slept2long

I wondered this after asking about a repition of verses in the Bible. Someone in another forum then mentioned that some words are translated differently in differnent places in the Bible.

I was also wondering if someone could comment on what I think may be an example of a translational error. Supposedly in the original text(I think it was hebrew but I am not certain) the term used by Joseph to request Jesus' body from Pilate meant a living body in Hebrew, I keep thinking it was soma, and that the word used by Pilate to identify the body indicated it was dead. In the english text I think it refers to the body as that of a dead man in both instances.

Peter Kirby

The original text of the four gospels is judged to be Greek, not Hebrew. The word SWMA (soma) in particular is Greek. The word corresponds to the English 'body', although I have not investigated whether the word might be applied to a dead body.

I have not looked up the Greek of the verses consisting of Joseph's request for the body yet, so I cannot confirm whether SWMA or some other word is used in the Greek manuscripts.

best,
Peter Kirby

CX

As Peter pointed out the NT was written in Greek not Hebrew. In the NT there are two words used to refer to the body of Jesus. The first word is PTWMA which literally means "corpse". The second is the one Peter already pointed out SWMA which means "body". SWMA can refer either to a living body or a dead one whereas PTWMA refers only to a dead body.

The confusion you might be addressing is that in GMk 15:45 the evangelist uses the word PTWMA to refer to the body of Jesus. This is a hapax legomena in GMk and is used only in 15:45 and earlier in 6:29. Curiously AMk uses the word SWMA just two verses before 15:45 in verse 15:43. None of the other evangelists uses the word PTWMA when referring to the incident with Joseph of Arimathea. (cf. GJn 19:38; GLk 23:52,55; GMt 27:58,59). In every instance the other 3 use the word SWMA.

This is not a translational error so much as a reflection of AMk's inelegant use of Greek. In the case of GMt and GLk both authors redacted AMk's story and changed the vulgar word "corpse" (PTWMA) to "body" SWMA. Both authors repeatedly "clean up" AMk's vulgar usage when reworking the Marcan source. An additional problem, which further illustrates AMk's poor understanding of Greek is that the primary meaning of PTWMA is fall or downfall. It is used metaphorically to refer to a failure, a defeat, an error or a lapse into sin. So aside from the fact that referring to the body of the Messiah as a "corpse" is unpleasant and slightly blasphemous there is also the embarassing connotation of the primary meaning of the word PTWMA. The NIV translates both words correctly.

Amen-Moses

OR this just shows that the author of GMark did know his Greek and is telling a story, i.e JofA is using the less specific term because he may not actually know whether JC is dead or not, then Pilate uses the "nasty" term (being a "nasty" chap and all) once the death has been confirmed?

Amen-Moses

CX

I don't think so. In the first case it is the evangelist himself, speaking as the narrator, who uses both words not Pilate and Joseph. Secondly the evangelist uses the same word in 6:29 in reference to John the Baptist. Given the other indications from the Gospel that AMk had a relatively pedestrian command of Greek which AMt and ALk repeatedly redact it seems more likely that he thought PTWMA was a simple synonym for SWMA and was unware of the words primary meaning.

Yuri Kuchinsky

I'd just like to make a few general comments here. First of all, often people think that they are arguing about the translations, but in fact they're talking about the underlying Greek texts. KJV debate is the case in point. Most people think the debate about KJV is a debate about translations. But this is actually not the main point. The main point is that the Greek text that served as the basis for KJV was very different, compared to the Alexandrian text that is so very fashionable nowadays. Although, in my view, both these two text-types are late and corrupt, the KJV type of a Greek text (Byzantine text) is actually far superior to the Alexandrian text.

And also, I noted that a contributor was talking about GMark as if it's known for sure that it was the earliest gospel. But in fact, this should be seen as completely speculative. AFAIK, there's no good evidence at all that GMark was the earliest gospel.

What I'm saying is that all 4 canonical gospels, as we have them now, are late and corrupt (I date them all to ca 150-250 CE). Any given passage in GMark is just as likely to be late as early, and maybe even more likely to be late than early. This is the realistic view.

All the best,

Yuri.

CX

Then start a new thread. The current topic of this thread is the difference between PTWMA and SWMA and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Byzantine vs. Alexandrian vs. Western debate nor the KJV versus everyone debate nor anything else you've touched on. Furthermore I'd suggest you post a new thread and perhaps support the assertions you're making here since it contradicts the consensus view of scholars.

Sojourner553

Look at Section III, Chapter 3...

for a discussion of how some of the oldest Bibles were located and found to differ with each other on key verses.


<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html</a>

Yuri Kuchinsky

Dear CX,

Actually, some Western texts, including the Old Syriac, use PTWMA in Mk 15:43 also. So this makes me think that PTWMA was the original Markan wording in 15:43.

Yes, this is correct. The case is very doubtful, because the meaning of these two words is so similar. But in general, my assumption would be that both Lk and Mt have the original wording here. (And also SWMA is used by Jn 19:38 in its parallel passage.) Then, very early on, Mk re-edited the original source document here, and inserted PTWMA in both 15:43 and 15:45. And later, this word was replaced again in Mk 15:43 in the majority of MSS.

But, as I say, the case is very doubtful, and doesn't really provide any clear indication of dependence any way.

As to the Byzantine vs. Alexandrian vs. Western debate, or the KJV versus everyone debate, I might just start a new thread on this some time in the future -- just like you suggest. And I can assure you that I'm well aware that my views about all this do contradict "the consensus view of scholars". In fact, that's the whole point!

I've spend many years studying this textual area, and I've discovered that our mainstream textual scholars have way too many skeletons in their closets that they don't want to tumble out. In my view, Western text is where it's at. And there are actually some professional textual scholars who agree with me!

Best,

Yuri.

CX

Which ones? It is certainly plausible, but the equally plausible answer is that the SWMA in 15:43 was "corrected". I can see no way to resolve this either way.

Not really. PTWMA is not usually used to refer to a body, but is used, as I said, metaphorically to refer to a "fall". This seems to me to be a clear case of AMk misusing Greek.


This is probably a topic for another thread, but it seems to me your "solution" raises more questions than it solves and adds a degree of complexity which is not justified. Why would AMk change the word SWMA to PTWMA if he is using GMt/GLk as a source? Are you a proponent of the Greisbach Hypothesis? How do you resolve the innumerable and weighty difficulties of positing that GMk conflates GMt & GLk or are you suggesting some other possibility?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't the "whole point" be to arrive at the most plausible and rational conclusion?

Then I suggest you start a new thread outlining your case. This smacks to me of another "ivory tower conspiracy" which would be a very hard case to prove indeed.