judge

But more to the point, so what if there is a Latin influence in Mark?

I'm not sure why this is a problem?

judge

Hi Ben just to address your point. No I am not denying Mark has some Latinisms.

The greek of mark looks like the greek of the LXX becuase they both seem to be translated from Hebrew/Aramaic. Some eidence for this is here
Was Mark written in Aramaic.
As for praetorium. Some of the Latinisms seem stronger than others. Praetorium doesn't seem as strong as some of the others, to me.

Hope that helps.

Spin has tried to make the case before that latinisms in the Aramaic version of Mark mean it must have been translated from Greek to Aramaic.
As if having the Latinism "praetorium" in the peshitta of mark somehow means the peshitta was translated from Greek. You can find his ..er..arguments in the links he gave.

Roger Pearse

He also doesn't mention the apostles by name; on the same logic presumably this means that they didn't have any....

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

I would be most interested to learn what verb and form kumi is. Did you check whether it is in the intensive or simple imperative? After all, that would answer your question, wouldn't it?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Steven Avery

Toto, I essentially answered this above (although it is a fair question so worthy of more discussion).

Translations vary. A person can do a more literal translation that aims to keep more of the cadence, rhythm and grammatical structure of the source language (consider the Torah translations of Everett Fox and Robert Alter and possibly the literal work of Rotherdam as easily-accessible examples). To some that makes an excellent translation. To others the result is questionable English grammar. (Yes there are complications and side-issues in these analogies but they should be sufficient to make the point.)

Neither translation is necessarily right or wrong. To discard the source language structure completely is one type of translation while to retain some or much of it is another. To add target language elegance may be permissible or it can be unacceptable license.

Anecdotally when I discussed the Gospel of Mark with a friend fluent in Latin they noted the Latin substratum directly and clearly and commented on it. That they could easily see Mark as having an original Latin base. Yet there is little on this question in scholarly writings post-Hoskier that I have seen. And the question is rarely addressed in modern discussions, if at all. Is there a refutation of Hoskier ? Not that I know of.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto Perhaps you have inferred that I do not think that a Latin original for Mark is very likely, or solves any questions. It seems more likely that gMark was written in Rome by someone familiar with Latin.

Well if Mark was written in Latin or Graeco-Latin and the translation to Greek gave us our current text and represents a legitimate type of translation (as I discuss above) then surely it does shed a lot of light on the grammatical criticism, perhaps even to the point of being a solution.

Also this has a lot of conceptual significance in discussions among those who accept the Bible text as to the significance of 'translation' and whether translation necessarily implies any loss of inspiration and perfection. (In this discussion there are also a number of scriptural sections and internal translations to be considered.) I often run into people who claim that the only true Bible is in the original autograph and/or the original languages. Yet they cannot even say with any real certainty what is the original language, at least in Mark.

Back to the grammar. As a simple example the many connecting "ands" which are often noted and/or criticized I understand would come directly out of Latin. And a certain grammatical simplicity or roughness as opposed to the elegance of Luke-Acts and Paul.

Now of course it would be good if folks who were fluent in Latin would weigh in on these questions. However I have read enough to at least point out that there is a very substantive question as to the original language of Mark.

And as I have noted sometimes skeptics would prefer not having any complications in their attacking the grammar of Mark as 'wrong' or errant. While some Christians are enamored of the 'original Greek'. So the question is often bypassed. (Among the scholarship groups the question may simply not be in vogue.)

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Steven Avery

And I am amazed that anyone would consider the simple Markan interpolation for context and clarity a mistake.

That anyone (much less yet multiple posters here) would assert that Mark thought that "I say unto her" was embedded into 'talitha cumi' is appalling. I don't even remember seeing this one on the Peshitta primacy forum, it is so obviously a false claim.

Mark 5:41
And he took the damsel by the hand,
and said unto her,
Talitha cumi;
which is, being interpreted,
Damsel, I say unto thee, arise

John Gill
http://eword.gospelcom.net/comments/mark/gill/mark5.htm
which is, being interpreted, damsel (I say unto thee) arise.

The phrase, "I say unto thee", is no part of the interpretation of the above Syriac words; but is added, by the evangelist, as being what was expressed by Christ at the same time, signifying his authority and power over death; only "damsel arise", is the interpretation of them, (ylj) ...

This is so obvious that Albert Barnes doesn't even bother with a notation.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/barnes/ntno...i_1.v.xli.html
Talitha cumi. This is the language which our Saviour commonly spoke. It is a mixture of Syriac and Chaldee, called Syro-Chaldaic. The proper translation is given by the evangelist—- "Damsel, arise."

btw, Judge, in the midst of his usual strangeness spin did make an important point for your consideration. The internal translations .. such as

"which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise"

are virtually proof positive that Mark was written in Latin or Greek.
There are about two dozen of these in our NT, in every Gospel and Acts, and they have textual consistency. There is no vector of translation and transmission that allows and explains for scribes to add these in if the original language was Aramaic or Hebrew.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

judge

Why, we may not know, but what we do know is that the translators of the LXX retained elements of the Hebrew in their translation.

Maybe the translators revered the text so much they kept the semitic grammar?

We looked at how the translators of the LXX used preposition repetition here Was mark written in Aramaic

Here is another example with the translators of the LXX using semitic syntax courtesy of peshitta.org.

Here again the greek of John looks exactly like translation Greek


So the NT looks like the LXX, which is a translation.

judge

Virtually proof positive? How so?

Boy that's all I need you too teaming up...... (which one of you is Walter Mathau?)

judge

Mistake may be too harsh. As you say it may just be an interpolation. But if so it seems an interpolation in the greek translation.
At any case it is not a "word for word" translation, but as I mentioned the meaning of what is said is conveyed quite well.

spin

This time your copying and pasting has mangled the Greek as badly as you usually mangle the Aramaic.

Your source's logic is fallacious. I have dealt with it before. You cannot tell whether the writer is translating or using a way of structuring thought that is familiar. Without being able to show which is which there is no argument.

Because a writer uses contorted phraseology in one instance is no indication of translation. If you read a Joseph Conrad novel, you will find constructions that work better in French, though Conrad was Polish and wrote in English.

But we've been down this road before. You are unable to analyse the problem posed to you. You plead ignorance and ask other people to tell you the significance of the data and eventually you respond by cutting and pasting one of your canned Aramaic priority sources mangling the necessary language components, making it difficult for others to read.

Deal with the issue at hand, ie the strong evidence of Latin as the assumed language of the audience. Don't use your usual modus operandi of pleading ignorance, avoiding the issue, and eventually responding with potted information. I usually deal with your sources' material, but you usually pike it.

Please respond to the 116th post in this thread. You totally avoided it before. That's not responsible.


spin