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.
Post Reply
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 3878
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

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

Post by neilgodfrey »

In any one paragraph of the Synoptic Gospels where common material is being presented, there are literally hundreds of differences between the three texts, if one takes account of the textual variants as well as the differences between our edited versions of the Greek. If Matthew and Luke were editing our Greek Mark, or if Mark was epitomising our Greek Matthew and Luke, we would have to explain why the later editor made each of the hundreds of small alterations. What labour. If, however, we have three different translations of a common Hebrew or Aramaic source, each of which has been subject to the normal process of being passed on with the addition of new material, perhaps, and with the ever-present possibility of scribal corruption, our task of interpretation is at once both more interesting and more plausible.

-- O’Neill, J.C. “The Irresponsibility of New Testament Scholarship in the Twentieth Century.” New Blackfriars 81, no. 948 (2000): 67 -- http://www.jstor.org/stable/43250349
Discuss
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 481
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am
Contact:

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

Post by Irish1975 »

delete
Last edited by Irish1975 on Fri Jun 11, 2021 4:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 3878
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: Wed Jun 09, 2021 8:09 pmEach evangelist wanted so badly to be the author of a Gospel . . .
Is this tongue in cheek? If not, the evidence for the statement is...?

Irish1975 wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 8:09 pmYawn.
Most apt, given J. C. O'Neill's concluding words include:
They have lost all excitement at their search, and no longer expect to find anything new and fresh.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 1745
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 »

neilgodfrey wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 7:06 pm
If, however, we have three different translations of a common Hebrew or Aramaic source, each of which has been subject to the normal process of being passed on with the addition of new material, perhaps, and with the ever-present possibility of scribal corruption, our task of interpretation is at once both more interesting and more plausible.

-- O’Neill, J.C. “The Irresponsibility of New Testament Scholarship in the Twentieth Century.” New Blackfriars 81, no. 948 (2000): 67 -- http://www.jstor.org/stable/43250349
Discuss
That, of course, is the "Correct View" with the additional study of "Intentionality". It is trivial to see that there was mischief afoot with Hebrew or Aramaic Sources:

https://studybible.info/strongs/H563 and https://studybible.info/strongs/H564

Alas, as soon as the savior-god makes an appearance in Greek, all Word-Plays with "Immar-Yah" are lost. The replacement "Arnion-Theo" or whatever completely hides the Hebrew Word-Play by this Artificial Device.
[Edit Note: This sets the stage for a "person" in the form of "Jesus" to be declared the "Passover Lamb" for the purpose of reinstating human sacrifice.]

John 1: 29 (RSV):

[29] The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

Mission Accomplished.

Mark has, "Are we to drown, for all you care...?" Matthew and Luke have "Master, we are perishing..." or whatever.

Luke 19: 39 - 40 (RSV):

[39] And some of the Pharisees in the multitude said to him, "Teacher, rebuke your disciples."
[40] He answered, "I tell you, if these were silent, the very stones would cry out."

What stones? Where? When? The disciples are dull and stupid. Why would smart disciples arise from the stones? What else would stones threaten?
The Intentionality is all wrong. The Original has been hidden.

A Key Phrase in O'Neill's Presentation above is "...interesting and more plausible". For 2000 years, existence WAS a Predicate with "Jesus". "Plausible" must include Celestial Mechanics over the Brute Force of armies and people. No amount of Scholarship could overcome that.

CW
Last edited by Charles Wilson on Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 481
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am
Contact:

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

Post by Irish1975 »

delete
Last edited by Irish1975 on Fri Jun 11, 2021 4:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
John2
Posts: 3673
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

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

Post by John2 »

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).
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 1037
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 »

What great circular reasoning
In any one paragraph of the Synoptic Gospels where common material is being presented, there are literally hundreds of differences between the three texts, if one takes account of the textual variants as well as the differences between our edited versions of the Greek. If Matthew and Luke were editing our Greek Mark, or if Mark was epitomising our Greek Matthew and Luke, we would have to explain why the later editor made each of the hundreds of small alterations.
There really aren't, there is smashing verbatim agreement between most and only fairly little disagreement

Of course, when you take the tens of thousands of fragments, you get to a hundred differences for any paragraph - but that is taking into account centuries of copying, evolving mindset, changing political outset, and so on

It's pathetic to assume a Hebrew or Aramaic source, with the Latin loanwords in Mark, the translation of his Aramaic in his final moment, and the many painful interpretation errors of the Tanakh helped by the sloppy Septuagint translation.
If, extremely unlikely as it is, there ever was indeed such a source, then only Mark held it, greatly screwed it up in translation, and everyone else copied from him

This is one of those countless nonsense theories that only serve fancy fables and ate impossible to price or deny, and the very way in which it is composed says it all:

If Matthew and Luke were editing our Greek Mark, or if Mark was epitomising our Greek Matthew and Luke, we would have to explain why the later editor made each of the hundreds of small alterations

Ah, yes - let's pretend there was one Mark, one Luke and one Matthew, and one later editor, and the net result of that is the hundreds of differences.
Let's most certainly not mention that we're talking about tens of thousands of different fragments and versions, that would kind of give it away, wouldn't it
Charles Wilson
Posts: 1745
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 »

I come in Peace, mlinssen. Your positions interest me.
A few Q's:
mlinssen wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 4:15 am What great circular reasoning
It's pathetic to assume a Hebrew or Aramaic source, with the Latin loanwords in Mark...
The first question I have for you involves Production: Do you believe that the NT (Mark) existed ONLY after Mark produced the Greek Version? That is, if we posited an Ur-Mark which had untranslated Aramaicisms and Aramaic Passages, would you consider that NOT to be a "NT Book of Mark"? (I note that Fr. Fitzmyer considers Mark encumbered with "Unessential Detail" ("...couches spread all around..., etc.) that I find absolutely essential to understanding Mark. These "Details" make sense with a Background of an Aramaic Ground-Story. Less so in a Greek story of a savior-god.)
...the translation of his Aramaic in his final moment...
This is one of THE Main Disagreements! The Aramaicists argue that the "Correct" Translation of this is, "My God, my God, for this was I spared?!??..." This makes ZERO sense to many, even to many Aramaicists. If, however, there was an Aramaic/Hebrew/Written-by-a-Nicholas-of-Damascus background Story, it makes PERFECT SENSE.

Do you reject such Translations as Looney-Tunes Fringe Work?
If, extremely unlikely as it is, there ever was indeed such a source, then only Mark held it, greatly screwed it up in translation, and everyone else copied from him
Which brings in the Book of John. Jay Raskin argues that Mark and John came from a Common Source (I agree). I would be very interested in your Views on John.
If Matthew and Luke were editing our Greek Mark, or if Mark was epitomizing our Greek Matthew and Luke, we would have to explain why the later editor made each of the hundreds of small alterations
This is what we have been doing all these years... In fact, I'll plug Howrd M. Teeple's Literary Origins of the Book of John again. Quite reasonable. Quite entertaining. Quite EXPLANATORY.
Ah, yes - let's pretend there was one Mark, one Luke and one Matthew, and one later editor, and the net result of that is the hundreds of differences.
Let's most certainly not mention that we're talking about tens of thousands of different fragments and versions, that would kind of give it away, wouldn't it
Luke 2: 36 - 37 (RSV):

[36] And there was a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phan'u-el, of the tribe of Asher; she was of a great age, having lived with her husband seven years from her virginity,
[37] and as a widow till she was eighty-four. She did not depart from the temple, worshiping with fasting and prayer night and day.

People have been reading this for 2000 years and the "Secret" hasn't been "Given Away" to common knowledge yet. Why not? This is where I agree with you somewhat. There is a reason that this is not generally known, however... Whic leads to the first question I ask just above.

Best to you,

CW
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 1037
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 »

Charles Wilson wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 7:22 am I come in Peace, mlinssen. Your positions interest me.
A few Q's:
mlinssen wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 4:15 am What great circular reasoning
It's pathetic to assume a Hebrew or Aramaic source, with the Latin loanwords in Mark...
The first question I have for you involves Production: Do you believe that the NT (Mark) existed ONLY after Mark produced the Greek Version?
You make it appear as if we know of any other version. The Gospel that we know as such only became assigned to Mark in around 200 CE I believe, but I'm with the label.
The NT - that's more like 300 CE before we can speak of such, depending on periods and commas and the definition of "exhaustive list"
That is, if we posited an Ur-Mark which had untranslated Aramaicisms and Aramaic Passages, would you consider that NOT to be a "NT Book of Mark"?
I couldn't possibly, given the timelines above. If one assumes a writing in a language like that they clearly precedes what we have know, the labels world be meaningless. Would I consider it to be closer to "real events" than Mark? Certainly, that conclusion would be unavoidable, would it not?
(I note that Fr. Fitzmyer considers Mark encumbered with "Unessential Detail" ("...couches spread all around..., etc.) that I find absolutely essential to understanding Mark. These "Details" make sense with a Background of an Aramaic Ground-Story. Less so in a Greek story of a savior-god.)
Like his dress in the Transfiguration scene being whiter than any whool-maker could make? Indeed
...the translation of his Aramaic in his final moment...
This is one of THE Main Disagreements! The Aramaicists argue that the "Correct" Translation of this is, "My God, my God, for this was I spared?!??..." This makes ZERO sense to many, even to many Aramaicists. If, however, there was an Aramaic/Hebrew/Written-by-a-Nicholas-of-Damascus background Story, it makes PERFECT SENSE.

Do you reject such Translations as Looney-Tunes Fringe Work?
My only point is the very fact that it gets translated: Mark was writing for an audience that didn't understand Aramaic
If, extremely unlikely as it is, there ever was indeed such a source, then only Mark held it, greatly screwed it up in translation, and everyone else copied from him
Which brings in the Book of John. Jay Raskin argues that Mark and John came from a Common Source (I agree). I would be very interested in your Views on John.
John and Thomas are two of a kind. John is beautiful, spiritual, a poet. He fakes the baptism of Jesus, relieves Judas from any and all guilt and culpitry, and even elevates him by turning the Last Supper scene into the first dinner between Boaz and Ruth
If Matthew and Luke were editing our Greek Mark, or if Mark was epitomizing our Greek Matthew and Luke, we would have to explain why the later editor made each of the hundreds of small alterations
This is what we have been doing all these years... In fact, I'll plug Howrd M. Teeple's Literary Origins of the Book of John again. Quite reasonable. Quite entertaining. Quite EXPLANATORY.
Ah, yes - let's pretend there was one Mark, one Luke and one Matthew, and one later editor, and the net result of that is the hundreds of differences.
Let's most certainly not mention that we're talking about tens of thousands of different fragments and versions, that would kind of give it away, wouldn't it
Luke 2: 36 - 37 (RSV):

[36] And there was a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phan'u-el, of the tribe of Asher; she was of a great age, having lived with her husband seven years from her virginity,
[37] and as a widow till she was eighty-four. She did not depart from the temple, worshiping with fasting and prayer night and day.

People have been reading this for 2000 years and the "Secret" hasn't been "Given Away" to common knowledge yet. Why not? This is where I agree with you somewhat. There is a reason that this is not generally known, however... Whic leads to the first question I ask just above.

Best to you,

CW
I can't make sense of the remainder. But Luke was meant to address the Thomas / Marcion supporters. Perhaps that verse made sense to the latter - certainly not the former
Charles Wilson
Posts: 1745
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 »

Thank you very much for your reasoned responses.
mlinssen wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 10:23 am
The first question I have for you involves Production: Do you believe that the NT (Mark) existed ONLY after Mark produced the Greek Version?
You make it appear as if we know of any other version. The Gospel that we know as such only became assigned to Mark in around 200 CE I believe,
Ahhh, but that is what is under consideration, isn't it? We are deducing that there is a Story behind what we have that was Transvalued into a New Religion. The Story is found in the Gospels and is reflected in other Sources such as Josephus and the Priestly Organizational Rituals. We follow Mark's version of "The Squall" and then flip a few pages back to Matthew where Peter asks Jesus, ""Lord, if it is you, bid me come to you on the water..." "These are the same Story!" we say. Over and over in fact, as we mine the data for a consistent Flow.
That is, if we posited an Ur-Mark which had untranslated Aramaicisms and Aramaic Passages, would you consider that NOT to be a "NT Book of Mark"?
I couldn't possibly, given the timelines above.
This appears to point to our main areas of disagreements. One of the P-Fragments for John gets dated to around 125 and Mark appears to me to no earlier than 110 and prolly not much later. BTW, Raskin's book is Christs and Christianities with the plurals having a big role in his Thesis Expansion. Not much disagreements here actually except in the Time-Lines again.
If one assumes a writing in a language like that they clearly precedes what we have know, the labels world be meaningless. Would I consider it to be closer to "real events" than Mark? Certainly, that conclusion would be unavoidable, would it not?
Agreed. I'm no Greekie but the Author of Mark had an uncommon knowledge of certain aspects of Judean Life, especially around the Temple Apparatus. *IF* Mark was written originally in Greek there are few enough who could have written it. Nicholas of Damascus, for one. or someone who wrote an "Outline" and had a Zakkai fill in the blanks. Even so, this Nic-O-D'ms doesn't know everything about Temple Life - or Hebrew or Aramaic for that fact.
(I note that Fr. Fitzmyer considers Mark encumbered with "Unessential Detail" ("...couches spread all around..., etc.) that I find absolutely essential to understanding Mark. These "Details" make sense with a Background of an Aramaic Ground-Story. Less so in a Greek story of a savior-god.)
Like his dress in the Transfiguration scene being whiter than any whool-maker could make? Indeed
This may be, on closer inspection, another Latinism Footnote. The Toga, symbol of the Roman Senate, was woolen. Thank you for this. Something for me to study with the other "Toga Material".
...the translation of his Aramaic in his final moment...
This is one of THE Main Disagreements! The Aramaicists argue that the "Correct" Translation of this is, "My God, my God, for this was I spared?!??..." This makes ZERO sense to many, even to many Aramaicists. If, however, there was an Aramaic/Hebrew/Written-by-a-Nicholas-of-Damascus background Story, it makes PERFECT SENSE.

Do you reject such Translations as Looney-Tunes Fringe Work?
My only point is the very fact that it gets translated: Mark was writing for an audience that didn't understand Aramaic
This, however, goes beyond Translation and writing FOR an audience. A mis-translation of this magnitude goes to Intention.
If, extremely unlikely as it is, there ever was indeed such a source, then only Mark held it, greatly screwed it up in translation, and everyone else copied from him
I disagree here. John has this "Jesus" character as the Human Passover Lamb in a reinstatement of human sacrifice. Judaic Culture would never accept that and it is in John 11+ that the rationale is given - the corrupt High Priest nonetheless has the Power of Prophecy and he states that if the Culture doesn't accept this human sacrifice, the Romans will step in and destroy the Country and the Temple, which they did anyway.
Which brings in the Book of John. Jay Raskin argues that Mark and John came from a Common Source (I agree). I would be very interested in your Views on John.
John and Thomas are two of a kind. John is beautiful, spiritual, a poet. He fakes the baptism of Jesus, relieves Judas from any and all guilt and culpitry, and even elevates him by turning the Last Supper scene into the first dinner between Boaz and Ruth
John is, as you assert for your Thesis on the Assembly of the NT, many, many collections of disparate pieces, which leads to what I assert just below:

This is what we have been doing all these years... In fact, I'll plug Howrd M. Teeple's Literary Origins of the Book of John again. Quite reasonable. Quite entertaining. Quite EXPLANATORY.
Teeple finds at least 5 Authors used in the construction of John, each with a different Viewpoint and, more importantly, a different writing style. "Poetic" it may be but there were most certainly severe disagreements in the Construction. The "Empty Tomb" Motif argues for the same.

Luke 2: 36 - 37 (RSV):

[36] And there was a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phan'u-el, of the tribe of Asher; she was of a great age, having lived with her husband seven years from her virginity,
[37] and as a widow till she was eighty-four. She did not depart from the temple, worshiping with fasting and prayer night and day.

People have been reading this for 2000 years and the "Secret" hasn't been "Given Away" to common knowledge yet. Why not? This is where I agree with you somewhat. There is a reason that this is not generally known, however... Which leads to the first question I ask just above.
All I am saying here is that there is a "Two Verse Story" and it is one of many, in agreement with you. Our job is then to tease out the Original. Here, that Original is to be seen as Queen Salome (not Alexandra), wife of Jannaeus. YMMV, but...
But Luke was meant to address the Thomas / Marcion supporters. Perhaps that verse made sense to the latter - certainly not the former
I defer to your greater knowledge.
***
Thanx again mlinssen

CW
Last edited by Charles Wilson on Fri Jun 11, 2021 8:04 pm, edited 6 times in total.
Post Reply