Steven Carr

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00003/art00003

'Mark 9.49, with its odd juxtaposition of the images of salt and fire, is a notoriously difficult text, which has mystified many interpreters and engendered numerous conflicting interpretations. In a regrettably disregarded article, T.J. Baarda suggested that the original form of the saying may have been 'For everyone will be baptized in fire'. '

Is mainstream Biblical scholarship happy with the idea that we can just change the published text if it doesn't appear to be consistent?

stephan huller

I have never read this article but it certainly sounds interesting and intriguing. Baarda is one of those scholars whose language skills are so strong that you know that even if you don't want to agree with him on something you will be hard pressed to come up with arguments against what he is proposing.

I am particularly fascinated by the 'fire baptism' tradition in early Christianity. I think it has its roots in Moses's enthronement experience in Deuteronomy 33. The origin of this interest is clearly Persian.

http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...hdat-lamo.html

Steven Carr

But the text doesn't say 'baptised in fire'. It says 'salted with fire'.

Admittedly that makes no sense, but neither does 'baptised with fire'.

judge

I dont know if baarda is looking to the aramaic, and somehows tries to get baptised from the root mlx, but there is a theory that this is evidence Mark was originally written in aramaic.

The aramaic root Xlm can mean salt or scatter . From CAL

mlx V
011 Palestinian,Syr,JBA to salt
012 Syr to scatter
013 BibAr,Syr to use someone's salt
014 Syr to become salty
041 Syr to be salted
051 Syr to treat someone in a familiar way
LS2 390,J 788
R melxA) N

So in aramaic, pre the addition of vowels we could read,

"For everything will be destroyed (Xlmtn) with fire," Which makes sense following on from verse 48.

So we have a greek text that reads "salted with fire" and an aramaic text that reads "scattered (possibly destroyed) with fire"
We see this same root used in the hebrew of Isaiah

"Lift up your eyes to the sky, Then look to the earth beneath; For the sky will vanish (wxlmn) like smoke, And the earth will wear out like a garment And its inhabitants will die in like manner; But My salvation will be forever, And My righteousness will not wane." (Isaiah 51:6)

Now what is curious is that the latin text, bobiensis seems to agree with the aramaic rather than the greek. It reads..."all things will be destroyed"

One solution here is that the greek and the latin both come from an aramaic written version which had the root MLX.

The latin translator looked to verse 48.."where
“‘the worms that eat them do not die,
and the fire is not quenched."

and saw destroyed, translating MLX as destroyed, whilst the greek translator looked to verse 50

50 “Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt among yourselves, and be at peace with each other.”

and translated MLX as salt.

There are some old discussions in the archives somewhere on this.

stephan huller

Here is the best information I could get on the article from my hotel room. Baarda is proposing instead of ''Everyone will be salted with fire" something like "Everyone must be purified with fire"

avi

As usual, Stephan has hit the nail on the head.

What do "salting" and "fire" share in common:

Both are ancient methods used to "purify" food, i.e. to store food, to kill disease causing organisms.

avi

aa5874

So, after all there is NO indication of interpolation. The very Mark 9.49-50 show that "salt" may mean "purified" or "cleansed".


Mark 9

Toto

salt and fire

But salt is also connected to destruction, as with Lot's wife, or where a victor salts the fields of the vanquished.

The OP asked "Is mainstream Biblical scholarship happy with the idea that we can just change the published text if it doesn't appear to be consistent? "

But we see here that mainstream scholars will do backbends to try to preserve the received text.

stephan huller

I have long argued that Morton Smith was wrong about assuming that the mystery of divine kingship which Jesus instructs his beloved disciple was simply a water immersion ritual. All signs point to a fire baptism ritual borrowed or adapted from Persian religious practices at the end of the calendar year. We see this chronological development in several ways. The Zoroastrians apparently had a week at the end of the year devoted to the dead. Then they celebrated Nayrouz a name for the first day of the year taken over (strangely) by the Alexandrian Church. I think we learn from Secret Mark that the water ritual likely was performed after the fire one (ie it is the “he” crossing to the other side of the Jordan).

The Christian rite could also be seen as Moses's enthronement PLUS Joshua's crossing

Toto

What would a fire baptism ritual consist of? Do we have any evidence that such a thing existed?

Most Christian interpreters (this seems to be typical) claim that the baptism of fire refers to the burning of sinners' souls in a lake of fire, and is not something that anyone would seek out.