Hot answers tagged

35

Jon gives a good answer as to why Jesus would have been able to speak Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew. He also asked for more information regarding the existence of Hebrew in the Land at the time of Jesus. Mishnaic Hebrew was very well known in the first century and was distinguished from Aramaic in such works as the Letter of Aristeas and Josephus. See below for ...


20

My understanding is that a strong majority of scholars (including conservative scholars) take the position that the long ending of Mark was not in the original and was not written by the same author as the rest of the text, but nonetheless was added very early on (probably in the early 2nd century). However, the evidence is not as overwhelming as for the ...


17

This is a textual issue. That is, some manuscripts have the words and fasting while others don’t. The NA28 includes the text similar to the GNT you quote: . . . τοῦτο τὸ γένος ἐν οὐδενὶ δύναται ἐξελθεῖν εἰ μὴ ἐν προσευχῇ (NA28) . . . this kind cannot be driven out by anything but prayer (ESV) The apparatus notes the variant you ask about (the addition ...


16

Every commentary I could find has seemingly a different interpretation on this passage! I have however, managed to distil these down into two main interpretations: 1. Jesus was going to pass them by, but was diverted The phrase "meant to" in the ESV and RSV is also translated "would have" in the KJV. The Greek word used here is thelō which means to wish or ...


15

Reading this passage today made me want to research it. Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath, and He came to fulfill the law not break it. This passage has several aspects that are best read together as Jesus combines them: Jesus and Disciples Pluck and Eat Grains on the Sabbath At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. And His disciples ...


15

There are no important textual variations here: all our manuscripts include this parenthetical. There's no manuscript evidence whatsoever that this is a later insertion. (See this list of textual variants as well as the lack of any variants listed at the NET bible.) Thus we can be completely certain that the head of the manuscript tradition (that is the ...


14

Mark records the partial healing of the blind man to illustrate Jesus healing of his disciples partial understanding. Though the disciples see that Jesus is the Christ, they see this only in part. Jesus is the Christ but not at all the Christ of their expectations. (Please see this video for a visual breakdown of this answer.) The two-part healing of the ...


14

A Plausible Majority Text Argument Susan's answer has correctly given the direct answer to your question when she states: This is a textual issue. That is, some manuscripts have the words and fasting while others don’t. That is the simple fact. Which manuscript tradition the particular translation in question is following determines the omission or ...


14

I will start from the Greek and explain the reasons for the discrepancies between your translation and the ESV (which I consider a faithful rendition of the Greek here). ὅτι οὐκ εἰσπορεύεται αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν καρδίαν ἀλλ᾿ εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν, καὶ εἰς τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκπορεύεται, καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα; (NA28) since not it enters her/he into mind/soul, ...


14

Hasting's dictionary is an old book and it does not reflect current scholarly opinion about Semitic languages. The Aramaic word ṭalyā, feminine ṭlīṯā is an adjective meaning “young”, and then a noun meaning “boy/girl” and “servant”. It is etymologically related to Hebrew ṭāle, Arabic ṭalā, which mean “young animal” and specifically “lamb”, but this is not ...


14

Aramaic was the common spoken toungue in Israel at the time of the NT. It's likely that most conversations among the apostles and with other Israelis were in Aramaic. Hebrew was largely ceremonial at that time. One would think that Aramaic would be a likely language for the NT in general, but if you wanted to be taken seriously as a writer and scholar, ...


13

We should first note that Jesus is telling a parable. A parable is a form of comparison to help us understand something that is difficult or abstract. The word parable means "to cast alongside." You "cast alongside" something known to help the audience understand something unknown. In this case, the unknown is the Kingdom of God (Mark 2:...


12

Short Answer: After weighing all of the evidence (both internal and external), it would seem that Mark 16:9-20 was indeed originally part of Mark's Gospel. The ending of Mark's Gospel is one of the major textual problems in the New Testament.1 As noted by the OP, the "problem" is whether the end of Mark (16:9-20) was originally part of Mark's Gospel. ...


12

This is a tough one, and every commentator I've consulted (quite a few) acknowledges that this is probably an intractable problem. One common theme, however, is the resistance to simply explaining away the enigma and even offense. Two variables commonly condsidered are (1) the agricultural details (what is the season, and what kind of fruit?); which can ...


12

This is not a question of textual criticism, nor is there any reason to reject the authenticity of Mark 7:19. It is entirely a question of interpreting the text. Let us look at the oldest versions: The Greek original has: οτι ουκ εισπορευεται αυτου εις την καρδιαν αλλ εις την κοιλιαν και εις τον αφεδρωνα εκπορευεται καθαριζων παντα τα βρωματα The ...


11

Markan priority is an answer to the question what is the precise literary relationship between Matthew, Mark and Luke, also known as the Synoptic problem. A close comparison of the first three gospels suggests that one or more of these writers had one or more of the other gospels before them as they wrote. This is more than a common oral tradition. ...


11

Some say the "Kingdom of Heaven" refers to the a physical/political kingdom on earth while the "Kingdom of God" is the spiritual, coming reign of Christ. Arguments against the two being the same often come down to hair splitting and misinterpretation of verses. For example, the site listed above relies on a single verse in an attempt to ...


11

Good question. My sense is that to get a fully satisfactory answer, Mark's version ought to be read beside the other accounts in the Synoptics (Matthew, Luke). (Those interested can read them, with the addition of John, in English and Greek at BibleGateway.) For Mark 11:3, the parallels work this way (n.b.: although John has a version of the "Triumphal ...


11

If we approach the text with the presupposition that the canonical form of Mark is a unified work and we can thus expect the composition as a whole to make sense of the parts. Before we look at the incidental remark about the season, we should look at the intended teaching of event. It should be fairly obvious that Jesus wasn't just a hothead who was angry ...


11

Another addendum to Susan's fine answer and ScottS's alternative account. All manuscripts are not the same, which is why the text critic's job is not simply that of counting noses. We have two possible scenarios an original shorter reading, which was subsequently expanded in transmission by the addition of "+ and fasting" after "prayer"; an original ...


10

According to Bruce M. Metzger, in his able Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: Deutschebibelgesellschaft, 2012), the academy places their highest certitude "{A}" that the verse of Mark 11:26 was not part of the original autograph. On Page 93 of his commentary, Metzger says that ...although it might be thought that the sentence was ...


10

There is no conclusive internal evidence but there are plenty of pointers that lend themselves to the conclusion that Peter is in some way the source, for example this blog post lists some examples: Peter is the first and last named disciple in Mark (1:16; 16:7). Peter is mentioned more than any other disciple in Mark. Peter appears in some of the most ...


10

A fundamental problem of this question is the a priori of "the current consensus of the writing of the gospels". Such a consensus does not exist. This two-sources-theory is just one of several attempts to reconcile the difficulties in explaining the synoptic problem, and admitted: fairly popular at that. There are other theories, which like this one have ...


9

The original washing of hand before eating applied only sanctified food such as to cohanim (descendents of Aaron) when eating trumah, Levites when eating maaser and to other people when eating maaser sheni in Jerusalem on the pilgrimage holidays of Passover, Weeks and Tabernacles. About the time of Jesus, the Pharisees began a custom of eating hulin (...


9

There appear to be at least four decent options for the interpretation of "this mountain" in Mark 11:23 canvassed by the commentators. (1) there is no specific mountain in mind. True, the Greek here (and in the parallels in Matt 17:20 and (with variation) Luke 17:6, where it is "sycamore" rather than "mountain"; cf. also 1 Cor 13:2) is "say to this mountain"...


9

Texts in Greek It's worth noting that the command to "love neighbour as self" extends beyond these two parallel passages from the gospels, and originates in a much earlier time and in a different language. Here are the texts in Greek: Leviticus 19:18 ... καὶ ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν ἐγώ εἰμι κύριος ... and you shall love your neighbour ...


9

Mark is more reliable.¹ Even if you were to completely discredit Mark², something is more than nothing. You cannot reasonably compare the accuracy of one document that exists with one that is only speculated to exist. Anybody that tries to tell you differently is selling something³. Answering your stated question is really that simple. In the world of ...


9

Rhoads, Dewey and Michie say, in Mark as Story, page 46, that Mark's style keeps the narration moving along. Instead of "telling about" the story in generalities and abstractions, the narrator "shows" the events by a straightforward recounting of actions and dialogue. Episodes are usually brief, scenes change often and minor characters appear and quickly ...


9

It is true that the "anarthrous" usage of "Jesus" (Ἰησοῦς) in Mark 1:9 is unusual. Of 82 occurrences of the name in Mark, only eight of them lack the article (1:1, 9, 24; 5:7; 10:47[x2]; 16:6, 19). There is something of a pattern, though, as aside from 1:1, 9; and 16:19 (which is in the disputed "long ending" of Mark), these ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible