dog-on

Of course, Ehrman says:

judge

Earl has some strange fantasy about a man in cheerleader uniform is the only thing i can garner from this. eeew

tanya

I disagree.

If it were Aramaic fiction, it certainly would not have required a pre-Markan source.

What is this hullabaloo about, anyway?

To me, this whining is reminiscent of Rondo alla ingharese quasi un capriccio in G major, Op. 129.

Holy Cow, Diogenes, what are you writing about here?

Eight tiny expressions in the whole of Mark, written in Aramaic? Have I missed something? What is this nonsense about "pre-Markan" source? Let's look at these eight instances where Aramaic is found in the gospel of Mark.

1. Mark 3:17

και ιακωβον τον[*] του ζεβεδαιου και ιωαννην τον αδελφον του ιακωβου και επεθηκεν αυτοις ονοματα βοανεργες ο εστιν υιοι βροντης
[*]
oops:
Did Mark forget υιου ?

English: And Jacob the[*] of Zebedee and John the brother of Jacob and he added to them name βοανεργες which is sons of βροντης

Big deal. Mark used Aramaic for the word for thunder, and therefore, there must have been a Pre-Markan source for the story????? Absurd.

The other seven instances are equally banal.

Mark 5:41 Talitha kum It even sounds better than "get up".
Mark 7:34 You say Ephphatha, I say abracadabra. (haha, it is actually another Aramaic phrase, avra kehdabra)
Mark 11:9 Hosannah, Oh, say can you see...
Mark 14:36 Abba, haha, ok, no Swedish jokes
Mark 14:32 Gethsemane Get out of Dodge, now....
Mark 15:22 Golgotha place of the skull, yes, looking forward to Hollywood
Mark 15:34 Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani ... Oh, now I understand, of course, there must have been an earlier PreMarkan source, written in Aramaic. How could the dumb Greeks have had any idea how to write so many important theological terms, in Aramaic, were it not for the existence of a Pre-Markan Aramaic source?

Please give me a break, Diogenes. Your comment truly is remarkably LAME.

Here, try this, you will like it: No, it is not a Swedish massage, nor an Icelandic sauna, but it is the next best thing:

David Mitchell has written a book, in English, with a main character, (living in Japan in the 18th century,) of Dutch ancestry, and with MANY words and phrases, embedded in the text, in Netherlandic, untranslated into English--far more than just eight trivial examples.

Amazing.

la70119

Even more so when the culture the oral tradition came from was utterly demolished, like the pre-70 CE Palestine Jewish culture essentially was by the Romans.

spin

I don't have a problem with the notion that Jesus can communicate with Paul after god revealed him to Paul. The important issue for me is the use of κυριος terminology. I explained it in my first post here to you:

[T2]It is only when κυριος, in its non-titular form functioning in lieu of a name, leaves the Jewish context that it is used for Jesus. This is aided by the fact that Jesus had already been referred to by the title of lord (the lord Jesus, etc). The few uses of the non-titular κυριος for Jesus in Paul are indications of interpolation (1 Cor 6:14, 11:23-27).[/T2]
When the scholars talk of "words of the lord", they seem to be anachronistic in the non-titular use of κυριος for Jesus. Who, thinking about the linguistic issue of using the one term (κυριος) for two different referents indifferently, wouldn't find that confusing--if not for the fact that we today have been taught to accept it as has everyone since christianity left its Jewish rhetoric? Paul's literary heritage was diaspora Jewish and the non-titular κυριος for Jesus is inappropriate to that heritage: god is one. God does things, he may do them through Jesus, but for Paul it is god doing the doing.

1 Cor. 11:23-27, as I've indicated, is to me an interpolation, which ruins the discourse of Paul's haber meal amongst the Corinthians. It uses the Lucan last supper material 22:19-20, decontextualizing it from the disciples so it could be used in the church. Certainly not Pauline in nature or purpose (and having dealt with the passage at length, I can expand). This removes one of the "words of the lord".

1 Cor. 7:10, really, what makes anyone think that this reference is to Jesus? It's just interference from the later extension of κυριος. God can be seen giving the divorce command in Mal 2:14-16, so why isn't "the lord" in 7:10 god, as one would expect from the Jewish understanding?

9:14, there is little outside help to decide the referent of "the lord" in this verse, but I'd ask why read it as from anyone but the Jewish referent of "the lord"?

I can't see what you are referring to in 1 Thes 4. Who the lord is in "the coming of the lord" in v.15 is clear from the previous verse, god. Is it v.2, "For you know what commandments we gave you through the lord Jesus"? I'm really unclear about "through the lord Jesus", δια του κυριου ιησου. Sometimes it's transparent, as in Rom 5:1, but at other times not, as in 5:11. And Rom 15:30 seems similar to 1 Thes 4:2, "I appeal to you... through our lord Jesus", but what is its significance?

It may easily be that Paul believed he received knowledge from Jesus. It is not an issue to me. He also seems to have had communication with god. What is at issue is the promiscuous use of the non-titular κυριος for Jesus, probably now found in Paul because of later christian doctrinal developments. Where once the non-titular κυριος was reserved for god, after the time of Mk & Mt it started to gain usage for Jesus, as seen in Lk.

spin

No. τον functions as a demonstrative pronoun and the Lucan genealogy if full of του + father's name with no mention of υιος. So ιακωβον τον του ζεβεδαιου just says "James (that or the one of Zebedaiah)".

spin

Yep, this is the thing about the Marcan Aramaisms. There are almost no important things said in Aramaic to justify their reproduction in the gospel and if the collector seriously knew Aramaic, would he not have chosen something a little more significant? I've referred to them all as "abracadabra" words, the sort of thing a storyteller uses to add color to the tale.

Diogenes the Cynic

No, because it hadn't happened yet.

Steven Carr

So Paul never referred to anything he believed would happen in the future, even if his Lord and Saviour had prophesied it?

Is this the new claim being made? New rationalisations pop up to replace the old ones.

thentian

Did Paul ever refer to anything Jesus said to his disciples at all? It always seemed to me that he made up his own theology, with little or no reference to the "teachings of Jesus" (whatever they were).