Mk 9:49 Proof that Canonical Mark is Not the Ur-Text

[Secret Alias]

But you see those who hold canonical Mark to be the ur-gospel will just ignore this and keep with their pre-existent beliefs.

[MrMacSon]

It is interesting that the author cannot discern between a Hebrew and Aramaic source, even though the reconstruction is quite different. In any case, is there anything that precludes that Mark is the origin of the verse, is bilingual, and the translation is Mark's own rendering of an oral Hebrew idiom into Greek?

Aramaic was not homogenous - there were various regional versions and dialects. And Hebrew is derived from Aramaic.

[Secret Alias]

Yeah like English is derived from Sanskrit.

[Michael BG]

It has been suggested that Mark had Aramaic written source material for some of this sayings etc. Weston Fields does not reject this possibility because at the end he allows the possibility that the “mistranslation” could have come from Aramaic as well as Hebrew.

However I am not sure that Fields is actually saying that Mark mistranslated it. I think he is saying that modern people when they translate the Greek do not take account of what Aramaic or Hebrew words the Greek could be used for.

Therefore I think he is saying that Jesus said, “For everyone will be destroyed by fire” and Mark Translated into Greek by using a Greek word that could mean either” destroyed” or “salted”.

[Tenorikuma]

In context, Mark is just stringing together sayings that are associated by keyword — "pearls on a string", as some commentators have described it. He does that to create weird segues quite frequently.

v. 35 — servanthood and greatness
vv. 36–37 — servanthood and hospitality toward children
[vv. 38–41 — interpolation?]
v. 42 — children, stumbling blocks and millstones
vv. 43–48 — stumbling blocks, self-mutilation, and hellfire
v. 49 — fire and salt
v. 50 — salt and peaceful relationships

In terms of underlying message, this passage has none. I think it's a mistake to focus on the underlying meaning of "salt", because the author is just using it for its keyword value — he needs something that has the words "salt" and "fire" to make the pericope work. Maybe he heard the expression from a Hebrew speaker, maybe he got it somewhere else. Luke and Matthew (himself a Jew) don't know what the hell it means, so they drop it from their own Gospels and rearrange the rest of the material.

(Also, it occurs to me that if vv. 38-41 are treated as an interpolation, we get a more natural "Markan" segue from v. 37 to v. 42.)

[Charles Wilson]

I think he is saying that modern people when they translate the Greek do not take account of what Aramaic or Hebrew words the Greek could be used for.

John 3: 1 - 4 (RSV):

[1] Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicode'mus, a ruler of the Jews.
[2] This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do, unless God is with him."
[3] Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
[4] Nicode'mus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?"

You are absolutely correct, MBG. Not only in English, 2000 years later. Here, Nicodemus, a Ruler of the Jews, does not understand an idiom. It is a Classic set-up. He understands the individual words. It is the Intent that he does not understand. From this, you may derive that "Nicodemus" is not a Jew or at least not Semitic. See: S N Kramer and his work. The first appearance of "Freedom" is traced to the Sumerian "Amargi" - Return to the Mother. Nicodemus simply doesn't understand. Thus GJohn records a dialogue that indicates something that is not apparent in the Greek - and Mark is joined to John.

One thing leads to another.

CW

[Secret Alias]

But the bigger point is - people who are praying over canonical Mark hoping answers come are wasting their time. It's not the ur-text.

[Tenorikuma]

At what point does a hypotext become an ur-text?

[gmx]

So you would suggest that Mark heard from Jesus a saying in Hebrew that he misunderstood? But the saying is senseless as it stands now. Why would Mark include something senseless. The more likely scenario IMO is that - because someone thought the saying was worthy of writing down he must have understood it as sensible. So the origin of the saying was preserved in a Hebrew text and then corrupted in subsequent copying into Greek. But the idea that someone heard something in Hebrew, thought to himself 'hey this is cool, I want to preserve this' presumably infers that he heard and recorded the saying in a sensible form. No one would hear something senseless like 'salted with fire' and then included the senseless saying in a Greek text of the gospel. The Hebrew text of the gospel with the saying in its original (sensible) form clearly came first. 

Firstly, I have no opinion as to whether a Hebrew source text underlies Mark's gospel.

Responding to your argument, Mark's rationale for producing a "saying [that] is senseless as it stands now" has to be explained regardless of whether there is a Hebrew/Aramaic original, because "Mark" authored the words in Greek and we assume they made sense to him. I'm not sure how Mark translating a Hebrew text into Greek gobbledegook is any more plausible than him translating an Aramaic saying into Greek gobbledegook, unless the hypothesis is that Mark was a word by word translater (and not a redactor) of the Hebrew Ur Gospel. If he was a redactor, then he had editorial freedom, and we have to assume he produced a Greek text that made sense in and of itself.

[Charles Wilson]

But the bigger point is... It's not the ur-text.

Again, you are correct.

If he was a redactor, then he had editorial freedom, and we have to assume he produced a Greek text that made sense in and of itself.

Maybe! Remember, Mark uses the "Holy Spirit" Label and that stands for "Domitian". He references (I believe) the Temple Slaughter of 4 BCE. He lists the joke of John and the loop of Jesus' sandal, which is a reference to the Mishmarot Groups Bilgah and Immer. He writes his part (1 of 4) of the Empty Tomb and THEN AND ONLY THEN writes his Chiasms. These Structures are not enough as there are later Interpolations that break the Chiastic Structure. What complicates this is that Mark cannot have been written before around 98 at the earliest. The Interpolations are to "Correct" errant Doctrine in the later Church. The corrections could not have been that much later and that adds to the tension.

Michael Turton's work of Markan Chiasms is worth the study. The interesting thing with Mark 9: 42 - 50 is that Turton's Analysis has this entire Section as one and only one piece of the Chiastic Passage. Strange.
I do not believe that this is accidental or a "Chain of Pearls". Secret Alias is correct. If you are hoping that canonical Mark is the Ur-Mark, you will be disappointed. There are some things in Mark that might be better written in fluorescent orange - It's how I see some of the Stories when I read them. This Section is one of them. Its Origin is out in the open - If only you will look.

CW