Magdlyn

Have you read that? Do you just happen to own it?

Does it say that Romans and Palestinians in 1st Cent CE were in the habit of anointing themselves with oil, or with alcohol?

I see you have not told me whether chrysm/chrisim is used in the verses that refer to anointing I quoted earlier. No, you're just catching me up to speed on how fumes never refer to something burnt. I am asking you if there was oil involved when Mary (one or another, or the unnamed woman) anointed Jesus.


Why the nitpick?

Magdlyn

Here is the wiki article on chrism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrism
When the word anointed is used in the Bible verses I quoted, I am still in the dark as to whether it was a form of the word chrism. You said it was not used in John. What about the other books? Jesus' title has a form of this word.

Mar 6:13 And they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many that were sick and healed them.
Mar 14:8 She has done what she could; she has anointed my body beforehand for burying.
Luk 4:18 "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor.
Luk 7:38 and standing behind him at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.
Luk 7:46 You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment.
Jhn 9:6 As he said this, he spat on the ground and made clay of the spittle and anointed the man's eyes with the clay,
Jhn 9:11 He answered, "The man called Jesus made clay and anointed my eyes and said to me, 'Go to Silo'am and wash'; so I went and washed and received my sight."
Jhn 11:2 It was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Laz'arus was ill.
Jhn 12:3 Mary took a pound of costly ointment of pure nard and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the ointment.


What is the Greek here, for example?

Jeffrey Gibson

Yep, I've read it and yep I own it through JSTOR..

Who said anything about Jews or Romans anointing anyone with alcohol? The issue is what the perfumes such as nard were produced with, isn't it? Why change the subject?

Yes, and in the first place, that's because there is no, and cannot be any, verse in the NT that uses the either the word chrysm or chrism, since neither of these words are Greek words; In the second, you asked me to do this in a message separate from the one to which I was responding.

Do you know the knock knock joke about the impatient cow?

Is that what I'm doing? And is that actually what I said? Geeze, another JMer who, in order to upbraid me for something I did or said, has to misrepresent what I did or said!


Anyway, since you were the one who made the rather absolute (and disdainful) claim that the word "chrysm" was the Greek word used in anointing scenes, one would have thought that you had already had dome your homework in this matter. Othewise why berate "Antipope" for not knowing what he was talking about? So are you saying you made a claim about something you didn't really know anything about and which you had no right to make?

Please note that that's not exactly what you asked me before.

And why haven't you looked this up yourself? Contrary to your claim about what the Greek word used in Jn 12 and Mark 14 was, do you not know Greek? Are you reluctant/hesitant to use the Greek tools that are available in the place where you seem to do the bulk of your "research" -- i.e., online?

Didn't you say if MURON was a perfume, it had to be something poured?

It is not nit picking to show that, or raise the question whether, the premise upon which an argument or larger claim is based is false or questionable and generally uninformed or that the one stating the premise, especially in the apodictic manner in which you stated it, does not have as firm a grasp of the facts upon which they are pronouncing as she presents herself as having. It's called the Socratic Method.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Note that even Wiki testifies that there is no Greek word chrysm.

Mar 6:13 And they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many that were sick and healed them.

HLEION from ALEIYW. And the word for oil is ELAIW dative of ELAION i.e., olive oli (or even cod liver oil!)

Mar 14:8 She has done what she could; she has anointed my body beforehand for burying.

MURISAI

Luk 4:18 "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor.

From the LXX of Isaiah of what God, not a woman, does and for an appointment to preach -- EXKRISEN

Luk 7:38 and standing behind him at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.

HLEIFEN from ALEIYW

Luk 7:46 You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment.

HLEIYAS (eta lamda epsilon iota psi alpha sigma) and HLEIFEN both from ALEIYW

Jhn 9:6 As he said this, he spat on the ground and made clay of the spittle and anointed the man's eyes with the clay,

bad translation, this. The verb is EPEQHKEN, "to put or place".

Jhn 9:11 He answered, "The man called Jesus made clay and anointed my eyes and said to me, 'Go to Silo'am and wash'; so I went and washed and received my sight."

EPECRISEN -- but note here it obviously means "smear", and there aint no oil or perfume involved; there is no woman, no burial, and certainly there's no wedding or suggestion of sexuality implied in the action.

Jhn 11:2 It was Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Laz'arus was ill.

ALEYASA from ALEIYW

Jhn 12:3 Mary took a pound of costly ointment of pure nard and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the ointment.

HLEIYEN from ALEIYW

I hope that this is a good illustration of the fact that when one is trying to do exegesis of, or is making claims about the meaning of, a biblical text, one should never do these things on the basis of an English translation of that text -- or rely for knowledge of what agenda driven "scholars" who show themselves willing to rape the evidence for what's there..

Jeffrey

Magdlyn

Interesting. What are the chances you would have a book on ancient perfumery? Cool.

I'm not aware I'm changing the subject. Mary poured something. What was it? Was it a scented oil? Unguents don't pour, they are smeared. The Greek I quote showed that chrism could mean oil or unguent. One is poured, the other smeared.


Chrism is not a Greek word? It's from the Greek, surely. I am asking if the Greek word, or a form of it, in the Greek alphabet, occurs in the Greek New Testament. Sorry for the confusion.

You're quibbling about the root of the word perfume coming from "through smoke." I don't care. In the case at hand, we are talking about a scented liquid, not incense.

My knowledge is not exhaustive. I was under the impression the "Christ" was annointed with a "chrism." I got the vowel wrong and for that I apologize. My bad. You just spelt done as dome and otherwise as othewise. We all make mistakes.

My main effort was to show that a Mary and/or unnamed woman anointed various Christly body parts and that Jesus said he anointed her. I do not read Greek, so am not aware of when that exact word for anoint occurs in the narratives.

Right. I was misinformed. I'm a rank amateur! :wave: Self taught on the Bible, merely a hobby, still learning. Don't read Greek, only know a few Greek words as they are transliterated into English.


I don't think muron was an incense. I think it was probably an oil based suspension, right.

Oh, the Socratic method, is it? I see. I thought it was a nitpick. Others have called it throwing tomatoes, iirc.

Magdlyn

Right. I got the vowel wrong.

I'm confused. Anointed is actually the word HLEION? What is the word for oil?

Anointed is the word MURISAI?

EXKRISEN has a form of the word chrism then.

HLEIFEN is translated anointed? What about "ointment?"

We have anoint, oil and ointment. They are all HLEIYAS or HLEIFEN?

That makes sense.

Obviously. I am not suggesting all anointing or mud smearings are kingly anointments.

Anoint is ALEYASA? What about ointment?

Good advice. So, why is Jesus called Christos if he was never anointed with chrism? Why does the Catholic Church use "chrism" to this day? I am confused.

Thanks for your help! :wave: Awesome.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Toto,

It appears that in transcribing the quote from Zetzel's review, a couple of the punctuation marks changed. This happens sometimes going from PDF to Microsoft Word. As a result of these changes in punctuation marks, one could possibly get the impression, I suppose, that Zetzel is not supporting Wiseman's contention that Catullus wrote Laureolus. Therefore, here is the quote of his clear support for Wiseman with the proper punctuation marks and the pertinent text in bold.

Quote:

By far the most novel and interesting section of Catullus and His World is chapter 6. "The Unknown Catullus." in which W. argues that Catullus wrote not only the extant collection but also mimes and possibly a prose treatise on the mime. As far as the mimes themselves are concerned (the Phasma and Laureolus referred to by Juvenal, his scholiast, and Tertullian: all ancient references to Catullus are collected by Wiseman in a very valuable appendix), W. is almost certainly right, and his recognition of the mime as a serious literary form in the late Republic (here and in "Who Was Crassicius Pansa?" TAPA 115 [1985]: 187-96) is of considerable interest. What is more, there is no reason to deny the authenticity of the treatise on mimes assigned to Catullus by the Berne scholia on Lucan 1. 544, although its precise title is lost in a textual corruption. But the larger argument that W. sets out concerning Catullus the mimographer is neither convincing nor consistent in itself.

Now with the proper punctuation marks, it is perfectly clear that Zetzel is supporting Wiseman's contention that Catullus did indeed write the mime plays. That Zetzel disagrees on other elements of Wiseman's argument is clear, but quite irrelevant to the fact that he supports Wiseman's contention that Catullus wrote Laureolis which is the only issue we are concerned about.

Zetzel even repeats his support for Wiseman's position that Catullus wrote the mime plays Phasma and Laureolus later in the review. I have again placed the relevant passage in bold.

Quote:

But although poem 116 does not announce future mimes, W. is surely right to reject firmly the unexamined belief that Catullus could only habe written what we have, or more poems like the extant poems. Both in this book and elsewhere, W.'s ability to adduce long-neglected evidence about the world of letters in the late Republic and his willingness to ignore preconceptions about what is possible or probable in literary history are both rare and stimulating. In the interest of turning Catullus into a man of the theater, however, W. pushes his evidence further than it can go. Phasma and Laureolus are certain titles for Catullan mimes; but W. wants more. He finds in the elder Pliny's reference to Catullus' imitation of erotic spells (HN 25. 19 " . . . Theocriti apud Graecos, Catulli apud nos proxinieque Vergilii incantamentoruni aniatoria imitation) an indication that Catullus wrote a mime Pharmake~itria,related to Theocritus I&11 2 and Vergil Eclogue 8. That is possible but by no means necessary.

as Zetzel writes, "As far as the mimes themselves are concerned...W. is certainly right..." and "Phasma and Laureolus are certain titles for Catullan mimes," I think we may say without reservation that he supports Wiseman's contention that Catullus wrote Laureolus.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Magdlyn

Oh Gibson, you edited after I responded, that's awkward.

So, no use of a form of "chrism" ever, in the gospels? I ask again, why is Jesus called Christos then? Can anyone tell me?

Jeffrey Gibson

It's not a book, it's an article, as the way I cited it, as well as the contents of the citation, show. You seem to be as good at accurate reading of texts as Jay is.

You stated the question of what I was talking about when I spoke of nard and what perfumes were mixed with in terms of an either/ or -- oil or alcohol -- and as it being either oil or alcohol as the object of what was poured from alabaster jars. I certainly never spoke of alcohol being poured from anything, let alone from alabaster jars (or boxes -- as Jn 12 3 implies).

It's only John who mentions Mary. And he does not describe her as pouring anything. We find a refernce to pouring in Mk. 14. But there the GUNAI is unnamed. You can only get a Mary who pours something if ignore what each evangelists tells us and conflate the conflicting data each gives.

And unguents can be poured, just as powered can. But the issue is not what CRISMA means, especially since the word doesn't appear in Jn. 12 or Mk. 14. It's what nard is and what it was used for. It is not an oil. And it was used -- as Jesus himself says in both Jn 12:7 and in Mk. 14:8 in for embalming.

Moreover, the Greek verb used in the description of the unidentified GUNH in Mk. 14:3 (KATECEW) can men "to place upon"". More importatly, It does not mean "anoint".

The question isn't what the extent of your knowledge is. It's whether you actually know the things you say you do and present as certainties.

And where did you get that impression? What was your source for it? One of your "sacred marriage" books?

You got the whole word wrong. And in your case, it wasn't a spelling mistake or a typo.

She didn't. He didn't. And if he did, it was not for, nor did it signify, what you claimed its purpose and its signification was.

So I politely suggest that from here on in, you make no claims whatsoever about what "the Greek word" is or means in any NT text.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

[QUOTE=Magdlyn;4947997]You got more than the vowel wrong. It is χρiσμα = chrisma.

No, you are mistaking the noun for "(olive) oil" with the verb for "to anoint".


No, MURIARI is translated here as "anointed". The question is whether that is a good translation.

No. Chrism is an English derivative from the noun Greek noun χρῖσμα (chrisma) which, as the Wiki article you yourself adduced notes, is a substantive form of the verb χρίω, χρίομαι. Exkrisen is a past tense form of the verb χρίω (Greek verbs are inflected to signify person, number, tense, mood, kind of action, etc.)

"

Again, you are confusing verbs and nouns. HLEIFEN is a form of the verb wich means "to anoint". It can't mean "ointment" because "ointment is a noun.

No!!:banghead: :banghead:

.

Obviously it does not.

[QUOTE]Anoint is ALEYASA? What about ointment?

MURON

But will you follow it??

?

Because as Lk 7:38, Ps. of Sol. 17, Isaiah The DSS and other texts show, one does not need the application of a physical chrism to be The "anointed" one = the one chosen and empowered to be the Messiah/Christ.

If you had done a little reading around in the books on NT chrastology that I recoomended to you -- but which you disdained with the genetic fallacy as unworthy of your time and attention - you might have spared yourself your confusion.

Use it for what? To make people the Messiah? What makes you think the practice is based on anything done to Jesus?

Jeffrey