Re: what is etymology? (linguistics and biology)

Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
>
> jayne.kulikauskas@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > The most common theory of how the Gospels were written is that Mark was
> > written first (in Koine Greek) and an unknown source, Q. Matthew and
> > Luke were written (also in Koine) drawing on these two sources and oral
> > traditions. John was written later and had all the previous sources
> > available with the addition of the theological reflection of the
> > author. There is no evidence of "lost originals", unless you are
> > thinking of Q and I haven't heard anyone claim that it was in Aramaic.
> > It is possible some of the oral traditions were in Aramaic, but it
> > doesn't make sense to call this "lost originals".
> >
> > Jayne
>
> Even the Gospel according to Mark dates from the second
> century AD, as I remember having read, so the text we have
> is not the original. I am sorry about Aramaic, it was Hebrew.
> I looked up a paper clip at home, and now quote from the
> memory. Hebrew 'l' can be read with Ain, then it gives el,
> meaning to. Or it can be read with Aleph, then it gives al,
> and means on:
>
> el ha-Majin --- to the water
> al ha-Majin --- on the water
>
> Sorry if there should be a typo. This explanation is not
> by me, but I find it convincing. Jesus walked to the water,
> Jesus walked on the water ...

This is utter bullshit.

First of all, produce some evidence of such a late dating of Mark.

Second, whenever Mark is dated, we don't have the ms. from the hand of
the writer, so of course it's not "original."

Third, it's not a translation.

Fourth, any Semitic substrate is Aramaic, not Hebrew.

Fifth, whether Hebrew or Aramaic, there is nothing that could be "read"
as _either_ `ayin or aleph; they are completely different letters, which
stood for completely different sounds (i.e. phonemes). <'l> 'to' and
<`l> 'on' could not be confused, either orally or in writing (no vowels
were written in 1st- or 2nd-century Aramaic or Hebrew). Both of those
are completely different from the prefix <l>, which also means 'to' (and
many other things; 'l and `l also both have many other "meanings" as
well; function words, or grammatical morphemes, don't translate
one-to-one to grammatical morphemes in other languages).

Sixth, the Hebrew word for 'water' ends with -m, not -n. (The definite
article ha- shows that the phrases are meant to be Hebrew.)
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@xxxxxxx
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: what is etymology? (linguistics and biology)
    ... it was Hebrew. ... produce some evidence of such a late dating of Mark. ... Invalid comes ... a neutral word again - neutral words are charged by hate, ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: Rich Shewmaker LIES & Defends A BLANTANT *GANG* LIAR
    ... >>>17th century when the King James Version of the Bible was translated from ... >>>the Hebrew and the Greek. ... Mark, no doubt, reads the Torah in the Hebrew. ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: what is etymology? (linguistics and biology)
    ... it was Hebrew. ... produce some evidence of such a late dating of Mark. ... >> Third, it's not a translation. ... > If that quote from an article in a fairly reliable newspaper ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: All Evidence is Subjective...
    ... Mark was derived from Matthew, something on which I have no position. ... I can't find evidence that their alleged antisemitism would affect their judgment on ... Syriac, and a melding of the four Gospels, so obviously it came after. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • ending of mark discussion
    ... We know that traditions about Jesus having appeared existed prior to ... the writing of Mark, and the Gospel of Makr itself predicts that Jesus ... to the conclusion that the gospel tradition is a literary tradition. ... the Gospels were composed? ...
    (alt.religion.islam)