darstec

The very verse in Exodus 3:14 shows that you are incorrect in your assessment. Read carefully the very last part of that verse where God commands Moses himself to tell the children of Israel that I AM sent him. Moses is to use the very word/words whether you consider the English I AM, or the Hebrew hayah, or the Greek ego eimi (to be fair the LXX hasο ων a variation on εγω ειμι). Surely you don't propose that YHWH was telling Moses to commit blasphemy?

In fact 85 times in the OT ego eimi is used thereafter. Are you suggesting that those passages were not to be read in either the Hebrew or the Greek by the faithful, including when it is used in the Ten Commandments?

Would you like to compound your error by considering the number of times ego eimi is used in the New Testament, since you consider it to be originally written for the Jews?

darstec

Might I interject that early copies of Mark have Jesus Barabbas as the name of the released prisoner. In other words rather than release JOSHUA referred to at times as SONOFTHEFATHER Pilate released JOSHUASONOFTHEFATHER (to be consistant to the way the words might appear to those reading the Greek). My personal opinion is that this was one of Mark's puns to show he didn't take his story seriously.

Incidentally, the Temple Tantrum would also have to be total fiction. The very least of the problems is that the money changers served a very useful and necessary function under Jewish law, as only a specific Jewish coin could be used for purchase of the sacrificial animals. More to the point was that according to Josephus the Temple Guard was increased enormously during the Passover festival, and they were Jews hired in the service of Rome. Furthermore the moneychangers/moneylenders would have had their own armed bodyguards.

John has the episode at the start of Jesus' ministry and the synoptics at the end. It is doubly unrealistic to maintain as some might that Jesus could get away with the same stunt twice. Reason dictates that if his actions were as recorded he would have been killed on the spot, if not by the Temple Guards, most definitely by the bodyguards. No trial would have been necessary.

Vorkosigan

No, those are early manuscripts of Matthew, for Origen denies that many manuscripts have this reading. Based on that, some scholars have argued that it must have been the original Markan reading. No textual evidence supports that AFAIK. I think Jesus Barabbas is probably too crude for the wrier of Mark.

Michael

JoeWallack

JW:
Here's The Metz:

"27.16 [Ἰησοῦν] ΒαÏ?αββᾶν {C}

27.17 [Ἰησοῦν τὸν] ΒαÏ?αββᾶν {C}
The reading preserved today in several Greek manuscripts and early versions was known to Origen, who declares in his commentary on the passage, “In many copies it is not stated that Barabbas was also called Jesus, and perhaps [the omission is] right.� (Origen discloses in what follows his reason for disapproving of the reading Jesus Barabbas; it cannot be right, he implies, because “in the whole range of the scriptures we know that no one who is a sinner [is called] Jesus.�)
In a tenth century uncial manuscript (S) and in about twenty minuscule manuscripts a marginal comment states: “In many ancient copies which I have met with I found Barabbas himself likewise called ‘Jesus’; that is, the question of Pilate stood there as follows, Τίνα θ�*λετε ἀπὸ τῶν δÏ?ο ἀπολÏ?σω ὑμῖν, Ἰησοῦν τὸν ΒαÏ?αββᾶν á¼¢ Ἰησοῦν τὸν λεγόμενον ΧÏ?ιστόν; for apparently the paternal name of the robber was ‘Barabbas,’ which is interpreted ‘Son of the teacher.’â€? This scholium, which is usually assigned in the manuscripts either to Anastasius bishop of Antioch (perhaps latter part of the sixth century) or to Chrysostom, is in one manuscript attributed to Origen, who may indeed be its ultimate source.
In ver. 17 the word Ἰησοῦν could have been accidentally added or deleted by transcribers owing to the presence of ὑμῖν before it (υμινΙÎ?). Furthermore, the reading of B 1010 (τὸν ΒαÏ?αββᾶν) appears to presuppose in an ancestor the presence of Ἰησοῦν.

A majority of the Committee was of the opinion that the original text of Matthew had the double name in both verses and that Ἰησοῦν was deliberately suppressed in most witnesses for reverential considerations. In view of the relatively slender external support for Ἰησοῦν, however, it was deemed fitting to enclose the word within square brackets."

Metzger, B. M., & United Bible Societies. 1994. A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition; a companion volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) . United Bible Societies: London; New York


JW:
Note first that UBS decided "Jesus Barabbas" was Original but put "Jesus" in brackets. Sad. Origen wrote "“In many copies it is not stated that Barabbas was also called Jesus, and perhaps [the omission is] right." The implication is that "Jesus Barabbas" was in most and the best copies. Origen, who may have been the outstanding Textual Critic of The Early Church, gives his reason for preferring the omission of "Jesus" as follows: "in the whole range of the scriptures we know that no one who is a sinner [is called] Jesus." So once again a famous Church Father Confesses to us that Selection was based on Pre-Existing Conclusions (surprise).

Since "Matthew" copied in General and Specifically here from "Mark", "Mark" is a Candidate for the Source of "Jesus Barabbas". There is no Textual Evidence here for "Jesus Barabbas" but there is also hardly any Textual Evidence for "Mark" through Origen's time. There is also no Commentary on "Mark" by Origen which subsequent Christianity probably destroyed.

Keep in mind that "Mark" was Likely written while the destruction of the Temple/Jerusalem was still Fresh in his Audience's mind. So you have Pilate/Romans offering to The Jews/Jerusalem a Choice between Jesus Bar Abbas (Peace) or Jesus Barabbas (Insurrection). The Historical Jews/Jerusalem chose Insurrection just like The Jews of the Fictional Gospels. Understand Dear Reader? Vork, you missed this in your excellent Commentary (ICC has it).

Quite a Coincidence huh Ben having The Jews decide between Jesus Bar Abbas and Jesus Barabbas. Again, you know Greek so you know "BarAbbas" is the same as "Bar Abba". As Yeshu Barra said, "Sounds like Deja Jew all over again."



Joseph

For TedM's benefit:

STORY, n.
A narrative, commonly untrue. The truth of the stories here following has, however, not been successfully impeached.

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

We have the following Excellent reasons to Believe the BarAbbas story is Fiction:

1) It's included within a Story consisting primarily of The Impossible thereby casting doubt on all Possible claims.

2) That the Romans would release an Insurrectionist during the primary Jewish gathering in a show of weakness defies common sense (always one of the best criteria).

3) We have No evidence in Roman/Jewish writings that this was a Roman/Jewish custom.

4) BarAbbas is a Contrived name illustrating a recent Significant Historical event, the Insurrection and Destruction of Jerusalem.

ynquirer

Well, you then side with the Aramaic by a sort of tertius exclusus – it is not Greek, it is nor Hebrew, it must be Aramaic (perhaps). My question is: Is there any positive evidence that it might be Aramaic? Syriac is believed to have been the eastern branch of Aramaic. Thus, is anything in Syriac that resembles Mark’s quotation of Psalm 22 while preserving the meaning?

Why do we presume that Mark here has Jesus quote Psalm 22?

Let’s scrutinize the statement as it appears in Greek Mark, Psalm 22, and your transliteration:

Mark 15:34
eloi eloi lamma sabachthani

Your transliteration:
Eli! Eli! Lamah azavtani!

Hebrew transliterated:
’aLY ‘aLY LMH ‘yZBThNY

where ‘a = aleph, L = lamed, Y=yod, M=mem, H=heh, ‘y=ayin, Z=zayin, B=beth, Th=tav, N=nun.

As you very well know, the Hebrew of the OT has come to us with consonants while without vowels. Therefore,

1) You really don’t know whether ‘aLY ‘aLY sounded like Eli! Eli! or like Eloi! Eloi, since the “o� – a weak vowel – would have been lost with the rest of the weak vowels. Mark quite clearly says that in the first century they believed it to sound like Eloi! Eloi.

2) I don’t know why you think that LMH sounded like lamah. Certainly, H or heh sounded like an English “h� – as in “house� or “hat� – provided that it wasn’t at the end of a word; if so, it was silent, as in English “Hurrah!�. Whereby lamah would sound “lama� – much as in the English translation of Mark since the KJV.

Still, I don’t think that Mark thought the H was at the end of the word. He rather seems to spot that H was before a weak vowel like “a.� Something like “lamha�. As the Greek language lacked a sign to signal such a sound in writing, Mark doubles the “m,� so yielding lamma.

In any event, this word does not afford evidence favorable to your assumption either.

3) y’ZBThNY seems much more difficult a word to ascertain its pronunciation. Ayin is the stronger guttural stop, which goes either before or after a vowel. Therefore, a vowel – you say an “a,� that’s ok – must be assumed at the beginning of the word. Another anomaly is that Mark inserts the Greek letter for “ch� – a consonant, which should be written down probably as either “X� – heth – or “K� – khaf. Such a consonant is lacking in the word as written down in Psalm 22.

All in all, however, sabachthani strongly resembles y’ZBThNY. Two remarks must be done as regard this.

In the first place, Mark was not a professional in phonetics nor did he know of any alphabet thereon. He was transliterating Hebrew into the Greek alphabet. It would have been a miracle that he got a transliteration that looked perfect nowadays. Did you expect a miracle in this? His record is not that poor, either.

Second, perhaps Mark tries to convey a message to the reader. What about this – Jesus spoke Hebrew, but his Hebrew was not perfect? It is like my English. It, for most accounts, is substandard. But would you think it accurate the judgment of some future people that, after reading this post, concluded solemnly: “It is definitively not English. It is presumed Dutch,� for instance?

The minimum requirement is whether Jesus was able to say “I am� in Hebrew and have the Sanhedrin understand him. I think that such a requirement was exceedingly met, according to the information provided by Mark.

While I wait for fresh evidence that it is Aramaic, Ockham’s razor points at Hebrew as the hypothesis resting on fewer assumptions and/or assumptions less improbable – that is, not like Psalm 22 in Aramaic resembles Psalm 22 in Hebrew, or that Jesus does not quote Psalm 22 in Mk 14:34, or that a given set of vowels was actually the set implied in the Hebrew Tanakh.

This is so even if Hebrew was poorly spoken by Jesus, or else poorly spoken and/or transliterated by Mark, who need not have been a professional of Judaic liturgy.

Therefore, Diogenes the Cynic’s proposition that Mark is silent on Jesus’ skill at uttering intelligible messages in Hebrew is probably false.

Thank you for helping me to move to a more balanced position by inserting necessary qualification.

ynquirer

To the point of writing a whole book on the topic? It seems that Mark is, allegedly, the only one.

Apart from Pilate, the centurion, a few Roman soldiers and some Samaritans, most of the characters depicted in the gospel are Jews, including Jesus – even if many of them belonged in that “downgraded� section of the Jews, the Galileans.

Most of them are implied. Look at this:

This was posted in this same thread the day before yesterday. It includes as many one-sided statements and oversimplifications as my last but one post, and more errors of fact. And the problem, of course, is not with the errors of fact.

In any event, you have brought up a relevant issue as summarized in the question, What is a balanced discussion. I just would contribute with this one, Who ought to care for it?

I am afraid, however, that this issue is off topic.

ynquirer

I sincerely thought it was without saying that blasphemy, according to the Jewish law, is not simply to utter the name of God in circumstances whatever. It is not simply that. It is to utter the name of God in contexts that diminish either His greatness or His goodness. Such diminishment is implied in the context of Jesus’ trial, of course; that a simple man made use of the name of God as meaning his was someone divine, it was a diminishment of God’s greatness.

In fact, every utterance of the name of God by a layman in public came to be blasphemous. Utterance of the name of God in liturgical contexts or in the holy scriptures was certainly not blasphemous. Furthermore, a book was a part of the scripture, and declared to be holy, precisely on account of its context being the enhancement, not the diminishment of God’s greatness.

Forgive me, but I still don’t realize what my error is. I am afraid that here the error is yours. Writing anything in Greek might never be held to be a blasphemy; only if Hebrew were used might be a case thereof. The NT having been written in Greek, the mere possibility of blasphemy was ruled out.

BTW this was good reason for the heretic Christians to have begun to write in Greek rather than in Hebrew, that is, with a view to spare themselves from being stoned by numbers while they still attended the synagogues.

Vorkosigan

• The Gospels were written by gentiles for gentile audiences. They are anti-Jewish in their rhetoric. They are post-war and for the most part, post-expulsion. They were written outside of Palestine, they are full of factual mistakes about Palestinian geography and Jewish law. They misquote and misconstrue Jewish scripture and they redfine the Messiah in a way that no educated Jew would have accepted. The movement failed among Jews. By the time the Gospels came around, it was pretty much a gentile movement.

Looks good to me. I see no major errors of fact in there. All of this looks pretty mainstream. Not like your very clear errors of fact -- Mark did not start Christianity!

We ALL care for it here.

Vorkosigan

Diogenes the Cynic

A completely irrelevant objection. If it isn't Hebrew, it isn't Hebrew. Every concordance I've looked at identifies it without qualification as Aramaic but even if it's badly transliterated Hebrew, what does that prove except that Mark didn't know Hebrew?
What information does Mark provide that Jesus spoke Hebrew to the Sanhedrin?
That's not what I said. I said that an illiterate Galilean peasant would probably not speak Hebrew. Mark's fictional account of Jesus quoting Psalms on the cross does not provide evidence that Jesus spoke Hebrew to the Sanhedrin.
Please tell me what I said that was factually erroneous, "one-sided" (and what are the "sides?") or over-simplified.

Chris Weimer

Actually, this is a false presumption. The identity of shebachthani isn't just guessed at to be Aramaic because it's not Hebrew or Greek, but because it is Aramaic. shebaq is the Aramaic word for "to forsake" and is attested in the Tanach. Try the fifth entry here.

Because the words are the same?

The second "h" in "hurrah" is not silent. It elongates the final vowel with a breath. If it were silent, the vowel would stop short. Unless you have something else telling us otherwise, there's no reason to presume that it was silent in Hebrew either.

Even you yourself claim that Mark was no phoneticist. Doesn't that kind of disqualify his judgement?

The Hebrew I have for עזתתתי. I don't know where you get the initial yod from. And the Greek chi could also represent qop. Greek was not very consistent with translating Hebrew.

It's a long stretch to associate sabachthani with עזת rather than שתק.

I expect something closer than what he provided. It's so much more plausible that he was transliterating Aramaic into Greek and managed to get it fairly correct.

How about an Aramaic word that's not found in Hebrew!

Chris