JoeWallack

JW:
That you feel compelled to use Jesus in this list is a Sign of desparation. "Bartimaeus" sounds like a random name to the modern reader. But to the ancient "Timaeus" would be a classic. "Mark" does his Reader a service by explaining that "Bartimaeus" is really "son of Timaeus" so they won't miss it. Understand Dear Reader? Like I said with Simon and Mary, "Mark" is forced to use Names for the replacements.

JW:
The Marys watched the crucifixion from "afar". The author's confession that they were not Insiders. "Mark" has major themes which sometimes can not be reconciled in the Narrative (do you expect God to be perfect?). One theme is that everyone of Jesus' time Failed him. Another is that the Insiders were replaced with Outsiders. In order to show the replacement he has to place the new names in the Narrative. But the Narrative still has to show that everyone in the Narrative Failed Jesus. Maybe you can suggest how "Mark" could have done this?

JW:
"Peter" looks Historical to me because of Paul and Acts. "Simon" looks Fictional because "Mark" says it was one of Jesus' brothers.

JW:
C'mon, Ben, you're trying to defend the supposed historicity of "Mark" with Logic? A story who's theme is that belief in Jesus is proportional to your lack of evidence.

"Mark's" Jesus did everything he Impossibly could to convince people but they still wouldn't believe. Is this Jesus' fault or the fault of Jesus' audience. The main theme of "Mark" is Reaction to Jesus.

Per "Mark" there was nothing Jesus could do to convince Jesus' audience. They could only be used as bad examples to convince "Mark's" audience. The point of "Peter's" failed appointment is that authority comes from Jesus and not Peter. "Mark's" Jesus has to appoint Peter to illustrate this (for "Mark's" audience). That even though Peter was appointed it only made him bask in the glory of unimportant things like teaching and healing which prevented him from understanding what was important (suffering). In other words, his appointment just got in The Way of his Understanding.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Ben C Smith

Presuming that you have the Platonic dialogue in mind, I am as yet undecided on any connection with this fellow in Mark.

I do not think that Mark was trying to implement both of those themes at all. But I can suggest that, if he were trying to do that, he could have done with this Mary the same as he did with Simon of Cyrene, on your reading.

For Mark to have replaced one Mary with another as part of his theme that outsiders replaced insiders, then to have forced the replacement to fail Jesus as part of his theme that everybody failed Jesus, is quite subtle, and I doubt anybody reading Mark has ever picked up on it... except you.

Besides, not everybody fails Jesus in Mark. He has nothing bad to say about Simon of Cyrene, and he has nothing but good things to say about the woman who anointed him. If Mark wanted to replace Mary the mother with Jesus with another Mary, why not call this anointing woman Mary? Interestingly, that is what John does, right?

You think that Mark wants us to think of Simon Peter and the brother of Jesus named Simon as the same person?

I am not defending the historicity of Mark here at all. I am doubting your reconstruction of Marcan motives. I am not the one advancing a thesis here.

Ben.

ynquirer

Hardly so. Hebr/Aram QYP) can possibly be read in two different ways.

The first way is to suppose that YOD is a consonant. In Hebrew script as of the first century consonants were written and vowels omitted. Thus, QYP) might be read as Qx-Yx-FA/O, as ALEPH - “)” - here indicated either an ending A or an ending O. Therefore, if one transliterates QOF (Q) as Greek kappa (k),YOD as eta (h), and PE (P) as phi (f), QYP) will yield K_h_fas, with two unknown vowels just before and after the eta - or at least one.

The second way is to suppose that YOD is a matre lectionis, that is, not a consonant but an indication that the vowel after the QOF is a long one and either an E or an I. In other words, QYP) would be read as Q-long E/I-FA/O. Being close to what might be depicted as a long E, as eta is, this Greek letter could possibly be a good transliteration for the long vowel. (By the way, this is in Gen 2:13 the case of GYHWN in which both YOD and VOV (W) are matre lectionis and indicative of a long E/I and a long O/U respectively; YS(YH is not a good example since the YOD is at the beginning of the word.) Accordingly, Khfas would be an acceptable transliteration for QYP).

The problem of the latter way to transliterate YOD is that it is inconsistent with the second spelling for Caiaphas, that is, QP). Both spellings were found in 1990 in the same excavation in Jerusalem, which undisclosed two ossuaries that are thought to have belonged to the Caiaphas family. A carved QYP) appears in one of the ossuaries, while QP) appears in both them. QP) lacks matre lectionis, which is tantamount to saying that the vowel after the QOF was either an A, whether long or short, or any short E, I, O, or U. No one of them would be transliterated as eta except as a result of an occasional mistake.

Now, as it seems only common sense, QP) is an abbreviation for QYP). It wouldn’t do for QP) to sound like QA-FA whilst QYP) sounded like QE-FA or QI-FA, or else for QP) to sound like QE-FA or QI-FA, with E/I being a short vowel, while QYP) sounded like QE-FA or QI-FA, with E/I this time being a long vowel. Both would suggest indecision as regard the spelling, a hardly reasonable choice since the two spellings appear in the same tomb.

All in all, the most likely sound for QP) is QA-FA, while correspondingly the likeliest one for QYP) is either QA-YA-FA or QA-Y-FA, as usually supposed by the “experts.”

To end with, I don’t say it is impossible that Paul transliterated QYP) as Khfas. I just say it is unlikely.

spin

We are both happy it's not this.

(There is no logical reason for simply dismissing the example of Isaiah solely because you don't like the position of the vowel. The only reason to overlook an initial YOD is when it is acting as a consonant, which is not the case with Isaiah.)

At least in principle you can accept this fact.

First we note that as the YOD can be omitted, it points to the YOD being read as a vowel, as in the case of David [DWYD or DWD]. Second, we note that a name like Obed [(WBD], which features no vowel in the second syllable in Hebrew, gets transliterated into Greek as wbhd (try also Shem), which contradicts your dictum that a syllable lacking a mater lectionis, "is tantamount to saying that the vowel after the QOF was either an A, whether long or short, or any short E, I, O, or U."

I happily accept that the two forms represent the one name. However, your claim about how the shortened form QP) should be pronounced doesn't necessarily reflect reality. I can give various examples of eta derived from apparently short vowel or even vowelless contexts (eg Mizpah, Grk: masshfaQ, 2K25:25).

That the YOD can be omitted points to it being seen as a mater lectionis, rather than a consonant. Your guesses as to what the vowel in QP) should be are not helpful, as the evidence from transliteration into Greek shows that the vowel is eminently non-guessable. That a YOD can be transliterated as an eta is beyond doubt. That a syllable with an unstated vowel can be transliterated as an eta is beyond doubt. I don't think you've said anything particularly pertinent to the issue of whether the name rendered as Caiaphas or as Cephas.


spin

spin

One further example of the transliteration issue involving the name Caiaphas:

1 Chr 1:41 features the name Dishon [DY$WN] twice. In the LXX transliteration we find two distinct forms:

1. daiswn, and
2. dhswn.

The YOD in DY$WN is rendered first as ai then as h in the same verse. This is a succinct falsification of ynquirer's claim.


spin

andrewcriddle

John's gospel has KHPhAS as a name for Simon Peter in 1:42 and KAIAPhAS for the high priest in several places.

This at least suggests that the underlying Hebrew/Aramaic is different.

Andrew Criddle

spin

What makes you think any "underlying Hebrew/Aramaic" was consulted, Andrew?


spin

andrewcriddle

IIUC we agree that both words ultimately go back to a semitic original.

John equates Peter and Cephas in chapter one suggesting some knowledge of the underlying language. There are other references in the gospel to the meaning of transliterated semitic words.

It is hence prima facie more likely than not that John regarded Caiaphas and Cephas as representing differenr Semitic words. And more likely than not that if he thought this he was right.

Andrew Criddle

spin

The writer of Mark gives translations of a few Aramaic words. Does that mean to you that that writer understood Aramaic? I don't think you have actually answered my question!


spin

ynquirer

As you very well know, ai in koine was pronounced as “a:” - that is, a long A. Therefore, the two distinct forms you have found both have a long vowel as a transliteration for YOD a matre lectionis. This is exactly my claim, and not precisely the case of either QYP) or QP).