Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Solo · 04-28-2012, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

2. The idioms are translations, not indicators of underlying Aramaic sources.

When they are literal idioms in Aramaic, but not Greek, they are indicators of Aramaic sources. "Son of Man" doesn't mean anything in Greek.

Most likely, Mark used "son of man" and the snippets of Aramaic to enhance the feel of authenticity for his gospel. It is naive in the extreme to argue that the use of Aramaic is evidence of pre-existent historical sources. Does Jesus' authentic-sounding "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" on the cross make the sourcing any less recognizable as Psalm 22:1 ?

Best,
Jiri

stephan huller · 04-28-2012, 08:33 PM

And people use terms from other languages all the time without necessarily knowing what they mean or only with a very vague understanding.

stephan huller · 04-28-2012, 08:34 PM

Diogenes, the problem with this is that it is all a guessing game. There are things that don't work but it is impossible to know what the truth is.

stephan huller · 04-28-2012, 08:38 PM

One could argue that it goes back to the giving of the Torah. It is said that all Israel directly perceive the first two of the Ten Utterances, i.e. “ I am the Lord thy God” and “ Thou shalt have no other gods before me”. This is not only the traditional understanding of the passage, it is actually stated by the corresponding passage in Deuteronomy if the terminology is understood.

Moses directly perceived the meaning of the whole message. The midrash on Exodus 20:18 “ they SAW (regesh) the sounds (or peals of thunder)” cited by him is only preserved in a quotation in the Yalkut Shim’oni. It is very old, I would guess belonging to the time of composition of the extant Tannaitic midrashim. Perhaps it means that James and John and no others had direct perception of the New Torah when others only heard the surface meaning of what Jesus said. Who knows. As I said there are no definitive answers here.

James The Least · 04-28-2012, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

You'd have to have smoked the last of your crack and then ingested opium, followed by inducing unconsciousness via ketamine, to believe something as ridiculous as this. It just makes me want to scream.

Yeah... how does Stark for example explain all the latinisms in Mark, and if I am not mistaken he even uses latin words as an explanation of greek ones. That doesn't sound like something a Palestinian Jewish Christian would do when writing in Palestine to Palestinian Jewish Christians.

What else are you thinking about Vork? Mark's anti-nomianism? His geographical mistakes?

1. Geographical mistakes but not just the errors, but the way he treats geography as completely irrelevant: "3:7: Jesus withdrew with his disciples to the sea, and a great multitude from Galilee followed; also from Judea 8: and Jerusalem and Idume'a and from beyond the Jordan and from about Tyre and Sidon a great multitude, hearing all that he did, came to him." You mean the crowds come up from Jerusalem all the way to Galilee? Puh-lease. He is just tossing in place names.
2. Explaining what Jews do -- they claim he's writing to Jews but he says in 7:3 (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they wash their hands, observing the tradition of the elders; 4: and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they purify themselves; and there are many other traditions which they observe, the washing of cups and pots and vessels of bronze.) It's quite obvious from this side comment that he's not a Jew and is explaining for people who are not Jews. There's never a sense of "we" in any of his comments on Jews. Plus he really doesn't know much about Jews as Matthew had to correct things....
3. He thinks the puddle in Galilee is an ocean.
4. He quotes the Septaugint in Greek in 7:8 when J is disputing with the Pharisees but the Greek and Hebrew are different at that point -- J flings a Greek text at the Pharisees?

etc. The writer of Mark is obviously not a Palestinian Jew. That is sheer apologetic fantasy.

:clapping:

Yes, and this is a hugely important point. Mark is the earliest known non-Jewish writer in history to use the Hebrew scriptures in a non-Jewish religious context. Mark is quite confident and experienced in his use of "the scriptures" to establish his authority, but he never misses an opportunity to praise gentiles and denigrate "The Jews." This would have caused cognitive dissonance in any Jewish context, but Mark is a religious polemicist who is using "the scriptures" to prove that "The Jews" killed Lord Jesus, therefore giving Mark and the gentiles full authority to usurp the Hebrew scriptures and therefore God. Mark's Jesus is an etiological myth that functions as an explanation why gentiles now own the copyright to God and the scriptures, which they had been using for some time. The fall of Jerusalem gave life to the Jesus mythos by fulfilling the gentiles' interpretation of the scriptures.

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-28-2012, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

When they are literal idioms in Aramaic, but not Greek, they are indicators of Aramaic sources. "Son of Man" doesn't mean anything in Greek.

Most likely, Mark used "son of man" and the snippets of Aramaic to enhance the feel of authenticity for his gospel. It is naive in the extreme to argue that the use of Aramaic is evidence of pre-existent historical sources. Does Jesus' authentic-sounding "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" on the cross make the sourcing any less recognizable as Psalm 22:1 ?

Best,
Jiri

No, but if Mark's source was directly from the Psalm, then why didn't he use the LXX?

James The Least · 04-28-2012, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Both are right, actually. They aren't really making contradictory claims. Mark was not a Palestinian Jew, that's true (and also not a claim Bart Ehrman comes anywhere close to making, endorsing or suggesting), and Adam is right that Mark could have had Aramaic sources.

For the record, what Ehrman believes is that Mark has some oral sources with Aramaic origins, not that Mark was a Palestinian or was anywhere close to primary sources himself. It's fair to disagree with that, but let's not attribute claims to him that he has not made.

There are no goddamn "Aramaic sources." Jesus is the creation of Greek speaking theologians, not the culmination of streams of tradition passed down and interpreted. If they quote something in Aramaic, it's for the same reason that English speakers sometimes quote stories of Roman gods in the original Latin: to give the story some linguistic authenticity.

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-28-2012, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Diogenes, the problem with this is that it is all a guessing game. There are things that don't work but it is impossible to know what the truth is.

You're right, but I'm not pretending to know. I'm not so much insisting on a position that mark had Aramaic sources as I am objecting to categorical rejections of the very possibility, despite the credible arguments of legitimate experts.

James The Least · 04-28-2012, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

When they are literal idioms in Aramaic, but not Greek, they are indicators of Aramaic sources. "Son of Man" doesn't mean anything in Greek.

Most likely, Mark used "son of man" and the snippets of Aramaic to enhance the feel of authenticity for his gospel. It is naive in the extreme to argue that the use of Aramaic is evidence of pre-existent historical sources. Does Jesus' authentic-sounding "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" on the cross make the sourcing any less recognizable as Psalm 22:1 ?

Best,
Jiri

No, but if Mark's source was directly from the Psalm, then why didn't he use the LXX?

Literary panache, perhaps?

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-28-2012, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

There are no goddamn "Aramaic sources." Jesus is the creation of Greek speaking theologians, not the culmination of streams of tradition passed down and interpreted. If they quote something in Aramaic, it's for the same reason that English speakers sometimes quote stories of Roman gods in the original Latin: to give the story some linguistic authenticity.

You don't know this. This may be your opinion, which is fine, but this kind of hostile, categorical insistence on your opinion (an opinion not shared by current scholarship, by the way) as incontrovertible, settled fact is exactly what I object to. Argument by assertion is not argument. I will read and consider an evidence based argument. I am open minded on this. I'm one of the few "swing voters" the board has on this issue. I really am agnostic on it, and I am amenable to mythicist arguments if they're presented systematically, but I'm not going to be shouted into agreement by either side.

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

04-28-2012, 08:33 PM	#62
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	And people use terms from other languages all the time without necessarily knowing what they mean or only with a very vague understanding.

04-28-2012, 08:34 PM	#63
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Diogenes, the problem with this is that it is all a guessing game. There are things that don't work but it is impossible to know what the truth is.

04-28-2012, 08:38 PM	#64
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	One could argue that it goes back to the giving of the Torah. It is said that all Israel directly perceive the first two of the Ten Utterances, i.e. “ I am the Lord thy God” and “ Thou shalt have no other gods before me”. This is not only the traditional understanding of the passage, it is actually stated by the corresponding passage in Deuteronomy if the terminology is understood. Moses directly perceived the meaning of the whole message. The midrash on Exodus 20:18 “ they SAW (regesh) the sounds (or peals of thunder)” cited by him is only preserved in a quotation in the Yalkut Shim’oni. It is very old, I would guess belonging to the time of composition of the extant Tannaitic midrashim. Perhaps it means that James and John and no others had direct perception of the New Torah when others only heard the surface meaning of what Jesus said. Who knows. As I said there are no definitive answers here.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.