spin

In point #2 above, I said that Mark was written in Greek for a Roman audience. It was normal that texts were written in Greek to be read by Roman audiences. Josephus a companion of the Flavian emperos of Rome wrote in Greek to a Roman audience, so the idea is not strange. However, writing in Aramaic to a Roman audience would make no sense at all, for, while upper class Romans often learnt Greek, they never learnt Aramaic.

There are a number of pointers that show that Mark was written for a Roman audience:

1. an ordinary guard to a Jewish king was called a spekoulatwr in Greek, a term derived from Latin, but why called a Jewish king's soldier by a Latin term? to make it easy for the audience to understand. This Roman word is also transliterated into Aramaic, 'SPQLTR' -- [ ' = alef]. Why use a Latin word for a Jewish soldier in Aramaic? Because it was the term in the original Greek and the Aramaic translator didn't know a better way to translate it.
2. money is either referred to in Roman currency or Greek currency, which is then sometimes related to Roman currency. The coins in Judea were shekels and prutahs and during Roman times the procurators produced these coins. So why do we find Mark 6:37 mentioning Roman denarii? Because his Roman audience understood them. We also find the denarius mentioned in the Aramaic. Why? Because it was in the Greek source. Mk 12:42 talks of Greek coins, lepta duo, two leptas, which Mark tells us are equivalent to a kordantes, or Roman quadrans.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. One of the most interesting manifestations of Latin intruding into the Greek of Mark is the verb "satisfacio" (= to satisfy), made up of two words, "satis" (= sufficient) and "facio" (=to make). This is translated into Greek literally from the Latin parts to get ikanon (= sufficient) poiew (= to make), the problem is that this compound doesn't normally exist in Greek: it only exists here. The Greek has clearly come from the Latin idea. (The Aramaic uses its own word meaning "to satisfy", CB'.)

There are various other Latin words to be found in Mark, all of which are best explained because Mark is catering to a Roman audience which could read Greek.

To imagine an Aramaic original to Mark would make what is transparent extremely contorted and rather difficult to explain. It is not sufficient to plead that these are just foreign words in circulation in Aramaic, for the coins weren't used in Palestine, and the logical idea of "satis facio" isn't found in Aramaic, so the Greek form cannot be explained from Aramaic (or even from simple Greek). Aramaic as a source for Greek Mark simply doesn't make sense, whereas a Greek writer steeped in Roman culture does.


spin

judge

Hi again Spin,


OK so you say here that Mark was penned in greek?

Uh huh , Mark was written in greek to an upper class Roman audience.

1. So greek writers use a latin word. You seem to have two standards Siin. You previously argued that Mark could not be wrtiitn in aramaic because the aramaic has this word and an Aramaic writer would have used an aramaic word for soldier.
   And yet here you argue that a greek writer would not have used a greek word.
   Not very impressive.
   
   
   Quote:

   money is either referred to in Roman currency or Greek currency, which is then sometimes related to Roman currency. The coins in Judea were shekels and prutahs and during Roman times the procurators produced these coins. So why do we find Mark 6:37 mentioning Roman denarii? Because his Roman audience understood them. We also find the denarius mentioned in the Aramaic. Why? Because it was in the Greek source. Mk 12:42 talks of Greek coins, lepta duo, two leptas, which Mark tells us are equivalent to a kordantes, or Roman quadrans.

   Can you commit yoyurself here Spin. Are you defintely saying that leptas were not used in Judea? Yes or No?
   
   
   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.

   Romans ruled led this area why on earth would the palace not have the Latin name. This happens in every culture. Words are loaned and borrowed.
   
   
   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.

   
   As I previously pointed out pragela is an aramaic word. Even if this word did go from Latin to Aramaic (and for the sake of argument I will say it did). You need to show when this happened.
   
   
   Quote:

   One of the most interesting manifestations of Latin intruding into the Greek of Mark is the verb "satisfacio" (= to satisfy), made up of two words, "satis" (= sufficient) and "facio" (=to make). This is translated into Greek literally from the Latin parts to get ikanon (= sufficient) poiew (= to make), the problem is that this compound doesn't normally exist in Greek: it only exists here. The Greek has clearly come from the Latin idea. (The Aramaic uses its own word meaning "to satisfy", CB'.)

Again the existence of foreign words prove nothing. And you have a double standard which is easily evident. Although you have little knowledge of Aramaic (it seems) and are avoiding admitting this (it seems by your avoidance of my query above), you insist that latinised words in the greek of Mark show it was written in greek for a latin audience..HA . You've got to admit that really is a stretch Spin!

Whereas Aramaic words in the greek version are mumbo jumbo. Quite a double standard don't you think?
I have already shown previously that Mark 9:49 was mistranslated from Aramaic into greek.
Who ever heard of being salted with fire

judge

Prior to the discovery of the dead sea scrolls the oldest hebew Bibles were in Greek!

Did any one really believe the Hebrew bible was therefore written in greek?

The fact is that Prtoestant Fundamentalist christians say the Nt was written in greek and most people follow them without question.

spin

Uh-huh.

No. I was saying why Greek was so well-known in Rome. There were even lots of slaves who knew Greek in Rome. Some of them taught Romans Greek. It is the Romans' facility for Greek that is important, while there was none for Aramaic.

Yes, Greek writers sometimes used Latin words.

But this outburst is amusingly off the wall:

It would help, if you learnt even a little bit of diachronic and comparative linguistics. You wouldn't be so confused.

You need to consider implications and trajectories. The phonemic necessities of a language tell you the directions of movement of words. The inappropriate underlying structures found in one language which reflect another also gives direction. The stylistics of giving explanations to a Roman audience gives situation.

I can understand your attempts at trivialisation as you have no other recourse.

They were not used at all in the first century. Prutah were the lowest denomination of coins during the first century. Hasmoneans used lepta and Herod the Great minted some as well.

The most important part of the argument that naturally you are oblivious to is that the explanation of the two lepta was that they were equal to a quadrans!


The Romans were not housed in Jerusalem, but operated out of Caesarea Marittima. The building we are told by Mark was an aulhs which he feels the necessity to explain as a praetorium for his audience, his Roman audience.

What you had done previously was to cite an Aramaic dictionary which showed that the particular pragela was a loanword from Latin, which of course was based on its presence in the gospel material.

Obviously, you haven't considered the examples closely.

Saying so doesn't demonstrate your claim. This is just empty rhetoric from someone out of their depths in a field they know nothing about.

This is amusing from someone who doesn't even know anything about non-separable prepositions in Aramaic.


It is just a well known ploy to hide your ignorance by accusing your opponent. But look at this gem:

Recognize this?? I'd try not to if I were you.

Explanations of terms for a Roman audience is no stretch.

Absolutely not. You don't even look at the cases:

1. talitha kumi, that is "little girl, rise"
2. abba, "father"
3. be not called rabbi, for one is "master"
4. Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?, being interpreted, My God, My God, why has thou forsaken me?
5. Rabbi, which is to say, Master
6. I know that the Messiah is coming who is called Christ
7. Cephas, which interpreted is, a stone

Here we get Aramaic (and Hebrew) consistently explained in Greek, for it is foreign to the audience and I've shown Greek being explained for a Roman audience. The obvious target audience is a Roman cultured Greek understanding audience.

You seem to forget that we have also discussed this misunderstanding of yours about the notion of purification, by fire and by salt. And remember, I know where you get these things and it would be better that they explained them because they have a better command of the claimed source.

A basic comparative linguistics course (usually a 2nd or 3rd year uni course) would do you the world of good. It's better that you understood the problems that you try to deal with.


spin

judge

That Mark was translated into greek is that as with other greek NT books there are variations from version to version.
When translating from one language to another there araiuses occaisions where one word or phrase can be translated in two or more ways.

Thus if two or more people translate the same text the translations are unlikely to agree word for word.

Mark 6:11 clear evidence the greek was translated from the Aramaic.




The Byz. Maj. and Stephens / Scrivener Textus Receptus have osoi an mj dexwntai ('as many as will not receive')
The Alexandrian text reads as follows:

ov an topov mj dexjtai ('whatsoever place will not receive')

The Aramaic root here can mean either of these phrases!!

mn p
0 passim from
1 passim : direction: place
2 passim : direction: person
3 passim : origin : place
4 passim : origin : person
5 passim : origin : material
6 passim : origin : time
7 passim : agent
8 passim : cause
9 passim : comparative
10 passim : other verbal complements
11 passim : partitive
12 Syr : distributive
13 Palestinian : multiplicative
14 Syr : on the side of
15 Syr : reflexive


Any greek translator would not know whether a place or person was meant!!

One translation went with the place and one went with the person.

spin

As we've been through this cut and paste once already you may as well read what I said again here.

Is this another example of precocious senility? We have dealt with a number of these before and you have failed abysmally to find one that doesn't fail under scrutiny.


spin

judge

Spin what are you claiming the peshitta reads in Mark 12:42?


Spin think about what you are saying???
The Aramaic version conatins an aramaic word, which entered aramaic from Latin. So what?
How does this prove Mark was written in greek??
Think about what you are saying here.

judge

Spin the greek texts read differently. Both are acceptible translations.
Can you find any such variant in the peshitta. Just one! Can you fond one variation JUST ONE in the peshitta?

spin

Your source's explanation for the main Greek version is simply wrong. The Greek is just as non-specific as the Aramaic in the example.

As I explained:

You'll see that the major difference between the Textus Receptus and the Westcott & Hort (Alexandrian) is that the latter has the word "topos", "place", while the word "osoi" from "osos" is a reduplicated form of "os" and underlines the separateness of the items, which is also indicated by the "an", but it is not able in itself to indicate the difference between "which", "what" or "who". This is only indicated by context. So the only functional difference is the insertion of "topos". It takes a scribe who wishes to be precise to add the word.

It is the insertion of the word topos in the Alexandrian text which is what the entire quibble is over, for the other text tradition is exactly the same as the Aramaic. The insertion of topos is very clearly an erroneous scribal intervention, the scribe seeking clarity of the underlying Greek text and choosing a specific meaning against osoi an, which simply means "whosoever/whatsoever/whichsoever".

You'll find osos is similar to the Aramaic term, MN; both are non-specific conjunctions; osos reinforced by an, along with os are often translated with MN, so the only real problem for us is that a scribe has interfered with the WH version of the text. Your people have unjustifiably turned a not so wise scribal intervention in the Alexandrian text into a causus belli.


spin

spin

I didn't claim anything about the Peshitta here. I demonstrated that Mark points to being written here specifically for a Roman audience, which was the task of the post you are responding to.

Incidentally, the Lucan parallel, 21:2, to Mk 12:42 doesn't have the Roman explanation; it just says the widow cast two lepta (omitting "which is a kordantes"). The Aramaic has simply translated the lepta in this case using the same noun, $AMUNA, as it does for "kordantes" in Mark. This is further evidence that, while Luke used Greek Mark, the Peshitta simply translated what was found in the Greek as it came to the translator. (But you need to look at the Greek and Aramaic versions of the two verses, before you comment, so that you understand the problem, whose solution requires Greek Luke to have used Greek Mark, omitting part, and the Aramaic texts of these were simple ad hoc translations of the Greek, eg Lk, two lepta $MN' TRYN; Mk. two leptas which are a kordantes TRYN MNYN D'YTYHWN $MN'.)

I'm saying that the term fragellw, "to whip", was borrowed by the Aramaic translators of Mark as PRAGELA.

No, it didn't enter Aramaic from Latin. It entered from Greek, and before that it entered Greek from Latin. All you need do is show it existed in Aramaic before the first Aramaic translation of these texts.

It is an example of the movement from Latin into Greek into Aramaic. The reverse trajectory naturally being impossible, the word PRAGELA got into Aramaic through Greek. (Latin) fl- -> (Greek) fr- -> (Aramaic) pr-. Now the argument here is that Latin was well-known to the reading audience, so it's not strange that Latin words crept into the Greek, but a Roman audience was not knowledgeable in Aramaic, so the entry of a Latin word into the text would not have helped any Aramaic reader.

The silly thing is that I at least have.

Please spend the time that I'm away well: learn one of the languages or learn something about linguistics. It's awful to see people making linguistic claims without having the linguistic skills to support them.


spin