Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amen-Moses · 12-16-2004, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

The Chiasm in Mark 15

Instead of running over the usual arguments for Markan priority, I've decided to start with something unusual: the literary structure of Mark 15:20-39. This is both an argument against the priority of other texts, and a thing of beauty in and of itself that I offer for your pleasure and enjoyment.

This may be a daft question but does this format exist in other extant texts from the period?

Or could this be a case of someone writing down an orally transmitted story which just happens to have this pattern as a memory aid to the narrator or even possibly a story that has been doing the rounds as a play?

Amen-Moses

Chris Weimer · 12-16-2004, 11:29 AM

Very good, Amen-Moses. A chiasm can be reduplicated in oral traditions, as the Illiad and Odyssey are full of literary devices more likely used before writing them down as a way of remembering them.

Vorkosigan · 12-16-2004, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amen-Moses

This may be a daft question but does this format exist in other extant texts from the period?

You bet.

Quote:

Or could this be a case of someone writing down an orally transmitted story which just happens to have this pattern as a memory aid to the narrator or even possibly a story that has been doing the rounds as a play?Amen-Moses

It's highly unlikely that this is an oral structure. Orality adds and subtracts. Further the details come from Psalm 22, and the skeleton for this section from Daniel 6. The dependence is apparently literary.

As for the play thing, recall that this is tied to a time schema laid down in Mark 13. Several scholars have argued that this is a liturgy meant to be read/performed over easter at those intervals. My own view is that the whole gospel is a liturgy meant to be performed.....

Vorkosigan · 12-16-2004, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Rather, this would indicate literary polish, I would say, which may in fact be antithetical to originality.

Yuri, polish indicates that this is not the first work of Mark. It says nothing about whether this is the first gospel.

Vorkosigan

Chili · 12-16-2004, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
Hmmm. I'm starting to feel like C. Thomas Howell in "The Hitcher".

Joseph

GNOSTICS, n.
A sect of philosophers who tried to engineer a fusion between the early Christians and the Platonists. The former would not go into the caucus and the combination failed, greatly to the chagrin of the fusion managers.

Sorry I do not know "The Hitcher" and cannot comment there but I know the Gnostics who failed because they were not gnostic, hence my term 'super' gnostic . . . and there is a difference because the gnostic knows that which the Gnostics claimed to know. In short, the Gnostics were idiots who thought that God can have grandchildren and that is absurd.

My point was that Mark gives us the inspired gnostic position, fair enough, and he did that very well. The problem is that he must 'present' it as if it was 'not' his own and therefore needed the same opening and closing word for 'rent' wherein the first hand experience is not evident as part of the action. Mark is cold, and Stoic, and brings us the mechanics of metamorphosis while Mat. and Luke actually show the interior side of what Mark presented as if seen from a distance.

But let me add here that Mark was even more inspired than Mat. or Luke because it is much more difficult to write about the physical evidence if the emotions can not be shown as your guide (= leaning towards lyric). A good example here is that it is much more difficult to write a Senecan tragedy than a Divine comedy because one must first know what is right before one can create the proper image of the rising action that leads to the tragedy. Ie, wherein the conditions brought forth in the rising action unfold into the tragedy.

Note that I hold that Senecan tragedies are failed Divine comedies.

Clivedurdle · 12-16-2004, 03:39 PM

I know I've bored everyone stiff with Nazarenus

but a possible reason for the structure you are pointing out is because it is a play.

And a slight digression, roman plays liked having people commit suicide, which it seems is what the gospels say happened!

Quote:

esus Poisoned

From the point of view of Christian faith the central fact is that Jesus was crucified. But the the four evangelists disagree radically as to the circumstances of his death.

The only part on which the four gospels agree is that Jesus died suddenly. If we read the gospels without the preconceptions nurtured in us by two millennia of tradition, it is clear that Jesus died not because of the process of crucifixion but because of the effect of some drink offered to him.

Mark reports (15:22-23):

And they took him to a place called Golgotha (which is interpreted as Place of the Skull). And they offered him wine treated with myrrh, but he did not take it. And when they had crucified him...

After Jesus refused it, he was attached to the cross; the words of the text may be understood as meaning that the soldiers proceeded to the crucifixion because he had refused the alternative of the drink. A drink was proffered to Jesus later when it was understood that he was calling for Elijah to save him. Apparently the possibility that the call to Elijah might be answered was taken seriously, because at that moment

...someone running soaked a sponge in wine and placing it around a cane gave him to drink, saying: Wait, let us see whether Elijah is coming to take him down. Then Jesus, uttering a great shout, let out the spirit.

The text of Matthew echoes that of Mark, using for the most part the very same words, but there is one significant difference. At the place of execution, just before the crucifixion and apparently as an alternative to it, they gave him to drink wine mixed with gall; and having tasted it, he refused to drink it. (27:34f). Later, after it was understood that he was calling for Elijah,

...immediately one of them, running, took a sponge replenished with wine and, having placed it around a cane, gave him to drink. The rest of them said: Wait, let us see whether Elijah is coming to save him. Then Jesus shrieking for the second time with a great scream gave up the spirit.

Matthew differs from Mark only in minor details that are essentially editorial clarifications, but disagrees completely on the nature of the drink. Therefore it is essential to clarify the exact meaning of the words that describe it.

In the case of the second offering of drink both Mark and Matthew employ the term oxos, which may mean vinegar, but first of all means ordinary wine; many translators render oxos by cheap wine.[1] In Greek the standard word for wine was oinos, but this term was often understood as referring to quality wine.

In the case of the first offering of wine to Jesus, both Mark and Matthew employ the term oinos but whereas Mark says that it was treated with myrrh, Matthew specifies that it was mixed with gall (chol�). The word chol� means gall but in Greek poetry it is often used in the sense of poison.[2] To the fact that Jesus refused it, Matthew adds the detail that he did so after having tasted it; this indicates that the drink either was disgusting or was undesirable.

It is evident from the context that what was offered to Jesus was wine mixed with a poison so powerful that it provoked death almost immediately. The problem that requires an explanation is how Mark could speak of wine treated with myrrh.

It may be supposed that in the text of Seneca�s play there was the phrase medicatum vinum. In Latin medicatum vinum could have the following four different meanings:

** wine sprinkled with the juice of herbs. There are specific references in Latin authors to the custom of flavoring wine with myrrh. Pliny reports: Our elders considered most luxurious those wines that were steeped with the aroma of myrrh.[3]

** Adulterated wine. This second meaning may explain why the gospels waver between the term oinos, which refers to good wine, and oxos, which refers to cheap wine, and also sour wine.

** Medicated wine, that is, treated so as to have healing qualities.

** Poisoned wine. This meaning of medicatum vinum results from the fact that in Latin medicamen and medicamentum could mean both healing medicine and poisonous drug. The ambiguity of these terms would have proved confusing to those who spoke Greek, since in this language there is a special word, pharmakon, for poisonous drug. This meaning of the adjective medicatum was the last to develop and was rather new in the age of Seneca.[4]

Mark, unable accept Seneca�s version, preferred to understand medicatum vinum as meaning wine treated with myrrh. Matthew, realizing that Mark�s account does not make sense unless it is a matter of poisoned wine, changed the in*ter*pretation of medicatum vinum to the more correct one of wine mixed with gall. In order to make clear that it was not a desirable drink, such as wine with myrrh would be, he added that Jesus refused the drink after having tasted it.

Seneca�s text must have included the word fel which in ordinary Latin means gall, or bitter substance, but in poetic language is frequently used in the sense of poison. Seneca uses fel as a synonym of venenum poison. The clearest example is his Medea where Medea completes the preparation of the poisoned robe by mixing in the fel of Medusa (line 830); two lines below this the other ingredients of the fateful robe are called venena. Matthew caught the word fel, but missed that it was being used in the sense of poison. I have mentioned that the Greek equivalent of fel, which is chol�, may also carry this sense in poetry. Both Greek and Latin poets use these terms particularly in referring to the poison of serpents. But because the usual meaning of fel* is bitter sub*stance, Matthew understood that Jesus refused the drink after having tasted it.

The gospel of Luke contains only a brief reference to the episode of the drink. Luke was confronted with the problem of choosing between the report of Mark and that of Matthew. He realized, as Matthew had, that if one follows Mark�s report, it must be inferred that Jesus was offered poisoned wine and died of poison. Hence, Luke cut out the entire episode except for a passing reference. Mark, followed by Matthew, had reported that when Jesus was on the cross the high priests and the scribes had mocked him by asking why he could not save himself from the cross if he was the King of the Jews. Luke reports this incident and adds (27:36):

And the soldiers too, coming forwards in turn, mocked him by offering wine

and saying:

* If you are the King of the Jews, save yourself.

In this way the entire issue of the drinking of wine is reduced to a minor incident, part of the mockery by the soldiers. But in reducing the entire matter of the offering of wine to a jest, Luke made it too farcical, because one is left wondering what is the connection between the offering of wine or of bad wine (Luke employs the term oxos) and the weighty quandary about why the King of the Jews cannot extricate himself from the cross.

The gospel of John (19:28-29) mentions only the second offering of wine to Jesus:

...Jesus said, I am thirsty. There was standing a vessel full of wine (oxos). Hence, putting around a javelin a sponge filled with the wine, they applied it to his mouth. Then, as he had taken the wine, Jesus said: It is finished, and inclining his head he yielded up his spirit.

Contrary to many interpreters, we believe that this account agrees quite closely with that of Mark and Matthew, except that, as it is often the case with John, there is more concern with precision of detail. John does not mention the preceding offering of wine to Jesus, but he may be said to imply it when he reports the fact that the jar of wine was standing there close to Jesus. John did not feel it necessary to mention the previous offering of wine which had no effect.

Mark and Matthew say that the wine was applied to Jesus� mouth because he was calling for Elijah�s help, whereas in the gospel of John it is Jesus who causes the wine to be offered to him by saying, I am thirsty. After receiving the wine Jesus, according to John, does not shriek, but more calmly declaims It is finished.

On one basic point the gospels of Mark, Matthew, and John agree. Jesus dies right after the application of the sponge to his mouth. It cannot be denied that there is a causal relation between the application of the sponge and the death.

A great many interpreters explain the two episodes of the offering of a drink by assuming that Jesus was offered a stupefying drug as a merciful act. Some com*men*tators refer to a passage of the Talmud that mentions the practice of giving a narcotic to those about to be executed. The result of the pharmacological investi*gations on the subject is summed up by Raymond Brown as follows: Neither in fact nor in what we know of ancient pharmacology does myrrh serve as an anodyne or narcotic. Perhaps the myrrh was only a flavoring and the wine used was thought to numb.[5]

In Seneca�s tragedy Jesus was offered poisoned wine before the crucifixion and was put on the cross after he refused it. A few hours later the same wine was forced upon his lips with a sponge pressed with a stick with the result that immediate death followed. The writers of the gospels missed this meaning of medicatum vinum or wanted to miss it, because the notion that Jesus had died of poison was repulsive to them. Repulsive it remains for many modern translators, who blur at this point the meaning of the Greek texts. Mark and Matthew tell us that immediately prior to Jesus� death somebody raised a soaked sponge on a stick and gave him to drink.[6] However, one modern translation renders this as held it up for him to drink,[7] a formulation that leaves open the question whether Jesus drank of the liquid or not, although there is no such ambiguity in the Greek original. The intention of translators to resist the meaning of the Greek texts is made clear by a recent Roman Catholic translation; it reads tried to make him drink it in the case of Matthew and held it up to Jesus� lips in the case of Mark, although the Greek words are identical.[8] It is significant that this translation, which reflects the freedom of exegesis newly enjoyed by Roman Catholics, should strain itself in order to deny that Jesus actually partook of the drink, even though John (19:30) dispels any possible doubt by stating that Jesus, a moment before his death, took the wine. This effort to deny the meaning of the texts means that the interpreters know in their hearts, or as one says today, subconsciously, that according to the gospels Jesus died of poison.

The testimony of Mark and Matthew is so clear and so sedulously denied that it has given the opportunity to Hugh J. Schonfield to build an entire book around it. In The Passover Plot this writer reinterprets the story of the mission and death of Jesus starting from the contention that there was no death by crucifixion: Jesus would have been drugged so as to simulate death in order to stage the resur*rec*tion, which he intended to perform not as a miracle, but as a fake. In the event the plot failed because of the mortal wound Jesus received on his side. This book enjoys a very wide circulation in spite of the fact that it presents the most pre*posterous theory among the many strange and farfetched theories about the life and death of Jesus. The publishing success of The Passover Plot has been made possible by the circumstance that all the established and current interpretations blur over the testimony of the gospels on the manner of Jesus� death.

The notion that Jesus died of poison was in conflict with what was believed by Christians to have happened and was repulsive to their way of thinking. The evangelists did not live in the world of the Roman ruling class where deaths by poison and rumors of death by poison were a common occurrence.[9]

It must be asked why did Seneca make Jesus die of poison. Two explanations are readily provided by the necessities of dramatic presentation. First of all, tragedy requires the utmost compression of the events. This is the reason why tragedy presents only the climax of the action, dealing with the antecedents through flashbacks. Greek tragedies compress the action into a few hours; the ideal model, which could not always be followed, was a dramatic time that lasted from sunrise to sunset. Seneca was confronted with the problem that death by crucifixion was deliberately intended to be a slow process; it was an unmerciful death in which suffering was protracted as much as it was possible for the human frame to bear. Execution by crucifixion could last a full day or more; therefore Seneca had to cut short the staying on the cross. Modern interpreters have pro*posed several expla*nations for the premature death of Jesus, such as the effect of previous scourging (but scourging normally preceded all Roman capital punish*ments) or Jesus� weak constitution. A Roman audience, all too familiar with cruci*fixions, would not have accepted any of these explanations. The Church father Origen, writing some two hundred years after Jesus� death, when crucifixions were still current, relates how Christians wondered at the swift death of Jesus and explained it as a miracle.

It cannot be assumed, as it is often done, that the nailing in crucifixion was intended to accelerate death by loss of blood or by gangrene, since the purpose of crucifixion was to protract the agony as much as possible; the supporting peg placed just under the groin had such a purpose. The nailing, when it was practiced, must have had the purpose of preventing escape. For these reasons, Seneca could not anticipate the time of death without introducing an additional factor.

Furthermore, Greek tragedies did not enact gory scenes on the stage, even when such a scene was the keypoint of the entire action. The reason is that the effect would have been ludicrous and not tragic. In Sophocles� Oedipus the King even the gouging of Oedipus� eyes takes place offstage. In the part that precedes the deed the tragedy builds fear, and in the part that follows it arouses pity; either effect would be lost if the deed were to be enacted. It is a fact of psychology that if the experience is too traumatic the emotional response is blocked. In the spirit of the above-mentioned dramatic principle, Seneca could not have related the details of the agony caused by cruci*fixion, since Latin authors are unanimous in describing this agony as excruciating to the onlookers. This point is conveyed by Cicero, who describes death by crucifixion as cruel and horrifying to the extreme.[10] Goguel properly describes crucifixion as the acme in the torturer�s art.[11] Crucifixion was such a cruel form of deatthat it could not be described in a tragedy.

Seneca made this request for poison dramatically more effective by making it indirect. Jesus said: I am thirsty. Commentators have wondered why John should present Jesus as saying that he was thirsty, and have searched in vain for some theological explanation. John was in fact following quite closely Seneca�s presentation. At first Jesus, offered the choice between poison and the cross, chose the cross; but after three hours on the cross, he broke down and asked for poison. This was the artistic device used by Seneca to convey the atrocity of the pains in crucifixion.

Seneca was also guided by the parallel that he had established between Jesus and Hercules. In Seneca�s Hercules on Oeta the shirt of Nessus causes such intense pains that Hercules behaves like an ordinary mortal (835-836):

Now he lies limp face down,

Pressing the ground with his mouth,

Now he begs for water.

A few lines later (842) we are told that

his spirit has left the body; night seals his eyes.

But Hercules does not die because of the atrocious effects of Nessus� shirt; he chooses to escape this death by placing himself on a funeral pyre. He seeks out the fire , and directs the billowing flames toward his face.[12]

Like Hercules, Jesus chose to hasten his death, which is tantamount to suicide. Although ancient philosophers discussed at length whether suicide was permissible or not, and under what circumstances and in which form it was advisable, their specu*lations were influenced by the general values of their society. It is generally agreed that both Greeks and Romans honored and admired heroic suicide. They had high esteem for the sacrifice of one�s life for another or for the defense of one�s country or one�s principles. Such suicides were not only approved, but en*couraged. These suicides were contrasted with suicides that were not the expression of courage or fortitude.

For Seneca suicide is certainly important and a matter of continuous thought, writes J. M Rist.[13] The circumstances of his time and his own political situation made it inevitable that it should be so. He further speaks of Seneca�s obsession with the propriety of taking one�s own life. The last statement is probably an exaggeration, but it underlines the fact that Seneca deals at length and repeatedly with the problem of suicide. For our purpose it is not necessary to deal with all of Seneca�s thought on the subject, because in one of his letters to Lucilius (No. 70) he deals specifically with the problem of suicide of the person condemned to death:

The man who must die in three or four days� time at his enemy�s pleasure is doing someone else a good turn if he is alive then. Hence, it is hardly possible to settle generally the question whether death, when threatened by a force beyond your control, should be anticipated or awaited.

Seneca comes out on the side of the condemned man�s choosing to die of his own volition, rather than waiting for death, and asks: Could anything be more foolish than to despise death and be afraid of poison?

[1] The ancients put even more emphasis than we do on the place of origin of wine Wine that was sold without particular attention to its packing might be called oxos.

[2] Particularly relevant is the fact that in the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament chol� is employed to translate the Hebrew word rosh, poison.

[3] Natural History XIV, 13, 15 par. 92.

[4] A famous example of the use of medicatum in the sense of poisoned occurs in Suetonius, who calls medicatum boletum the mushroom with which Agrippina, in order to make way for her son Nero, allegedly poisoned the Emperor Claudius (Claud. XLIV).

[5] Raymond Brown (p. 927) tries to explain Matthew�s reference to gall by quoting the suggestion made by some scholars that this evangelist confused the Aramaic term for myrrh which is mura/mora with the Aramaic term for gall which is mara.

[6] Mark 15:36 and Matthew 27:48: epotizen auton.

[7] J. B. Philips.

[8] American Bible Society, second ed. (1968).

[9] The Roman imperial court even had an official poisoner. Tacitus reports that Seneca, after his retirement, had to be on guard against attempts by Nero to poison him, and was able to thwart these attempts only by restricting his diet to fruits of the field and water from running brooks.

[10] * Crudelissmum teterrimumque Cicero, In Verrem

[11] * Maurice Goguel, J�sus (Paris, 1950), pp. 445f. Cf. Albert Reville, J�sus de Nazareth, II, pp. 405f.

[12] * Cf. L�on Herrmann, S�n�que et les premiers chr�tiens,(Brussels, 1979), p. 78.

[13] * Stoic Philosophy (London, 1969).

Chili · 12-16-2004, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

I know I've bored everyone stiff with Nazarenus

but a possible reason for the structure you are pointing out is because it is a play.

And a slight digression, roman plays liked having people commit suicide, which it seems is what the gospels say happened!

Senecan tragedies do but not Divine comedies and this was foreshadowed by the prophets in "[they shall] break none of his bones." Cf MacBeth and Coriolanus.

Poisoned? How do you poison an ego except with the poor wine that humans made regardless of how good it is. I've argued before that it was a comedy and the final step of religion is that it is needed to crucify the ego that it helped to create (the idea that religion must be able and willing to clean up its own placenta makes Judaism shine above all others).

The four evangelist show exactly why it was a comedy and that "he who laughs last laughs best." Look at it this way:

In Matthew the high priests and scribes intuitly knew that they had to kill Jesus and were dapper to the very bitter end with their wine and vine-gar. Understand here that Jesus does not 'want' any more of Judaism as religion, nor any obedience to religion. So he doesn't want their wine even if it is the best wine that the market place has to offer. When he is forced to drink he as much as spits it out for the last time. The vine-gar speaks of religion 'gone sour' that indeed tasted like gall.

Mark presents the non religious perspective and does not see the function of religion in the Crucifixion but just the prophetic connection with Elijah. Mark uses gall as distinct from religion-gone-sour to say that Jesus spit it our for the sake of its flavor without the religious connection. Golgotha is a gnostic metaphor suggesting that it takes place 'in' the head.

I think the vine-gar as fruit-of-the-vine-gone-sour does taste like gall and will make people puke. Just read some of the comments around here made by the Infidels.

Luke reports as seen from the subconscious mind (the netherworld) and he really doesn't care what happens 'up front' at this stage of the game. Luke sees them all as faithful servants who did not know 'what' they were doing but only 'that' they were doing. Hence the apology "Father forgive them for they do not know what they were doing" (implied here is that they are doing it right).

To show that Jesus was fully in charge John has Jesus supply the "common wine" and in "realizing that everything was now finished said 'I am thirsty'" . . . so those who thought that they were in charge would go for the bottom of the can and get the lid on their nose in the end.

And as 'fortune' would have it, there comes Joseph for the body of Jesus along with Nicodemus, who was his informer by night, and they took the 'body' to their garden [of Eden], which was very close at hand, and buried it there in the cave that Joseph had hewn, is if by hand, just as if he had built the ark, as if by hand . . . because you know: if you are an ark builder you better be sure to have a cave ready when heaven comes your way.

It's a comedy isn't it?

B_Sharp · 12-16-2004, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

A-B-B'-A' chiasm in Mark 15
A ...Soldiers mock Jesus as King
..B....compel passerby to help carry cross to golgotha
........offer wine
........crucify him
........divide his garments
....C....3rd hour
..........Title on Cross: King of the Jews
........D...a..Robbers are crucified
.............b..Passers-by mock Jesus
........D'..b'..Chief priests and teachers of the law mock Jesus
.............a'..Robbers mock Jesus
....C'....6th - 9th hour darkness
...........Jesus cries that God has forsaken him
..B'....bystanders think Jesus calls Elijah for help
........offer vinegar
........dies with great cry
........temple curtain torn
A'...centurion says Jesus is "Son of God"
Vorkosigan

LINKS are MEANINGLESS. There are an infinite trillion 'links' in the Universe. Links are meaningless without causation. I know it is fun to connect things but ...

A ...Soldiers mock Jesus as King
A'...centurion says Jesus is "Son of God"

It is arbitrary to focus upon "Soldier" & "centurion" as a 'match'. "King" and "Son" do not match. The verbs "mock" and "says" or "is" do not match.
False positive.

B & B` have nothing in common.

..B
........crucify him
..B'
........dies with great cry

"crucify" and "great cry" have NOTJING in common. However but free associating, "crucify" is what a bully does, bully has 2 letter 'l' s, there are at least 2 roads in every city, city starts with 'c', and so does 'cry' ... aha! they are linked.

D & D` have nothing in common except the same alphabet. Then again my home mortgage is written in the same alphabet letter as D.
........D...a..Robbers are crucified
Therefore, "Robbers" may try to steal my home. Egads! But they all linked.

BTW this is how news 'journalists' make things up out of thin air. Everything is 'linked' to everything else, therefore erroneously causation exists.

Vorkosigan · 12-17-2004, 12:03 AM

<shrug> Then there's no chiasm, B Sharp. And you've definitely proved it. But let me ask you a question. Do you think there is any link between Heart of Darkness and Apocalypse Now? Do you think that in Slaughterhouse-5, when Billy Pilgrim is arrested by the Germans in the company of a beautiful young boy, that there is a parallel anywhere in the Gospels? Does the movie Barb Wire, in which a cynical saloonkeeper rescues a pair of refugees from an authoritarian power and sends them out to change the world, does that remind you of any other movie you've seen? In the 15th chapter of The Stars My Destination Gully Foyle is lost and flinging himself through spacetime when he meets two women (married to Peter and Saul) and mentions a third, that there are any parallels with any other works that you know of? Does the fact that The Stars My Destination has 16 chapters ring a bell? Let me know what you think.

Vorkosigan

JoeWallack · 12-17-2004, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Mark 1: (KJV)
10 "And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:"
Compare to
Mark 15: (KJV)
38 "And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom."
The English words "opened" and "rent" above have the same root word in the Greek. 1:10 comes after the Prologue and is the Start of the Mission, the Heavens open. 15:38 comes right before the Epilogue and is the End of the Mission, the entrance to Heaven on earth is opened. Hard to miss in the Greek (oh that's right, you don't know Greek. Even Hitler knew Greek). Now go to the related Greek of "Matthew" and "Luke". They use the same word as "Mark" for the "Passion" but use a different Greek word for "open" in the Beginning. Guess they missed it.

Vork:
"Actually, it's a trptych through Mark 9 and probably relates to Isa 64:1

Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down, that the mountains would tremble before you! (NIV)

"
JW:
In the words of Dan Ackroyd to Bill Murray in the classic "HolyGhostbusters", "You never studied, did you." Here's the usage of the relevant word in the Greek (where the hell is Spin when you really need him):
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_d...7672-4198.html

"Lexicon Results for schizo (Strong's 4977)
Greek for 4977

Pronunciation Guide
schizo {skhid'-zo}

TDNT Reference Root Word
TDNT - 7:959,1130 apparently a primary verb
Part of Speech
v
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) to cleave, cleave asunder, rend

2) to divide by rending

3) to split into factions, be divided

Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 10
AV - rend 5, divide 2, open 1, break 1, make a rent 1; 10

Thayer's Lexicon (Help)

MORE (28 KBytes)

Word / Phrase / Strong's Search Here
Previous
Strong's 4976 H
G Next
Strong's 4978

Return to Mar 15:38

KJV English Concordance for "schizo (Strong's 4977) "
Learn More About Our Word Search Tools
We are showing you Strong's Numbers since your search includes a Strong's Number

Strong's Number 4977 matches the Greek schizo

For the unrelated Hebrew word for 04977 (Mattan)

click here. (To get a Hebrew Strong's number, please enter a 0 before the number, ie 1234 for Greek, 01234 for Hebrew.)

schizo (Strong's 4977) occurs 11 times in 9 verses:

Mat 27:51 And 2532, behold 2400 , the veil 2665 of the temple 3485 was rent 4977 in 1519 twain 1417 from 575 the top 509 to 2193 the bottom 2736; and 2532 the earth 1093 did quake 4579 , and 2532 the rocks 4073 rent 4977 ;

Mar 1:10 And 2532 straightway 2112 coming up 305 out of 575 the water 5204, he saw 1492 the heavens 3772 opened 4977 , and 2532 the Spirit 4151 like 5616 a dove 4058 descending 2597 upon 1909 him 846:

Mar 15:38 And 2532 the veil 2665 of the temple 3485 was rent 4977 in 1519 twain 1417 from 575 the top 509 to 2193 the bottom 2736.

Luk 5:36 And 1161 he spake 3004 also 2532 a parable 3850 unto 4314 them 846; 3754 No man 3762 putteth 1911 a piece 1915 of a new 2537 garment 2440 upon 1909 an old 2440 3820; if otherwise, then 1490 both 2532 the new 2537 maketh a rent 4977 , and 2532 the piece 1915 that was [taken] out of 575 the new 2537 agreeth 4856 not 3756 with the old 3820.

Luk 23:45 And 2532 the sun 2246 was darkened 4654 , and 2532 the veil 2665 of the temple 3485 was rent 4977 in the midst 3319.

Jhn 19:24 They said 2036 therefore 3767 among 4314 themselves 240, Let us 4977 0 not 3361 rend 4977 it 846, but 235 cast lots 2975 for 4012 it 846, whose 5101 it shall be 2071 : that 2443 the scripture 1124 might be fulfilled 4137 , which 3588 saith 3004 , They parted 1266 my 3450 raiment 2440 among them 1438, and 2532 for 1909 my 3450 vesture 2441 they did cast 906 lots 2819. These things 5023 3303 therefore 3767 the soldiers 4757 did 4160 .

Jhn 21:11 Simon 4613 Peter 4074 went up 305 , and 2532 drew 1670 the net 1350 to 1909 land 1093 full 3324 of great 3173 fishes 2486, an hundred 1540 and fifty 4004 and three 5140: and 2532 for all there were so many 5118, yet was 5607 not 3756 the net 1350 broken 4977 .

Act 14:4 But 1161 the multitude 4128 of the city 4172 was divided 4977 : and 2532 part 3303 held 2258 with 4862 the Jews 2453, and 1161 part with 4862 the apostles 652.

Act 23:7 And 1161 when he 846 had 2980 0 so 5124 said 2980 , there arose 1096 a dissension 4714 between the Pharisees 5330 and 2532 the Sadducees 4523: and 2532 the multitude 4128 was divided 4977 ."

JW:
I don't think you quite get the gist of what Spin should be saying here Vork. "Schizo" (how appropriate is that?) has a primary meaning of "rend" and is therefore a relatively unusual word in the Christian Bible. "Mark" uses it twice, 1:10 and 15:38. The usage in 15:38 is understandable but why use it in 1:10 to indicate the Heavens were forcibly opened and not just use the normal word for "open" like "Matthew" and "Luke"? I suspect that "Mark" deliberately used the same word to draw attention to the Beginning and End of Jesus' supposed ministry. Again, this is especially noticable if it's the only two times the word is used in the story. The word is not used in Mark 9 and there is only a talking cloud there rather than a portal of heavenly ectasy. Even Chili knows (cringe) that if Heaven was already opened in 1 it wouldn't need to be opened again in 9 (and supposedly the door wouldn't need to be closed as all the hot air is in Hell).

Now ontological Yuri. The question is who changed 1:10? "Mark" or "Matthew". If it's likely one way or the other then it's evidence for/against Markan priority. You can't dismiss it as evidence just because it's not the best evidence, good evidence or even not very good evidence. This is what an Apologist would do. Let me say Yuri that I believe you are performing a valuable public service by championing Not Mark. Even most Skeptics don't appreciate all the agreement between Matthew/Luke against "Mark". That being said, the basic question of this thread is which is more likely, that "Mark" edited a very contrived (I think "contrived" is an even better word here than "polished") "Matthew" (assuming of course that "Mark" recognized that "Matthew" was contrived which you don't accept based on your last post) and made it even more contrived or that "Matthew" edited a fully contrived "Mark" and made it less contrived due to not recognizing/caring or even actively countering "Mark's" contrivance?

Specifically for this post which is more likely:

"Mark" writing first uses a word twice in his story, once to "Mark" the Beginning and once to "Mark" the end of the ministry and "Matthew" copying changes the first use because it's technically the wrong word.

Or:

"Matthew writing first uses the correct and different words in both places. "Mark" copying "Matthew" changes a technically correct word to an incorrect one and deletes "Matthew's" post resurrection instructions so that this same word can be at the Beginning and End of the ministry because having the same word in both spots at the Beginning and End will do more to evangelize than post resurrection sightings and instructions would.

Related to all this Yuri perhaps you can tell us what the General trend is in Religious development in general and Christianity specifically. Is the general trend from Myth to History or Verse Vice?

Joseph

Transfiguration. Verb. A Sects change.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-16-2004, 11:29 AM	#12
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Very good, Amen-Moses. A chiasm can be reduplicated in oral traditions, as the Illiad and Odyssey are full of literary devices more likely used before writing them down as a way of remembering them.

12-17-2004, 12:03 AM	#19
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	<shrug> Then there's no chiasm, B Sharp. And you've definitely proved it. But let me ask you a question. Do you think there is any link between Heart of Darkness and Apocalypse Now? Do you think that in Slaughterhouse-5, when Billy Pilgrim is arrested by the Germans in the company of a beautiful young boy, that there is a parallel anywhere in the Gospels? Does the movie Barb Wire, in which a cynical saloonkeeper rescues a pair of refugees from an authoritarian power and sends them out to change the world, does that remind you of any other movie you've seen? In the 15th chapter of The Stars My Destination Gully Foyle is lost and flinging himself through spacetime when he meets two women (married to Peter and Saul) and mentions a third, that there are any parallels with any other works that you know of? Does the fact that The Stars My Destination has 16 chapters ring a bell? Let me know what you think. Vorkosigan

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.