Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Primacy Proofs Refuted (Six and counting)
#5
One would think that with so many examples of potential proofs for Aramaic primacy, it will be more interesting to solidify and research the existing ones, than to find new ones, but at the same time this forum is a forgiving place to present arguments that do not reach schoolarly quality.

As the case of Mark 9:49 is presented here: http://www.peshitta.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=38 , it will need some refinement in order to be convincing.

If we attempt to show that Mark wrote his gospel in Aramaic, we should use an example of a text that was composed by Mark (or Peter) himself, and not a quote from someone else. In this case it is a quote from Yeshua, who most people agree spoke Aramaic. Obviously, the Greek text of this quote must have been translated at least once, by Mark or by someone else.

Judge, mentioned in another thread that:
Quote:There is an old Latin mss that agrees with Paul Younan's rendering of Mark 9:49. Codex Bobiensis IIRC.

Bobiensis: [48] ... ubi ubi ignis non extinguetur et uerum in quo oritur omnia autem substantia consumitur ? [50] bonum est sal ...
My Latin is beginner level, but I haven't seen anyone else try to translate it so I may be excused for questioning the similarity of the readings based on my attempt/guess: where fire isn't quenched, and truly, where it begins every being is consumed

At least, it does speak of destruction and does not mention salt. Doesn't this indicate an alternative translation from Aramaic (or Hebrew) into Greek/Latin? That would suggest the Aramaic versions were interesting and may have been considered original at some point in time.

--
I guess the technical problems are due to the fact that this forum doesn't support unicode, so you cannot write Greek letters.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Primacy Proofs Refuted (Six and counting) - by sestir - 01-07-2015, 02:02 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)