Ted Hoffman

I am aware that my two friends, Price and Doherty both believe Micah has something to do with it.

It just seems too arbitrary to me. It only makes sense in light of SGM and the homosexual connotations. Maybe it was part of a larger text that got edited out.

Vorkosigan

Gundry, in the finest JP Holding manner, points out that there is no linen cloth in Amos -- as if that is a mark against construction. But he does raise a slightly more pertinent issue, and that is that the LXX Greek does not say "fled" but "will be pursued."

Also, Gundry notes that in Gen 39:12-13, Joseph fled seduction naked.

Genesis 39
12 She caught him by his cloak and said, "Come to bed with me!" But he left his cloak in her hand and ran out of the house.
13 When she saw that he had left his cloak in her hand and had run out of the house, (NIV)

although he hastens to defend the scene from the possibility of fiction construction (heaven forfend!) out of the OT.

Vorkosigan

spin

I missed this:

The original text only talks of one animal. This is where I talked about Hebrew poetry. The same thing often gets presented in two linguistic forms, making a parallelism...

Mic 5:11
and I will cut off the cities of your land
and throw down all your strongholds

Cities and strongholds refer to the same thing...

Zech 9:4
the Lord will strip it of its possessions
and hurl its wealth into the sea

Wealth and possession...

Joel 1:6
its teeth are lions' teeth
and it has fangs of a lioness

etc.


spin

Rick Sumner

I know, though I wasn't aware of the other verses you cited. By "two animals" I meant "Matthew's two animals."

I'll mull over your argument on Amos and get back to you later.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Intelligitimate

Just to note, I linked to Vinnie's article for humorous reasons and because it does attempt to answer the question of the opening post, namely if the young man is Mark himself.

Amaleq13

I tend to agree but...

...seems to me to be just plain ridiculous.

Ted Hoffman

The story is bogus because Mark 14:50 says that the disciples "all left Him and fled". How could a semi-naked man start following a man whose own diciples were fleeing from at the speed of light?

Was he a mad man? And why the pleonastic emphasis on his nakedness? for example "wearing nothing but a linen sheet over his naked body" and "escaped naked".

The whole scene is ridiculous. I hereby solemnly introduce to you, ladies and gentlemen. Our next criteria in HJ methodology. Ladies and Gentlemen, here is THE CRITERIA OF RIDICULE (c).

Chili

No it's not. The fleeing is what undressed Peter of his soiled garments and he followed Jesus to get white garments in the second "young man." Peter was satan at this time in life or just the nagging enemy of Jesus that had to be brought to understanding. Hence also the temple precinct reference (doubt metaphor) wherefore Peter could rightfully deny Jesus 3 times.

Edited to add, in case you missed it, that in the allegory Peter is the faith of Jesus.

spin

"Criteria" is plural. "Criterion" is singular. I think you want a singular form for your criterion. What is ridiculous to you of course is not necessarily ridiculous to other people. What is ridiculous to you today is probably not the case to someone writing the material a few thousand year ago. Modern retrojection is not too useful as no-one can know the applicability of the modern criterion in the ancient situation. A good rule of thumb is to avoid such judgmental views as they will probably be inappropriate and add more layers of obfuscation.


spin

Vorkosigan

I have split off certain posts and moved them to ~E~.