ynquirer

That’s only half truth as regard consonant “he.� Modern Hebrew is based mainly in the Sephardi usage, and to that extend Medieval pronunciation, but as regard this consonant there is a thorough agreement as among Modern, Sephardi, Ashkenazi, Yemenite and Tiberian usages: they all yield “he� silent at the end of a word.

Of course, not. But the relevant issue for our discussion right here is whether or not we have evidence in relation to the ancient pronunciation of “he.� And for all accounts, it was silent at the end of a word.

Still, you may not reject modern/Sephardi pronunciation for LMH and support it for (ZB – which more or less yields your azavtani for (ZBTNY.

Is it not? Your argument is that Modern Hebrew was invented using Medieval pronunciation as a guide, yet still differs from it; and that on such account there is no way to ascertain the ancient pronunciation of – both LMH and (ZB?

Do you read that I can’t make the connection? Good heavens, my English is much worse than I thought.

I of course can make the connection. First I couldn’t do, now I can do. This is what I meant with “Granted.� But now let me say a couple of things.

azavtani is modern usage, to be sure. The difference from Hebraic (ZBTNY to Greek sabachthani is not as great as your phonetic transcription leads one to think.

To begin with, the initial “a� is not a vowel proper; it a proxy to the sound of ayin in that place. It is a called a glotal stop and in this case sounds like a ultrashort “a.� If, following your own analysis, LMH ended at a long “a,� then it would be only too natural for Mark to think that there was a sort of liasson between LMH and (ZB-, so that the “a� for ayin might be superseded in his Greek transliteration.

Mark’s “b� for Hebraic “v� as well as “th� for “t� are almost as easy to explain away. The Masoretic linguistic reform of the sixth to eighth century was an attempt, by introducing the Niqqud system of vowel points, to fix a standard pronunciation where local usages must have been broadly different. The daguesh, in particular, was intended to impose the usage of “b� for bet as much as of “t� for tau whenever it was written down, and of “v� for bet and “th� for tau whenever it was not. But the very fact that daguesh was introduced is proof that the usage for bet could be either “b� – as in Mark – or “v� – as in the modern and presumed Masoretic usage – in every case. Likewise for “th� and “t� as possible pronunciations of tau before the reform.

Furthermore, the B in (ZB is marked with a schwa that indicates that the consonant is not followed of any vowel; this is why you may write aza[b]vtani[/i]. But if the Masoretic reform felt the necessity quite clearly to indicate that there was no vowel between the B and the T, is it not proof that there was an unthodox usage of a vowel – possibly Mark’s “a� – right in there?

Thus, you evidence is reduced to two sounds, namely, “s� for zayin and an odd chi/x in between B and T. Yet writting “s� instead of “z� is not like writting “s� in substitution for “r� or “t� or “f� or – is it? Your hard evidence is therefore one sound: that odd chi.

Is it enough to construe your whole case with the lack of hesitation you display? I don’t think so.

One thing is that current work was done in Aramaic; this is only too natural an outcome of the general ignorance of Hebrew in the late Second Temple Judaism. Quite a different thing is that ancient work, like the Book of Psalms, were translated into Aramaic.

.That is my question, Is there any evidence thereof? I mean, not necessarily of the Psalms but of other books of the Tanakh?. If you have this, I will acknowledge you another point on this score.

Basically, it might be posed this way.

There are two possible messages, say, “Hebrew� and “Aramaic,� with a priori probabilities p and q (= 1 – p) sent through a transmission medium. What the receiver receives is neither 100 percent “Hebrew� nor 100 percent “Aramaic,� but x percent Hebrew and y percent Aramaic instead. The problem is: what is the ex post likelihood that the message was either “Hebrew� or “Aramaic�?

Chris Weimer

Azavtani was a modernization. I never denied that. Nor was it part of the original debate. As a matter of fact, how is any of this (pronunciation of the final he) part of the more meaningful stuff at hand?

Not with 100% certainty. We work with probabilities.

Talk about making a jump! The utter lack of any evidence for the chi being insterted there out of Hebrew is evidence for Aramaic which easily supports it. My case accounts for all 100% of the Greek while yours still doesn't. Why wouldn't you accede?

But we know from Qumran that parts of the Bible were translated into Aramaic! So right there is proof positive of translations being made. I see no reason why Psalms couldn't have been done before the later half of the first century CE?

From Qumran: 6Q19 - Aramaic Genesis; 11Q10 - Targum to Job; maybe 4Q551 (Daniel-Suzanna); possibly 4Q560 - Aramaic Proverbs; and finally, the biggy, 11Q5 - Syriac Psalms and a small part of Ben Sira and Samuel in Syriac.

And what is the algorithm he uses to determine this? Does he focus on what sound changes are possible, and if those sound changes occur anywhere else within that author's work?

As evidence above, I'd place my bets on Aramaic.

ynquirer

Well, your Hebrew pronunciation for Psalm 22 was Eli! Eli! lamah azavtani, and when I pointed at Mark’s lamma as a good match for lamah since the final “he� is silent, you came to reject the point on account of so and so.

If the ending “he� in Aramaic LMH is silent as well, I really don’t know why you did start the discussion thereof.

It seems to me a little odd that H in Aramaic )LHY sounds like “o.� As regard LMH, I have stated my doubts above.

Even if you had a 100 percent match to Aramaic and less than 100 percent match to Hebrew, you would still need an a priori distribution of probabilities that fitted in with your theory – that's what Shannon’s theory comes to say.

I beg your pardon? Qumran is at best evidence as of the early seventh century. What makes you think that it could afford evidence for as early as five to six centuries before?

The algorithm is the easiest part of the work, and only interesting to end the job. The hardest part, as I said in a previous post, is weighing the available evidence – all evidence, and not only that one that strikes most impressively – so as to ascertain both a priori probabilities and percentage match.

As regard a priori probabilities, for instance, one ought to weigh both external and internal evidence. External evidence: does one have a first-century Aramaic translation of the Psalms? If your evidence is Qumran, well, I don’t think that will account for a very high a priori probability. Internal evidence: do you have a good answer for the question as to why Mark, who has Jesus’ presumedly Aramaic utterances consistently translated into Greek language throughout the gospel, just for once decided to keep Aramaic Psalm 22 transliterated – but not translated – into the Greek?

And so forth.

JoeWallack

JW:
Ben, here are my original Assertions for this Thread:

I think I've Demonstrated 1) in that No one Believed in a Post Dead Jesus.

You agree with 2).

We disagree on 4). I've argued that "Mark" Concludes that Jesus was a Great Teacher but "Mark's" Narrative indicates he was not.

Regarding 3), please consider a post I wrote here before your time. In my opinion, one of the best posts I ever wrote here, the subject of which has been dishonestly ignored by Christian Bible scholarship for the last, I don't know, 2,000 years. And, in an Irony that I think the author of "Mark" would really appreciate, a thread that received extremely little attention here.

Here's the link:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=122958

Here's my Conclusion:

"Here’s a summary of the Ironic components of “Mark’s� claimed prophecy fulfillment from the Tanakh:

1) The messenger of the Messiah was an unexpected person.

2) The claimed prophecies from the Jewish Bible are out of context so the fulfillments claimed by “Mark� would be unexpected by someone familiar with the Jewish Bible.

3) To support Jesus’ use of parables “Mark� uses probably the only quote (out of context) available in the entire Jewish Bible while ignoring hundreds of quotes contradicting his prophecy claim.

4) The messenger of the Messiah would be mistreated when a natural expectation would be that such messenger would be well treated.

5) That “The Jews� would reject the cornerstone when the prophecy was that “The Jews� would be the ones to accept the cornerstone.

6) That the disciples of the Messiah would all abandon the Messiah.

Compare the above to literal, straightforward, no tricks claimed Jewish Bible prophecy fulfillment by Jesus according to “Mark� not involving irony. Is there a single one? Someone, anyone, Buehder?

This lack by "Mark" of any straightforward prophecy fulfillment by Jesus from the Jewish Bible may have been intentional based on the following Markan verse:

8: (NRSV)
11 "The Pharisees came and began to argue with him, asking him for a sign from heaven, to test him. 12And he sighed deeply in his spirit and said, ‘Why does this generation ask for a sign? Truly I tell you, no sign will be given to this generation.’ 13 And he left them, and getting into the boat again, he went across to the other side."

There wasn't any straightforward prophecy fulfillment by Jesus because there wasn't supposed to be any type of Sign identifying Jesus as the Messiah to his generation."


As far as "Matthew's" Reaction to "Mark's" claims of Prophecy Fulfillment, if "Matthew" was (the) spirit willing to change "Mark's" basic Narrative then he was probably also willing to change the meaning of "Mark's" basic narrative, huh?

So, did "Matthew" basically accept "Mark's" Story as Historical but just Believe that it didn't Mean what "Mark" thought it meant? This would appear to be a Cornerstone of Christian belief in General (and one that argues strongly against the Playsibility of Christian Theology), Christians accept The Jews' Story as Historical but just Believe it didn't Mean what The Jews thought it meant.


Joseph

PALMISTRY, n.
The 947th method (according to Mimbleshaw's classification) of obtaining money by false pretences. It consists in "reading character" in the wrinkles made by closing the hand. The pretence is not altogether false; character can really be read very accurately in this way, for the wrinkles in every hand submitted plainly spell the word "dupe." The imposture consists in not reading it aloud.

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

ynquirer

Hi Chris

We so far have been discussing upon the supposition that $BQ was an Aramaic word, by no means a Hebraic one. The supposition may be proven to be false.

I've checked my Hebrew dictionary and found a $BQ entry. It means "to foresake" and is an exact synonym for (ZB. My dictionary adds the following information. While (ZB is the biblical word, and as such it appears in Psaln 22:1, $BQ is either a rabbinic terrn or one that appears in the Dead Sea Scrolls or both - further detail I do not have.

I checked the dictionary again and found an )LHY entry as well. It is in relation to )LHIM - Elohim, which is well known to be one of the names of God. )LHY means a divine one (or thing); sometimes it is translated into "great" or "greatness," "marvel," and the like. (It is perhaps useful to recall that the gospel of Peter translates )LHY )LHY into "my power, my power.")

In brief, we therefore have a Hebraic statement that could possibly be )HLY )LHY LMH $BQTNY, which according to you is what we have in Aramaic. Uncertainty about ancient pronunciation being the same for both as it is, we have no linguistic evidence whatsoever to presume the statement to be Aramaic rather than Hebrew.

Regards,

Enrique

andrewcriddle

I'm sorry I'm joining this very interesting thread a bit late and going back to a point discussed early in the thread, but it relates to stuff I've been reading over Christmas about genre conventions for Greek fiction.

Obviously if Matthew etc did not believe in a historical Jesus then they would not have regarded Mark as a historical work.

However as mentioned in this and other threads we have hellenistic and imperial prose works about historical figures which we at least regard as fictional. The Alexander legend is a clear example, I would include the Life of Apollonius of Tyana by Philostratus and part at least of the Augustan Histories. (I emphasised 'we at least' because there is a real problem about how far the ancient world would have recognised modern literary categories like 'historical novel'.)

What I'm very doubtful about is whether Mark can be regarded as part of the genre of ancient historical novel. It has been suggested earlier in this thread that if Mark was a work of ancient history rather than historical fiction it would have made explicit its sources. I would say almost the opposite. Eusebius' systematic use of identified suorces and long quotations from earlier documents is unusual among ancient historians, (I obviously don't mean that they don't use earlier sources, I mean they usually don't clearly identify them.) One of the main genre markers of what we at least would call ancient historical novels is the use of imaginary sources, particularly supposed letters of the hero made up by the writer, but also imaginary diaries and other such material. There is nothing like this in Mark and this makes it IMO very doubtful whether Mark can fit in the genre of the ancient historical novel.

Andrew Criddle

Chris Weimer

Enrique,

Well, I never explicitly assumed it as without Hebrew origins. Most scholars naturally assume this. I've not enough information either way. Perhaps I should look into it more.

If it's rabbinical or from the scrolls, it might have been a loan word from Aramaic, which would make sense considering how it's not a biblical word, at least not that I'm aware of. I couldn't find the word in the "sectarian" scrolls from Bibleworks, so I can't say at this time. I'll have to return to you on this.

This would be reasonable, except why assume it suggests too complicated a route. Not only would Jesus, a Galilean, have to know Hebrew, which is possible, but that he used different Hebrew words when quoting Psalm 22, improbable. I'll still place my bets on an Aramaic translation.

Why would Jesus use different Hebrew words than what was there originally? Aramaic makes better logical sense.

Chris

Vorkosigan

No worries. I shall one day have the pleasure of resolving your doubts.

Ancient history writers mentioned or referred to sources, without making them explicit. They interacted with them. The writer of Mark never does.

Michael

ynquirer

Well, this question refers back to the previous, original one: Does one think Mark to be history or fiction?

If one thinks it to be exact history, your objection is fine: Why would Jesus, assumed to know both Hebrew and Psalm 22, misquote the scripture on the cross?

If one thinks it to be fiction, then the problem of Jesus with the scripture is, actually, Mark’s. The relevant question would then be: What was Mark’s purpose? What did he intend to convey the reader by misquoting the scripture? I have a provisional answer. He perhaps made use of a rabbinical word in substitution for the biblical one as a means to indicate he could possibly be a rabbi, and as a wink or hook or appeal to other rabbis, the substitution being overlooked by ordinary readers as it has probably been so far.

And there is still a third possibility, that the gospel of Mark is a mixture of history and fiction. It narrates some historical events, but the writer does not refrain from using fiction to convey especial messages. For instance, the death of Jesus on the cross might be history while his quoting Psalm 22 might be a fictitious resource to convey the reader some information on Jesus. What information? That Jesus spoke Hebrew, I think.

In the latter case, misquoting the scripture would have the same implication as in the second one – Mark tells the rabbis he either is or was one of them.

I don’t think so. The case for Aramaic is rather hard in terms of internal evidence. Whether history or fiction, Jesus speaks in Aramaic throughout the gospel. Mark consistently translates Jesus’ Aramaic words into Greek language. Why does he fail to do so in relation to that particular utterance?

Enrique

Diogenes the Cynic

It's fiction.
Why would Jesus be assumed to know Hebrew? Chris' point was that an Aramaic rendition of the verse makes more logical sense than a misquote of Hebrew.
Yes, but it's not actually a "problem." The author just used Aramaic because he didn't know Hebrew.
He didn't misquote it, he just quoted it in Aramaic instead of Hebrew.
Mark wasn't Jewish and neither was his audience. Your hypothesis is absurd and tortured and completely unnecessary. Mark's quotation of Psalms is simply rendered in Aramaic. That's what's stated in every commentary I can find on the subject. Your own tortured argument for Hebrew (which seems to be based on nothing but a desire to save Mark from error by asserting that Jesus must have verbalized the Tetragrammaton in front ofthe Sanhedrin) seems to be completely unique.
Except he didn't speak Hebrew on the cross, he spoke Aramaic. That's a distinction which would have been lost on Mark's gentile audience anyway.
Mark wasn't Jewish and neither was his audience. He also didn't know Hebrew and he never has Jesus speaking Hebrew.
He does? In my text, he speaks Greek. What version do you have where he speaks Aramaic?
No, Mark isn't "translating" anything. He's simply making things up in Greek and using Greek sources. There may have been an inherent assumption that the character of "Jesus" wasn't really speaking Greek, but Mark did not have to know Aramaic in order to write his Gospel. The LXX was Greek and whatever sayings traditions he used were already rendered in Greek. Mark had to translate nothing.
Verisimilitide? Dramatic effect?

Lots and lots of historical fiction has its characters speaking in modern English (or Italian or Spanish or French or whatever the language of the audience) but occasionally speaking a few authentic words in the putative language of the characters. Gladiator movies might have an occasional smattering of Latin, for instance. The movie version of Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose has medievel Italian characters speaking mostly English but it's interspersed with frequent forays into actual Italian or Latin. American movies about the Holocaust will usually have a few words of real German tossed into the English dialogue. That kind of thing is commonplace in fiction. The author does not have to know much about the putative language of his characters. He can almost always get away with just writing in his own language and maybe tossing an occasional gracias or konnichiwa into the mix.

Even if Mark thought he was writing about a real person, he was still creating his own text in his own language. He wasn't "translating" anything.