judge

I brought this up on another thread but thought it might be a good topic for a new thread in view of the interest in marks gospel on this forum.

Mark 9:49 is a verse which leaves a "smoking gun" showing how the greek manuscripts are in fact translated from the Aramaic peshitta.

The greek verse here (and subsequently our english translations) read .."evryone will be salted with fire". Which is supposed to mean?

The Aramaic has a word which could read everything will be salted (which makes no sense) OR it could read. Everything will be scattered/destroyed by fire.

The greek translator , translated incorrectly and left us with a verse which makes no sense. Perhaps he was confused by the wordplay Jesus used (as is often evident in the original aramaic), as Jesus used the same root in the following verse when he was actually talking about salt.


IOW contrary to much scolarship Mark was written in Aramaic and then translated into greek.

Interestingly one old latin mss bobiensis seems to follow the "destroyed" reading rather then the "salted" reading.

sodium

Doesn't that just argue that the saying was originally Aramaic? Most people think that the sayings in Mark predate Mark. Somehow this saying migrated from Aramaic to Greek. Perhaps it was translated by Mark. Perhaps the translation occurred earlier. But we aren't forced to the conclusion that Mark in its entirety was written in Aramaic at one time.

judge

Hi there.

Yes..what I think this shows is that this saying was written down in Aramaic, without vowels, and that a greek translator mistranslated this word and this mistranslation remains in our english versions.

So if we can acertain this much then it seems clear the peshitta would be the original.

Unless someone has a clear argument as to why it is not?

keyser_soze

I think sodium is saying that it could be merely a "coined phrase".

judge

Hi...which phrase is the coined phrase?

1. Salted with fire?

2. Destroyed by fire?

I probably should have linked the other discussion. My point is this.
Most scholarship (western protestant) says the peshitta (aramaic NT) is translated from greek. Weird when we know Jesus spoke Aramaic and all .
This shows that most scholarship (western protestant) is wrong because the only way this mistranslation would have occurred is if someone looked at the Aramaic (without vowels) and put salted? instead of destroyed


Whnthnwtstmntbkwrfrstwrttnthywrprbblywrttnlkths.

I just wrote this last sentence without vowels or spacing or plurals which is probably how the NT was written.

Anyone doing a translation would leave some evidence no matter how hard they tried. They always left some clues.

Is it singular or plural?
Is that dog or dig?
Is that crane(the bird) or crane (the machine)?

These kinds or "smoking guns" are all through the NT, but because everone already knows it was written in greek no one one has bothered to really study whether it really was.

Yuri Kuchinsky

The idea that the Peshitta, a 4th century Syriac text, is "the original NT" is not a rational position. For example, the Peshitta contains a Syriac version of "Paul's Epistle to the Romans". But why would Paul write to the Romans in a language that they couldn't even understand? Surely Paul knew Greek, so he would have written such a letter in Greek. (Even assuming that he really wrote this letter, which he probably didn't...)

Yuri.

demoninho

Couldn't it be a compilation containing a later translated epistle by Paul, and a copie of Mark originally written in arameic, ie. multiple scources?

Amen-Moses

Originally posted by judge
Mark 9:49 is a verse which leaves a "smoking gun" showing how the greek manuscripts are in fact translated from the Aramaic peshitta.

The greek verse here (and subsequently our english translations) read .."evryone will be salted with fire". Which is supposed to mean?

Has it any less meaning than it's surroundings?

48 where their worm is not dying, and the fire is not being quenched;
49 for every one with fire shall be salted, and every sacrifice with salt shall be salted.
50 The salt [is] good, but if the salt may become saltless, in what will ye season [it]? Have in yourselves salt, and have peace in one another.'




The greek translator , translated incorrectly and left us with a verse which makes no sense. Perhaps he was confused by the wordplay Jesus used (as is often evident in the original aramaic), as Jesus used the same root in the following verse when he was actually talking about salt.

The Greek translator WAS Mark! (or whoever wrote it)

This section probably comes from the sayings gospel which "Mark" used as a source.

This is just more evidence that "Mark" was divorced from the time and place about which he was writing, i.e he was probably a young accolite in Rome long after Judea was deserted and didn't know what the sayings really meant.

Amen-Moses

judge

Why not Latin yuri?

Paul wrote in his own language...IIRC both eusebius and jerome mention that aul did not in fact write in greek, but rather in ther language of the hebrews. Which in that day was Aramaic.

judge

Clement of Alexandria (150 - 212 C.E.)
In the work called Hypotyposes, to sum up the matter briefly
he <CLEMENT of Alexandria>has given us abridged accounts of
all the canonical Scriptures,... the Epistle to the Hebrews he
asserts was written by Paul, to the Hebrews, in the Hebrew
tongue; but that it was carefully translated by Luke, and
published among the Greeks.
(Clement of Alexandria; Hypotyposes; referred to by Eusebius in Eccl.
Hist. 6:14:2)

Eusebius (315 C.E.)
For as Paul had addressed the Hebrews in the language of his
country; some say that the evangelist Luke, others that
Clement, translated the epistle.
(Eusebius; Eccl. Hist. 3:38:2-3)

Jerome (382)
"He (Paul) being a Hebrew wrote in Hebrew, that is, his own
tongue and most fluently while things which were eloquently
written in Hebrew were more eloquently turned into Greek
(Lives of Illustrious Men, Book 5)