Vorkosigan

I agree.

Let's think about it for a second. What if that was the reason that the writer rejected Hebrew? Maybe he wanted to portray the crowd as idiots who didn't understand what is happening in front of them. <shrug> Until we meet him in the afterlife, we'll probably never know why he chose to represent the Aramaic the way he did.

Yes, but this is the kind of "if we had ham, we could have ham and eggs, if we had eggs" logic that underlies so many historicist arguments. There are no known Aramaic sources (there are no known sources other than the OT and sundry other texts). No chain of transmission has ever been demonstrated. The mere presence of Aramaic lines in the text only argues that the writer had facility in Aramaic. Even if you demonstrate an underlying Aramaic grammar to the text you only show that the writer was thinking in Aramaic when he produced Greek.

Yes. And why? Because the Latinisms point outside Palestine so they are discounted; whereas Aramaisms point toward Palestine so they are emphasized.

Vorkosigan

Steven Carr

That's a question without an answer. So you can't just make up an answer.

How did his Aramaic sources get to Rome, when the whole point of your argument is that nothing Aramaic ever left Judea. Surely nobody in Rome spoke Aramaic?

Vorkosigan

Because God in Greek doesn't sound much like Elijah.

Solo

Hi Andrew,
Joel Markus' Commentary states that the saying is a mixture of Hebrew (lama) and Aramaic (Eloi, sabachthani) and says the cry corresponds "roughly" to the targum and the Peshitta of Ps 22:1. What makes you believe there was a 'pre-Markan Aramaic source for the crucifixion narrative' ?

Best,
Jiri

andrewcriddle

I don't think I'm making up an answer.

Taken at face value Mark is providing a Greek versions of events which occurred in a primarily Aramaic speaking culture. If so the survival of Aramaic phrases in the text is not surprising.

IMHO the Aramaic sources had been largely translated into Greek before they reached Mark but that is just a guess.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

What we have in Mark are not just Aramaism we have Aramaic words or phrases that need translation for the intended readership.

Mark does not have Latin words needing translation for Greek readers.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

Hi Jiri

I doubt if Mark had access either to the Targum or to the Peshitta of the Psalms. (This is a difficult question, the date and origins of both the OT Peshitta and the Targum to the Writings are disputed.)

Andrew Criddle

Sheshbazzar

'Mark' may have been able to read Aramaic, or have simply been taught the Aramaic form of the Psalm as memorized by some old granny/grandpa, Not at all an uncommon practice among peoples who have been displaced and dispersed.
'Mark' himself may well not even have been Jewish, or have ever even set a foot in Israel, Simply heard Jewish tales recited in a Diaspora synagogue and composed a popular Greek tragedy around those tales of Jewish prophets and woes that he had been absorbing.

My old grandma used to sit us kids on her knee and teach us how recite Dutch poetry and limericks, if I recall a line or two and use it while composing a story, that is no indication that I have ever set foot in Holland, lived in Amsterdam, or am well acquainted with the Dutch language.

I can read and write Hebrew, and have a great many verses committed to memory, having recited and written them hundreds, sometimes thousands of times, if I write out something in English that could only be known by intimate familiarity with Hebrew, would everyone be correct to leap to the conclusion that I must be Jewish and must have lived in Israel?
There are one hell of a a lot of sandcastles being built upon unsupportable assumptions about the the origins and veracity of the content of these texts.

Solo

I agree the dating of the Psalm Targum and Peshitta known to us is a difficult question. Nonetheless, I observe that postulating a pre-Markan tradition does not help to solve this issue either. Mark's source would have had to render Jesus' legendary words on the cross and if they come out "roughly" as - let us grant FSOA - a later Aramaic/Syriac rendition of the psalm, we are still left with the reported cry strongly suggesting an OT typology. Is the resemblance between the two purely coincidental ? And if not, why would we need to postulate a pre-Markan source, when the desired effect of authenticity (in having Jesus address God in his native tongue) could have been supplied by an intelligent bilingual member of Mark's community ?

Best,
Jiri

tanya

Several forum members have voiced concern about Mark's having access to Psalms in Aramaic.

Two thousand years ago, at the time of DSS, Aramaic versions of the Psalms did exist, as may easily be confirmed, with google.

Moreover, here is an interesting discussion about an Aramaic source from an earthen jar, buried near Thebes, in Greece, 2200 years ago....

Psalms 20 in Aramaic from 200 BCE

Perhaps we underestimate the extent to which Aramaic had penetrated the Eastern portion of the Roman Empire....