10-09-2004, 09:12 PM
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:
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
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