spin

That's evident.

What's noticeable is spin's bemusement of your demonstrated skills for commenting in the area.

What I have claimed is stated in this thread. What you claim I claim isn't based on that.

If you say so.

Please reread my comments.

My "praise of Casey's psychic powers (blah, blah)"? You're just making things up.

All of Daniel was translated into Greek. One theory exists that Daniel was wholly written in Hebrew and the middle was later translated into Aramaic (and a noted Aramaicist strongly criticised the ability of the translator to render Persian Chancelry Aramaic--not too strange if Daniel was around 165 BCE).

Dunno, but it's a different sort of Aramaic.

stephan huller

I'm at a loss to understand Steve Carr's point. Is he taking exception to the idea that scholars who can function in Aramaic aren't necessarily bilingual or that there is no basis to the claim that the gospel might have originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic?

There are reasons for thinking that the gospel might have originally been written in Aramaic or Hebrew. It is certain that many people who can function in a language and develop scholarly arguments in other languages besides English could not be truthfully considered to be bilingual. I have met many.

Steven Carr

Would you agree with Casey that many people who are bilingual native speakers are 'not fully competent' in their mother tongues?

Why then does Casey consider himself 'fully competent'?

Has Casey ever reconstructed successfully the Aramaic original of a Greek document? If so, then what is the name of this document?

JoeWallack

JW:
An inventory (so far) of reasons against an Aramaic original for "Mark":

1) No extant early Aramaic text.

2) No Patristic discussion of detail analysis of Aramaic text

3) “Matthew” and “Luke” clearly copied from a Greek “Mark”.

4) No known textual variation in “Mark” explained by controversial Aramaic original.

5) No known textual variation in “Mark” explained by alternative Greek translations for Aramaic original.

6) References/quotes from Jewish Bible generally copied from Greek translations.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

judge

Early aramaic speaking christians use aramaic texts. As far back as we can go.



Compare greek of mark 9:49 with peshitta and with Latin bobiensis.


This doesnt exaplin why the parable of the vineyard corresponds the an aramaic targum, rather thana greek text though.

judge

But mark does have this type of evidence.

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....highlight=mark

Mark 6.11 is perhaps a better example though. here we have variants in the greek version of mark that correspond to an ambiguous Aramaic word in an ancient aramaic version of Mark

Mark 14.41 is another example.

JoeWallack

JW:
JW:
This reminds me too much of the sometimes Skeptical complaint that before "The Jews" were monotheistic they were not monotheistic. As I said there is no specific textual evidence for an early Aramaic text of "Mark". The general evidence is also against it. In an irony that "Mark" appreciated, Israel has always been like Crypt-ton-ite to Christianity. Anyone who knew Hebrew/Aramaic knew that the Christian Bible Jesus was not in the Jewish Bible. So Israel as a country, never went schmad. Ironic isn't it that the only country that knew Jesus, or at least the people who claimed they knew Jesus, never went for Jesus. Related to this, every bordering country that Jesus, or at least those who claim to have known Jesus (in some Way), went to, gave up the holy ghost to turn Muslim. The Muslims didn't even have to threaten to go Al-Queda on them. They just had to threaten to tax them. No wonder the Tea Party hates taxes so much. It really does convert Christians into Muslims. Apparently not very good soil per "Mark's" Jesus for holy oil.

Origen, the top Christian textual critic of his time (maybe of all time, relatively speaking), learned all he could about Christianity outside of Israel. After he went to Israel he does not appear to have learned anything about Christianity. What he does learn is that the Hebrew is superior to the Greek for the Jewish Bible. He expends quite a bit of effort on the Hexapla (maybe you've heard of it). No evidence that he ever saw or heard about an Aramaic "Mark". He confesses to us that the Greek Christian Bible is also full of errors. An Aramaic predecessor would have been a great help to him and no doubt the Christian Bible was exponentially more important to him than the Jewish Bible. But no effort to improve it with a Semitic version. Sounds like it didn't exist at the time. Fast forward to Eusebius and his famous discussion of the ending of "Mark". No mention of Aramaic evidence. Hell, go all the way to Jerome, who even considers Latin evidence (you do agree that the Latin followed the Greek?) for the ending. No mention of Aramaic.

No, if you are looking at the general evidence, there is no quality evidence for an early Aramaic "Mark".

JW:
greek
mark 9:49
peshitta
Latin
bobiensis.

Bingo! I'll assume you know the Peshitta is Syriac. Just symptomatic of the weakness of your position that you do not offer a direct Aramaic/Greek example.

JW:
Ah, the old exception to the rule exception. That's the third time this post you've used it, would "Mark" believe it, the third time. That's why I said "generally". Actually these exceptions are probably better explained by variation in the underlying Hebrew. Anyway, if you want to engage me here you need to use specific examples of the Greek being best explained by an underlying Aramaic (directly) for "Mark". My memory is that Spin shot down all such attempts for the Christian Bible. As far as you using only vague general attempts, homily don't play that game.

C'mon, I've giving you the usual examples, variation in the Greek best explained by an Aramaic original that either had Greek alternatives or was difficult to accept. Your go to guy Casey appears to have constructed an Aramaic text from Greek "Mark" and than claimed it is the source of the Greek. That may work at Tweeb but it's not going to fly here. Apparently those wax tablets he claimed "Mark" had were circular in shape. The examples I'm looking for though seem rarer in Casey's book than Gordon Gecko's interest in Annacott Steel. Mazel tov BarAr.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

JoeWallack

JW:
Potentially, this is the type of example you need. A Greek word that doesn't fit and would be well explained by an underlying Aramaic. An objective person going through the referenced Thread can see that you have already concluded that there is an Aramaic source and are looking for evidence, any evidence, to support your conclusion. I think you, Casey, Jugdish, Mohammed and Lonny should just get a room. I'm sure you'll have lots to talk about.

Casey at least tries to spin Mark 1:41 as an example of a Greek which makes no sense and is explained by an underlying Aramaic:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_1:41

"And being moved with compassion, he stretched forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou made clean. (ASV)"

The textual evidence as blessed by Ehrman and even Wallace says it should be:

"And being moved with anger, he stretched forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou made clean"

Casey argues that "anger" has no context and is explained by the underlying Aramaic word with a primary meaning of "anger" but also lesser meaning of great emotion. I explain here though that there is no good reason to doubt "Mark's" intent of "anger" here:

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....45#post6354645

Summary of points:

1) A following verse supports "anger" in 1:41:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_1:43

"And he strictly charged him, and straightway sent him out, (ASV)"

"Strictly charged" is consistent with anger.

2) "Mark" describes Jesus as angry elsewhere.

3) "Mark" specifically describes Jesus as angry during a healing (3:5).

4) "Mark" has a Style of placing the same emotion at the start and end of a connected story. Note that 1:41 is the start of the Galilean ministry:

3:5, which everyone agrees has Jesus angry, is the end of the Galilean ministry:

There are a number of other examples of this in "Mark" (emotional framing) but just for now:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_6

Amazement at the start and end of the hometown visit. What is especially reMarkable is that even and especially "Mark's" Jesus is also subject (so to speak) to these emotions and note that Jesus' amazement at the end is a reaction to his hometown's amazement at him! This is an amazing literary technique by "Mark", repeated often, where an ironic reaction is the source of an ironic reaction. I hereby officially name this phenomena Rapimoses.

As usual this all follows from Paul and his "crucify passions" command. "Mark's" Jesus is a veritable flaming potpourri of emotions during the Teaching and Healing Ministry (count em) and than goes quieter than Ronald Reagan during the Iran Contra hearings while being literally crucified during the Passion. "Matthew"/"Luke" try to tame this wild Jesus but think of them like the Demons who are trying to spoil "Mark's" plan for Jesus.

In summary, "anger" is not only not unexpected for 1:41, it is actually supported by "Mark's" style and theme and should be a part of the textual evidence discussion. Still waiting for one good example of a Greek difficulty best explained by underlying Aramaic.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

judge

Joe here is the problem.

You claimed the foillowing..."4) No known textual variation in “Mark” explained by controversial Aramaic original."

My question is how do you know? You dont. You are claiming that something doesn't exist.
I am merely pointing you to where such does exist.
If you look into the examples I gave you will find textual variations in the greek which can be exaplined by an aramaic original.
You need to change the wording on your site.

If you want to claim that
"4) No known textual variation in “Mark” explained by controversial Aramaic original." you need to demonstrate this is so, not just assert it.

Have you looked at mark 6:11?
Do you know there is a variant there?

This variant can be explained by an aramaic original.

Alexandrian text: ov an topov mj dexjtai..(as many as)
Recieved text: osoi an mj dexwntai (whatsover place)

Both these readings can be derived from the aramaic root mn.

If you dont believe me check out the online COMPREHENSIVE
ARAMAIC LEXICON. See for yourself
There are many more