stephan huller

A while back I read a thread developed by Andrew suggesting that the name Marcus might be a play on the Latin term murcus (= coward, deserter). It is interesting to note that one could make the case that an alternative but closely related idea exists in Aramaic. The Babylonian Jewish and Samaritan Aramaic equivalent of the Latin name Marcus is mrqa and mrqh. In the case of the latter the Samaritans make a great deal of its numerology (= 345 or Moses msh),

It is worth noting that in Aramaic there is a term ma'araqa (a'a = ayin) which means fugitive or one who runs from battle. From Jastrow:

The use of ma'arqa in Leviticus 26:36 is particularly significant as it corresponds almost exactly with the sense of the Latin murcus.

Notice also that the plural is ma'araqia. The feminine plural would be ma'araqian. Curious.

sotto voce

“And for those of you who survive, I will demoralize you in the land of your enemies. You will live in such fear that the sound of a leaf driven by the wind will send you fleeing. You will run as though fleeing from a sword, and you will fall even when no one pursues you.' Lev 26:36 NLT

So is this prophecy of Marcionites?

stephan huller

I don't know if it is a 'prophesy' of the Marcionites yet. But of all the possibilities for an etymology this one has at the very least been suggested by someone else at this forum. I haven't checked for New Testament references to this section of Leviticus but I would expect this passage to be cited frequently by rabbinic sources. It would - I expect - be prominent in the concept of the galut or Exile.

These are the places to start. Perhaps also the section referenced by Jastrow is the proper starting point. The problem for me with Christian origins is that we have only one model - that of the primitive notion of Jesus actually preaching, his making converts and then an organic development to the gospels and a formal liturgy. The early baptism liturgies, the use of the Latin term sacramentum and many other features of the late second century suggest something other than voluntary adoption of the new faith.

Again how do we explain the sudden appearance of Christianity and Christian converts in the world, the early incorporation of Latin terminology in the gospel of Mark, the tradition that the gospel first developed at Rome and most importantly the central concept of 'redemption' in the religion which - according to all the heretics and all the Church Fathers is based on the concept of a slave purchase from a bad (or not so good) god to a lord called chrestos? I don't know but the idea that Christianity developed from refugees or fugitives from war has a lot going for it especially if the gospel is understood to have been written in the immediate aftermath of the Jewish revolt of 66 CE (or according to some here the Bar Kochba revolt).

Consider also the name of Christians in Edessa = Palutians. This is absolutely certainly not the name of a group named after an individual named 'Palut' (lol) but a parallel to the possible Mark/ma'arqia formulation suggested here. After all palut means 'refugee' in all forms of Aramaic including the SYriac used in Edessa. I haven't checked yet to see if ma'araqa extends to Syriac.

stephan huller

Apparently the terminology did not extend outside of Jewish Literary Aramaic, Targumic Aramaic

http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/

stephan huller

An proposed example of the Aramaic underpinning to a gospel passage using ma'arq (me'raq) from Matthew Black's classic work:

sotto voce

So it is agreed that Marcionites were fugitives. Indeed, one might use 'Marcionite' as synonym for 'coward'. Or maybe this is taking semantics a bit too far.

Why change the subject? We are discussing cowardice, not what makes mice out of men.

Oh, I see what you mean. Liturgy is the first resort of the timorous who don't have the genuine words ex tempore! Indeed so.

Of course. There are two reason for liturgy. One is to give to people who have no interest in religion of any kind a religious 'hymn-sheet' to recite, whether they have any clue what it means, or not.

The other reason is to make sure that there is no opportunity for personal interpretation, questions or criticism of official religion. Ye gods, that would never do.

Roman terror of the truth, of course! Remember, Rome was a fragile police state, as Tacitus told us. The very last place to put an honest man.

That isn't a tradition. There is another tradition, of 'apostolic succession', but it was only to be expected, if Roman emperors were wetting themselves in panic. Which of course, they must have been, so deeply contradictory was their behaviour with what the apostles were teaching and having success with.

Heretics, and those explicitly condemned by Jesus??? How can you know anything if you read silly shit like that? You really ought to ask someone who knows, stephan. Then you will escape folly and fundamentalism! Why do you suppose that people were prepared to go to the stake for the sake of taking only the Bible as acceptable source, if it was not of prime importance? And as you necessarily cannot convince the inheritors of their view, is there really any point in reading such base stuff? It's really not worth a sensible person's attention.

The use of exagorazo, to redeem or buy out of the market, was as metaphor for escaping the judgment of the law, that inevitably condemned, just as a slave was theoretically in a hopeless situation (though of course they could often buy their way out of it). So a person might remain physically a slave, but would be free from condemnation of the conscience due to the many sins he had committed, and so free from the 'slavery' of sin; both in terms of its power to make guilt and its power to control one's life. The messiah was priest, in that the offering of his own soul was considered as sinful in the place of the sinner's soul. Because of the gratitude of the redeemed sinner, the messiah became lord or king of the life of the sinner, whose allegiance was to that messiah rather than the civil ruler— whether that be a crooked Herodian, Sadducee, Pharisee or Roman administrator. It was as inevitable as night follows day that the interests of the powerful crooked, those who, in the NT context, were very much slaves of sin, would clash with those of the messiah-ans, who called themselves followers of 'the way'. These were people who were called atheists because they ignored the pagan temples of the Romans; and Christians because that's the Greek version of 'Messianites', as we know. People who had no need whatsoever of Roman liturgy, sacerdotes or sacramenta, all paganisms. So there is absolutely zero reason to be surprised that frightened Romans invented their own mock lore via 'traditions', of necessarily mysterious origin. For 'tradition' read 'hearsay'. For 'hearsay' read 'heresy'. For sound reasons, if it ain't in the Bible, it's coward's crap. Marcionite's mendacity, if you like! Ok?

tanya

Context, please?

What is the point of this thread? How does analysis of an hypothetical survey of Aramaic linquistics explain the origin of the Gospel of Mark?

How does a definition of "coward", relate to assessment of a presumptive 1st versus 2nd century date of composition?

There is no evidence, at least none I have encountered, to place the earliest gospel text before the end of the third uprising, circa 135 CE. None of the gospels are thought to have been composed in Jerusalem. That in itself persuades me, that they were composed AFTER the compulsory evacuation of Jerusalem from 130-135 CE. Isn't Jerusalem, after all, the most LOGICAL place for their composition? Well, yeah, but maybe not in the middle of a conflagration, with blood running in the streets.

When ten soldiers arrive at your house, lances pointed at wife and children, with a gesture to move, what are you going to do? Tell them, in a language they do not understand, that you will just be five minutes to pack your toothbrush, while you search for your copy of the Tanakh?

I don't think so.

Are you writing here, that Mark's gospel represents the text of a coward, who ran from the soldiers, instead of fighting them?

:huh:

Diogenes the Cynic

Marcus was one of the two most common Roman names in the Roman Empire. Let's just go along with Occam on this.

stephan huller

But Mark is the most enigmatic figure in the entire canon of saints. The man who wrote the first gospel - and essentially (from an Alexandrian perspective especially) founded the very religion of Christianity - is little more than a willow-wisp, a shadow, a figure even more mysterious than Jesus. And it is the same in all Judeo-Christian traditions. The Samaritan Marqe establishes the entire Samaritan religion as it is has survived throughout the centuries. The Samaritans know nothing about him. They have lots of biographical information on everyone else in their tradition - except the second Moses who gave them their liturgy, their orthodoxy, their faith. The same thing is true in Christianity especially from an Alexandrian perspective. Very odd. I will go to my grave wondering about this.

The problem with most people who comment and write about Christianity is that they have absolutely no perspective on anything. They study a little 'theology,' memorize cliffs notes on Judaism - but there is no perspective about the context of the common monotheistic tradition that binds all of us together. Mythicists want to talk about Jesus as a myth as if 'real history' exists anywhere in their intellectual desert. It doesn't. Mark is living proof of that. WTF does Jesus matter to any of this history? It's all Mark, it's all in the narrative which defined the religion and we know less about him than we do about his literary invention. That's the real story here. The greatest artist of all time who hides (or his hidden) within his art. He is successful because he doesn't take a bow, he never tips his hand and admits what he created, never acknowledges his own handiwork. The greatest story never told.

Diogenes the Cynic

Perhaps, and that's an interesting and provocative point unto itself, but we don't have any reason to think his name actually was any iteration of Marcus or Mark.