judge

Hi again Spin,
Here is one point that does not need deep linguistic skills to comprehend.

You have claimed the following.

1. Mark uses the Latin term praitwrion for a palace. Therefore you have argued that Mark was written (in greek ) for a latin audience.

Yet in mark 7:11 the author uses the Aramaic word Qorban (sacrifice).

Isn't this a double standard?
You have argued that the use of a Latin word indicates that it was written for a Latin audience BUT that this same audience "never learnt Aramaic".
So why did the author deliberately include Latin terms on the one hand (becase his audience would be familiar) and on the other hand deliberately include an Aramaic word which he knew they would not understand?

Your argument fails.

Vorkosigan

Judge, can you present the evidence for the NT being originally written in Aramaic in clear, concise, and extensive manner? So far you argue with people when they present evidence, but present very little yourself. Qorban (sacrificial offering, gift) is a good example of the way the NT has taken over a few liturgical or magical terms from Aramaic. Spin's examples are devastating, while yours, alas, fail to have the same ooomph.

Also, I'd like some clarification. Do you believe all the epistles and all the gospels in the NT were originally written in Greek, or just Mark? Further, were all the Gnostic gospels written in Aramaic as well? How about Thomas and the Gospel of Peter?

I don't think you are likely to make any headway without a comprehensive document that lays out the linguistic and literary features of your case. Where is it?

One of the scholarly lists has a discussion starting here:
http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-a...-12/22360.html

Vorkosigan

judge

Well the evidence is very extensive


I don't think this is true I have posted threads on Romans ,Mark,Corinthians just to name a few.

There are other threads such as this one started by Merle which have some evidence for books such as John.
I challenge you to find as many threads started by anyone presenting the case for the NT being penned in greek.
This is despite the fact that almost all ancient witnesses tell us that various books were not penned in greek.

Eusebius (315 C.E.)
For as Paul had addressed the Hebrews in the language of his
country; some say that the evangelist Luke, others that
Clement, translated the epistle.
(Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 3:38:2-3)

Jerome (382)
"He (Paul) being a Hebrew wrote in Hebrew, that is, his own
tongue and most fluently while things which were eloquently
written in Hebrew were more eloquently turned into Greek
(Lives of Illustrious Men, Book 5)

Well, if you think that the instance of Latin words in Mark indicate it was not written in Latin but in Greek then fell free to be devastated.

I believe the 22 books of the eastern peshitta were penned in Aramaic. That is the protestant NT minus 2&3 John, Jude, 2Peter and Revelation
I agree. I am not competent to produce such a document, but as most textual criticism is based upon a greek Nt it is interesting to how little evidence there actually is to support such a notion.

Even Spin is left arguing that the existence of Latin words is proof of a greek original. Where but in textual criticism would such nonsense be considered the best evidence?

Thank you for the link. :notworthy

rlogan

Hi Judge.

There was a mis-citation in that thread pertaining to Eusebius and Matthew.

It should be Eccl. Hist. III 24:

Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue, and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence.


hmmph. What are we to make of this?

Yuri Kuchinsky

Greetings, all,

I've read this long discussion, and I guess I find myself somewhere in the middle here. I don't believe that all of the NT was written in a Semitic tongue (whether Aramaic or Hebrew). And neither do I believe that either of our canonical gospels, in their present shape, _as a whole_ was written in a Semitic tongue.

And yet, I'm pretty sure that the original prototype of all 3 Synoptics was probably written in a Semitic tongue. This original proto-gospel was probably short, and it was later expanded in various ways to end up as our 3 Synoptic gospels.

A similar process may well have happened with John; an original short Semitic prototype, which was later gradually expanded.

But none of the discussion between Spin and Judge is really applicable to what I'm saying.

From my point of view, there are different layers of Mark, for example. The earliest layer would contain the most Semitisms. Then, the later layers could have been added in Greek. So, from this perspective, finding some "Greekism" in Mark may only indicate that this particular passage or verse was written originally in Greek -- not that the whole thing was written in Greek.

Best,

Yuri.

RRK

I think the point was that when Mark uses "korban", he suffixes it with the explanation "that is, an offering" (ho estin Dôron).

Meanwhile, "praitôrion" is used as part of an explanation (of aulê). Thus, your example provides additional support to spin in that when an Aramaic word is used, it is immediately followed by an explanation.

And why do you find surprising the fact that something could be written for a Roman audience in Greek?

rlogan

If we take this line of thinking Yuri, then here is the sort of thing Judge might provide to us:

On another thread he indicated that there were certain poetic features in the Aramaic versions that were memory-assists.

I would like to see evidence that substantial portions of some text have such features. There ought to be other cultural clues too. For example, certain expressions are distinct to one language group like "pig in a poke" - even jokes or word plays that only make sense in one language or culture.

I had asked for any literature on this. But I forgot where that thread was now. Forgive me, judge, if you already steered me to that.

judge

Hi rlogan,
How do you think (Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 3:38:2-3) reads then?
Is there a translation avaliable on the net?

judge

Yes in the greek of Mark we find an explanation but not in the aramaic. This is what we would expect if the greek were a translation is it not?

There is no explanation is the aramaic here.

What i find surprising is that the existence of Latin words is the strongest argument that Mark was nnot written in Latin but in greek!

judge

Hi again rlogan,
I will find some, and maybe do a thread on them. I don't know that they were memory assists but it is a possibility.
There is wordplay for example when Jesus tells people to remove the plank from their own eye to see more clearly to remove the speck from thier brotheres eye IIRC.

Zechariah's canticle and the "hail mary" are also in the form of verse.

When Jesus says "foxes have holes....but the son of man has nowhere to lay his head"...(although why this would need to be remembered I don't know)