If the synoptic gospels are three different translations of a common Hebrew or Aramaic source

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: If the synoptic gospels are three different translations of a common Hebrew or Aramaic source

Post by mlinssen »

You may enjoy the work of James David Audlin on the restoration of John. Closing in on 3,000 pages it is the work of a lifetime and I try to follow its development. He aims to publish this year and I hope he will

I've always found Mark to be rather clumsy with everything, and certainly unacquainted with Judean life in general. Can you give some examples of uncommon knowledge of certain aspects of Judean Life, especially around the Temple Apparatus?

There is a story behind Mark, and Matthew and Luke read from it, and add from it. But I don't see any reason to think it was written in Aramaic, as the three first gospels appear so very Greco-Roman in style, wording, literary set-up.
I know that there is supposed to be something in Aramaic as that would have been the daily language of Jesus, but isn't it odd that really none of it all is in anything else but Greek?
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: If the synoptic gospels are three different translations of a common Hebrew or Aramaic source

Post by neilgodfrey »

Irish1975 wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 9:26 am It’s such a bummer when the truth is not exciting.
I was hoping for a refresher on the basics underlying the current views, not an overturning of them. There was one detail in O'Neill's words that I have sometimes wondered about and seen various arguments proposed, but nothing more. I prefer calm, however dull, expositions to excitable flurries of protest.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: If the synoptic gospels are three different translations of a common Hebrew or Aramaic source

Post by neilgodfrey »

Irish1975 wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 9:26 amEach of the 4 Gospels had human authors motivated by 4 different human purposes that cannot be known from what little evidence we have. The catholic editor who sewed them together—very much not in the style of Ezra or whoever synthesized the Pentateuch—was motivated by some 5th motive, also unknowable. That’s the evidence.
Or rather,
Each of the 4 Gospels had human authors motivated by 4 different human purposes that [whose motivation/s] cannot be known [has/ve not by general agreement been determined] from what little evidence [data] we have.

The catholic editor [or editors] who sewed [ordered] them together—very much not in the style of Ezra or whoever synthesized the Pentateuch—was motivated by some 5th motive, [had a motivation] also unknowable. That’s the evidence [data].
rather more dull to read but with fewer embedded assumptions
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2099
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: If the synoptic gospels are three different translations of a common Hebrew or Aramaic source

Post by Charles Wilson »

Mark 1: 7 (RSV):

[7] And he preached, saying, "After me comes he who is mightier than I, the thong of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie.

What does this mean?

1 Chronicles 24: 1 - 2, 7, 14

[1] The divisions of the sons of Aaron were these. The sons of Aaron: Nadab, Abi'hu, Elea'zar, and Ith'amar.
[2] But Nadab and Abi'hu died before their father, and had no children, so Elea'zar and Ith'amar became the priests.
***
[7] The first lot fell to Jehoi'arib, the second to Jedai'ah
***
[14] the fifteenth to Bilgah, the sixteenth to Immer

Jehoiarib was "given" the Hasmoneans (Also claimed by Immer). See: https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3298-bilgah
Bilgah has committed an Offense against the Priesthood. Immer follows Bilgah. Hence, "After me comes he who is mightier than I..." As previously shown, "Immar" (Lamb) is the same word as "Immer" (16th Mishmarot Group on the 1 Chronicles 24 List.) See also Revelation 5: 6 (in Part):

[6] And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders, I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain

This Motif is all over the NT.
***
Go to Josephus, War..., 2, 1, 3 and Antiquities..., 17, 9, 3 where he tells of the Temple Slaughter of 4 BCE.
You may easily compute who was on Duty for the Passover and the Feast for 4 BCE: Bilgah and Immer. There are 3 days and 3 nights between the Passover and the Weekly Sabbath Rotation of Immer into Jerusalem.

This Story must be hidden so the corrupt High Priest Apparatus takes the brunt of criticism. When Herod dies, the populace demands a High Priest of "Greater Piety and Purity'.
Deflection achieved. This is now not the Story of Priestly Groups but of a Roman-Accepting savior-god.

Which is why I can get no closer to the Authorship than the following possibilities:

1. There was a Priest or small group of Priests who lived the Story and wrote it down. The Story is taken back to Rome for rewrite.
2. Same as above or, if written by a "Commoner", gets sent to Zakkai at Javneh for corrections.
3. Zakkai writes the Story with details that only a Priest would know. It is rewritten for the deification of Titus. The hand of Mucianus is seen here.
4. A Roman Political Control Officer such as Nicholas of Damascus, who was in Jerusalem for years, writes a (Fictional) Noir Story, in Greek, He knows many of the Word-Plays in the Proto-Version but not all (If Nicholas is Nic-o-demus, he does not understand a Semitic Idiom "You must be born again", possibly indicating someone else who followed Nick and added a pejorative Story about him)

There is another aspect (of several!) to this: As per Eisenman and Wise, the Mishmarot Cycle completes every 6 years. The calendar works beautifully here. There is a Duplicate Passover and Feast week, 12 years later (Again, you can verify this.). Jairus asks the Priest who was saved by Peter to return for one more call to try to evict the Romans et. al. 12 years later.

This is why there is no contradiction between the Synoptics and John. There were 2 "Crucifixions", one Symbolic and one actual (If the Story was a "True One"). These Stories have, in an act of Genius, been telescoped into one.

NT Priestly Stories? They're everywhere.

CW
Last edited by Charles Wilson on Fri Jun 11, 2021 8:32 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: If the synoptic gospels are three different translations of a common Hebrew or Aramaic source

Post by Stuart »

Well if it were true, then Psalms 110:2 would not have been incorrectly handled, as they would not have used the LXX.

There also would be a ton of phrases which would work as rhymes, meter, or puns in Hebrew/Aramaic but not work at all in Greek. Yet we see it the other way around. Even with Aramaic words transliterated, such as my favorite, (although pot gospel and probably a late) ἤτω ἀνάθεμα. Μαρανα θα from 1 Corinthians 16:22, the rhyme is in the Greek.

I'd love for somebody to refute this, and show me a bunch of examples of gospel phrases which are clunky in Greek but lyrical or make great puns in Hebrew. I'd love to practice saying a few of those and admitting I'm wrong. So go for it.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2099
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: If the synoptic gospels are three different translations of a common Hebrew or Aramaic source

Post by Charles Wilson »

http://www.peshitta.org/

Go to the Forum where there is enough material to look at before the afternoon Bowling League begins.

CW

PS: They're very serious over there.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: If the synoptic gospels are three different translations of a common Hebrew or Aramaic source

Post by neilgodfrey »

Stuart wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 4:57 pm There also would be a ton of phrases which would work as rhymes, meter, or puns in Hebrew/Aramaic but not work at all in Greek. Yet we see it the other way around.
On the other hand, there is some work completed by a French scholar that shows if one replaces much of the Greek text of Mark and Matthew with Hebrew/Aramaic then one does encounter a significant number of puns and various wordplays that do not appear in the Greek. I'm cautious with this "discovery" because I am not entirely sure of its validity. It's certainly intriguing, though. If there is anything to it, I am more inclined to suspect gospels being composed in Hebrew/Aramaic initially rather than copying a common source -- the theologies of each of our gospels appear to be too distinct to be explained by different translations.

But then we have the problem of total silence on such editions -- unless, as John2 pointed out, we turn to Eusebius's record of Papias.

But then on the other other hand, it would be nice to have earlier Heb/Aram versions filling in the gap between the first external attestation of the Greek language gospels and the attempt to link their origins to attempts to come to terms with events of 70. But wishful thinking is not typically a strong basis for an argument.
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: If the synoptic gospels are three different translations of a common Hebrew or Aramaic source

Post by Stuart »

neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 10:27 pm
Stuart wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 4:57 pm There also would be a ton of phrases which would work as rhymes, meter, or puns in Hebrew/Aramaic but not work at all in Greek. Yet we see it the other way around.
On the other hand, there is some work completed by a French scholar that shows if one replaces much of the Greek text of Mark and Matthew with Hebrew/Aramaic then one does encounter a significant number of puns and various wordplays that do not appear in the Greek. I'm cautious with this "discovery" because I am not entirely sure of its validity. It's certainly intriguing, though. If there is anything to it, I am more inclined to suspect gospels being composed in Hebrew/Aramaic initially rather than copying a common source -- the theologies of each of our gospels appear to be too distinct to be explained by different translations.

But then we have the problem of total silence on such editions -- unless, as John2 pointed out, we turn to Eusebius's record of Papias.

But then on the other other hand, it would be nice to have earlier Heb/Aram versions filling in the gap between the first external attestation of the Greek language gospels and the attempt to link their origins to attempts to come to terms with events of 70. But wishful thinking is not typically a strong basis for an argument.
I agree with you on the theologies being very different. In fact I think that sectarianism was the primary driving force behind the writing and rewriting of the gospels that got us to the four canonical gospels, and why they differ so much theologically.

We humans try very hard not to do hard work. And writing a scripture is hard work. If the existing scripture works perfectly well for your sect, such that only a some minor inconveniences exist which you can explain away with exegetical tricks and harmony, then you wont bother rewriting it and adding to it (the primary way the NT books evolved). But one sect after another: Marcionite, Matthean, Johannine, Markan (actually I think this one is a bit different cause for it's existence), Lukan (Catholicized Marcionite) and deutero Johannine (Catholicized John) each set out to correct the others, and present their version which worked far better for their sect to proselytize their version of Christ. None of them would have undertaken this competition if what was out there was usable as is for them.

Anywhere from a third to over half the gospels are best explained as the result of sectarian politics. IMO you pretty much have to go back to as good a reproduction of a triple tradition source (maybe also the common Matthew-Mark section as well, whether it's a separate document source or fell out of Marcion/Luke matters not, as it's early), and text the Hebrew/Aramaic vs the Greek to see which has more puns and rhymes.

You are probably fooling yourself when you examine the additional sectarian inspire sections and passages looking for Hebrew/Aramaic. But then again that could be a good baseline; as that will tell you what the random rate of rhyme and pun ate when translated in to Hebrew/Aramaic, which you can compare the the triple tradition sections using it as a baseline to determine if their is a significant difference or not in the rate of appearance of puns and rhymes. (There you go a suggested text case)
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: If the synoptic gospels are three different translations of a common Hebrew or Aramaic source

Post by neilgodfrey »

Stuart wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 12:56 am
neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 10:27 pm
Stuart wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 4:57 pm There also would be a ton of phrases which would work as rhymes, meter, or puns in Hebrew/Aramaic but not work at all in Greek. Yet we see it the other way around.
On the other hand, there is some work completed by a French scholar that shows if one replaces much of the Greek text of Mark and Matthew with Hebrew/Aramaic then one does encounter a significant number of puns and various wordplays that do not appear in the Greek. I'm cautious with this "discovery" because I am not entirely sure of its validity. It's certainly intriguing, though. If there is anything to it, I am more inclined to suspect gospels being composed in Hebrew/Aramaic initially rather than copying a common source -- the theologies of each of our gospels appear to be too distinct to be explained by different translations.

But then we have the problem of total silence on such editions -- unless, as John2 pointed out, we turn to Eusebius's record of Papias.

But then on the other other hand, it would be nice to have earlier Heb/Aram versions filling in the gap between the first external attestation of the Greek language gospels and the attempt to link their origins to attempts to come to terms with events of 70. But wishful thinking is not typically a strong basis for an argument.
I agree with you on the theologies being very different. In fact I think that sectarianism was the primary driving force behind the writing and rewriting of the gospels that got us to the four canonical gospels, and why they differ so much theologically.

We humans try very hard not to do hard work. And writing a scripture is hard work. If the existing scripture works perfectly well for your sect, such that only a some minor inconveniences exist which you can explain away with exegetical tricks and harmony, then you wont bother rewriting it and adding to it (the primary way the NT books evolved). But one sect after another: Marcionite, Matthean, Johannine, Markan (actually I think this one is a bit different cause for it's existence), Lukan (Catholicized Marcionite) and deutero Johannine (Catholicized John) each set out to correct the others, and present their version which worked far better for their sect to proselytize their version of Christ. None of them would have undertaken this competition if what was out there was usable as is for them. . . . . .
That's all reasonable and I don't doubt it. But to my mind it leaves some questions open and for that reason I think there is more to the story, critical phases not yet understood. Terms like Marcionite, Matthean, etc are latecomers. What went before?
Diogenes the Cynic
Posts: 502
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 10:59 pm
Location: Twin Cities, MN

Re: If the synoptic gospels are three different translations of a common Hebrew or Aramaic source

Post by Diogenes the Cynic »

John2 wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 3:15 pm If we go by what church writers say, Mark was written by a follower of Peter, and I assume Peter spoke Hebrew (and/or Aramaic) and needed help with Greek (as per 1 Peter 5:12, which I think is genuine, and as Josephus did), and Mark's gospel would effectively be a translation of a Hebrew or Aramaic source (i.e., Peter's teachings about Jesus).

And if we take Papias seriously, then there was (in my view) a Hebrew version of Matthew (aka the gospel of the Hebrews) with more than one translation, and I think one of these translations was edited and combined with Mark and became the NT Matthew, and one (if not the same one) was edited and combined with Mark and became a source for the Ebionite Matthew and Marcion's gospel and Luke (which would explain why those gospels resemble each other to a certain extent).
Papias cannot have been talking about any of the Synoptic Gopels. His descriptions do not match them in any way, and none of the Gospels had those names attached to them before Irenaeus gave them the names in 180 CE based on nothing but those descriptions from Papias which do not quote from either Matthew or Mark and cannot be talking about them.

Mark is not a memoir of Peter and doesn't claim to be. Matthew is not a Hebrew sayings gospel.

The Gospels don't just "resemble each other, they are verbatim copies of the same texts.

Doesn't anyone know basic New Testament scholarship anymore?

FYI, no serious scholar thinks any of the Gospels were composed in anything but Greek.
Post Reply