Adam

Quoting from my above-listed #54:
"Of course, in my own Gospel Eyewitness thread here on FRDB I have argued not just that the Passion Narrative was written in Aramaic, but Q1 as well. I also accept that James R. Edwards in The Hebrew Gospel & the development of the Synoptic Tradition (2009) has adequately shown that L is replete with Semitisms (from Hebrew, in his opinion), and displays this quite well in his Appendix II pp. 294-332). All these I include in my "Gospel According to the Atheists"."

Yes, Q was in Greek by the time it was incorporated in Proto-Luke, because Q2 therein shows so much verbal exactitude between Matthew and Luke. Q1 shows a closeness between Matthew and Luke that could not be from just shared oral tradition, but enough difference that both had to have been translating. Do you have some other candidate besides Aramaic? (I'm not being facetious--Edwards (prior paragraph) believes L was written in Hebrew.)
For the proof of Semitisms, at least, see his Appendix II I cite here.

That leaves the Passion Narrative. We all know that it is found in all four canonical gospels. The version in gJohn is too dissimilar to trace back to a common Greek text, but instead Luke and John are closest to the original Aramaic text, but too far apart to come from the same translation into Greek. The Greek version underlying Matthew and Mark diverges somewhat more.

Yes, Aramaic does not prove authenticity. However, in #526 I changed my opening post in Gospel Eyewitnesses to argue that the Passion Narrative was written right after the week it told about. I re-emphasized that the eyewitness was John Mark (not Peter), telling about the week he met Jesus.
'[My Post #1 OP should be amended to include in the shared source (from John Mark) also verses preceding the Passion Narrative in John 11:54, 12:2-8, 12-14a, 13:18 or 21, and 13:38. These provide additional evidence that the person providing this "earliest gospel" was indeed John Mark, as most of these additional verses apparently took place in his house when he was a teenager.]
John 18:1b, 1d,ii. 3,vi. 10b,v. 12,iv. 13b,i. 15-19,xiii. 22,ii 25b,ii. 27-31,vii. 33-35,vii. (36-40);x. 19:1-19,xl. 21-23,viii. 28-30,vii. 38b,iii. 40-42;vi. 20:1,iv. 3-5,viii. 8,ii. 11b-14a,iv. 19b,ii. 22-23,v. 26-27,viii. 30,ii. John Mark gives the story of this one week in his life.'

Another Aramaic source I rarely talk about is the Johannine Discourses (because the academic fashion is still for the Synoptics), which I argue was written in Aramaic by Nicodemus, Post #38 in Gospel Eyewitnesses
"Consider that we next hear of Nicodemus in John 7:50-52, in which Nicodemus argues that the Law does not condemn a man without first hearing from him. If he took it upon himself to do what he said, the words recorded in the next three chapters from Jesus seem well suited to be a record of what Jesus said that might be worthy of condemnation. Later chapters reveal more and more favor towards what Jesus had to say, concluding with John 17. In John 19:39 Nicodemus brought spices for Jesus’s burial. He had obviously become a Christian. The marked change in attitude toward Jesus shows that Nicodemus wrote all this (or at least notes) while Jesus was still alive."

Adam

More proof, Shesh,
That you rail at my stuff without reading (comprehending?) any of it.
WHERE--I havn't written much on that, but Q1 could have even been written in Galilee where most of it is set, perhaps during Jesus's lifetime. Q2 and L probably in Jerusalem, or at least when the three were combined into Proto-Luke in Jerusalem before 60 CE. Q1 was written in Aramaic by Matthew, Q2 in Greek by a disciple of John the Baptist I call the Qumraner. The latter knew much less about Jesus directly that the seven I call Jesus's eyewitnesses. His apocalypticism had to have been written before 70 CE when the Christians were expecting the end of the world and not the destruction of Jerusalem.

Sheshbazzar

Your alleged 'arguments' consist of little more than bald face assertions that the Passion Narrative and 'Q1' were written in Aramaic.
Those who are experienced experts in the Greek language and Mss. are virtually unanimous in their agreement that they were originally composed in Greek and only latter translated into the other languages, including the Aramaic.
Any Greek undertaking such a writing project would have associated with Jewish synagogues and have heard a great many Hebrew and Aramaic expressions in use, that the writer(s) chose to incorporate a variety of these strange 'holy' 'magical' sounding words to impress their intended Greek audiences is not in the least bit surprising.
It would be far more surprising if such language flavoring was missing.

When my life-long Missionary friend returns to America from his trips to Paupau New Guinea, he may toss a little Tok Pisin or Gabadi into his religious writings or conversations.
But that does not mean that he normally writes in those languages, even when he is living there, It is only an affectation that demonstrates that he has a measure of knowledge of, and awareness of these languages.

Sheshbazzar

There you go again with your "could have been's" 'Could have been' don't mean jack-shit as evidence or as proof.
'Perhaps...' is no evidence at all that it was, only an expression of your wishful thinking.
"probably"= guesswork without a shred of evidence or proof. And by mainstream, non-Fundy, scholarship, very unlikely.
An assumption and a unprovinanced assertion.
You have no "Proto-Luke"
and not one shred of evidence that this took place before 60 CE (if it ever did at all- the entire text may well have been written by a single writer in the 2nd century CE)
More made up assertions without any evidence, proofs, or value.
More made up assertions without any evidence, proofs, or value.

What is asserted without evidence, can also be dismissed without evidence.
You still got nothing more going than your fevered imaginations.

You have got to be able to do a lot better than this to persuade anyone here that you actually know what you are talking about.

la70119

Either they threw it out when it was declared a forgery in the 19th Century, or they're abusing it. I wouldn't be surprised either way.

andrewcriddle

The issue here IIUC is that Psalm 22 is in Hebrew. The cry of Jesus in Mark is quoted in Aramaic and then translated into Greek. The probability is that Mark is reliant here, directly or indirectly, on a pre-Markan Aramaic source for the crucifixion narrative. The historical reliability or otherwise of this source is a separate issue.

Andrew Criddle

Vorkosigan

No, the probability is that the writer of Mark translated his Septaugint source into Aramaic. The probability that it comes from a source is much thinner than that the writer translated it.

Sometimes I think there should be a rule that no one who does HJ research should be permitted to get a PHD without having lived for five years in a polytheistic society where he has to speak a second language.

Vorkosigan

andrewcriddle

If this is Markan composition why does he not use the Hebrew of Psalm 22 ?
Mark's Jesus clearly knew the Hebrew Bible.

Andrew Criddle

Steven Carr

It is a separate issue, why did Ehrman claim it was not a separate issue and that if there is Aramaic in a Gospel, that is evidence for a historical Jesus?

Steven Carr

That's not even an argument.