darstec

But what you are forgetting is that in every one of those 85 times that εγω ειμι is used, the Hebrew uses hayah, which by your definition would be blasphemy. If simply changing the language gets around the dictum then any Jew could escape punishment by translating YHWH into any other language. By the way, how would one write "I am?" in Greek? Note, I am not asking how one would write "am I?".

Julian

'I am,' 'am I' and 'It is I' and so on are all the same, as far as I know, i.e. εγω ειμι. You can, of course, reverse the word order but that would mean less in Greek than it does to us since the meaning is implied through the form of the word and not the position.

Julian

JoeWallack

JW:
The Background:

1) "Mark" has a Primary objective of explaining why Jesus was initially Rejected.

2) "Mark" also has an objective of presenting Jesus as a Great Teacher. Regarding "Mark's" claim of Jesus being a Teacher having a strong Historical core, 1st century Judaism kind of expected The Messiah to be a Teacher didn't it?

The Problem:

"Mark" takes the Tact that a big part of 1) was Jesus for the most part giving Indirect Communication (to "fulfill prophecy" of course). Being Indirect is normally considered Incompatible with being a Great Teacher. So "Mark" has to try and Describe Jesus as a Great Teacher but avoid the Details showing Jesus as a Great Teacher.

"Mark's" Jesus is presented as SaveOneFair, he's "Everywhere" as far as The Jews were concerned. He was at your Work, in your House, at your Synagogue and in your Temple (El-vus has left the Temple Building). Almost all of Jesus' Actions in "Mark", other than basic body functions such as walking and talking, are Supernatural Actions, and "Mark" generally provides us with the supposed Details. A related question to the OP is:

Did "Mark" read "Mark" as fiction or history?

In "The New Testament" Bart Ehrman explains that for this Time Period attributing Supernatural Actions to the Hero was often just a Literary Technique to illustrate the Character of the person. "Mark", or at least "Mark's" source may have known or at least had reason to believe that not Everything Jesus did was Supernatural, but presented All supernatural actions to emphasize that Jesus was primarily a man of Action, always helping Others. (Another Markan theme is that Jesus only had the Power to Save others and not himself - again, a Literary Technique based on Exaggeration to Emphasize Jesus' character).

Now let's look at "Mark's" Jesus as a Teacher:

Mark 1:16 (KJV)
"Now as he walked by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew his brother casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.
Mar 1:17 And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men."

No Detail Teaching to persuade them to change their lives.

Mark 1:21 (KJV)
"And they went into Capernaum; and straightway on the sabbath day he entered into the synagogue, and taught.
Mar 1:22 And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes."

No Detail Teaching to Astonish.

Mark 6:2 (KJV)
"And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing [him] were astonished, saying, From whence hath this [man] these things? and what wisdom [is] this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands?
Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him."

Same story except now The Jews are Offended instead of Impressed. Would be nice to have some Detail.

Mark 4:10 (KJV)
"And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
Mar 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all [these] things are done in parables:
Mar 4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and [their] sins should be forgiven them."

So "Mark's" Jesus explains that All Teaching to The Jews will be done in Parables so The Jews will not understand. This supports "Mark's" primary objective of explaining why The Jews Rejected Jesus. They didn't understand him and they weren't supposed to (to fulfill prophecy). But at the same time it's Incompatible with being a Great Teacher. Is this how Great Teachers normally Teach Ben? Did you ever have a Great Teacher with this Style (Not counting the Calculus Teacher who sometimes spoke in Parabulas)?

"Mark's" Pivot for this Apology in perhaps the most Ironic/Funniest/Stupidest story is here:

Mark 12:28 (KJV)
"And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?
Mar 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments [is], Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
Mar 12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this [is] the first commandment.
Mar 12:31 And the second [is] like, [namely] this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
Mar 12:32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:
Mar 12:33 And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love [his] neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.
Mar 12:34 And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him [any question]."

So for the only time in the Gospel, one of The Jews asks a Sincere Direct question and receives a Sincere Direct answer. The result is that "And no man after that durst ask him [any question]." (Even though some men durst ask him more questions). This isn't History Ben.

Note that after this Pivot Jesus does start to give Detailed Teaching but it's all about Him (it's always about You, isn't it). And What is this Detailed Teaching about? Jesus' future Supernatural Actions!

So in Summary, "Mark" concludes that Jesus was a Great Teacher but "Mark's" narrative indicates Jesus was Not:

1) Jesus intentionally avoids Direct communication.

2) Jesus' Audience doesn't learn anything from him.

3) Jesus' Detailed Teaching is primarily about Jesus.

4) Jesus' Detailed Teaching is primarily about Jesus' future Supernatural Actions.

These are not Qualities of a Great Teacher. These are qualities of my 9th grade Shop Teacher.

To answer the OP then, "Matthew" likely saw "Mark" for what it was, primarily a Character study of Jesus, and Edited it to make it more Persuasive as History. "Matthew" understood that the Supernatural Actions of Jesus could not be Passed on to Subsequent Christianity but the Natural Teachings could. So he accepted "Mark's" Conclusion that Jesus was a Great Teacher but provided the necessary Evidence for it in the Narrative. "Matthew" Retreated from "Mark's" primary objective that Everyone Failed Jesus to The Jews Failed Jesus thus rehabilitating "Mark's" Disciples.



Joseph

APOLOGIZE, v.i.
To lay the foundation for a future offence.

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

S.C.Carlson

Maybe it's just a question of definitions, but I see Victorinus as skipping the Mark's prologue too (i.e. Mark 1:1) in order to get to his basis for assigning the eagle to Mark.

Stephen

Ben C Smith

He skips the Marcan prologue in his explanation, yes, but he does not skip it in his verbatim quotation of the first lines from each gospel:

Marcus incipit sic: Initium evangelii Jesu Christi sicut scriptum est in Esaia.

Mark starts thus: The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ just as it was written in Isaiah.

I have since noticed that the third fragment of pseudo-Polycarp also says that Luke begins with Zacharias, though the actual first lines of each gospel are by no means as clear there, of course, as in the verbatim quotations of Victorinus.

Ben.

Chris Weimer

Modern usage was invented 2000 years at least. Modern pronunciation is not evidence. It's nothing.

Of course, I still did it wrong. I meant (ZB not )ZB.

No. The Greek sabach resembles the Aramaic $BQ far more than the Hebrwe (ZB. I can't believe you don't see this.

No and no to both. Mark used the Aramaic of Psalm 22 and attributed it to Jesus on the cross. No need for the Hebrew at all.

There is no possible way that (ZB renders to sabach. That is too far of a jump. Occam's razor is against you on that one. Any sort of extra theories about noise and communication is multiplying entities. The simplest explanation is that Mark quoted the Aramaic.

S.C.Carlson

Ok, Ben, I focussed on the wrong paragraph of Victorinus!

At any rate, quotation of Mark 1:1-2 in the second paragraph indicates that Vict. construed v.1 and v.2 as being in the same sentence. Thus, there is no prolog for Vict. to skip over:

Therefore they began in this way with John saying: In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and God was the Word; this (is) the face of a lion. But Matthew: Book of the generation of Jesus Christ son of God son of David son of Abraham; this (is) the face of a human. But Luke so: There was a priest by the name of Zacharias of the order of Abijah and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron; this is the image of a calf. Mark begins so: The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ as it was written in Isaiah; he began with the Spirit flying around, thus he also has the likeness of a flying eagle.

I understand "began with the Spirit" as reference to the spirit of prophecy (i.e. Isaiah). This is also how Chromatius, Prolog to Matthew, sect. 7, understood it:

To be sure, the appearance of the flying eagle is understood as the gospel according to Mark, who began with a prophetic testimony saying: The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ Son of God, as is written in Isaiah: Behold I send my angel before my appearance. A voice crying in the wilderness: Prepare the ways of the Lord, make our God’s paths straight. (Mark 1:1-3)

And because the eagle is often described as the form of the holy spirit, who has been spoken in the prophets, he is thus depicted in the appearance of an eagle. For also only he reported that our Lord and Savior flew away to heaven, that is, went back to the Father, as David had said: He ascended above the Cherubim and flew; he flew above the feathers of the wind. (Ps 17:11 [18:10])

Ben C Smith

I have been thinking along the lines of the Lucan prologue perhaps being so obviously a classic prologue (the other three prologues being not at all obvious) that skipping the Lucan prologue seemed natural. The church fathers in question went searching for the first real meat of the narrative, the first bit that related directly to Jesus or something directly leading up to Jesus, and found it in the very first line of every gospel except Luke, who instead offers four verses of why he decided to write.

Not sure about that yet, but it may be something.

Ben.

ynquirer

With the greatest respect, let me qualify your statement: Modern usage was not “invented� but evolved from the ancient instead. This is the reason why it still has some leverage.

Of course, it is. The more parsimonious hypothesis is the one that relies on the evidence at hand rather than the one that has to introduce special assumptions to explain why evidence does not work. Such, for instance, as the supposition that the elapsing of 2000 years has changed the pronunciation of LMH but not that of (ZB.

Parsimony is an asset in methodology, for you rely on ignorance otherwise – “we don’t know how the ancients did pronounce.� Definitively, ignorantia non est argumentum.

I can’t do either. I’m very sorry. It is fine as argumentum and provides your strongest evidence. Granted.

You therefore side with the Aramaic translation of the Tanakh prior to Mark. I couldn’t realize that either; I am sorry again. That renders the discussion much harder, because now it is not a discussion on what the evidence is, but on how much weight we must ascribe to each piece of evidence.

In any event, one thing is for sure. You may not pretend offer Mark 15:34 as evidence that an OT Peshita existed prior to its writing. Either evidence of the Peshita independent of Mark, that is, external evidence supports the Aramaic therein, or the internal evidence you believe to have found is not enough to provide both the Aramaic in Mark and the hypothetical Peshita with support. (That would be a clear fallacy of circularity.)

A first-century Peshita still is an assumption you make to render the alleged Aramaic understandable in context.

All in all, the hypothetical first-century Aramaic Bible leaves open more questions than it closes. If there was an Aramaic OT and it was for Mark as important as to have Jesus quote it at the climatic moment of dying on the cross, surely you will be able to say why he did not write the gospel in Aramaic instead of Greek? Or else the original Mark was written in Aramaic, is it that?

There is a possible way that (ZB renders to sabach. You here overlook that two out of three words in the whole statement, that it, )LY and LMH as well as the TNY termination of (ZBTNY, quite acceptably match Mark’s transliteration into the Greek alphabet. That makes, say, a 75 percent match? You assume that the Aramaic affords a 100 percent match, but I’d really like to scrutinize the evidence for all the statement and not only for (ZB/sabach. [Forgive me, but you seem exceedingly interested in LMH ending in a non-silent “he,� which compels you to support the modern usage in (ZB while an unknown ancient – but presumptively favorable to your position – usage as regard LMH.]

Yet let’s assume it the way you say, that is, (ZB affords hard evidence adverse to the Hebrew. In weighing that evidence, you may not neglect bits of information deemed to be “facts� as the following:

1) Mark’s mother tongue was Aramaic – a non Aramaic-speaking Mark that has his Jesus speak Aramaic on the cross? Nay, that sounds kidding.

2) Mark’s second language was Greek, and scholars seem pretty divided as to whether or not he was proficient in that language.

3) Hebrew was, at best, Mark’s third language.

Couldn’t his best known language have induced some confusion in him as regard the standard phonetics – even spelling – of a particular word in his worst known one?

Not too far a jump, as I see it.

You here are seriously mistaken. I only suppose a human failure, in a realm in which lack of familiarity of the man with the activity – speaking Hebrew – renders it only too natural. Human failures are never special entities. An OT Peshita is, though.

Wrong, again. Shannon’s theory only proposes a mathematical model so as to ascertain, in statistical terms, what type of human error is admissible as a probability in a communication channel and what is not so. When you reject the theory, you simply imply that you like to rely on subjective intuition better.

Anyway, Shannon’s theory is state of the art in general science. And either biblical studies is able to keep up the pace with the state of art in general science, or it will become a marginal discipline.

Chris Weimer

Modern Hebrew was invented using Medieval pronunciation as a guide, yet it still differs from it.

There's plenty of evidence for Ancient Hebrew pronunciation, and Modern Hebrew is not a part of it.

We will never know exactly how Ancient Hebrew was pronounced, but that's not my argument.

Explain why you can't make the connection.

Why is it impossible for an Aramaic translation to be made before Mark? Aramaic was a fast used as a lingua franca, the gospels depict Jesus (minimally) speaking Aramaic, many pseudepigraphic works were written in Aramaic well before Mark... And why limit it to full translations? Targum? On the spot translation in the synagogues?

I never claimed that the Peshitta existed before Mark. The Peshitta isn't the only Aramaic translation.

Non sequitur.

Well, actually, Mark gives eloi, which seems to fit )LHY (Aramaic equivalent of )LY) better then the Hebrew. LMH is also used in Aramaic as denoting "why". That makes a 100% match to Aramaic - far better than Hebrew.

But it's an unnecessary jump.

Why don't you explain exactly how Shannon's theory relates here?