Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Mark 15:34 At the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, "ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?" which is translated, "MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?" |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Mark 15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, "ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?"--which is translated, "MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?" [Ps 22:1] |
Subject: "Eloi" or "Eli"? |
Bible Note: Hello again, Tim! And my friend continues on the origin of Mark.. "Historic Evidence Gregory Of Nazianzus (A.D. 329) claimed Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, that Mark "wrote for the Italians and Luke for the Greeks", indicating Mark was originally written in Latin and Luke in Greek. This would make some sense since Mark was a translator for Peter after Peter moved to Rome. Mark translated for him into the Latin of the citizens there. So Gregory's statement is plausible. The Church of Syria claimed Mark was written in Aramaic. Much of the current Catholic west currently believes in a Greek primacy of Mark, but Gregory was part of that tradition and he didn't. I know of no writer before Gregory who specifically comments on what language Mark used. Shimon the "Leper"??? - or "Jar Maker"? Mark 14:3 says, "And when Jesus was in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper", As any Bible student knows, lepers were not permitted to live in the city (see Lev. 13:46). Since ancient Hebrew and Aramaic were written without vowels, there was no distinction between the Aramaic words GAR'BA (leper) and GARABA (jar maker or jar merchant). Since in this story a woman pours oil from a jar it is apparent that Simon was a jar merchant or jar maker and not a leper. Now if Simon was a leper, we have several serious problems. Simon was living in the city of Bethany, but lepers weren't allowed to live in a city according to the Mosaic Law (See Lev 13-16). Lev 13:46 says "He [the leper] must live alone - he must live outside the camp." So he was not only not "outside the camp", but Simon was not living alone but had Jesus as his guest. Lepers were suppose to warn people who came near them that they were unclean. Lev 13:45 says a leper must "wear torn clothes, let his hair be unkempt, cover the lower part of his face and cry out, 'Unclean! Unclean!'" so that others would not inadvertantly be made unclean by coming into contact with them by accident. But Jesus did come into contact with Simon the "leper/jar maker" - and only a few days before Passover - a time when people did not want to become unclean since it would prevent them from celebrating Passover. How could all these things be if Simon were a leper? But if Simon was a jar maker, then we have no problem here. So it would seem that the Greek Mark 14:3 was a mistranslation of the Aramaic Mark 14:3. This account also appears in Matthew 26, and the same translation problems exist there, since we know Matthew was originally written in Hebrew. The Resurrection There are four accounts that talk about the visit of the women to the tomb of Jesus. Luke 24:1 and John 20:1 both give the timing of this visit before sunrise. Luke 24:1 says "early morning" and John 20:1 says "at dawn, while still dark". The Greek version of Mark says "after the sun had risen", disagreeing with Luke 24:1 and John 20:1. The Aramaic version gives it as during sunrise, agreeing with Luke and John. Since there's only a conflict with the Greek Mark, it would be reasonable to conclude that Greek wasn't the original language of Mark, thus explaining why it conflicts with the other gospel accounts. the original inspired writing did not conflict. Errors in Greek Mark not in the Aramaic Version of Mark The Greek version of Mark 2:26 says, "while Abiathar was high priest," though the high priest at the time was was Ahimelech (1 Sam. 21:1), the father of Abiathar (1 Sam. 22:20) and NOT Abiathar. But the Oldest Aramaic manuscripts of Mark 2:26 (The Old Syriac) does not have the phrase "while Abiathar was high priest", so this error only appears in the Greek text, not the Aramaic. If Greek was likely a translation, they may not have thought much of adding an interpolated piece of information to the text. But if Greek was the original language of Mark, we have a problem here. My Conclusion I think the evidence is rather strong that the Greek version was translated from the Aramaic. The way it quotes the "Eli, Eli..." phrase indicates Aramaic may not have been the original language as well. So was the original Latin? Was Gregory right? But personally, I'd say the possibility of a Latin origin is plausible. A Greek origin does not seem plausible at all." Interesting stuff! Nolan |