rlogan

Not from this, no.

I am not sure what to say about this chapter. The document I am reading has chapter headings before each book:
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-0....htm#TopOfPage

I do not know about the original. My goodness, that would be a lot of doctoring. Much more than in the TF.

spin

I was talking about Aristides' work. You really can't trust Eusebius (or anyone else writing 200 years later) as a source of historical information in Aristides' era. He could as easily have read the intro in Aristides' apology and decided that it was the Hadrian being talked about and not been aware of Antoninus Pius's throne name.


spin

Attonitus

Do you know that language it was spoken in the Palestine of the first century?

spin

1. No. There are articles written on the language of Mt's and Mk's last words for Jesus and of course we have the original Hebrew.

2. What makes you think it's 1st century Aramaic?


spin

Attonitus

Interesting. The last words of Jesus in GMark is indeed those of the LXX omitting prosxes moi and substituting ina ti por eis ti. According Taylor if GMark it uses a Palestinian tradition it is natural that it uses the arameic form, but it is more probable that the sentence was pronounced in Hebrew because the comment of the presents Ide Êleian phônei only it is comprehensible if Jesus screamed : Êlei, Êlei o Êli, Êli y no Êloi.

Regards

spin

The Hebrew has no equivalent to the Greek addition in the LXX and amusingly the Vulgate cuts both ways for there are variants which seem to have it and others don't.

I don't see any functional difference between ina ti and eis ti. They seem to be variants of preference rather than substantive ones I would have thought.

The usual problem we need to face is why Mk has hloi hloi and not something more phonetically acceptable to us. The explanation you give better fits Mt's correction of Mk.

Also interesting about the text is that it is not the Hebrew form of the verb "forsake". The Hebrew has `ZBTNY, perhaps "azbatani", whereas the gospels have SaBaXTaNY.

Oh and the Peshitta gives yet another version, 'YL 'YL LMN' SBQTNY, so you get yet another variation.

(I don't know Taylor, but the claim that "if GMark it uses a Palestinian tradition it is natural that it uses the aramaic form" is no longer "natural": the Dead Sea Scrolls show that Hebrew was alive and diversifying in Palestine at the time.)


spin

Attonitus

Hi spin,

This seems simply a mistransliteration in the Greek text.
Here GMark not quote the Tanach. Where is the problem?

spin

What Mk cites is closely related to the Hebrew. It didn't come from the LXX, otherwise it would have had the extra phrase. But it is not good enough to simply say it is a mistranslation: it needs to be accounted for and should be seen as the earliest form of the nt Greek, from which Mt modified it to a more Hebrew-like hli, hli, while leaving the rest of the Aramaic form.


spin