sschlichter

What was wrong with google again? Would you be more responsive to the claim if I scanned a book and emailed the image to you or is your objection to a lack of originality.

I did not say anything about requirements. Just looking at the evidence.

1) aramaic terms with translations
2) evidence of semitisms

and then you added some, (good points)

3) likely non-native greek speaker
4) acquaintance with the Jewish religion

~Steve

Adam

You have made it very clear that the ideological preconceptions are your own, not mine.
I came over here not to be told my ideas were not in concept possible, but analyzed as to whether they were consistent and not irreconcilable with what we know of 1st century Palestine. Your program above shows little knowledge of what I have been saying, so it is of little help. Other than by extremists as on this website, it is well accepted that Jesus was crucified, therefore a trial would be expected and recounted by someone. In the
Gospel of John the Passion Narrative focuses on Peter as a witness, but also reveals a "disciple known to the High Priest". This is not inherently unlikely, since gJohn lists several high-placed friends of Jesus. This person is the most likely source, and the most likely person would be John Mark, a person suggested by several scholars as the author of gJohn, and known to Peter (Acts 12:12). There's nothing inherently unlikely in this unless you have preconceived notions that marvelous events like the gospels and Acts cannot happen.
The differences between the Passion Narrative in the four gospels rule out copying from each other or a common Greek text. We can't expect to trace Mark's style from Aramaic (presumably) to Greek. You (and spin) continue to misunderstand distinctions between John Mark, gMark, and sources underlying gMark.
Good point, except that when I finish "asserting" here, no one critiques what I have written. When I wrapped my major thesis of seven written gospel eyewitnesses in Post #144, I tried for 170 posts to get you guys back on track. Instead my Post #230 with the six layers in gMark (since amended by me to seven layers, thanks to spin's persistence or obliviousness) served as a diversion from the main issue. Plus I'm still waiting for anyone to get us beyond Doug Shaver's #153 where he lamented that no scholars have been addressing issues that could refute. Meanwhile my #450 with the Alpha and Omega principle (like Bauckham's inclusio) is still unaddressed. I took pity on you guys and entered #451 with the dozen scholars you could attack.
I don't get helpful (or unhelpful) commentary on my thesis itself, I just hear you asserting that it's all assertions. I guess I should remind you of the Coherence Theory of Truth. Does it all hang together, as my #450 seemed to do with my thesis? But no one here studies the thesis enough to say one way or the other.

stephan huller

When reading this thread I sometimes feel like this is a variation on Sartre's Huis Clos (= No Exit) - l'enfer, c'est les autres ("Hell is other people"). I'd like to ignore the religious headbangers for a moment and continue to discuss the Latinized Greek of Mark with Vork and Spin. Has anyone examined to see:

1. Does the Diatessaron 'pick up' the Latinized Greek phrasing of Mark?
2. Does Clement of Alexandria's citation of Mark echo any of the Latinized Greek?

I'd like to determine if the Latinized Greek was isolated to one version of the text of Mark (= the Catholic text) or all citations. For instance do the Western readings of Mark retain it as well?

Kapyong

Gday,

Pardon?
An 'assumption' that there is no supernatural?

Actually - that's backwards Adam - there has been no EVIDENCE for the supernatural, so we CONCLUDE there is no such thing.

Let me unpack that -
"If one doesn't assuming there is no supernatural, then the gospels appear to be early and from written eyewitness sources."

So, you're saying it's specifically allowing for the SUPERNATURAL that leads you to conclude that the gospels appear to be early and from written eyewitness sources?

So if one rejects the supernatural, there are NO eye-witnesses at all?
You seem to be arguing that Jesus himself was supernatural?

Can you explain why the supernatural lies at the core of the argument?

Do you think a supernatural argument will be convincing ?


K.

Kapyong

Gday all,

Vorkosigan :
"Once you admit the supernatural into your "methodology", all possibility of knowledge ceases, because you have eliminated the possibility of rules in the formation of knowledge, and substituted your ideological preconceptions. "

Wow.
Adam - you made the incredible claim the supernatural must be allowed for, and then when Vorkosigan pointed out how that ruins an argument you bark that HE is the one with "ideological preconceptions"!
As if the supernatural is the norm, and rejecting it is abnormal.
Such a view flies in the face of all logic and rationality and reason.

You apparently wanted your ideas critiqued, then when several smart people here took the time to address your posts, you reject all criticism out-of-hand. Indeed you even say :

Pardon? You've had numerous critiques. Now you pretend there were none?

Oh please - Vorkosigan drilled down to a specific example of something you had failed to show. And you blew it off as un-informed and un-related. What an arrogant and ignorant thing to say! You had a specific critique pointing to a weakness in your work, and you waved it away with an insult, while claining no one is critiquing your work!
Adam - your attitude is out-rageous.

You seem totally unable to see the difference between DEMONSTRATING that John Mark WAS the source of the Passion versus arguing that it WOULD have been so.

You genuinely seem to think that claiming there WOULD have been an account written by someone - qualifies as demonstrating the John Mark WAS the source.

Sorry, but claims based on what you think are 'likely' are worthless. It's all just ASSERTIONS, but you don't support it with evidence.

Because it's simply not possible for a writer to CHANGE a book as he writes a new version is it?
Come on Adam - we weren't in church now, you can't say transparent nonsense and expect us to swallow it. Of COURSE it is possible.

Wow.
What can I say.


K.

spin

Google? Nothing. It's just you need to understand what you think you are looking for.

I'd be more responsive if you introduced items you understood the significance of in order to argue the case you have proffered.

You claimed that we can conclude that the Semitisms in Mark force us to come to the most reasonable blah blah. You've provided nothing that requires or "forces" us to any such blah. So I asked you for the what that forces us. And I'm still waiting for you to provide the forcing indications.

Among the terms that get explained are some Aramaic terms. There are also Greek terms explained using the same Latin idiomatic tools to do so in Greek. You haven't got past the abracadabra stuff.

No evidence for Semitisms was provided. There was just someone's series of opinions you lifted off internet.

That's what you need to narrow down to justify your over-confident claim about Semitisms forcing your blah.

The following (#4) is not necessary to be said: whether the writers were Aramaic speakers or not, they needed an acquaintance with the Jewish religion. I only mentioned it as a given.

Vorkosigan

Steve, I live in Taiwan and speak Chinese on a daily basis. When I taught Econ 101 at my previous university I often explained things in Chinese to the students. They would laugh at my Chinese, saying it was very Englishified. I then failed them. [ok, just kidding.]

I sometimes wrote notes and explanations in Chinese. I did not write these in English and then translate, I wrote directly to Chinese from my head. Of course my Chinese is second language Chinese.

Anyone reading my notes would see that my Chinese is second language Chinese.

Reading my Chinese with its Englishisms, is it possible for anyone deduce:

-- whether I had written in English and then translated,

OR

-- whether I had written directly to the paper in second language Chinese?

Observe that noting the presence of Englishisms wouldn't demonstrate the original language of the text itself.

Similarly, just because GMark is full of interesting signals of other language layers tells us nothing about how the text was composed, only about the language influences in the writer's head.

Hope this is clear.

Vorkosigan

sschlichter

No, but you can draw likely conclusions based on the degree to which evidence exists.

I can take note that your paper contains no frenchisms. I can take note that you may be aware of cultural customs, geographic attributes, political tensions. I can take note of those students that claim to know why you have Englishisms in your paper.

I do not believe I am saying anything that you have not just clarified in your example. However, what I am hearing is that Latinisms point to an audience of native-Latin speakers of Greek and Hebraisms mean absolutely nothing.

Synoptic passages that are awkward in greek but translate into a very natural Hebrew in the exact same word order should be telling.

I am curious why you feel they are not?

sschlichter

force? into what?

ok, well I have taken some greek but am very much dependant on the knowledge of experts. Citings are available in what I gave you. Is it your contention that none of those examples are an indication of semitisms?

I agree, opinions on the Internet can be misleading and biased. I usually stick to those that provide credentials, citings, and avoid using an alias of some sort. Everything else is exactly as you say - opinions on the Internet.

ok, well you said it unnecessarily then.

However, this author was well aware of Jewish customs and language, cites from both the Greek and Hebrew OT, is familiar with geography.

I would be interested in examples of greek words getting translated into greek in Mark.

~Steve

mrsonic

greetings spin

do you agree with this

"Also, once again the anonymous author failed to take into account the considerable difference between Galilean Jewish Aramaic (a West Aramaic language) of the 1st c. CE and Syriac (a Christian East Aramaic language) of the 4th-5th c. CE in seizing upon particular vocabulary items. We know next to nothing about GJA of that period and have no idea whether those lexical items even existed in that dialect."

is it true that we know next to nothing about GJA?