TedM

See my response above

IF a word can mean either "in" or "on", what difference does it make which one the Greek father's chose, given their obvious inclincation?

I agree with both statements.

ted

TedM

I don't see a strong connection.

TedM

You just agreed with me, yalla. You consider Mark to be based on the OT and not historical events. That affects your interpretation of this "periscope". In any case most of what you wrote dealt with the calming of the storm, which is not what this is about. You referenced Isaiah, which is clearly talking about the past (Red Sea), and Psalms 77, which says

Very ambiguous. Sure, there may be a connection to OT passages, but I don't see how anyone can see a strong one here.

TedM

Mar 4:26 And 2532 he said 3004 , So 3779 is 2076 the kingdom 932 of God 2316, as 5613 if 1437 a man 444 should cast 906 seed 4703 into 1909 the ground 1093;

Would have to look at it closer to decide.

Mar 4:31 [It is] like 5613 a grain 2848 of mustard seed 4615, which 3739, when 3752 it is sown 4687 in 1909 the earth 1093, is less 3398 than all 3956 the seeds 4690 that be 2076 in 1909 the earth 1093:

How were mustard seeds "sown"?

Mar 4:38 And 2532 he 846 was 2258 in 1909 the hinder part of the ship 4403, asleep 2518 on 1909 a pillow 4344: and 2532 they awake 1326 him 846, and 2532 say 3004 unto him 846, Master 1320, carest 3199 thou 4671 not 3756 that 3754 we perish 622 ?

He was "on" the hinder part of the ship asleep? "in" sounds better to me.

Mar 6:25 And 2532 she came in 1525 straightway 2112 with 3326 haste 4710 unto 4314 the king 935, and asked 154 , saying 3004 , I will 2309 that 2443 thou give 1325 me 3427 by and by 1824 in 1909 a charger 4094 the head 2776 of John 2491 the Baptist 910.

It could be either in a dish or on a dish.


Mar 8:4 And 2532 his 846 disciples 3101 answered 611 him 846, From whence 4159 can 1410 a man 5100 satisfy 5526 these 5128 [men] with bread 740 here 5602 in 1909 the wilderness 2047?

Seems like support at first glance. Beyond mine too.

ted

Ben C Smith

Your translation obscures some of it.

Mark 6.48b:

...he came to them, walking on the sea [πεÏ?ιπατων επι την θαλασσαν], and he intended to pass them by [παÏ?ελθειν].

Job 9.9, 11b (LXX):

Who alone stretched out the heavens and walks upon the sea [πεÏ?ιπατων... επι θαλασσης] as if it were dry ground.

...were he to pass me by [παÏ?ελθη] I would not recognize him.

(Like the disciples did not recognize Jesus.)

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Ted, the short story is that your translation by the sea for επι της θαλασσης is feasible. This very phrase means by the sea (as opposed to on top of it) in the LXX of Exodus 14.2; 2 Samuel 17.11; and 1 Maccabees 14.34. It means on top of the sea in other places, including our Marcan pericope, but also in (for example) Revelation 7.1.

But I really recommend you read Meier.

Ben.

TedM

Ok, I hadn't looked at other translations. This does argues for invention. Or embellishment. Who might have used this passage besides Mark? Anyone looking for miracles to prove Jesus was the Messiah. Since the disciples were fisherman and got into the boat often, it wouldn't have been surprising to look for a miracle related to the seas. The question is, did the people/author who looked go back to the OT to find them, or question the disciples about things that they had experienced? Is it all that inconceivable that in the midst of a storm the disciples thought they saw a ghost when they saw Jesus walking along the shore (they really couldn't have been too far out) at a very late hour, and that when the storm let up they rowed up to the shore and Jesus walked out to meet them?

I"m weakening though....how unlikely is the pairing of walking on/in/by the sea and intentionally passing by them? Why would Mark use the word "intentionally"? Was Mark aware of this passage, or were others who converted a real event into a mythical one?

ted

breathilizer

Better question: If Jesus were going to use his powers ANYWAY, why not just teleport to the boat? Why would he even take the time to walk?

Ben C Smith

No, it is not inconceivable. But I like the explanation that Meier gives better. Virtually every detail coincides with an OT theophanic element. How convenient that a mishap in Galilee happens to come out so much like the OT theophanic texts.

He did not use that word. He used the word wanted or wished, sometimes translated as intended.

Was Mark aware of a passage in which a divine being goes unrecognized and walks on the sea? Given that he tells a story in which a divine being goes unrecognized while walking on the sea, I would say probably so.

You seem quite a fair-minded person, Ted, and your willingness to consider this viewpoint over your own is a credit to you.

Ben.

pharoah

One further thing to note is that if this had been a historical event the disciples would have certainly questioned Jesus closely about what they saw. He would have clarified the incident himself as being either a miracle or mistake. So there are only three possibilities: Jesus walked on the water, Jesus lied to them, or Mark made it up. I opt for the latter.