Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
mistake in Murdock? (Mk 11:14)
#1
Dear friends,

Greetings to you all!

I've been busy with lots of stuff recently, but now I'm researching some more Aramaic passages in the gospels.

In particular, I'm studying Mk 11:14, the so-called curse upon the fig tree. Here's the Murdock translation, that sounds very similar to what the Greek says,

(Peshitta Mk 11:14 Murdock) "And he said to it: 'Henceforth and for ever, let no man eat fruit from thee.'"

But, unfortunately, this translation seems to be wrong! Because, according to both the Peshitta and the SyS, it doesn't really look like Jesus curses this fig tree...

So it looks like this is not a 'curse', but in fact merely a prediction of what will happen to the tree.

This passage is important because most commentators realise that, in the Markan context, this tree in fact symbolises the Jewish Temple. So if Jesus doesn't really curse the tree, then this should have impact on how one perceives Christianity vis-a-vis Judaism (i.e. Jesus saw his teachings as mostly within the Jewish tradition; so he didn't really try to start a new religion).

So here are the texts of both of the Peshitta and the SyS.

Mk 11:14 Peshitta

w)mr lh,
And he said to it,

mkyl wl(lm
Now and forever,

)n$ mnky p)r) l) n)kwl
man from you fruit will not eat.


Mk 11:14 SyS [Burkitt's translation]

(n) w)mr lh,
He answered and said to it,

mkyl wl(lm
Henceforth and forever,

)n$ mn p)r:yky l) n)kwl
no one of thy fruits shall eat.

So it sure looks to me like in both Peshitta and the SyS this is not a curse but merely a prediction of what will happen in the future to the Jewish Temple.

What do you think? Did Murdock really make a mistake here?

Also I'm researching some other parallels to this phrase in other ancient manuscripts, and I find that this phrase was probably changed in the mainstream Greek manuscripts. The Aramaic preserves a more original reading.

Shlama,

Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm">http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#2
Shlama Yuri,

Have you not read Mark 11:21 ?

Dave B
Reply
#3
gbausc Wrote:Shlama Yuri,

Have you not read Mark 11:21?

Dave B

Shlama Dave,

Of course I'm aware of Mark 11:21.

(Mark 11:21 YLT) and Peter having remembered saith to him, 'Rabbi, lo, the fig-tree that thou didst curse is dried up.'

But I'm primarily concerned with Jesus' words, themselves. If these words, as given in both Mt and Mk, do not in fact express a curse, then we have two possibilities. Either Jesus' words had been changed later in some manuscripts, including the Aramaic ones (to make his words sound less harsh), or perhaps Mark 11:21 reflects some later editorial activity (perhaps this whole verse was added later).

Keep in mind that this whole incident is very different in Mk and in Mt. If we assume that the Matthean version is earlier -- as I believe to be the case -- then Mark 11:21 may only represent a later Markan redaction/elaboration of this episode.

Shlama,

Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm">http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#4
yuku Wrote:
gbausc Wrote:Shlama Yuri,

Have you not read Mark 11:21?

Dave B

Shlama Dave,

Of course I'm aware of Mark 11:21.

(Mark 11:21 YLT) and Peter having remembered saith to him, 'Rabbi, lo, the fig-tree that thou didst curse is dried up.'

But I'm primarily concerned with Jesus' words, themselves. If these words, as given in both Mt and Mk, do not in fact express a curse, then we have two possibilities. Either Jesus' words had been changed later in some manuscripts, including the Aramaic ones (to make his words sound less harsh), or perhaps Mark 11:21 reflects some later editorial activity (perhaps this whole verse was added later).

Keep in mind that this whole incident is very different in Mk and in Mt. If we assume that the Matthean version is earlier -- as I believe to be the case -- then Mark 11:21 may only represent a later Markan redaction/elaboration of this episode.

Shlama,

Yuri.

I don't know where to start here. You say you are concerned with Jesus words only; that assumes we may place more confidence in some parts of the narrative than others, when all of it was written by the same man, unless you are questioning Peter's knowledge of Aramaic expressions.

How is "the whole episode very different in Matthew and Mark" ?

Here is what I see. In both accounts, Jesus spoke to - [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]hl rm0w[/font] the fig tree. Now why would He do that ? I can think of only two reasons:
1. He wished to instruct the fig tree of future events, as you suggest, or
2. He wished to do something to the fig tree by His words.

If He had wished merely to instruct His disciples, He would have addressed them directly about the future of fig trees.

Matthew 21:21 says : "[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Nwdb9t 0ttd 0dh[/font]" "You may do this of the fig tree". I take this as confirmation of #2 above, that our Lord did something to the fig tree by speaking to it. He was not speaking to his disciples or to the temple; He spoke to the fig tree. He was not giving it information about the future by so speaking to it.
Peter had it right when he said Jesus cursed the fig tree.

I don't accept redaction theories, but the theory I am familiar with is that Matthew followed Mark,Mark being the shortest and most basic narrative, and Mark used "Q" for the basic gospel account.

To suggest that The LORD was merely stating a prophesy about the temple is silly. "No man shall eat fruit of thee from now and forever", is an assertion of power over the fig tree. Are you saying that the tree would have withered immediately as it did, had Jesus never spoken to it ?

He went on to teach a lesson of faith to His disciples from this example: "but also if you shall say to this mountain (Matthew and Mark), be removed and fall into the sea..."

The one is an extension of the other. Faith is required, not to know the future, but to make things happen, as our Savior did. Mountains do not fly and fall without a miraculous power moving them. Fig trees do not shrivel up in a few hours of natural causes.
In both cases, words spoken in faith are the cause of great signs and wonders.

But if , as you say,"perhaps Mark 11:21 reflects some later editorial activity (perhaps this whole verse was added later)" , then "perhaps " all of the NT is claptrap and Jesus Christ is a myth. How would we ever know ?

If we don't know what the words of God are, how can we ever know what they mean?

"If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do ?" Psalms 11:3

Shlama,

Dave
Reply
#5
DAVE:
How is "the whole episode very different in Matthew and Mark" ?

YURI:
Shlama, Dave.

It is different in every way in Matthew and Mark.

In Mark, this is a "Markan sandwich", i.e. the incident is split in two, and surrounds the cleansing of the temple.

DAVE:
I don't accept redaction theories, but the theory I am familiar with is that Matthew followed Mark, Mark being the shortest and most basic narrative, and Mark used "Q" for the basic gospel account.

YURI:
I don't accept this. I don't think that Mk was the earliest gospel.

And I don't believe in "Q".

DAVE:
To suggest that The LORD was merely stating a prophesy about the temple is silly.

YURI:
Why is this silly?

DAVE:
"No man shall eat fruit of thee from now and forever", is an assertion of power over the fig tree.

YURI:
Well, this depends on the grammar, isn't it?

So this is what I'm trying to ascertain.

There is a whole range of difficult problems in interpreting this incident. You seem to think that this is all a very easy matter, but it is not.

Perhaps you don't realise that such things as "Q" have been _created_ by modern scholars. Where is there any "Q" mentioned in the Scripture?

You seem to want to pick-and-choose among scholarly opinions, while claiming to know the truth from above. This is not how scholarship is done.

Shlama,

Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm">http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#6
Shlama Yuri,

I didn't say I accept the "Q" theory. I said it was the only redaction theory I have heard of regarding Matthew and Mark.

I can see we shall need to take one point at a time.
Do you agree that the New Testament is the inspired word of God ?

Dave
Reply
#7
gbausc Wrote:Shlama Yuri,

I didn't say I accept the "Q" theory. I said it was the only redaction theory I have heard of regarding Matthew and Mark.

I can see we shall need to take one point at a time.
Do you agree that the New Testament is the inspired word of God ?

Dave

Which New Testament do you mean, Dave?

We have the Greek, the Aramaic, the KJV, etc. ... and then there's also the Gospel according to Trimm... <!-- s:nervous: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/nervous.gif" alt=":nervous:" title="Nervous" /><!-- s:nervous: -->

Shlama,

Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm">http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#8
Shlama Yuri,

Your choice.


Dave
Reply
#9
You mean you don't know?

Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm">http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#10
Yuri,

If you don't want to answer the question, just say so.
I think it is fairly simple. I know what I believe. I'm trying to ascertain what you believe. I asked first. If you want to discuss it further, that's fine.

Do you believe the NT is inspired of God in any language, Greek, Aramaic (OS), Peshitta, Hebrew, Latin, Chinese, English, or any other language ?


Dave
Reply
#11
They are all inspired of God. But some of them are more authentic than the others.

Shlama,

Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm">http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#12
Shlama Yuri,

You are still side stepping the question .
Translations are not inspired, as they all contain errors due to human falliblity and language barriers.
You know I am asking you to tell me which one you believe was the original New Testament.
If you cannot answer, I see no point in discussing NT texts and translation.

Dave
Reply
#13
gbausc Wrote:Shlama Yuri,

You are still side stepping the question .
Translations are not inspired, as they all contain errors due to human falliblity and language barriers.
You know I am asking you to tell me which one you believe was the original New Testament.
If you cannot answer, I see no point in discussing NT texts and translation.

Dave

Dear Dave,

I already stated my general position on this subject.

I'm interested in a scientific discussion in this forum. If you're not interested in scientific textual discussion, I see no point in discussing NT texts and translations with you.

My main interest is the historical evolution of the text of the gospels. I believe that the earliest versions of these texts are preserved only imperfectly in the existing manuscripts. My goal is to determine how these texts evolved over time.

I don't expect you to agree with me. You made your views quite clear over time; they are obviously a lot more conservative than mine.

So if you're interested in discussing Aramaic texts and language, I'll be glad to discuss these things with you. But if you only want to talk about personal faith, that's a separate matter.

I have raised one specific issue about the translation of Mk 11:14, but so far nobody has offered any comments about this matter. I'm a bit disappointed, because I thought this forum is for Aramaic discussion, rather than for discussing the matters of faith.

I have now identified a few old manuscripts where this verse read a bit differently, in so far as the words of Jesus seem less harsh and judgmental.

So, did Murdock really make a mistake here, or not? That's the question.

Shlama,

Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm">http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#14
Dear Yuri,

Why are you interested in "historical evolution" and translation of texts if we don't know we have the original readings in any one place of the text ? It seems to me "personal faith" of some sort is required on all hands if we are to take an ancient text seriously. You haven't even told me what language the original was. I have no idea what your views are, but it seems to me that if you found fit to state them here once, you can state them again.

As to the Markan passage, I think its unwise to disregard the comments of Peter in verse 21 . it has direct bearing on the meaning of the text in question. You say v.21 is "perhaps" an interpolation. What evidence is there to support that position ? All Greek text types and Peshitta mss. containing Mark presumably contain v. 21.

It seems to me you are disregarding solid evidence that bears on the meaning of the text and replacing it with conjecture based on microscopic examination of one verse. The context makes the meaning plain. You want to obscure it .

Since you ignored my former points from the Aramaic, I will quote them:
Quote:Here is what I see. In both accounts, Jesus spoke to - [font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]hl rm0w[/font] the fig tree. Now why would He do that ? I can think of only two reasons:
1. He wished to instruct the fig tree of future events, as you suggest, or
2. He wished to do something to the fig tree by His words.

If He had wished merely to instruct His disciples, He would have addressed them directly about the future of fig trees.

Matthew 21:21 says : "[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]Nwdb9t 0ttd 0dh[/font]" "You may do this of the fig tree". I take this as confirmation of #2 above, that our Lord did something to the fig tree by speaking to it. He was not speaking to his disciples or to the temple; He spoke to the fig tree. He was not giving it information about the future by so speaking to it.
Peter had it right when he said Jesus cursed the fig tree.

Jesus was not addressing his disciples about the fig tree; He was not speaking to an audience of people; He was not speaking to Himself. He spoke to the tree. That is not a mere prophecy. Trees do not study prophecy. Matthew 21: 21 sheds more light on it; Jesus did something to the tree by His words.


A scientist would consider all the facts, including the context, Yuri. Don't stick up your long unscientific nose at me.

Move on to something interesting. The tree is dead.


Shlama,

Dave
Reply
#15
gbausc Wrote:Shlama Yuri,

You are still side stepping the question .
Translations are not inspired, as they all contain errors due to human falliblity and language barriers.
You know I am asking you to tell me which one you believe was the original New Testament.
If you cannot answer, I see no point in discussing NT texts and translation.

Dave

I don't think Yuri is sidestepping the question really. People have different ideas of what inspiration means. This is really a theological issue.

There are plenty of good people who can disagree about exactly what "inspired" means.
Here on this forum there are many different views of the books we call the NT, but if we concentrate on where we disagree philosophically then how can we meet? If we at least stick to common ground philosophically we can at least have a discussion.

Humbly...judge
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)