Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

4995RE: [Synoptic-L] Deutro Mk, Proto Lk, LkA, Q, etc. A Common theme?

Expand Messages
  • David Inglis
    Dec 22, 2013



      I am not sure what point you are making here:

      1.       You say that aMk quotes some of Jesus’ words in Aramaic, but translates them for his audience/readership.

      2.       You also say that Greek was not Mark’s 1st language and yet he quotes the Greek OT.

      This sounds to me like a non-native Greek speaker writing for Greek speaking people, so I don’t understand why you don’t seem to think aMk could have had an Aramaic source. What am I missing?

      David Inglis, Lafayette, CA, 94549, USA


      From: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Synoptic@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of E Bruce Brooks
      Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2013 4:52 PM
      To: Synoptic@yahoogroups.com
      Cc: GPG
      Subject: RE: [Synoptic-L] Deutro Mk, Proto Lk, LkA, Q, etc. A Common theme?


      To: Synoptic

      In Response To David Inglis

      On: Aramaic Mark

      From: Bruce 

      David: I have no objection to Mk being based on an Aramaic source, 

      Bruce: Why not? Mark quotes some words of Jesus in Aramaic (which Jesus doubtless used), but he also translates them for the benefit of his wider audience. I know of no other Aramaism, and Torrey’s reconstruction, which in any case involves very few phrases, strikes me as colossally unconvincing. John Mark himself knows individuals like Simon of Cyrene, who was, well, from Cyrene. And his two sons, by name. Alexandrian tradition is that Mark himself was a native of Cyrene, and his supposed cousin Barnabas seems to have been from Cyprus. There is no rival tradition to suggest that Mark was himself a Palestinian native. His OT quotations use the Greek, not the Hebrew, text of the OT. There was a synagogue in Jerusalem especially for the outlanders, who did not know Aramaic well, and where services were accordingly in the common language of the outlanders, namely Greek. That Greek was Mark’s second language shows up well enough in the quality of his Greek, which some have found less than classically fluent, but he could get around in it, and his Jewishness seems to have had a Greek basis. 

      There are good reasons (see eg Fortna) why a pre-version can be postulated for John. But for gMk? Accretional, yes, as the interpolations show. But when they are systematically removed, what remains is a consecutive narrative with (as far as I can see) no marks of Aramaic showthrough. Does anyone care to cite a counterexample? 


      E Bruce Brooks

      Warring States Project

      University of Massachusetts at Amherst

    • Show all 39 messages in this topic