Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

JoeWallack wrote:In the offending verse above "sign" is neuter, which it normally is, yes? So you have a neuter conjunction (which is) with one equivalent with a gender preceding and the equivalent on the other side is neuter. So you have a neuter equivalent for a word that is normally neuter preceded by a neuter conjunction. Is that a violation of Koine Greek grammar?

The word for "sign" is a neuter noun, yes. A relative pronoun ought to agree with its antecedent (in this case, the masculine "greeting") in gender and number and fit into its own clause by its case. Sometimes a relative pronoun's case will be attracted to the case of its antecedent instead of fitting into its own clause. But that is not relevant here, and I am not familiar with a kind of attraction in which the gender of the relative pronoun is attracted to the gender of some word in the relative clause.

So I think we are back to what spin said. The phrase is idiomatic, and does not have to agree with anything in particular.

Ben.

Ben C. Smith wrote:I do not know much of any Aramaic, but I do know a bit of Hebrew. So here goes....

Boanerges. I do not buy the explanation involving a Greek source. Both the vowels of boana- and the choice of -rges for "thunder" are things to be explained, but I have to think that the "b" and the "n" do come from the plural of the Aramaic or Hebrew for "son". But I readily admit that this problem is one that has not yet been completely solved.

Talitha koum is, I think, pure Aramaic, no Hebrew involved.

Corban (קָרְבָּן) is definitely Hebrew, used all over Leviticus (for example). I do not know whether it is also Aramaic.

Ephphatha is, I think, pure Aramaic, no Hebrew involved.

Golgotha seems like it matches up better with the Aramaic, but the Hebrew word for skull (גֻּלְגֹּ֛לֶת) is obviously cognate.

Ben.

Thanks. I've made some corrections (removed the "Greek" in 3:17 not completely, this underlines the problem of the word)

Jewish Aramaic often times takes over words from Biblical Hebrew so the fact a word is rooted in the latter doesn't preclude the source being written in the former.

'Corban' is an example of an appropriation of Biblical Hebrew in Jewish Aramaic (Sukkot 45a etc).

Mark's (alleged) source is Aramaic not Hebrew.

For those interested Jerome in his Commentary on Daniel - "Also in the Gospel, the former Simon received the name of Peter (Mark 3), and the sons of Zebedee are called "sons of thunder"----which is not boanerges, as most people suppose, but is more correctly read benereem (= בני רעם)." Apparently this comes from his 'Gospel according to the Hebrews.'

Ben C. Smith wrote:A relative pronoun ought to agree with its antecedent (in this case, the masculine "greeting") in gender

JW:
Bit of interceding verbage in between these here but okay, thanks. My own theory for "Mark's" use of the Aramaic source is to draw attention to words/phrases that connect in some way to the supposed resurrection (most of the time). Stylistically they have special meaning and are therefore given in the star's supposed actual words or at least language. Translation = "Mark" was a sophisticated author writing for a sophisticated audience. Rome is a good general guess for Provenance, not just because of the Latin influence, but because at the time that is where the top authors were. Was there anyone in Israel at the time capable of such a stylistic work of art?


Joseph

The New Porphyry Blog

This list is what makes me think that the collector(s) of the Marcan traditions didn't really have much of a clue about Semitic languages!

Ben C. Smith wrote:I do not know much of any Aramaic, but I do know a bit of Hebrew. So here goes....

Boanerges. I do not buy the explanation involving a Greek source. Both the vowels of boana- and the choice of -rges for "thunder" are things to be explained, but I have to think that the "b" and the "n" do come from the plural of the Aramaic or Hebrew for "son". But I readily admit that this problem is one that has not yet been completely solved.

Yes, how the writer could knowingly represent something that is meaningful to him as Boanerges, with that diphthong is beyond me. It's the sort of distortion you'd expect from a story containing a foreign word no-one knows which gets passed on a few times.

Talitha koum is, I think, pure Aramaic, no Hebrew involved.

The translation is the killer: "little girl, I say to you, rise". That insertion in the middle, "I say to you" (soi legw), how can the writer knowing the Semitic original put it in there?

Corban (קָרְבָּן) is definitely Hebrew, used all over Leviticus (for example). I do not know whether it is also Aramaic.

Good Hebrew technical term, so no complaint.

Ephphatha is, I think, pure Aramaic, no Hebrew involved.

Again had the writer spoken the original language, he'd have written something like ethphatha, as an imperative (hithpael). Presumably too subtle for a non-native speaker to get right. Of course scholars conjecture an assimilation of the theta to the phi based purely on the appearance in Mk.

Golgotha seems like it matches up better with the Aramaic, but the Hebrew word for skull (גֻּלְגֹּ֛לֶת) is obviously cognate.

No comment on this place name.

I should add the elwi elwi lema sabaxQani to the list as noteworthy of comment. The writer wants us to believe that locals in the vicinity of the crucifixion of Jesus could confuse elwi, presumably Aram )LWHY, for Hebr )LYHW (Eliyahu) or )LYH (Eliyah) or Aram )LY) (Elia, from the Peshitta), ie Elijah. With the prominence of the omega = waw in the word supposed to be confused, that's preposterous, though artful narrative.

It is precisely the examples of Aramaic which should make us doubt Marcan knowledge of a Semitic language.

spin wrote:It is precisely the examples of Aramaic which should make us doubt Marcan knowledge of a Semitic language.

I have no specific argument with anything that you wrote. I was merely trying to help out in distinguishing when the word or phrase being conjured to mind was Hebrew and when it was Aramaic. But, as Stephen notes, the Hebrew loan words in Aramaic probably render that point moot anyway.

Ben C. Smith wrote:

spin wrote:It is precisely the examples of Aramaic which should make us doubt Marcan knowledge of a Semitic language.

I have no specific argument with anything that you wrote. I was merely trying to help out in distinguishing when the word or phrase being conjured to mind was Hebrew and when it was Aramaic. But, as Stephen notes, the Hebrew loan words in Aramaic probably render that point moot anyway.

Sorry, I was merely using the list as convenient. I was making no aspersions in your direction, Ben.

I think the only certain Hebrew word is the technical term corban which is related to cultus and which any practising Jew, speaking any language in Judea, should know.