James The Least

Mark obviously didn't think anyone would notice/care about playing fast and loose with Palestinian geography. Like a lot of writers, he did just enough research to sound credible to his immediate audience, one far removed in time and distance from the historical setting. Like his use of Aramaic, he cared enough to sound convincing and real, but the main point of the story is that the Jews killed the Lord Jesus in Judea. The rest is window dressing for that theological necessity.

James The Least

Everything I write is my opinion, not dogma. True, I haven't studied this subject for 30 years, but I'm deeply disappointed in many of the assertions/assumptions about the historic Jesus by those who have. Does Ehrman "know" there are authentic Aramaic traditions in Mark? Of course not. He is assuming an historical stream going back to an historical Jesus, and this assumption gives plausibility in his mind to authentic Aramaic sources. But isn't that much the same as creating the necessity for authentic Aramaic sources? Given the highly literary nature of Mark, the more parsimonious explanation is that Aramaic was utilized for literary reasons.

Solo

To camouflage the reference.

Best,
Jiri

aa5874

It is Ehrman's claim that is illogical. People here are objecting to Ehrman's claims.

There is not even a verse of 20 consecutive words of Aramaic in gMark yet Ehrman is claiming that a phrase here and there of Aramaic is evidence that stories in gMark were originally told in Aramaic.

Such a claim is a load of BS.

Two Aramaic words in Mark 5 and four in Mark 15 do NOT show that gMark's stories originated in Aramaic--it shows that there are 6 Aramaic words in gMark and does NOT indicate at all the author of gMark was fluent in Aramaic.

And further, Ehrman destroys his own logical fallacies in "Did Jesus Exist?" on page 87-88. The author of gMark perhaps could ONLY read Aramaic just like Ehrman himself ADMITTED that he could ONLY read German at one time.

outhouse

and I hope everyone here is running with the author of Gmark's work was surely redacted between copies.


while taking the above into context

stephan huller

I was watching 50/50 and the thought crossed my mind that there are actually a number of possible errors in transmitting an Aramaic text in Mark. The 'seasoned' with fire from 'baptized' (cf. Baarda). This sons of thunder one. There are others I can't think of them. Doesn't mean it's an argument I'd want to make but I remember how bad Irenaeus translates the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1 (in the Son ...). He also seems to be a native Latin speaker (or at least familiar with Latin) who apologizes for the quality of his Greek. Just mulling it over in my head. He also cites both forms of the scriptural quote at the beginning of Mark ('Isaiah' and 'the prophets').

thief of fire

Considering the Aramaic word regesh means noise tulmut,agitation, anger, I don't think it's an open and shut case.
Bene regesh could transliterate into Boanageres in greek. One doesn't have to be an expert in palestinian Aramaic to see that csaey could be quite wrong, particularly in the light of the complicated explanation Casey gives. But still would point to an Aramaic source I think.

Do you have another you can share?

thief of fire

The thing is that these aren't just loan words, which appear in every language, but sentences of dialogue, and they require an explantion. An Aramaic source may be the wrong explantion but to throw it aside we need a superior one.

thief of fire

How is the author of Mark "familiar with Latin?" Is there any unambiguous evidence for this?

thief of fire

Why?