andrewcriddle

To spell out the argument:
a/ It would be plausible within the Markan narrative for the dying Jesus to quote from his sacred text in the original language.
b/ It would have been quite practicable for Mark to look up the pre-existing Hebrew text of the Psalm, rather than go to the bother of back translating from Greek into Aramaic.
c/ Therefore the fact that Mark uses an Aramaic version of the Psalm makes it likely that he is using sources rather than free composition.

Andrew Criddle

Vorkosigan

Andrew,

the Aramaic is there. The simplest explanation that accounts for all the facts is that the writer translated it (or had someone translate it). Any explanation that says it comes from a chain of transmission has to then supply that chain -- for which there is zero evidence. Meanwhile the death-cry fits the project we already know the writer is engaged in -- paralleling Ps 22(21).

Which is more probable -- that the writer of Mark has translated the Psalm 22:2 to fit some project of his own (in this case linking Jesus to Elijah just as he has the rest of the gospel) or that the community has faithfully transmitted forward the death-cry over four decades? And if that detail was transmitted, why not transmit the whole scene so that the writer of Mark could use it. Instead he built the scene out of Ps 22 and the death-cry fits that parallel construction. The death cry completes a long literary construction, including a massive recursive structure and paralleling of the conventions of the hellenistic romances.

There are any number of possible reasons why he didn't use Hebrew. Mark is to be read -- perhaps he felt the Aramaic was more accessible to hearers than Hebrew. Perhaps he didn't feel competent to present Hebrew. Perhaps no Hebrew speaker was available to translate. Who knows?

Vorkosigan

Steven Carr

It would also be quite plausible for 'Mark' to have his Jesus speak in his mother tongue.

In fact, it is more likely that Mark has his Jesus speak in his mother tongue , rather than in the Hebrew of 1000 years before Jesus was born. (if that is when Mark believed Psam 22 was written)

andrewcriddle

Many mythicist arguments have Christianity originating among the Greek speaking Diaspora and later inventing roots in Palestinian Judaism.

If there are Aramaic sources underlying Mark's Gospel then this is good evidence that Christianity genuinely goes back to origins in Palestinian Judaism.

In principle one could have a mythical origin for Christianity among Palestinian Jews but few modern mythicists seem to take that route.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

FWIW Eli Eli the Hebrew version as found in Matthew does a better job of linking Jesus to Elijah than does Eoli Eloi the Aramaic version found in Mark. (There are textual issues here but IMO the text is reasonably firm.)

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

If you are assuming that Hebrew in the time of Jesus was a dead language used for liturgy and scholarship, (like Latin in the Roman Catholic church before Vatican II), then I think you are mistaken.

Spoken Hebrew still survived in Judea, though probably not in the Galilee.

Andrew Criddle

Steven Carr

But we don't have a single Aramaic document from the 1st century AD.

And why does Mark have Latinisms? Presumably Christianity must have originated in Rome.

Steven Carr

Are you saying you find it implausible that Jesus would speak in his mother tongue?

andrewcriddle

Traditionally Mark's Gospel was written in Rome.

The claimed Latinisms in Mark may be evidence that Mark spoke Latin but not IMO that he used Latin sources.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

No, it is prima-facie plausible that Jesus would use either Aramaic or Hebrew.

The question is, if Mark is composing from scratch, why does he not use the standard Hebrew text of the Psalm rather than do a back translation from Greek into Aramaic ?

Andrew Criddle