10-21-2004, 03:55 PM
From Preaching Jesus
"Blake, your my own personal hero for today...[gives the Russian the "My Hero for a Day" medal]
I know I am not planning on wading through this thread too much, primarily because I usually don't reply to cut and pasted stuff (no offense Addai, I still like you and all...)
It might be good to note that the Gospel of Mark is clearly a Greek text first and has no Aramiac roots whatsoever simply from reading the text. The only Aramiac roots the Gospel has would be the language that some of the people during that time and that is not carried through to the Gospel.
I'll need to explain (cause I'm Lucy right now.) It is obvious when one reads the Gospel of Mark that it is being dictated to the writer by Peter. Just look at the Greek structures. These guys (Jesus and His disciples) are erkomai-ing (the Greek word for "to go") everywhere. The Greek itself lends positive light to this argument just by simply reading the text. The sentences and narration are choppy, like dictation is supposed to be. If anyone had translated this from Aramiac, and I don't know why they would have, they would have certainly cleaned up some of the language.
Secondly in the narrative of Mark the actions done are simply put (the 2nd Aorist is used often) and then they move onto something completely different, do it, and move on to something completely different.
Now as for Addai's argument of the Aramiac heritage behind the NT I suggest that it would only be in language spoken by some within stories and the actual transmission of the NT documents is solely in Greek...simply for lack of cogent textual evidences.
I'll leave it alone for now, because I don't want people to think the Russian and I are ganging up on our dear Orthodox brother Addai."
"Blake, your my own personal hero for today...[gives the Russian the "My Hero for a Day" medal]
I know I am not planning on wading through this thread too much, primarily because I usually don't reply to cut and pasted stuff (no offense Addai, I still like you and all...)
It might be good to note that the Gospel of Mark is clearly a Greek text first and has no Aramiac roots whatsoever simply from reading the text. The only Aramiac roots the Gospel has would be the language that some of the people during that time and that is not carried through to the Gospel.
I'll need to explain (cause I'm Lucy right now.) It is obvious when one reads the Gospel of Mark that it is being dictated to the writer by Peter. Just look at the Greek structures. These guys (Jesus and His disciples) are erkomai-ing (the Greek word for "to go") everywhere. The Greek itself lends positive light to this argument just by simply reading the text. The sentences and narration are choppy, like dictation is supposed to be. If anyone had translated this from Aramiac, and I don't know why they would have, they would have certainly cleaned up some of the language.
Secondly in the narrative of Mark the actions done are simply put (the 2nd Aorist is used often) and then they move onto something completely different, do it, and move on to something completely different.
Now as for Addai's argument of the Aramiac heritage behind the NT I suggest that it would only be in language spoken by some within stories and the actual transmission of the NT documents is solely in Greek...simply for lack of cogent textual evidences.
I'll leave it alone for now, because I don't want people to think the Russian and I are ganging up on our dear Orthodox brother Addai."