Originally Posted by sschlichter

No, it is not very significant. that is my point. I agree that the intended readership probalby spoke Latin but there is much more compelling evidence than this. We can also conclude that the semitisms in Mark force us to come to the most reasonable explanation is that they were written by Mother-tongue Latin Aramaic speakers of Greek.

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

No sound historical analysis could ever reach such a conclusion, only ideology.

Vorkosigan

Originally Posted by spin

While I can understand christians peddling this rubbish, let's see you try, rather than crapping on. You'll need to get past the abracadabra stage of citing froth like "little girl stand up". You'll need to match the material I pointed to regarding clear Latin material (vocabulary, loan translation, Latin syntax and idioms) underlying some of the Greek with more compelling Aramaic underpinnings of the gospel. But, of course, you can't. You'd need to talk the walk.

Originally Posted by sschlichter

really? You supplied an example in Mark 3:17. Consider the reason for needing to use the Latin idiom. I am sure you see it.

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

After reading this, I think you need to spend a couple of years studying both historical methodology and methodology in HJ studies.
Good luck!

Originally Posted by Adam

...
Back in #338 above, you remained confident that methodology would solve all things your way. Now that your mentors Theissen and Porter have applauded a new methodology, you are reduced to revealing in #469 that your method presupposes that there is no God. (You apparently did not read the extracts from Thiessn and Porter I posted for you in my #465. Each specified his approval of the methodology Licona used.) Methodological naturalism is the standard presupposition, but you have raised it to a philosophical naturalism that rejects any meaningful investigation of truth. You have no method, only a conclusion.

Originally Posted by spin

Not one inch closer to dealing with the problem. You may as well claim that use of names such as John or James demonstrates the text was written in umm Aramaic. You need to deal with bones, not decorations.

Originally Posted by http://www.bible-researcher.com/hebraisms.html

Coordination of clauses. In classical Greek, sentences usually contained one main verb, and all other verbs were subordinated in adverbial clauses of one kind or another. Hebrew, on the other hand, tended to place main verbs side by side, joining them together with a simple conjunction (the Hebrew waw "and"). This is known as parataxis, from the Greek verb paratasso "I set side by side." In koine Greek the construction is not uncommon, and this alone has been though to explain its frequency in the New Testament. But the constantly recurring "and" (Greek kai) of the Gospels is certainly an overstraining of Greek literary usage. In the Gospels this type of construction is most characteristic of Mark, who has only a single instance of a longer Greek sentence with subordinating participles (see 5:25-27). A typical example of Mark's style is found in 10:33-34, "Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and (kai) the Son of Man will be delivered up to the chief priests and scribes, and (kai) they will condemn him to death, and (kai) they will deliver him up to the Gentiles. And (kai) they will mock him and (kai) spit upon him and (kai) scourge him and (kai) kill him, and (kai) three days later he will rise again." Here a more typical Greek style would, perhaps, have subordinated one or more of these clauses by means of participles or relative clauses. Translations such as the KJV and RSV reflect the Semitic style and are stylistically awkward in English; but other English translations, recognizing the Semitic idiom involved, restructure the grammar slaightly to produce more acceptable English (see GNB, NIV, JB, NEB). [Note: The subject of parataxis as an indication of Semitic background is treated more fully in the article J.B. Lightfoot on the Style of John's Gospel on this site. —M.D.M]

Redundant pronouns. The Hebrew relative pronoun is indeclinable and genderless, and therefore requires a personal pronoun in the clause which follows. This has influenced a few New Testament passages in which an unnecessary pronoun appears after a relative, as in Mark 7:25, which literally reads, "A woman whose little daughter of her had an unclean spirit." This construction may be possible in Greek, but it is not native to it, as it is in Hebrew and Aramaic.

Substitutes for the indefinite pronoun. The use of heis "one" and anthropos "a man, a person" as substitutes for the indefinite pronoun tis "a certain person, someone, a" is paralleled in the koine, but its source in the New Testament is almost certainly Semitic. Instances of heis as an indefinite pronoun fall into two classes: (1) where heis is an adjective, as in Mattew 8:19, "a scribe," and (2) where it is a full pronoun, generally followed by the genitive construction or partitive ek, as in Mark 5:22, "a ruler of the synagogue." The use of anthropos "man," in this way (like Hebrew ish and Aramaic barnash) is found most frequently in the sayings of Jesus, and most examples come from Mark's Gospel (see, for instance, 1:23, 3:1, 4:26, 5:2, 10:7, 10:9, 12:1).

Redundant use of the preposition. A characteristic feature of Semitic usage is the repetition of a preposition before every noun of a series which it governs. Such a construction is intolerable in literary Greek. Semitic repetition occurs no less than eleven times in Mark alone (see, for example, 3:7-8, 6:56, 11:1). It is interesting to see the way in which different English translations treat redundant prepositions. Some repeat the preposition each time it occurs in a series, as in Mark 3:7-8 (see KJV, RSV); others translate only the initial preposition, a practice which is more in keeping with the English idiom (see NIV, JB, NEB).

The use of the positive adjective for the comparative or superlative. The Semitic languages, with the exception of Arabic, have no special forms for the comparative and superlative adjectives (such as "bigger," "biggest"). Instead, the positive adjective is used, "big." Although the comparative is often used for the superlative in the koine, there does not appear to be any parallel in Greek to the Semitic use of the positive for the comparative or superlative. A good example of the idiom occurs in Mark 9:43: "If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better (Greek kalon, literally "good") for you to enter life crippled than having your two hands to go to hell." Note also the following examples: Mark 12:28, "the most important" (literally, "the first"); Luke 5:39, "better" (literally, "good"); and John 2:10, "You have kept the best (literally 'good') wine until now."

Redundant use of "saying." Indirect speech is unknown in biblical Hebrew; all speech is recorded directly, whether the words recorded were the actual words spoken or represented the general meaning of what was said. The Hebrew word most closely corresponding to the Greek participle legon "saying" is used to introduce the quotation. This idiom is well illustrated in Mark 8:28, "And they said to him, saying (legontes), 'John the Baptist'." For other examples of this idiom, see Matthew 23:1-2, 28:18, Luke 14:3, 24:6-7.

Future indicative used as an imperative. The Hebrew verb form most closely corresponding to the Greek future indicative is often used to express commands. This construction has probably influenced a passage like Mark 9:35, "If anyone wants to be first, he shall be last of all." In this passage greater emphasis is given by taking the future he shall be as an imperative, as in NIV, "Whoever wants to be first, he must be the very last," (see also GNB, JB, NEB, RSV). The same can be said for the use of the future indicative in Luke 1:13, "And you shall call his name John," which GNB renders, "You are to name him John," Compare also Matthew 19:18-19 in the various translations.

The particle ei expressing emphatic negation. The Hebrew word which corresponds to the Greek particle ei (normally translated "if") can introduce a clause expressing emphatic negation. This idiom appears to have influenced such passages as Hebrews 4:3, "By no means (ei) shall they enter into my rest," and Mark 8:12, "By no means (ei) shall a sign be given to this generation."

Redundant use of the verb apokrinomai. The expression "he answered and said" (apokritheis eipen) closely resembles a common Hebrew idiom. The use of the verb apokrinomai "I answer" in this sense is often purely redundant (see Matthew 11:25, 12:38, 17:4, 28:5, Mark 9:5, 11:14, 12:35). In cases in which no question has been asked, it may be misleading to translate the expression "he answered" (Compare Matthew 11:25 in KJV "Jesus answered and said" with NIV "Jesus said"). This idiom is extremely common in the synoptic Gospels, where the writers appear to have modelled themselves after the familiar language of the Septuagint.

Originally Posted by Adam

Back in #338 above, you remained confident that methodology would solve all things your way. Now that your mentors Theissen and Porter have applauded a new methodology, you are reduced to revealing in #469 that your method presupposes that there is no God. (You apparently did not read the extracts from Thiessn and Porter I posted for you in my #465. Each specified his approval of the methodology Licona used.) Methodological naturalism is the standard presupposition, but you have raised it to a philosophical naturalism that rejects any meaningful investigation of truth. You have no method, only a conclusion.

Originally Posted by sschlichter

The interest in providing Aramaic translations is telling regardless of what inches you are granting.

Here are some other examples that apply to Mark.

Originally Posted by sschlichter

The interest in providing Aramaic translations is telling regardless of what inches you are granting.

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Here are some other examples that apply to Mark.