Freethought & Rationalism Archive

MortalWombat · 02-25-2005, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Are you aware of any OT quotations in the Gospels that do not come from the LXX?

Just curious, where does the “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?�? in Mark 15:34 come from?

andrewcriddle · 02-25-2005, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Are you aware of any OT quotations in the Gospels that do not come from the LXX?

Looking through the infancy narrative in Matthew (Matthew 1-2) we have in Matthew 2:15 'Out of Egypt have I called my son ' 'EX AIGUPTOU EKALESA TON hUION MOU' the Septuagint for Hosea 11, 1 has 'out of Egypt have I called his children ' 'EX AIGUPTOU METEKALESA TA TEKNA AUTOU' The Hebrew MT has 'From Egypt have I called my son'

Matthew here basically agrees with the MT not the Septuagint in having 'my son' rather than 'his children' although a fully literal translation of the Hebrew would have APO rather than the EX of Matthew and the Septuagint.

Andrew Criddle

Diogenes the Cynic · 02-25-2005, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MortalWombat

Just curious, where does the “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?�? in Mark 15:34 come from?

Psalm 22, and good point, but I was mostly talking about the non-Markan Gospels.

Diogenes the Cynic · 02-25-2005, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Looking through the infancy narrative in Matthew (Matthew 1-2) we have in Matthew 2:15 'Out of Egypt have I called my son ' 'EX AIGUPTOU EKALESA TON hUION MOU' the Septuagint for Hosea 11, 1 has 'out of Egypt have I called his children ' 'EX AIGUPTOU METEKALESA TA TEKNA AUTOU' The Hebrew MT has 'From Egypt have I called my son'

Matthew here basically agrees with the MT not the Septuagint in having 'my son' rather than 'his children' although a fully literal translation of the Hebrew would have APO rather than the EX of Matthew and the Septuagint.

Andrew Criddle

Interesting point. As you point out, though, it doesn't precisely match the Masoretic text either. I wonder if Matthew could have been tweaking the LXX or if he had some oral knowledge of the nion mou construction.

I also wonder why, if Matthew knew Hebrew, that he did not know Isaiah 7:14 was mistranslated in the LXX.

You make a fair point, though. I can't say there's no evidence at all that Matt was aware of the MT.

andrewcriddle · 02-25-2005, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MortalWombat

Just curious, where does the “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?�? in Mark 15:34 come from?

It is an Aramic rendering of Psalm 22:1

(Eloi is 'My God' in Aramaic it is changed in Matthew 27:46 to Eli which is 'My God' in Hebrew)

The Greek rendering of the cry in Mark 'hO ThEOS MOU, hO ThEOS MOU, EIS TI EGKATELIPES ME' stays on the whole closer to the underlying Semitic than does the Septuagint 'hO ThEOS, hO ThEOS MOU, PROSChES MOI hINATI EGKATELIPES ME' Matthew's version may be assimilated to the Septuagint 'ThEE MOU, ThEE MOU, hINATI ME EGKATELIPES'

Andrew Criddle

S.C.Carlson · 03-06-2005, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haran

I'll have to see if I can find Kelhoffer's book, but can you tell me what relation he finds to Acts?

Kelhoffer states (p. 146): "The LE's protrayal of speaking in new languages and of Jesus' ascension and session suggests, but cannot prove, literary dependence on Acts." [NB: LE=the "Long Ending" Mark 16:9-20]

The relevant parallels are: "he ascended into heaven" Mark 16:19b (cf. Acts 1:2 11 22); "they will speak in new tongues" Mark 16:17 (cf. Acts 2:4 11); and "he will sit at the right hand of God" Mark 16:19c (cf. Acts 7:55-56).

Kelhoffer gives reasons why it is more like that the author of the LE got it from Acts rather than the reverse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haran

Given normal scribal tendencies and the tendency of Matthew and Luke to expand accounts rather than contract, it made me wonder if the longer ending of Mark might have actually been around early enough to be used by the Gospels (and perhaps Acts). Do you find it possible that Luke, particularly, might have known about and expanded upon the more concise events of the longer ending of Mark (thinking of the two men on the road to Emmaus, etc.)?

Actually, Luke is usually shorter than Mark in the accounts of Mark that he took over; Luke is an expansion of Mark mostly in the sense of adding new accounts and scenes. So what Luke did to Mark in 1:1-16:8 is not a good analogy for the suggestion that Luke also used the Mark 16:9-20 as a source for the Emmaus account.

judge · 03-06-2005, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Are you aware of any OT quotations in the Gospels that do not come from the LXX?

You may find this essay from Craig Evans helpful.

Here is another study of the NT quotes compared to both the LXX and the Hebrew.

In Epesians Paul quotes a version of Psalm 68 that only is mirrored in the of targum of the psalms. It does not agree with the LXX or the hebrew.

judge · 03-06-2005, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Try this thread: spin vs. judge on NT written in Aramaic esp post 21:

.

Note in respect to point 4;

Quote:

I have already mentioned the fact that Mark has borrowed the Latin term, flagello, which becomes fragellw in Greek ("l" -> "r"), then sometimes PRAGELA in Aramaic when fragellw is found in the Greek original ("f" -> "p"). The important evidence here is that the source language for the word once again is Latin.

Spin was not aware when he wrote this that PRAGELA actually is an Aramaic word!

Also note WRT point 3

Quote:

When Mark 15:16 tells us that they took Jesus to a palace, the writer explains that this palace was a praitwrion, the Latin term praetorium. Yet again we have an explanation for a Roman audience, for the text has already said that he was brought to a palace which should have been sufficient, but Mark is catering to his audience, and amusingly the term has been kept when translated into Aramaic.

Spin does not apply the same logic to John 1:38 where the Greek reads

Quote:

Rabbi (which means teacher.

The Aramaic does not have this explanation it only has the Aramaic word nbr. No explantion is given. Only in the greek do we have the explanation that rabbi (nbr) means teacher.

judge · 03-06-2005, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mathetes

I've read it argued here (Spin?) that Mark has a number of words from Latin, like "Praetorium". Can't find it using the search feature.

Mark also has a number of Aramaic words as well.

The Latin words are basucally "loan words"> Every culture has loan words.

They refer to specific things like coins, soldiers or buildings. The names are used in more than one language.

The same can't be argued for Aramaic words that still are left even in the greek versions like "talitha kum" mwaning little girl arise.

How is this a "loan word"?

judge · 03-06-2005, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

Is there a plausibility that the author of Mark knew Aramaic?

best,
Peter Kirby

One indication might be that two different dialects of Aramaic are used in mark 15.

The author of this link seems to think so. (added in edit:The author in Prof Barry D Smith of Atlantic baptist University)

Quote:

The Gospel of Mark is non-literary, having a simple and popular style; it has affinities with the spoken Greek as revealed by the papyri and inscriptions. Moreover, the gospel has a Semitic flavor to it. By this is meant that Semitic syntactical features influence the form of the Greek. For example, corresponding to Hebrew and Aramaic syntax, frequently verbs are found at the beginning of a sentence in the Gospel of Mark. Two other examples of a Semitic syntactical feature is the abundant presence of asyndeta, the placing of clauses together without the use of conjunctions, and parataxis, the joining of clauses with the conjunction kai (and) (imitative of the waw-consecutive in Hebrew and Aramaic). (There are many other alleged examples of Semitisms in the Gospel of Mark.)

What can you infer about the author from these stylistic features of the Gospel of Mark?
From the above data, one can infer that the author’s first language was not Greek, and he did not have a Hellenistic education, so that he did not have enough facility in Greek to write in a highly literary style. The Semitic features of the Gospel of Mark probably indicate that the mother tongue of the author was a Semitic language (probably Aramaic), which is consistent with his being a Palestinian Jew.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.