judge

Many have pointed out the Semitic style of the new testament including Matthew black who wrote, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (3d ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1967);

So what is it about the Greek of Mark that makes some scholars think it must have been translated from Aramaic or Hebrew. Below we will scratch the surface and look at the tip of the iceberg.

Many thanks to Paul Younan for his study below which looks at some of the evidence that the greek of Mark was translated from Aramaic.

Semitic grammar is characterised by the repetition of a preposition before every noun of a series which it governs. Such a construction is and is intolerable in literary Greek and likewise in English.

Joshua 11:21

ויב×? יהושע בעת ×”×”×™×? ויכרת ×?ת־העתקי×?
מן ־ההר מן ־חברון מן ־דבר מן ־עתב ומכל הר יהודה מן כל הר ישר×?ל
×¢×?־עריה×? החרימ×? יהושע

και ηλθεν ιησους εν τω καιÏ?ω εκεινω και εξωλεθÏ?ευσεν τους ενακιμ εκ της οÏ?εινης εκ χεβÏ?ων καιεκ δαβιÏ? και εξ αναβωθ και εκ παντος γενους ισÏ?αηλ και εκ παντος οÏ?ους ιουδα συν ταις πολεσιν αυτων και εξωλεθÏ?ευσεν αυτους ιησους


Then Joshua came at that time and cut off the Anakim from the hill country, from Hebron, from Debir, from Anab and from all the hill country of Judah and from all the hill country of Israel. Joshua utterly destroyed them with their cities.

Now, let's look at an example from the New Testament Peshitta:

Mark 3:7-8

0my twl hl Lz0 Yhwdymlt M9 (w4yw
0wh hpqn fylg Nm 00ygs 0m9w
Mwd0 Nmw Ml4rw0 Nmw dwhy Nmw
Jdyc Nmw rwc Nmw Nndrwyd 0rb9 Nmw
htwl wt0 db9d Lk wwh w9m4d 00ygs 04nk

και ο ιησους μετα των μαθητων αυτου ανεχωÏ?ησεν Ï€Ï?ος την θαλασσαν και πολυ πληθος απο της γαλιλαιας {ηκολουθησεν} και απο της ιουδαιας
και απο ιεÏ?οσολυμων και απο της ιδουμαιας και πεÏ?αν του ιοÏ?δανου και πεÏ?ι Ï„Ï…Ï?ον και σιδωνα πληθος πολυ ακουοντες οσα εποιει ηλθον Ï€Ï?ος αυτον

Jesus withdrew to the sea with His disciples; and a great multitude from Galilee followed; and also from Judea, and from Jerusalem, and from Idumea, and from beyond the Jordan, and from Tyre, and from Sidon, a great number of people heard of all that He was doing and came to Him.


This point can be further examined by looking at a passage which occurs both in Mark and Matthew. The translator of Matthew got rid of the redundant preposition.

Matthew 16:21

0nhk Ybr Nmw 04y4q Nm $xn Ygsw

And He would suffer much from the Elders and from the High Priests (Aramaic)

και πολλα παθειν απο των Ï€Ï?εσβυτεÏ?ων και αÏ?χιεÏ?εων

And He would suffer much from the Elders and the High Priests (Greek)




Now, let's look at the parallel saying in Mark:

Quote:
Mark 8:31

0nhk Ybr Nmw 04y4q Nm ftsndw Ygs $xnd

And He would suffer much and be rejected from the Elders and from the High Priests (Aramaic)

πολλα παθειν και αποδοκιμασθηναι υπο των Ï€Ï?εσβυτεÏ?ων και των αÏ?χιεÏ?εων

And He would suffer much and be rejected from the Elders and from the High Priests (Greek)


The translator of mark went "word for word" even though it reads awkwardly.
Marks translator kept the redundant preposition.

spin

It's plain that your source hasn't got the idea of what a linguistic substratum is.

For example, when a Indian native speaker of English says, "I am liking it very much", would anybody dare say that s/he is translating from Hindi? The wayward use of the continuous simply indicates a substratum of Hindi. When a relatively recent immigrant from Italy says, "I have gone to Russia in 1990", would you declare that the person is translating, despite the fact that the person has used English for a couple of decades?

Mk has an apparently Semitic substratum. There has never been any doubt about the Marcan writer's general background, but that gives you no indication whatsoever about which language he wrote in. Compose a letter in Tagalog, assuming you have a good grasp of Tagalog, and almost certainly a Filipino can tell where you come from. Chust like fen uzzer pipple spick Inklish, you can often pick the background of the speaker. This notion of substratum is seen in the ancient world: scholars are reclaiming aspects of Canaanite from the Akkadian texts found at Amarna -- and can spot Egyptianisms as well. Here we have scribes writing in the lingua franca, revealing extra information. This is simply the case in Mk.

It is actually linguistically improbable that Mk was simply translated from a Semitic language. There would be no great reason why a translator should use the underlying grammatical features of the original language, unless of course he had a Semitic background, but then how do you tell whether it was the translator who maintains the Aramaic substratum or it was a person writing Greek with a Semitic substratum??


spin

Chris Weimer

Oh this is just priceless. Ok, let me get this straight. Mark has the redundant preposition, so you claim a translation from Aramaic. But Matthew doesn't have it, yet you continue to claim it was a translation from Aramaic. Judge, this is just a game you're playing.

:rolling:

judge

Just an opinion. It is improbable in [i]your[i] mind maybe. But as illustrated it is not improbable in the mind of scholars.

spin

A linguistic analysis, which you simply omit in your citation.

Carmignac was not a linguist.


spin

judge

To be honest you have provided no evidence of the precise lingua franca.
To prove your case you must show that Aramaic was spoken without the intrusiuon of Latin words into the common speech.

You have made no attempt to do this.

All languages use loan words. Your assumption seems to be that we should never see them.

Yopu are still playing a game. When the words aere Aramaic you try to rationalise them away, when latinisms occur...Ooooh! then they become evidence. :rolling:

You don't have one standard that you consistently apply.

Chris Weimer

Actually judge, it's impossible to prove a negative. Rules of logic dictate that the burden falls on one making the positive claim, such as can you provide any texts predating the Peshitta that uses extensive Greek and Latin words for such things as "face" or "Pentacost"?

spin

You have some argument against the use of Greek throughout the eastern Mediterranean as far west as Rome? I'd love to see that. I'd love to see someone argue against the fact that Mk is written in a variety of the koine of the time, despite the unspecified Semitic substratum.

This comment doesn't follow from what came before, ie the notion that Mk shows signs of a substratum.

Although I'd probably disagree with the first proposition, the second needs to be addressed. Those languages which borrow words do so for generally plain well-known reasons, such as the terms were not available in the borrowing language (not the case in our example), or there was a massive linguistic cultural influence (which is not the case for Latin, as Greek actually borrowed very little terminology from the Romans). On this last, a case must be made for the particular words involved, as in to see if they really represent general borrowings or specific literary artefacts (as is the case I have suggested). Linguistic change is relatively slow, more so in contexts in which there was no mass media to expedite the dissemination. If we look at Jewish literature, a few very specific terms made it early, such as musical instruments, but in the writings in the several hundred years around the turn of the millennium surprisingly little influence is evinced, yet as we get into more established rabbinical literature Greek terms are not too uncommon. A browse of Jastrow should make this point clear.

One therefore doesn't expect general Greek terms to penetrate into Aramaic at a rate which was significantly faster than Hebrew or Aramaic Jewish literature. Yet this is exactly what you would have people contemplate, not only faster, but also for extremely ordinary words on one hand and and Greek theological terms on the other.

The presence of the Latinisms is totally unexplained as simple borrowings from Latin due to the lack of linguistic penetration the language had in the east. The fact that they occur in the Greek of the nt is a much easier trajectory especially for Mk as it plainly points to a writing in Rome and gives explanations for things that would not be necessary for a Palestinian reader, such as meanings of terms or Palestinian cultural manifestations.

I really cannot help your linguistic skills.

You cannot umm, judge.


spin

judge

However on previous occasions you have begrudgingly admitted you have not compared these issues WRT Aramaic.
Can you please make yourself clear on this point.

1.Is the rate "signifigantly faster"

2. What specific evidence do you have for this?

Lets' look at the evidence , not vague opinions.

Vorkosigan

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: