or the Pali Scriptures or the Upanishads. That's normal too.

What's even more disturbing is your constant return to this as well. Why?

Vorkosigan

Orthodox_Freethinker

Given that there were several attempts to take the life of Jesus before His crucifixion, "For this I was spared!" does make sense.