neilgodfrey

[QUOTE]The Pharisees are without question confusing the temple Jesus commanded them to destroy with the stone building. Perhaps maybe the author of the gospel had some idea about the time of Herod's temple in building -- but I have not seen any explanation that gives anything more than very rough-edged dates and a bit of guessing at the one end (27 ce? 28 ce? 29 ce?) to make it work out to a precise "46". I don't doubt, however, that it is close enough for the author to have seen the possibility and references the Pharisees as seeing it in these terms. But this meaning of the number is a superficial, even vague and quite superfluous point to how the author uses numbers elsewhere throughout the gospel. This view of the number is as much a misapprehension as is the nature of the temple the author's Jesus was discussing.

The author of this gospel is absolutely number crazy. See Numerical literary techniques in John : the Fourth Evangelist's use of numbers of words and syllables by M. J. J. Menken. If he can't find a good number to play with he plays number games with his words and syllables even. It's out of character with the rest of the gospel that he should come up with a precise 46 unless he had a precise and mystical reason for doing so.

When the church fathers took the number 46 to be gematria of Adam in the Greek, they were much closer to the gospel's thinking and way of working with numbers than Brown's argument is.

Loisy goes further, drawing on a writing counted as part of Cyprian's collection, to suggest the most likely source was Daniel: 46 years when he expelled the traders, 49 years when he died -- "not yet fifty" (completed his work). Loisy's argument is, after discussing the confusion of the disciples about Jesus' meaning and eventual understanding, essentially:
An author from a school that teaches him to write about 153 fish, no more and no less, is only interested in the time the stone temple was being built enough to dismiss it as a blind alley. Numbers are mystical things and that's where their primary meaning is to be found.

Neil Godfrey

Clivedurdle

MJJ Mencken looks very interesting! Are there summaries of his work available?

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=004...2.0.CO%3B2-%23

Clivedurdle

http://journals.cambridge.org/action...ine&aid=281282

Might be valuable to look elsewhere for the solution to the mystery of the gospel tradition?

Clivedurdle

Don't remember reading anything about this stuff in traditional circles!:devil1:

neilgodfrey

When I first encountered Menkel I thought he was another Ivan Panin. Even if removed a step from Panin, how could one work with numbers of words etc in key passages, especially in John, when the original text itself is so problematic if not impossible? Then I read something that made me think he had more going for him than I allowed. His book is on my to-read list -- will compile some notes hopefully when that time comes -- and hopefully won't be too embarrassed about my reference to him now.


Neil Godfrey

angelo

Sounds more like Da-Vinci Code style B/S to me. People can intrepert this kind of stuff anyway they see that fits their beliefs. The only way to grasp any historical truth [if any] is by studying serious historians, who have dedicated themselves to their cause and try to find some historical facts among all the fables and myths.

Clivedurdle

It may look Da Vinci code stuff but there is a real issue here. 153 is an incredibly important number and its appearance in these texts with many more interesting numbers is definitely suspicious!

neilgodfrey

Have had a look at Menken's introduction. The whole number thing is far more common among ancient texts than I had suspected.

Plato, Aristotle, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Sallust express the importance of compositions being as well-proportioned in their various parts as living organisms.

Well-proportioned including structuring the parts of the text according to golden section divisions (proportion between the smallest part and largest part is equal to proportion between largest part and the whole); or less interesting 2:1 or 3:1 ratios, concentric structures and mathematical ratios between words used for narrative against words used in dialogue, triangular numbers, rectangular and square numbers, etc.

The proportions applied to lines (esp in poetry), words and syllables.

It was a good thing to match the numerical value of a key word in a section with the same number of words or syllables either side of it, .... that sort of thing.

Sallust says he opts not to say too much about certain topic because it would break the rules of good proportion between the different parts of his text.

Studies have shown plenty of examples of this in practice throughout classical and biblical texts.

I think ancient authors had too much time on their hands.

As for the religious or philosophical significance of numbers, Menken ignores that and says that those meanings were based on some mathematical quaility of the numbers anyway.

That said, Philo is a good source for the philosophical meanings, especially given his other affinities with John. And he does have nice things to say about 40 and 6 (40 produces many virtues and 6 is the most fruitful number -- Q&A from Genesis, 14; On Creation, 3); and 50 is the most holy number (On Contemp. Life, 65) -- so maybe Christ was "not yet" holy?

But that aside, my earlier reference to Menken to support my claim that John was a number-nut doesn't add anything to the point I was making. John's use of numbers in his text, at least at the level Menken discusses, does not appear to have been any different from the practice in other ancient authors. At least that's from my reading of Menken's introduction so far.

Meanwhile, I'm trying to imagine ancient audiences listening to a reader with eyes closed and mentally counting the syllables as he reads . . . .

Neil Godfrey

Clivedurdle

Sounds like it would have been appreciated grammatically or in terms of the whole composition - that feels right, no discords, the music of the opera or symphony in words was good - did they have standing ovations then? Word jazz?

This would be an interesting test of interpolations, and the quality of the writing.

It should not be difficult to produce leagues of the quality of writing - for example might most of the new testament be third division stuff?

And it sounds like it is impossible to translate!

JoeWallack

JW:
"Mark" especially shows a stylized structure:

1) Prologue - JtB "introduces" Jesus.

Jesus' "history" is the Jewish Bible. "Mark", as always, following Paul, avoids Jesus' history because it distracts.

2) Historical Ministry - 1st half of Story, through Chapter 8.

Jesus Serves/Saves others.

Ends with Peter IDing Jesus as the Jewish Messiah - Wrong!

3) Transfiguration - Halfway through.

Transition form Historical Ministry to Passion

Starts with God IDing Jesus as God's Son - Right!

4) Passion Ministry - 2nd half of Story

Jesus can not Serve/Save himself. Contrast with 1st half.

Ends with Roman IDing Jesus as God's Son - Right!

5) Epilogue - Young Man tries to "re-introduce" Jesus.

Jesus' "future" is the Christian Bible. "Mark", as always, following Paul, avoids details of Jesus' future because it distracts.

Bonus material for Vork:

In "Mark's" extreme literary construction, Jesus does not choose not to Save himself, he is not capable of Saving himself ("John" directly Reacts to this). Gethsemane is intended to illustrate this:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_14

32 "And they come unto a place which was named Gethsemane: and he saith unto his disciples, Sit ye here, while I pray.

33 And he taketh with him Peter and James and John, and began to be greatly amazed, and sore troubled.

34 And he saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful even unto death: abide ye here, and watch.

35 And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass away from him.

36 And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; remove this cup from me: howbeit not what I will, but what thou wilt.

37 And he cometh, and findeth them sleeping, and saith unto Peter, Simon, sleepest thou? couldest thou not watch one hour?

38 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

39 And again he went away, and prayed, saying the same words."

Note that "Mark's" Jesus is praying (passionately) to Save himself. But he can not. Maybe he should have fasted at the Last Supper. This sets up the Ironic comment:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_15

"In like manner also the chief priests mocking [him] among themselves with the scribes said, He saved others; himself he cannot save."

Once again "Mark" places Irony on the lips of the chief priests. They are correct that Jesus can not save himself, but they are wrong about the reason.



Joseph

"He who denies that "John's" Jesus is denying "Mark's" Jesus is the liar." - The Gospel of Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page