JoeWallack

JW:
I had previously created a Thread pointing out that most, if not all, of "Mark's" claimed Jewish Bible prophecy by his Jesus is ironic:

Jewish Bible Prophecy Fulfillment By Jesus According To "Mark"?

The superior Skeptic should also note how this irony would coOrdinate with Paul, the only known significant Christian author before "Mark", as to Jesus being a hidden mystery in The Jewish Bible deduced by Paul with Divine assistance.

spin's recent excellent Thread Who is "Lord" in the NT? has made me aware of another candidate for Markan ironic prophecy fulfillment from The Jewish Bible:

Mark 11:3

(ASV)

spin has identified the Textual Criticism issue here. A site which should be listed here as a recommended site for FRDB (must visit site) is Wieland Willker's Textual Criticism site:

http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-Mark.pdf

I believe that Willker is a believer so I believe his analysis is somewhat biased towards belief. So beyliefer beware, but still, an excellent site.

After Textual Criticism, the next sight to look at is The Legendary Vorkosigan's Historical Commentary on the Gospel of Mark

If "Mark" meant Lord/Master/"Kurios" of the donkey than "Mark" has the classic Markan irony in 11:9

Jesus' followers have correctly stated that Jesus' transportation was done in the name of the "lord" but missed that it was the name of the master/lord of the donkey that was responsible.

This has a number of Internal Evidence advantages. The excuse to the bystanders is a natural one and plausible, the owner needs it. It also explains the "immediately" which "Mark" is always looking to use. The donkey will be returned shortly. And, Textual Criticism shows the personal possessive pronoun all over the sentence. If it originally evidenced "lord/master" as attributed to the owner it would be understandable that scribes would try and attribute any "lord" to Jesus or God and move words around in the effort.

My guess is that Vorkosigan's guess about RSV's guess is correct. "Mark" intentionally either outright or ambiguously referred to the donkey owner as lord/master (and by an act of Provenance the donkey was the exact same size as Jesus, a 53 Medium).


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

aa5874

If you attempt to argue that "Paul is the only known author before "Mark"" then Paul did establish that Jesus is Lord [ κύριος]

ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ 2:11---SBL Greek New Testament (SBLGNT)Philippians 2:11 NAS By the way, the thread entitled "Who is Lord in the NT" is TEDM's thread---NOT spin.

JoeWallack

My Verse is Long,
My Concordance is Strong's,
And I'm down to get the religious friction on!


JW:
For those who need points sharply explained this will help illustrate the Textual Criticism issue:

Mark 11:3

Strong's	Transliteration	Greek	English	Morphology
2532 [e]	kai	καὶ	And	Conj
1437 [e]	ean	ἐάν	if	Conj
5100 [e]	tis	τις	anyone	IPro-NMS
4771 [e]	hymin	ὑμῖν	to you	PPro-D2P
3004 [e]	eipē	εἴπῃ	say,	V-ASA-3S
5101 [e]	Ti	Τί	Why	IPro-ANS
4160 [e]	poieite	ποιεῖτε	do you	V-PIA-2P
3778 [e]	touto	τοῦτο	this?	DPro-ANS
3004 [e]	eipate	εἴπατε	say,	V-AMA-2P
3588 [e]	HO	Ὁ	The	Art-NMS
2962 [e]	kyrios	κύριος	Lord	N-NMS
846 [e]	autou	αὐτοῦ	of it	PPro-GM3S
5532 [e]	chreian	χρείαν	need	N-AFS
2192 [e]	echei	ἔχει	has,	V-PIA-3S
2532 [e]	kai	καὶ	and	Conj
2112 [e]	euthys	εὐθὺς	immediately	Adv
846 [e]	auton	αὐτὸν	it	PPro-AM3S
649 [e]	apostellei	ἀποστέλλει	he will send	V-PIA-3S
3825 [e]	palin	πάλιν	back	Adv
5602 [e]	hōde	ὧδε	here.	Adv

spin has identified the Literary Criticism issue here:

Who is the

Quote:

2962 [e] kyrios κύριος Lord N-NMS

being referred to here?

Candidates:

1) Jesus

2) God

3) Donkey owner

The next step is Textual Criticism and we shall see that the is all over the Board.

Presumably subsequent scribes lived in times when "Lord" had a stronger connection to Jesus and would therefore be inclined to edit towards identifying the "Lord" here to Jesus. On the other side, "Mark's" ironic style would be more likely to either identify the "lord" here either as outright the owner or at least ambiguously the owner. This would create the irony that the bystanders release the donkey thinking it was at the owner's instruction when actually it was at Jesus/God's instruction based on the Greek "kurios" (lord) having all three possible meanings. The typical Markan irony is that the bystanders do the right thing, release the donkey, but for the wrong reason. The additional irony is that the claimed prophecy fulfillment, Jesus came in the name of the Lord, is literally true, but with a different meaning, it was actually in the name of the lord (owner) of the donkey.

On to the Textual Criticism to determine likely original.


Joseph

aa5874

You really have the religious fiction on.

Please, identify the Greek word for "OWNER" in Mark 11.3?

How many persons OWNED the donkey in Mark 11.3?

Did the TWO disciples in Mark 11.3 know the owners of the donkey?

Did the Jesus character really know in ADVANCE that there was a donkey?

Please identify donkey owners who are called κύριός in the NT?

You are down to "get the religious fiction on"

It is clear that author introduced and established that his Jesus was the Lord[ κύριός] in the start of gMark, a story of fiction, and that in Mark 11.3 the Jesus character, the Lord [κύριός] PROPHESIED in ADVANCE that his TWO disciples would get a donkey for him to ride to FULFILL another out-of-context [false] Prophecy in the book of Zechariah.

In the NT, the Jesus character, the Son of Man, was κύριός.

ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ 2:28 SBL Greek New Testament (SBLGNT)

JoeWallack

JW:

The Textual candidates:

http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-Mark.pdf

[T2]
Greek|
English|
Witness|
Authority||
αὐτὸν ἀποστέλλει πάλιν|
[the lord needs it and] it he will send back[here immediately]|
Sinaiticus, D, L, 579, 892, 1241, pc, d, Origen|
WH,NA 25||
αὐτὸν ἀποστέλλει|
[the lord needs it]it he will send[immediately]|
A Cc W X Y f1 f13 700 1342 Maj Lat Sy bo goth|
TR||
ἀποστέλλει πάλιν αὐτὸν|
[the lord needs it]he will send back it (the donkey) [here immediately]|
Vaticanus|
WHmg Weiss||
[/T2]

There are 4 other candidates with inferior support. Star witnesses are Origen, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Not much difference between them. It would appear that the likely original is:

The Lord needs it and will send it back here immediately

Observations:

1) The context = The bystanders will have a natural understanding that the owner of the donkey needs it immediately and will than send it back.

2) The subtext = Jesus/God need the donkey.

3) The prophecy fulfillment is in 11.9 when Jesus comes (via the donkey) in the name of the lord. The name "lord" was invoked in order to obtain the donkey.

4) Believers of a Galilee reunion between Jesus and the disciples at Bars and Nobles claim that the 14:28 prediction that the disciples would follow Jesus to Galilee must have been intended to be a fulfilled prophecy prediction because all of Jesus' other predictions are shown as fulfilled. The donkey return part of 11.3 though is not (I've indicated many times that the 14:28 verb is intransitive meaning it is not a cause and effect verb. Jesus will not lead them, he will just be back in Galilee before they are = they do not expect to find him there, they are just returning home.)


Joseph

Solo

Hi Joe,
I am sure you are dying to hear what I think:

generally on 11.3/11.9, Mark is poking at the messianic "triumphal entry" of Zech 9:9 as a way to thicken the messainc plot, ie. the crazy comedy of errors arising from the dual Messiahship of Jesus: the Messiah as the Davidic restorer of the kingdom his disciples think he is and the Sanhendrin suspect him to be a pretender thereof vs. the cosmic Messiah of Paul who is destined to be crucified to fulfil the "scriptures", i.e the tanakh and specifically Zechariah, vs Paul's epistles and Mark's own writing !

Whether the donkey was returned or not is a moot point I think. At any rate, Jesus was not prophesyzing but but promising to return the animal.

The 14:28 'proaxo hymas' is again a double entendre as Mark evidently wants to muddy what Jesus says. Note that unlike the messenger in the tomb, Jesus does not say overtly that the disciples would "see him" in Galilee. The neaniskos interprets the Jesus' saying but the women frighten so the word of Jesus' rising does not get to the disciples until Paul's and Mark's scriptures.

Mark makes sure that the reader understands, the disciples are clueless about the Messiah's rising. Peter protests when Jesus first reveals at Caesarea Philippi he is not the Davidic Messiah but the one to be crucified. In 9:10, the three disciples question the rising they supposedly just witnessed. In 9:31 Jesus repeats his mission and again the disciples do not understand. They are afraid to ask. Peter ignores Jesus' prophecy in 14:28. He would not fall away, he would not deny his idol.

Hey Joe, since you're going with a gun in your hand, have you noted the owner of the donkey is referenced in Mk 16:6 ? This is a tough one I admit, but given that the gospel starts and ends with the messenger sent before the Lord, another paraphrase of Malachi 3:1 in that verse cannot be just coincidence. Can it ? :huh:

Best,
Jiri