FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-27-2008, 11:54 AM   #11
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,443
Default

The Bartimaeus-Timotheus connection is interesting--may be another reference to Paul--maybe Timothy was a pre-Christian (or pre-Pauline) apostle for some salvific teaching or other, and this is supposed to link Paul to that--so Bartimaeus represents Paul's conversion from that to the Jesus group.

I think probably Bartimaeus is supposed to represent a historical personage (who probably was not named "Bartimaeus"), but it's hard to say.

I should also note at this point that Paul's sight does get healed by a specific person in Acts, namely: Ananias of "Damascus". Make of that what you will.
the_cave is offline  
Old 05-27-2008, 04:55 PM   #12
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 8,674
Default

What I find interesting about Bartimaeus is that the use of this name fits a potential pattern with the author's use of Barabbas as well, in both cases the names being symbolic.
Malachi151 is offline  
Old 05-28-2008, 06:43 AM   #13
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 11,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle View Post
JoeWallack made a somewhat similar point but IMO IF the name is meant symbolically, the symbolism comes from the point that Timaeus in Aramaic means something like poverty or uncleanness whereas in Greek it means something like honour.
Certainly that's possible. But is there any good reason to believe that the author of Mark wrote originally in Aramaic? I know that's church tradition, but is there anything of substance behind it?
spamandham is offline  
Old 05-28-2008, 08:38 AM   #14
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spamandham View Post
Certainly that's possible. But is there any good reason to believe that the author of Mark wrote originally in Aramaic? I know that's church tradition, but is there anything of substance behind it?
It isn't necessary for Andrew's point. All that is needed is the assumption (IIUC, it is a reasonable one) that his readers knew both languages in order to understand the double meaning. The text could still be written entirely in Greek.
Amaleq13 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:26 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.