Mark's Aramaic

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
gmx
Posts: 206
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:35 am

Mark's Aramaic

Post by gmx » Thu Apr 14, 2016 5:07 am

Ben C Smith wrote:But the issue in Mark 15.16 is a bit different. It is not just a matter of Mark having used a Latin loan word. In this case, he has used a fairly ordinary Greek word and glossed it with a Latin loan word. No one blinks when Mark glosses Aramaic or Hebrew terms with Greek translations, as in Mark 3.17 (Boanerges); 5.41 (talitha kum); 7.11 (korban); 7.34 (ephphatha); 14.36 (abba) 15.22 (Golgotha); 15.34 (Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani). (Or, rather, if one blinks, it is because nobody is quite certain what Boanerges really means.) Everyone seems to understand what is (at least purportedly) going on: a story which originally transpired and was told in Aramaic or Hebrew is being told in Greek now; a few Aramaic or Hebrew words are being retained in order to convey a feel for the local color (at least), but they are being glossed with Greek terms to make sure that the readers understand what is going on.
One of Farmer's arguments for Markan posteriority is his many latinisms, at the same time noting that he always translates Aramaic words for the reader. But I'm still at a loss as to Mark's use of Aramaic words. For example
  • how the witnesses misunderstand Jesus in 15:34
  • Boanerges is apparent gobbledygook
What of the other Aramaic words? Are they clear / accurate in terms of what Mark translates them to? What does his use of Aramaic really mean?

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 4169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Mark's Aramaic

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Apr 14, 2016 6:14 am

gmx wrote:
Ben C Smith wrote:But the issue in Mark 15.16 is a bit different. It is not just a matter of Mark having used a Latin loan word. In this case, he has used a fairly ordinary Greek word and glossed it with a Latin loan word. No one blinks when Mark glosses Aramaic or Hebrew terms with Greek translations, as in Mark 3.17 (Boanerges); 5.41 (talitha kum); 7.11 (korban); 7.34 (ephphatha); 14.36 (abba) 15.22 (Golgotha); 15.34 (Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani). (Or, rather, if one blinks, it is because nobody is quite certain what Boanerges really means.) Everyone seems to understand what is (at least purportedly) going on: a story which originally transpired and was told in Aramaic or Hebrew is being told in Greek now; a few Aramaic or Hebrew words are being retained in order to convey a feel for the local color (at least), but they are being glossed with Greek terms to make sure that the readers understand what is going on.
One of Farmer's arguments for Markan posteriority is his many latinisms, at the same time noting that he always translates Aramaic words for the reader. But I'm still at a loss as to Mark's use of Aramaic words. For example
  • how the witnesses misunderstand Jesus in 15:34
Yes, that is a puzzle.
[*]Boanerges is apparent gobbledygook[/list]
"Gobbledygook" is probably a bit too far. But it is not a clean transliteration, no.
What of the other Aramaic words? Are they clear / accurate in terms of what Mark translates them to? What does his use of Aramaic really mean?
Kunigunde has a thread listing the Marcan translations: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2078.

On that thread I have a summary of the languages being translated: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2078#p46124.

And spin has a summary of how close the translations or transliterations are: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2078&start=10#p46270.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 8020
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Mark's Aramaic

Post by Secret Alias » Thu Apr 14, 2016 6:21 am

Protestants, imagining the gospel to emerge from a "rustic report" about a man named Jesus float an Aramaic ur-text. But if Jesus was a divine being text was likely written in Hwbrew, the language of angels
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

outhouse
Posts: 3525
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Mark's Aramaic

Post by outhouse » Thu Apr 14, 2016 9:17 am

Knowing your being facetious
Secret Alias wrote: But if Jesus was a divine being text was likely written in Hwbrew, the language of angels
Nonsense.

Hellenist had no reason to write in Hebrew, they already rewrote the bible in Koine because Hebrew was dead.

Protestants, imagining the gospel to emerge from a "rustic report" about a man named Jesus float an Aramaic ur-text.
Reaching.

No one I follow uses or even proposes Aramaic ur-text.
Last edited by outhouse on Thu Apr 14, 2016 9:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

outhouse
Posts: 3525
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Mark's Aramaic

Post by outhouse » Thu Apr 14, 2016 9:23 am

gmx wrote: What does his use of Aramaic really mean?
It means the traditions have gone through a cross cultural evolution as Hellenist in the Diaspora borrowed traditions from a geographic location where Aramaic was one of the primary languages.

Are they clear / accurate in terms of what Mark translates them to?


For the most part we are lookin at close translations as he would have known generally speaking, with the caveat that the problem is in modern studies not being able to translate context of both languages in many places.

gmx
Posts: 206
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:35 am

Re: Mark's Aramaic

Post by gmx » Fri Apr 15, 2016 4:59 am

outhouse wrote:It means the traditions have gone through a cross cultural evolution as Hellenist in the Diaspora borrowed traditions from a geographic location where Aramaic was one of the primary languages.
Thanks outhouse...

But can we be more specific that "the traditions". What parts of the Jesus story could have circulated independently, and what was the common core of the story that captivated all these distributed centers of innovation off that core? It seems a key question to me? What geographically-pinned chronology readily yields to that outline?

gmx
Posts: 206
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:35 am

Re: Mark's Aramaic

Post by gmx » Fri Apr 15, 2016 5:06 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
gmx wrote:One of Farmer's arguments for Markan posteriority is his many latinisms, at the same time noting that he always translates Aramaic words for the reader. But I'm still at a loss as to Mark's use of Aramaic words. For example
  • how the witnesses misunderstand Jesus in 15:34
Yes, that is a puzzle.
Ben, can you recommend a reference for a good discussion of that puzzle? I have looked at some of the threads you referenced and paraphrasing some comments there, it was said to be fanciful in the extreme that native Hebrew / Aramaic speakers would mistake the Markan quotation at 15:34 as pertaining to Elijah. The strong suggestion being that it is completely fictional, and therefore in my opinion, key to the discussion as to the time and place of origin of Mark's gospel.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 4169
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Mark's Aramaic

Post by Ben C. Smith » Fri Apr 15, 2016 5:25 am

gmx wrote:
Ben C. Smith wrote:
gmx wrote:One of Farmer's arguments for Markan posteriority is his many latinisms, at the same time noting that he always translates Aramaic words for the reader. But I'm still at a loss as to Mark's use of Aramaic words. For example
  • how the witnesses misunderstand Jesus in 15:34
Yes, that is a puzzle.
Ben, can you recommend a reference for a good discussion of that puzzle? I have looked at some of the threads you referenced and paraphrasing some comments there, it was said to be fanciful in the extreme that native Hebrew / Aramaic speakers would mistake the Markan quotation at 15:34 as pertaining to Elijah. The strong suggestion being that it is completely fictional, and therefore in my opinion, key to the discussion as to the time and place of origin of Mark's gospel.
I do not have any specific book or article in mind, no. What I know about the topic has been assembled from many sources. I would recommend starting with solid commentaries on the gospel of Mark. I believe Brown discusses Mark 15.34-36 in Death of the Messiah. Michael Turton is an amateur, albeit a knowledgeable one, but his Historical Commentary on Mark is online, free of charge, and drawn mainly from scholarly sources: http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark_index.html.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

outhouse
Posts: 3525
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Mark's Aramaic

Post by outhouse » Fri Apr 15, 2016 8:32 am

gmx wrote: What parts of the Jesus story could have circulated independently,

.


I don't think we have anything independent due to the nature of the information being spread and shared at Passover. Plus there was never a center place of origin for any aspect of he movement less the very small amount of historical core related to Israel.

You also have the fact this movement was the divorce of cultural Judaism and the adoption of a perverted Hellenistic Judaism that was in fact, very diverse in its own nature.


and what was the common core of the story that captivated all these distributed centers of innovation off that core?


The perceived sacrifice of a crucified Galilean by Hellenistic Proselytes in the Diaspora who made a deity out of a man no cultural Jew would have ever done due to its blasphemous nature.
It seems a key question to me? What geographically-pinned chronology readily yields to that outline?

There is no one place we can pin anything to.

It Is my opinion, even if the man is not historical the standing temple and Passover traditions with half a million attendants yearly, of which many from the Diaspora found value in the one god concept and core values of Judaism but did not want to be or follow cultural Judaism. Euhemerism started and we see developing theology based on the text of Judaism that welded the martyred Galilean to the previous text. We see the Apotheosis competing with the Emperor who was the first "son of god"

Basically we see Hellenistic cultures in the Diaspora who wanted monotheism and were tired of worshipping the Emperor a corrupt politician as "son of god" and did not want to be identified with trouble making rebellious Israelite Jews, so you have Hellenism welded to Judaism

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ben C. Smith, Charles Wilson, Giuseppe, Google [Bot], iskander, Jax, Joseph D. L., lsayre, Peter Kirby, Secret Alias, Yahoo [Bot] and 78 guests