Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 07-27-2004, 03:21 PM

For Clive: new testament really written in greek?

Debate challenge for Dr X (relating to whether the gospels were written in Greek) which notes some Latinisms in Mark

Kirby on Mark

Quote:

Reginald Fuller states the following on the provenance of Mark (A Critical Introduction to the New Testament, p. 107): "Irenaeus' statement (see above) that Mk was written in Rome has been widely accepted by modern scholars (e.g. Streeter). Attempts have been made to support it by internal evidence (e.g. Latinisms like 'denarius', 'legion'). Such Latinisms, however, are the vocabulary of military occupation and speak as much for Palestinian provenance as for Rome. The connection Mark-Peter-Rome looks like second-century guessword based on 1 Pet 5:13. Remove the Petrine connection, and the question of provenance becomes wide open. Mk is a Hellenistic gospel. Its language is Gk, and, as we shall see, its traditions, especially in their christology, contain Hellenistic elements, which Mk qualifies in a Pauline direction. Yet its traditions are also in close touch with Palestinian tradition, not only with earlier tradition as in the miracle stories (Jesus as the eschatological prophet), but in such recent material as parts of the Little Apocalypse. We are drawn to suggest Antioch as the most likely place of origin."

New Advent (which might be expected to put forth the best case for Latin):

Quote:

It has always been the common opinion that the Second Gospel was written in Greek, and there is no solid reason to doubt the correctness of this view. We learn from Juvenal (Sat., III, 60 sq.; VI, 187 sqq.) and Martial (Epig., XIV, 58) that Greek was very widely spoken at Rome in the first century. Various influences were at work to spread the language in the capital of the Empire. "Indeed, there was a double tendency which embraced at once classes at both ends of the social scale. On the one hand among slaves and the trading classes there were swarms of Greek and Greek-speaking Orientals. On the other hand in the higher ranks it was the fashion to speak Greek; children were taught it by Greek nurses; and in after life the use of it was carried to the pitch of affectation" (Sanday and Headlam, "Romans", p. lii). We know, too, that it was in Greek St. Paul wrote to the Romans, and from Rome St. Clement wrote to the Church of Corinth in the same language. It is true that some cursive Greek manuscripts of the tenth century or later speak of the Second Gospel as written in Latin (egrathe Romaisti en Rome, but scant and late evidence like this, which is probably only a deduction from the fact that the Gospel was written at Rome, can be allowed on weight. . . . .

. . . . On the whole, the vocabulary of the Second Gospel points to the writer as a foreigner who was well acquainted with colloquial Greek, but a comparative stranger to the literary use of the language.

St. Mark's style is clear, direct, terse, and picturesque, if at times a little harsh. . . . . Latinisms are met with more frequently than in the other Gospels, but this does not prove that Mark wrote in Latin or even understood the language. It proves merely that he was familiar with the common Greek of the Roman Empire, which freely adopted Latin words and, to some extent, Latin phraseology (cf. Blass, "Philol. of the Gosp.", 211 sq.), Indeed such familiarity with what we may call Roman Greek strongly confirms the traditional view that Mark was an "interpreter" who spent some time at Rome.

Ball in your court.

Rick Sumner · 07-27-2004, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I guess I should have spelled it out for you. We have no evidence except for religious documents which have been preserved and interpreted by Christians, who have a record of forgery and interpolation. We have no secular evidence of Paul, no Jewish evidence, no Roman records, no mention in Philo or Josephus, no mention in the Talmud.

Do you have a single reason to expect any of these to mention him?

Paul was important to some people in the Christian community. Thus some people in the Christian community preserved his letters. We find, in short, exactly what we should expect to find.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13 · 07-27-2004, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

I'm not sure where you're going with this, except perhaps into an attempt to trap me into giving an ambiguous answer...Luke knew of the opposition and created a narrative, it's unlikely he knew such specific details.

Your paranoia is unwarranted. I just wanted clarification of what it was you were saying. Thank you for providing it.

Quote:

Do you know of any evidence that Paul's opponents said "That's it Paul, you're not a Jew anymore"?

Was that possible? Is there evidence that one's "Jewishness" could be rescinded by the declaration of leaders? On the other hand, Paul claims they beat him when he preached, doesn't he? I suppose that could be taken as a hint you're no longer accepted as a member.

Quote:

Or, for that matter, that Paul himself ever separated himself from Judaism?

I don't think so. I get the impression he considered his beliefs to represent what every Jew should embrace.

Chris Weimer · 07-28-2004, 01:52 AM

I refuse to believe any of it until I see the original Latin. Bene latinam dico.

Clivedurdle · 07-28-2004, 02:35 AM

Quote:

I would really like to see some evidence that the gospel of Matthew was written originally in Greek. I've been looking for such evidence for years now, and so far I've found zilch.

Originally posted by Yuri

If the question of what language the original ideas were written in is not settled, do we not then have to go carefully through all the various options and try and work out if any have got more weight?

Has anyone done that?

Clivedurdle · 07-28-2004, 02:36 AM

and is there a problem with different bits being written in different languages and then someone later compiling it all in their own languages?

Rick Sumner · 07-28-2004, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

I don't think so. I get the impression he considered his beliefs to represent what every Jew should embrace.

Does Paul ever once exempt himself from the Law, without the standard Pharisaic practice of citing scriptural precedent in defense of it? Does he ever state that the Law just doesn't apply to him anymore, he'll eat whatever he wants, won't go the temple anymore, and is just too good for Judaism these days?

Why does Paul distinguish between himself and Peter, and Gentile sinners in Gal:2:15?

"We [who are] Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,"

It is the Gentiles who are exempt, according to Paul, not the Jews. Born by the Law, bound by the Law, in Paul's theology.

He considered his views what "every Jew should embrace" for exactly the reason I already suggested--he believed the Messiah had come, in whatever form you care to think he believed it. But he did not think that the Jews were now exempt from being Jews.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13 · 07-28-2004, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

But he did not think that the Jews were now exempt from being Jews.

I agree but, then again, I have never said otherwise. In addition to the above, I would suggest he also argued that gentiles who shared his beliefs in Jesus qualified for all the perks normally reserved for Jews (ie God's chosen).

Clivedurdle · 07-28-2004, 10:56 AM

From workplace thread

Quote:

Personally, it is hard for me to imagine a whole new religion forming without the benefit of a central figure being present.

I agree. But what if that founder were not Jesus but James or Paul????

Or what if the central figure is a character in a play, modelled on Hercules?

There seems to be "groupthink" occurring - real live person, or fantasy. I'm sure there is an old saying - reputed to be Jewish, if you have two options, take the third!

Rick Sumner · 07-28-2004, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

I agree but, then again, I have never said otherwise. In addition to the above, I would suggest he also argued that gentiles who shared his beliefs in Jesus qualified for all the perks normally reserved for Jews (ie God's chosen).

I'd suggest that's exactly what he argued. Except Gentiles got the added bonus of being exempt from the Law. Jews were always under it.

Regards
Rick Sumner

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-28-2004, 01:52 AM	#54
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	I refuse to believe any of it until I see the original Latin. Bene latinam dico.

07-28-2004, 02:36 AM	#56
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	and is there a problem with different bits being written in different languages and then someone later compiling it all in their own languages?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.