Orthodox_Freethinker

In Paul Younan's interlinear translation of the Peshitta, "Why have you spared me" is the translation:
http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/Arama.../Mattich27.pdf

Vorkosigan

What attempts on Jesus' life were made in Mark?

Orthodox_Freethinker

I am not certain about Mark but an example from Luke is when the members of Jesus' own home town attempt to throw him off a cliff:

Luke 4
28
When the people in the synagogue heard this, they were all filled with fury.
29
They rose up, drove him out of the town, and led him to the brow of the hill on which their town had been built, to hurl him down headlong.
30
But he passed through the midst of them and went away.


Also, in the Gospel of John, the people of the temple attempt to stone Jesus because He claimed to have existed before Abraham.

Steven Avery

Simply because when you have such a thesis, (that it takes about five days to sort of flesh out), it really makes it rather absurd to then turn around and claim that the standard and heavily-manuscript-supported ending of Mark is theologically impossible. (Again see the Jim Snapp site and earlier discussions as well for the actually substantive discussions of the ending.)

Such a claim would be ultra-dubious even under more sensible and consistent Mark NT scenarios, but in your fictional drama scenario, to turn around and claim it as theologically laughable and non-Markan takes on an Alice-in-Wonderland air.

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

Steven Avery

Which was about 70 years after Lamsa, who so far is the earliest. Again, how about some commentary from Ephrem and others ? Or some ancient Aramaic support?

Below I already showed you that before Lamsa 'forsaken' was considered the Aramaic-->English translation, and as you should know, Lamsa's theories always have to be taken with a grain of salt. He was competent, at best.

It might be nice to see which of his claims are covered in
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/languages.php
Edwin M. Yamauchi, "Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, or Syriac? Critique of the Claims of G. M. Lamsa for the Syriac Peshitta," Bibliotheca Sacra 131: 524 (1974): 320-331. .. which used to be online at www.bible.org.

And does Paul Younan address the Psalm 22 issue? Afaik, Paul does not claim any peshitta primacy for the Tanach, acknowledging it as a translation from the Hebrew, thereby leaving him with an awkward inconsistency since the Hebrew does not allow for the 'spared' translation.

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

Orthodox_Freethinker

The Aramaic word that Lamsa translated to "spared", does it actually mean "forsaken"? If so, could you prove this and explain why the interlinear translation is incorrect? One reason why I prefer "For this I was spared" is because this is the translation included in the Good Friday liturgy of our Church.

Steven Avery

The burden of proof is on you that forsaken is incorrect. And it is very possible that both translations are translationally possible.

However, "forsaken" has been the historic translation and the only one consistent with Tanach (the key issue that you bypass).

Does your church use the Lamsa translation ? If so, of course that would explain the liturgy in English, as well as a mistranslation in Psalm 22 if you follow Lamsa.

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

Vorkosigan

only for you, prax, because your template for understanding history is "truth or conspiracy." You're the first person I met who had any problems understanding it. Since everyone else works with more robust templates of literary development than you do, they don't have any trouble with it.

Prax, I'm not going to consult crazed conservatives about what the ending of Mark is. I already know. It's blindingly obvious, which is why even the NIV indicates that the Long Ending is dubious.

The "fictional drama scenario" is yours, prax. Just keep twisting. I'm sure that if you twist enough, you'll come round to the truth again.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

I am aware of those attempts on his life in Luke and John, both of which appear to depend on Mark. Are there any attempts in Mark, the first iteration of this narrative?

Steven Avery

LOL.. what a powerful argument. "crazed conservatives...(yada yada)"

The modern versions follow Westcott and Hort errors. So you are convinced.
And the modern versions give the skeptics lots of targets, so they fight real hard to support them, usually harder than the modern versionist believers.

You clearly gave the view it was a fictional writing, the first on Jesus, developed in a far-away land, and used in a public performance venue. That summarizes to my words. You also seem to imply that either the goal or the accidental result was to convince folks that the fiction was true.

Perhaps you could state your actual scenario one time clearly, so I can more accurately try to cohese your various origins and textual and theological views, especially vis a vis Mark. eg. Why would he not want a resurrection in the first fictional account ? Wouldn't it add pizazz to entice people to an "emergent cult".

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