spin

If I've been saying all along that Mark was written in Rome in Greek with Latin influence, I'm certainly rejecting a Semitic linguistic substratum behind the Greek. I have also indicated some Semitic knowledge of the writer, while rejecting a Semitic source for the Greek text. That knowledge however is not clear. Remember the words Jesus says to the little girl: "talitha kumi", literally, "lamb, arise", Mark provides, "maid, I say to you arise", suggesting the writer didn't know what the Aramaic meant exactly.

I see. There are Latin words regularly transliterated into Greek in the LXX, are there? Are there also various Latin idioms translated literally into Greek in the LXX?

You should know better than to make statements that you don't have the skills to support.

If you want to make claims, support them. Did you notice that I gave links for what I'd said? If you want to be just a little more serious, you'd do the same thing.

It's interesting when you come to your Syriac thing, you suddenly start deliberate misrepresentation.

Perhaps, if you had looked at the relevant verse instead saying this silliness, you'd see that there was a perfectly fine Greek word, aulh(a cognate of our "hall"), which wouldn't need explaining to a Greek.

Worse still, there is a Latin idiomatic form translated literally into Greek which gives the explanation, ("into the hall, that is, a praetorium") esw ths aulhs o estin praitwrion, where o estin is a translation of the Latin hoc est. This phrase to give explanation is used nine times in Mark (but not once in Luke). The writer does the same thing again when dealing with the widow's offering: lepta duo o estin kordranths, "two leptas, that is, a quadrans", using the Latin idiom and supplying a Latin equivalent, obviously for a Greek speaking Latin audience.


spin

Ben C Smith

Hi, judge.

I am not sure I understand your position. Are you denying that Mark has quite a few Latinisms? It seems so indisputable, I have trouble imagining that you are denying that, but, if not, what exactly is your position?

Ben.

Roger Pearse

I think I understand. You are supposing that there are two Syriac words, peshitto and peshitta? But in fact these are English transcriptions of the Syriac word. In Syriac, there is no *written* difference between these two, even if you show the vowels which manuscripts tend not to.

Here is the word as written in Serto, and with a literal English transcription rendering the zqafa vowel as a+overscore. But it is the same word in both East and West Syriac; only the pronunciation differs.



I.e. from the right: pe+shin+rhboso(=i/e vowel above the shin)+yod(combines with rhboso in pronunciation->'i')+tet(=t+dot)+taw(=t)+zqafa(vowel in question, written under the tet in this case)+alap(silent final rough sound, not a vowel).

I hope that helps. But as far as I can tell you've found a mare's nest here. There is only one word in Syriac (J. Payne Smith, Compendious Syriac Dictionary, p.468 col. 1 6th from bottom), but it is written variously in English because it is pronounced variously in the living Syriac dialects; -o in the West Syriac regions, -a in the East Syriac regions.

Of course if anyone knows different, I shall be most interested to see it.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Not a bad price for a single shot; but did they charge you to have it online? If not, good for you!

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ben C Smith

No, no charge. I had asked about hosting images from their manuscripts online before, and they had said that as long it was only a few and not for profit it was okay. I hope that is still the policy, because I did not ask this time....

Ben.

Roger Pearse

Good for them! Good to see a library that realises that serving the public means using the internet. The British Library once wanted $16,000 to photograph around 300 pages (their three Tertullian mss), and $500 a year for the rest of my life if I wanted to put them online.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

judge

No. There are two textual traditions (with differences in the texts). We, to help us differentiate, call one the peshitta and one the peshitto.


Yes I realise I was merely pointing out the two traditions. The colophons occur in peshitto texts, which is signifigant for other reasons.

Hope that helps. I could have been clearer, but the whole issue but it might have then needed it's own thread to look at why it might be signifigant (that they are in western texts but not eastern texts) .

I see where my post might have been confusing. As I replied to prax, I just gave the brief reply that I did as I gather he has some knowledge about the peshitta/peshitto stuff (although i may be wrong) and so would get my drift.

Anyway hope that helps Roger. I always enjoy your stuff here.

Roger Pearse

Who is 'we'? I do not recall finding this in Metzger's Early versions of the New Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk), nor in Sebastian Brock, The Bible in the Syriac tradition (or via: amazon.co.uk).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

judge

"We" is anyone I suppose. Some distinction need be made on occaision, purely because the texts are different.
Western scholars often blur the distinction, and even make out they are the same. But the texts and the communties keeping these texts have quite different histories.
It does not suit western scholars to make this clear (if they even are aware)
Let me give an example.
Scholars such as Metzger lump all of these groups into one one group and call them the "Syrian Church", as if they were in some way united.
Then on the basis of this falsity argue that (in Richard Carriers words....)

Metzger and co then go on to say that rabbula and theodoretus got rid of the diatessaron and replaced it with the four gospels in the these Syrian Church or churches.

The obvious problem with this is that these men only hade limited jurisdiction. they only had power in some areas.
Evidence of this survives in that the diatessaron survived in the COE, where they had no power.
there is no evidence that the COE used anything but the peshitta liturgically, and their church is very very ancient.

On this you can see my post here The eastern canons , where i pointted this out to Richard Carrier.
His reply was that he was only repeating what Metzger said (even if Metzger was wrong).
In short western scholars misrepresent the history of these communities and their texts, and one way is by inventing an imaginary united group called "Syrian Church" when the situation was a lot more complex.

judge

No, I understand it. Previously you admit or suggest that Mark has an Aramaic or semitic substratum.


Whether this alleged substratum is the result of translation or merely a "person writing Greek with a Semitic substratum" you cannot tell.

Additionally you write that, "(Mark) wrote Greek with a Latin substratum,"

Now you claim the latin substratum is linguistic. (and presumably you want the other to be "non linguistic")

But as I show above you admit you can't tell the difference in Mark between a person writing greek with a semitic substratum and a translation from aramaic to greek anyway. (or you give no indication you can)

We can see the greek of Mark has the same peculiarities as the LXX, so we do know what translations from a semitic text to a greek one look like. They look like Mark does.

You are unable to provide anythng substantial showing a similar phenomenon which is the result of anything but translation.