Mountain Man

He didn't make it all up. Most of it is a myth told to him and he just repeated it with embellishments. The whole book is a myth.

TedM

Thanks Ben. I'll have to check into those. It is curious to me that while Matthew definitely turned it into a miracle of walking on top of the water he dropped the comment from mark about walking by them. This would indicate that he was not familiar with the reason given above for Mark's inclusion of this statement. John also dropped it. Mark does say that it was Jesus' intention to pass them by. The explanation above of the "passing by" is somewhat muddled by the fact that Jesus doesn't pass them by. We can't know if Mark's comment that it was Jesus' "intention" to pass them by was based his own desire to create a story in which Jesus intended to reveal his divine glory, or his own interpretation of a real story in which Jesus really was or appeared to the disciples to be passing by them. It would have been simpler for a story in which his glory was revealed for him to have just passed them by.
ted

Amaleq13

Did you actually read the entries or just note the number?

According to the online version of BLB:

1) upon, on, at, by, before

2) of position, on, at, by, over, against

3) to, over, on, at, across, against


With regard to the 120 examples of the translator choosing "in", it seems to me that it is still in a sense that "upon" or "over" or "by" is what is meant whenever it is used:

"But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea..." This clearly means Archelaus reigned over Judaea. (Mt 2:22)

"He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in [their] hands..."(Mt 4:6) One is not literally "within" those hands but upon them.

"Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as [it is] in heaven."(Mt 6:10) God's will is not to be done "inside" the earth but upon it but God's will is done "inside" heaven and ev is the word used.

In fact, I think if you click on the link to the 120 examples you will find that epi is translated as "on" or "upon" several times while ev is the word used when "in" in the sense you want is intended.

Ben C Smith

It is a complicated case, but Crossan has some stuff to say about it toward the end of The Historical Jesus. Some of it has to do with perceived similarities between the walking on water and the Lucan resurrection account (Jesus being prepared to keep walking on in 24.28; the disciples thinking Jesus a ghost in 24.37; the it is I or I am statement in 24.39). There is also the connection, preserved even in John, with the feeding of the 5,000. If the feeding is eucharistic, representing the death of Jesus, then the immediately successive water miracle could be the resurrection, Jesus trampling death (the connections adduced from Luke above are wrapped around two eucharistic scenes). As I said, it is a complicated case, and I am more certain about the OT connections within the pericope itself than I am about the resurrection connections.

Ben.

TedM

Given that the church fathers, and even Mark himself presented this as a miraculous account, it isn't surprising at all that they would consider the meaning to be "in". I'm not claiming we can know what epi meant here. Only that it reasonably could have meant "in the water" since it is used that way extensively. Your example of Mark knowing the phrase for "by the water/shore" is not a close enough meaning IMO.


Sure, if that is what Mark meant. We know that is what Matthew meant, but it isn't as clear in Mark. I was simply pointing out that the "obvious" wasn't stated, as it often is when one wants to emphasize something.


But that isn't what I'm suggesting. I"m suggesting Mark was saying that Jesus was walking "in the water", probably near the shore.


And yet Vorkosigan considers his work the greatest piece of Western Literature ever written. Curious..

My point was to present a naturalistic explanation for why Mark and others may have misinterpreted this account as that of a miracle of walking on the water. My argument relies on more than just whether Mark's word meant "in" or "on". Even if Mark intended for the word to mean "on top of the water", several factors are still present which can explain how a naturalistic event was converted over time into a miraculous one.

ted

Ben C Smith

Just found some of my old notes on the matter (I do not own the Meier volumes).

Isaiah 43.2, 5 links passing through the waters with a do not fear, I am with you statement.

Job 9.8, 11 links Yahweh trampling down the waves of the sea with a passing by statement, and further stipulates that he would not be recognized (!) while passing by. This is probably the strongest connection.

Sirach 24.5-6 has wisdom walking on the depths of the abyss (often used as a term for the sea).

Ben.

TedM

I noted the number and looked at a few....


In Mark, epi means "in" or "into" quite a few times: (it's number 1909). Here's just a sample:



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mar 4:26 And 2532 he said 3004 , So 3779 is 2076 the kingdom 932 of God 2316, as 5613 if 1437 a man 444 should cast 906 seed 4703 into 1909 the ground 1093;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mar 4:31 [It is] like 5613 a grain 2848 of mustard seed 4615, which 3739, when 3752 it is sown 4687 in 1909 the earth 1093, is less 3398 than all 3956 the seeds 4690 that be 2076 in 1909 the earth 1093:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mar 4:38 And 2532 he 846 was 2258 in 1909 the hinder part of the ship 4403, asleep 2518 on 1909 a pillow 4344: and 2532 they awake 1326 him 846, and 2532 say 3004 unto him 846, Master 1320, carest 3199 thou 4671 not 3756 that 3754 we perish 622 ?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mar 6:25 And 2532 she came in 1525 straightway 2112 with 3326 haste 4710 unto 4314 the king 935, and asked 154 , saying 3004 , I will 2309 that 2443 thou give 1325 me 3427 by and by 1824 in 1909 a charger 4094 the head 2776 of John 2491 the Baptist 910.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mar 8:4 And 2532 his 846 disciples 3101 answered 611 him 846, From whence 4159 can 1410 a man 5100 satisfy 5526 these 5128 [men] with bread 740 here 5602 in 1909 the wilderness 2047?

Mar 12:26 And 1161 as touching 4012 the dead 3498, that 3754 they rise 1453 : have ye 314 0 not 3756 read 314 in 1722 the book 976 of Moses 3475, how 5613 in 1909 the bush 942 God 2316 spake 2036 unto him 846, saying 3004 , I 1473 [am] the God 2316 of Abraham 11, and 2532 the God 2316 of Isaac 2464, and 2532 the God 2316 of Jacob 2384?

ted

Julian

I completely disagree about the word usage here. See Amaleq's post above.
Yet he doesn't say so according to the Greek experts. Why do you need a naturalistic explanation for this episode? (pun intended )
Let me first say that Vork has done a lot of excellent work and has many very useful ideas and good research.

However...

He is reading it in English and, boy, did those translators do Mark a giant favor. They have changed the pitiful syntax of Mark and made it somewhat readable. If I say 'και ευθυς' I bet that anyone who has read the NT in Greek will know exactly what writer I am referring to.

Also, I think that Vork falls prey to what Raymond Brown describes as "the excessive chiasm detection that plagues modern scholarship."

I think that many of Vork discoveries come more from Vork than Mark.

Overall, I think that Vork's work is thorough and is very good quality, I just happen to disagree with some of it, possibly most of it.

Julian

yalla

Ted,
You are right Exodus aint it...except for god's mastery of the sea.

See this story is showing JC's divine mastery and fulfillment of the OT: from D.Nineham "St.Mark" Pelican p.180 re this pericope...the disciples are shown that "..in Jesus they are dealing with the eschatological power of god and the fulfillment of the OT and this walking on water should only have provided joyful confirmation of that truth for the OT frequently spoke of god's mastery of the sea and described it in terms of the power to walk on , or through, the waves [cf. eg. job 9.8, Ps 77.19, Isa 43.16 and see "stilling the storm 4.39]"

If you read those tanakh references you will see they cover the plot elements closely.

But this pericope is linked to the earlier water miracle of stilling the storm Mark 4.39ff.
About which Nineham says "ability to control the sea was regarded as one of the characteristic signs of DIVINE [his emphasis] power; cf Pss. 89.8, 93.3,106.8 and Isa 51.9b.10].'' p.146.
He goes on to talk about storms, god's power to save etc and gives another half dozen tanakh cites.
There are your motives for the author of Mark writing this story. To connect JC to god and power and the OT.

Hugh Anderson, "The Gospel of Mark" p.177 connects the 2 water pericopes '' the story is... composite.. with 4.37-41. " and that's where "John" get's his "astonished'' [Mark 4.41] and "rough wind stopped" [Mark 4.39], same OT motif.
Anderson goes on to say that " It is more pertinent to this story [as to the report of the storm-stilling in 4.37] to take account of the OT symbolism behind it".

The pericopes take OT themes etc and weave them into a couple of stories that show the divine power of JC.

Now I'm pretty sure there are some references in there somewhere to Jonah in a storm but I can't find them offhand.

And actually you are wrong about my "interacting based on a prior conclusion about it," because when I first came to these pericopes, and "Mark" in general, I knew very little and was probably in the soft HJ camp. It was reading the numerous Tanakh references that are the basis for Mark in general and these 2 pericopes in particular that convinced me that the primary source of Mark's JC is not history but the Tanakh.
cheers
yalla

Julian

How do you cast seed into the ground? I guess if you throw it with enough force...? A much better translation here is 'upon' the ground. Is this KJV? KJV truly blows as a translation.
Again, 'upon' is a much better translation.
Could be on, as in 'on a boat.' It could go either way but 'in' makes better English. That's all.
A better translation would have been 'on.'
This is the only one that might support you here, although I suspect some funny Greek usage here. Beyond my expertise in this case.

Julian