Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-28-2012, 08:03 AM

I just want to reiterate that Ehrman does NOT claim that Mark was written in Palestine by a Palestinian Jew or anything of the like.

aa5874 · 04-28-2012, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Ehrman is correct that there is little scholarly dispute that some of the Markan pericopes have some kind of Aramaic origin - not just the Aramaic words, but also Greek words and phrases that translate literally into Aramaic idioms, but which are not Greek idioms. For instance "flesh and blood" is an Aramaic idiom, but not a Greek one, so if sarx kai haima is seen in the Greek, this strongly suggests the original pericope was Aramaic....

Your claim is hopelessly absurd. Even Scholars today use Greek, Aramaic and Latin words in the writings but their works were NOT originated in those languages.

The use of Greek, Latin or Aramaic in gMark only shows that the author is familiar with the words he used. It is completely illogical that a work which is perhaps 99% of Greek WORDS originated in Aramaic and Not Latin where both are perhaps less than 1% of gMark.

Ehrman is illogical and is correctly declared by Carrier to be incompetent.

Adam · 04-28-2012, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

etc. The writer of Mark is obviously not a Palestinian Jew. That is sheer apologetic fantasy.

As usual, Vork,
You fail to allow for sources. The underlying sources could well be from Palestinian Jews. Even the finished work could be from a fringe character from Qumran or a follower of John the Baptist.

outhouse · 04-28-2012, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

etc. The writer of Mark is obviously not a Palestinian Jew. That is sheer apologetic fantasy.

As usual, Vork,
You fail to allow for sources. The underlying sources could well be from Palestinian Jews. Even the finished work could be from a fringe character from Qumran or a follower of John the Baptist.

Actually he is right on this.

Adam · 04-28-2012, 02:04 PM

Who is right, Adam or Vorkosigan?

outhouse · 04-28-2012, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Who is right, Adam or Vorkosigan?

Vork

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-28-2012, 02:54 PM

Both are right, actually. They aren't really making contradictory claims. Mark was not a Palestinian Jew, that's true (and also not a claim Bart Ehrman comes anywhere close to making, endorsing or suggesting), and Adam is right that Mark could have had Aramaic sources.

For the record, what Ehrman believes is that Mark has some oral sources with Aramaic origins, not that Mark was a Palestinian or was anywhere close to primary sources himself. It's fair to disagree with that, but let's not attribute claims to him that he has not made.

aa5874 · 04-28-2012, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Both are right, actually. They aren't really making contradictory claims. Mark was not a Palestinian Jew, that's true (and also not a claim Bart Ehrman comes anywhere close to making, endorsing or suggesting), and Adam is right that Mark could have had Aramaic sources.

For the record, what Ehrman believes is that Mark has some oral sources with Aramaic origins, not that Mark was a Palestinian or was anywhere close to primary sources himself. It's fair to disagree with that, but let's not attribute claims to him that he has not made.

Ehrman's Belief are FAITH based not facts. What Ehrman believes is worthless unless he wants to be a cult leader or a Sunday School teacher.

The claim that the author of gMark could have had Aramaic sources is mere speculation. The very stories in gMark about Jesus are Fiction so whether or not they are of Aramaic sources is irrelevant.

For example, the feeding of the Four and Five thousand in gMark is total fiction whether the stories originated in Aramaic, Latin or Greek.

The Baptism of Jesus in gMark with the Holy Ghost bird and the voice from heaven is total fiction regardless of its original language and likewise the trial and crucifixion are implausible.

Ehrman's book is just filled with logical fallcies.

outhouse · 04-28-2012, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Ehrman's Belief are FAITH based not facts.

and your belief requires 10X the faith of that [facepalm]

spin · 04-28-2012, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

You'd have to have smoked the last of your crack and then ingested opium, followed by inducing unconsciousness via ketamine, to believe something as ridiculous as this. It just makes me want to scream.

Yeah... how does Stark for example explain all the latinisms in Mark, and if I am not mistaken he even uses latin words as an explanation of greek ones. That doesn't sound like something a Palestinian Jewish Christian would do when writing in Palestine to Palestinian Jewish Christians.

What else are you thinking about Vork? Mark's anti-nomianism? His geographical mistakes?

1. Geographical mistakes but not just the errors, but the way he treats geography as completely irrelevant: "3:7: Jesus withdrew with his disciples to the sea, and a great multitude from Galilee followed; also from Judea 8: and Jerusalem and Idume'a and from beyond the Jordan and from about Tyre and Sidon a great multitude, hearing all that he did, came to him." You mean the crowds come up from Jerusalem all the way to Galilee? Puh-lease. He is just tossing in place names.
2. Explaining what Jews do -- they claim he's writing to Jews but he says in 7:3 (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they wash their hands, observing the tradition of the elders; 4: and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they purify themselves; and there are many other traditions which they observe, the washing of cups and pots and vessels of bronze.) It's quite obvious from this side comment that he's not a Jew and is explaining for people who are not Jews. There's never a sense of "we" in any of his comments on Jews. Plus he really doesn't know much about Jews as Matthew had to correct things....
3. He thinks the puddle in Galilee is an ocean.
4. He quotes the Septaugint in Greek in 7:8 when J is disputing with the Pharisees but the Greek and Hebrew are different at that point -- J flings a Greek text at the Pharisees?

etc. The writer of Mark is obviously not a Palestinian Jew. That is sheer apologetic fantasy.

By far the most hilarious geographical blunder is Gadarene swine running up and down over the Yarmuk and eventually into the sea (of Galilee). Worse of course is the more original form, the Gerasene swine who had to run down (and up and down) a hellovalot further to get to the sea. It could have been the Dead Sea given that Gerasa is a little closer.

The writer of Mark is just clueless about Levantine geography.

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

04-28-2012, 08:03 AM	#21
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	I just want to reiterate that Ehrman does NOT claim that Mark was written in Palestine by a Palestinian Jew or anything of the like.

04-28-2012, 02:04 PM	#25
Adam Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Dixon CA Posts: 1,150	Who is right, Adam or Vorkosigan?

04-28-2012, 02:54 PM	#27
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Both are right, actually. They aren't really making contradictory claims. Mark was not a Palestinian Jew, that's true (and also not a claim Bart Ehrman comes anywhere close to making, endorsing or suggesting), and Adam is right that Mark could have had Aramaic sources. For the record, what Ehrman believes is that Mark has some oral sources with Aramaic origins, not that Mark was a Palestinian or was anywhere close to primary sources himself. It's fair to disagree with that, but let's not attribute claims to him that he has not made.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.