Juliana

Yeah, that's very wise, always stay on the safe side. Truth doesn't matter!

Vorkosigan

Juliana, what does Carotta say about Mark's use of Psalm 22 (21 LXX) in the Crucifixion scene?

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

OK...


I don't either. I'm a layman who got informed. It's not difficult at all.

I'd read Bart Ehrman's The New Testament. It's clear, simple, and accessible.

Vorkosigan

spin

This is an exceptionally banal statement by someone who is in no position to talk about either truth or what actually happened. How can one prove this Carotta theory wrong? (-- And this is an important question.)

Incidentally, what's this stuff about PI and MU being mistaken in Greek? They don't look much alike at all. Just check for example the Greek page you put up earlier in this thread, or any other papyrus for that matter.


spin

Juliana

Vorkosigan, this is the last time I'm going to copy parts of the book in here. If you're interested get hold of it, read it, and then either try to say something reasonable or don't say anything at all, if you want to be taken seriously.

----------------------------------------------
page 310:

Crucifixion and death
Here we will only emphasize two points: the last words of Jesus and the women who were present watching from afar.
We have seen how at Caesar’s funeral that, according to custom, an actor wearing Caesar’s mask and imitating his voice and gestures recited the verse of Pacuvius’ Contest for the arms of Achilles:
‘Men(e) servasse, ut essent qui me perderent?—Did I save them that they might murder me?’
—as if Caesar himself were speaking from the beyond. It is the last of Jesus’ sayings:
‘And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’ 699
Mark has translated the sentence backwards. The last word, perderent, which has the meaning of ‘to destroy, to ruin’ and we thus have translated according to the sense as ‘to murder’, has been understood by Mark colloquially as ‘to lose’. Hence it has been translated with enkatelipes, which is actually correct, because it not only means ‘to leave’ but also ‘to betray’, which is what is meant here (he may have thought of proderent, ‘to hand over, to betray’). Mark has further correctly translated ut with eis which means ‘for what’ rather than ‘why’ (not by chance, the Vulgate also has ut here), so that the second part of Mark’s sentence, even in the present version, would classically have to be translated ‘in order that you betray me’ had we not different pictures in our minds. And they originate from the fact that the first part of Pacuvius’ verse was not translated into Greek, but read as Aramaic. Mark has at first read MENE running from right to left as ELIELI, ‘o God, o God’ (apparently under the influence of manes, ‘the manes, the souls of the dead’, which were regarded as deified—hence dii manes, ‘the gods manes’—which was natural in the case of Caesar) but then he has read it again running from left to right as LEMA, SERVASSE as SABACQANI, as if it were the Aramaic translation of his perderent.700
With that we may have completely solved this mysterious sentence, around which there has been so much, and so creative, fantasizing.

Read also the corresponding notes (you must scroll there).

Amaleq13

It is becoming more and more clear with each of your posts, Juliana, that you have no interest in defending Carotta's thesis but intend only to pimp his book.

I have yet to see where Vorkosigan has offered anything that isn't a reasonable objection to Carotta's claims nor have I seen you offer any substantive rebuttal to those objections.

I'm not sure how you define being "taken seriously" but I strongly suspect you are not succeeding in getting Carotta taken seriously here by doing nothing except trying to sell his book.

The argument about Jesus' last words seems to me to be sufficient to ignore the book entirely. How can I take it seriously when no effort is made to explain why such a painfully convoluted collection of linguistic contortions should be favored over the blatantly obvious notion of a direct usage of a verse from Hebrew Scripture?

Akham's Razor is clearly not Carotta's friend.

I suggest you try to peddle your wares somewhere with a more gullible audience. :wave:

spin

Awww, you're too quick to send him off. This last bit is hilarious.

MEN oops, MENE, read backwards somehow becomes ELIELI. Howls of derisive laughter. Reading right to left, then left to right, someone is apparently dyslexic.

Of course the Marcan writer didn't get the sentence from Ps 22 and egkatelipes didn't come from the LXX of Ps 22:1, he went through extreme contortions to extract the same thing from a citation of Pacuvius as found in Suetonius and reworked by Carotta.

Che boiata.


spin

Vorkosigan

LOL. But thanks for the citation:[/quote]

I love the last part, in which he accuses everyone else of creative fantasizing.

It seems that Mark had access to quite a lot of material on Caesar. Plutarch, Suetonious, etc. Yet, incredibly, he got every single word and sentence incorrect -- although he was able to read Latin well enough to pick out the stuff about Caesar. Nor did he ever quote even a single latin phrase in his document, in latin -- although there are latinisms in Mark. Further, even though he could read latin, he wrote in Greek. Further, just by coinicidence, all of Mark's latin-greek mistranslations are understandable as Septuagint citations. Strange, eh?

Juliana

Anyone who has only the slightest idea of the matter we are trying to discuss here must by now have seen that you understand nothing whatsoever and have not read the parts (more than half of the book) online, but just pick out passages and then demonstrate that you lack the most basic knowledge on the matter. It is a mystery to me, how other people here don't seem to see it. Or maybe they do and don't bother to waste time responding, which probably is the most sensible thing to do.

'Mark' is not a single author, but the name for a process of tradition involving many writers - copyists, translators, redactionists - who transformed the story of the Roman civil war into the gospel. And they certainly did not use Plutarch or Sueton who wrote much later, but their examplar was the Historiae of Asinius Pollio or an intermediate source containing the VITA DIVII IULII (ever heard of that?). Pollio's Historiae are lost to us, but were used by Appianus and Plutarchus, sometimes copied word for word, allowing for a comparison with the Gospel of Mark.

You obviously don't even know what Latinisms, Aramaisms, Septuagintisms etc. are. They are borrowings, loan words.
In Mark there are no Septuagintisms but Aramaisms. Septuagintisms appear in Luke and Hebrewisms in Matthew. The quotations from the Jewish bible which are relatively few in Mark compared to the later Matthew, only came into the Gospel after the Jewish war replacing the quotations from the classics in order to turn the whole thing to the orient, to make Jesus the awaited Messiah of the Jews, in order to integrate them religiously into the Empire.

But I am convinced by now that discussing with you, V., is useless, no impossible, the reasons are obvious to see.
Posting here somewhat reminds of Matth. 7:6

Vorkosigan

Well, thanks, Juliana. I am sorry my level of learning is too low to appreciate Carotta's revolutionary thesis.