A strange anomaly in Mark 14:41

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 395
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: A strange anomaly in Mark 14:41

Post by Paul the Uncertain » Mon Feb 05, 2018 12:47 am

With respect to the plastic genre character of Mark:

I think Mark is a flexible-purpose text. Experimental archeology establishes that it is robust as a performance work, with casts ranging from solo performance through about 15.

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/gm42/other-gms/

All told, there are about 60 "speaking parts," with another 40 or so "special business parts," but I don't know of any production that has fully realized that potential. It would make for an interesting (also easy and low-budget) Lenten project for some church group, just as some pastors have done the solo performance (challenging for most moderns to memorize that much).

It is difficult to imagine how Mark could manage to be unaware of that possible use of his work, and being aware of it, not to welcome it.

We have independent reasons to suspect that at least some other prose works of the time and place were "multi purpose." That is, the same work might be read aloud as dinner entertainment and also consulted by other writers composing their own works in their private workrooms.

If this picture is correct, then it is also difficult to imagine that Mark wouldn't know about that feature of his cultural surround.

In any case, both performance and private study for re-use (Matthew, for instance) have occurred, so the text is, as a matter of fact and not of conjecture, suitable for both (regardless of authorial intent, whatever that means apart from what a reasonable person might foresee as possible uses for their creation).

With regards to the specific anomaly:

While I agree that the transition within that speech is awkward for a lone silent reader, it is easy to fill in performance. There could well have been a line there, but there is no way to tell what that line would have been.

I have a suspicion that Jesus' resolution not to drink grape products for a while may have been there at one time, and has since migrated to its present location at the end of the last supper. However, since the prompt for the second part of the speech is off-stage action, a silent beat, covered with a change-of-gaze-direction gesture, would also suffice.

Even with modern conventions for explicit intraspeech stage directions, you can find awkward-for-silent-readers transitions like that, where the author trusts the director and performer to read the speech effectively. It can even be part of the fun to see what the company comes up with.

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1347
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: A strange anomaly in Mark 14:41

Post by Joseph D. L. » Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:03 am

Stuart wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2018 12:31 am
You assume they held in their earliest moments the same properties we associate with them in later eras, certainly the 4th century onward, but possibly earlier in the 3rd and some argue the 2nd centuries (evidence is very dicey and for much earlier than the end of the 2nd and start of the 3rd century). This is a serious reach on your part, an example of having a preformed view from an already Catholic understanding of that later era and projecting it backwards.
Not at all. I believe that our texts underwent several stages of evolution, with branching-off texts and sources, finally culminating in ca. 210.

Effectively, here's how it goes:

EVANGELIUM - ca. 80-110ad This text may have been a more liberal translation of Torah.
|
GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS - ca. 100-130ad The first true Gospel of Jesus.
|
ur-GOSPEL OF JOHN - ca. 120-140 ad The true Marcionite Gospel, used to promote Paul as the Paraclete over James.
|
PROTOEVANGELIUM OF JAMES - ca. 125-140 ad This text was itself a derivative of GThomas.
|
SECRET MARK - ca. 130-150 ad The original basis for GMark, possibly a derivative of GPeter, or vice versa.
|
GOSPEL OF THE EBIONITES/GOSPEL OF THE NAZARENES - ca. 135-145 ad. The significant difference is that one accepted the PEJames. Simon bar Kochba is the Christ figure in the Ebionite text.
|
PAPIAS/HEGESIPPUS'S MEMORABILIA - ca. 150-175 ad Codifies two prominent texts (GNazarenes and GJohn, proper) to create a single text against Marcion. Utilizes Josephus to create a faux history of the church.
|
THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH/TATIAN- ca. 170-185 ad Attempts to unify the churches of the west and east with Hegesippus's single long Gospel.
|
ATHENAGORAS/JUSTIN - 150-185 ad Argues on behalf of Christians to Marcus Aurelius and Commodus (later revised to Antoninus, Marcus and Lucius.)
|
VICTOR I - ca. 190-200 ad The first recognizable pope of the Church of Rome, established by Commodus.
|
ZEPHYRINUS/IRENAEUS- ca. 200-220 ad A student of Hegesippus, creates the official canon for the church, including a fourfold Gospel. The victory of Orthodoxy is at hand.

Everything else are just derivatives of these texts and sources.

A third century origin is granted, but a I accept that such a development began in the early second century. Talk of a fourth century origin is foolishness. If arbitrary additions and differences mean anything to you, then you might as well say that the NT is still being written with each successive translation.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8627
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: A strange anomaly in Mark 14:41

Post by Giuseppe » Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:45 am

Stuart wrote:
Sun Feb 04, 2018 12:10 pm
In general it's pretty clear Giuseppe's English is not strong enough, and he should probably make his case in Italian, or run that parallel since what we get are poorly constructed questions like this thread. His question comes across as an Emily LItella argument for Violins on television (now I'm dating myself with an original SNL cast sketch). #NeverMind
as Bob Price would say, ''congratulations for the realization of the obvious'' :D

As remedy for the weakness of my English (exasperated by the fact that I often post by smartphone), I should follow the following advice given by Tim Widowfield in this circumstance:
if a writer lacks the ability to invent new, well-crafted figurative expressions then he or she should write in good old simple English.
https://vridar.org/2013/06/24/what-if-jesus-were-real/

Ben wrote:
The whole of Mark as a sacred drama is an appealing thesis. But I am not yet convinced
To be precise, Robertson claimed that Mark is not a sacred drama per se, but the transcription in a narrative form (embellished with a lot of details) of a previous (oral?) sacred drama.
For example, the fact that the Gospels report the Jesus's words (never heard by anyone) during his prayer at Getsemani is a sign that the Jesus's words were really heard during the performance of a previous sacred drama.

I wonder if even the generational prophecy was meant to be understood (as a ''truely realized'' prophecy) by the spectators of this presumed sacred drama. If the sacred drama was also a ritual (or the vestiges of it), then the possession/hallucination/revelation phenomena - among some of the spectators - could happen just during the representation of the generational prophecy, in this way fulfilling concretely the prophecy ''on the place''.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Stuart
Posts: 663
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: A strange anomaly in Mark 14:41

Post by Stuart » Tue Feb 13, 2018 2:30 pm

Joseph D. L. wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:03 am
Stuart wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2018 12:31 am
You assume they held in their earliest moments the same properties we associate with them in later eras, certainly the 4th century onward, but possibly earlier in the 3rd and some argue the 2nd centuries (evidence is very dicey and for much earlier than the end of the 2nd and start of the 3rd century). This is a serious reach on your part, an example of having a preformed view from an already Catholic understanding of that later era and projecting it backwards.
Not at all. I believe that our texts underwent several stages of evolution, with branching-off texts and sources, finally culminating in ca. 210.

Effectively, here's how it goes:

EVANGELIUM - ca. 80-110ad This text may have been a more liberal translation of Torah.
|
GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS - ca. 100-130ad The first true Gospel of Jesus.
|
ur-GOSPEL OF JOHN - ca. 120-140 ad The true Marcionite Gospel, used to promote Paul as the Paraclete over James.
|
PROTOEVANGELIUM OF JAMES - ca. 125-140 ad This text was itself a derivative of GThomas.
|
SECRET MARK - ca. 130-150 ad The original basis for GMark, possibly a derivative of GPeter, or vice versa.
|
GOSPEL OF THE EBIONITES/GOSPEL OF THE NAZARENES - ca. 135-145 ad. The significant difference is that one accepted the PEJames. Simon bar Kochba is the Christ figure in the Ebionite text.
|
PAPIAS/HEGESIPPUS'S MEMORABILIA - ca. 150-175 ad Codifies two prominent texts (GNazarenes and GJohn, proper) to create a single text against Marcion. Utilizes Josephus to create a faux history of the church.
|
THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH/TATIAN- ca. 170-185 ad Attempts to unify the churches of the west and east with Hegesippus's single long Gospel.
|
ATHENAGORAS/JUSTIN - 150-185 ad Argues on behalf of Christians to Marcus Aurelius and Commodus (later revised to Antoninus, Marcus and Lucius.)
|
VICTOR I - ca. 190-200 ad The first recognizable pope of the Church of Rome, established by Commodus.
|
ZEPHYRINUS/IRENAEUS- ca. 200-220 ad A student of Hegesippus, creates the official canon for the church, including a fourfold Gospel. The victory of Orthodoxy is at hand.

Everything else are just derivatives of these texts and sources.

A third century origin is granted, but a I accept that such a development began in the early second century. Talk of a fourth century origin is foolishness. If arbitrary additions and differences mean anything to you, then you might as well say that the NT is still being written with each successive translation.
You give a list of timeline but dodge the question. You fail to recognize the problem, or the question I pose.

We disagree on timeline, about nearly every thing in it. I also think Papias did not exists, and that the pseudonymous writings under thename Justin are from a century later, and other details. But this does not matter. (BTW, I suggest nothing much in the NT was written in the 4th century, rather the Canon was established around that time and interpretation from that time is far different than prior - so that part of your complaint is a straw man.)

The basic problem even with an earlier timeline exists, which you do not address. There is a significant problem of time gap, whether the use of the Gospels being used for revelation and reflection started in the mid-2nd century for later 1st century written documents, or the 3rd century for mid-2nd century documents. There is a significant span time before, when the later interpretation had not yet developed. In your time line the gap is at 75 years, roughly the same as my later timeline. So the same problem.

This leaves open the question, before they acquired those characteristics of interpretation, how were they seen, and what were they used for? Moving the timeline forward or backwards does not change that, does not negate the problem with your preformed concepts of a later era. It does not matter if we are speaking 2nd century or 3rd or 4th.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1347
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: A strange anomaly in Mark 14:41

Post by Joseph D. L. » Wed Feb 14, 2018 5:50 am

Stuart wrote:
Tue Feb 13, 2018 2:30 pm
Joseph D. L. wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:03 am
Stuart wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2018 12:31 am
You assume they held in their earliest moments the same properties we associate with them in later eras, certainly the 4th century onward, but possibly earlier in the 3rd and some argue the 2nd centuries (evidence is very dicey and for much earlier than the end of the 2nd and start of the 3rd century). This is a serious reach on your part, an example of having a preformed view from an already Catholic understanding of that later era and projecting it backwards.
Not at all. I believe that our texts underwent several stages of evolution, with branching-off texts and sources, finally culminating in ca. 210.

Effectively, here's how it goes:

EVANGELIUM - ca. 80-110ad This text may have been a more liberal translation of Torah.
|
GOSPEL OF THE HEBREWS - ca. 100-130ad The first true Gospel of Jesus.
|
ur-GOSPEL OF JOHN - ca. 120-140 ad The true Marcionite Gospel, used to promote Paul as the Paraclete over James.
|
PROTOEVANGELIUM OF JAMES - ca. 125-140 ad This text was itself a derivative of GThomas.
|
SECRET MARK - ca. 130-150 ad The original basis for GMark, possibly a derivative of GPeter, or vice versa.
|
GOSPEL OF THE EBIONITES/GOSPEL OF THE NAZARENES - ca. 135-145 ad. The significant difference is that one accepted the PEJames. Simon bar Kochba is the Christ figure in the Ebionite text.
|
PAPIAS/HEGESIPPUS'S MEMORABILIA - ca. 150-175 ad Codifies two prominent texts (GNazarenes and GJohn, proper) to create a single text against Marcion. Utilizes Josephus to create a faux history of the church.
|
THEOPHILUS OF ANTIOCH/TATIAN- ca. 170-185 ad Attempts to unify the churches of the west and east with Hegesippus's single long Gospel.
|
ATHENAGORAS/JUSTIN - 150-185 ad Argues on behalf of Christians to Marcus Aurelius and Commodus (later revised to Antoninus, Marcus and Lucius.)
|
VICTOR I - ca. 190-200 ad The first recognizable pope of the Church of Rome, established by Commodus.
|
ZEPHYRINUS/IRENAEUS- ca. 200-220 ad A student of Hegesippus, creates the official canon for the church, including a fourfold Gospel. The victory of Orthodoxy is at hand.

Everything else are just derivatives of these texts and sources.

A third century origin is granted, but a I accept that such a development began in the early second century. Talk of a fourth century origin is foolishness. If arbitrary additions and differences mean anything to you, then you might as well say that the NT is still being written with each successive translation.
You give a list of timeline but dodge the question. You fail to recognize the problem, or the question I pose.

We disagree on timeline, about nearly every thing in it. I also think Papias did not exists, and that the pseudonymous writings under thename Justin are from a century later, and other details. But this does not matter. (BTW, I suggest nothing much in the NT was written in the 4th century, rather the Canon was established around that time and interpretation from that time is far different than prior - so that part of your complaint is a straw man.)

The basic problem even with an earlier timeline exists, which you do not address. There is a significant problem of time gap, whether the use of the Gospels being used for revelation and reflection started in the mid-2nd century for later 1st century written documents, or the 3rd century for mid-2nd century documents. There is a significant span time before, when the later interpretation had not yet developed. In your time line the gap is at 75 years, roughly the same as my later timeline. So the same problem.

This leaves open the question, before they acquired those characteristics of interpretation, how were they seen, and what were they used for? Moving the timeline forward or backwards does not change that, does not negate the problem with your preformed concepts of a later era. It does not matter if we are speaking 2nd century or 3rd or 4th.
I don't address your contention because I don't see a problem.

As far as my own assessment is concerned, these texts are being modified within a relative period of Kitos and bar Kochba, and again with Hegesippus (who is Papias) and with Zephyrinus. What interpretation are you referring to?

No, Stuart, I specifically acknowledge that the understanding of these texts post-Zephyrinus was different than prior. Where did you get that I said otherwise?

Rather, I acknowledge that these texts in proto base forms did exist in the second century, which is something you seemingly deny. For you, it seems, nothing besides purely Marcionite texts existed until the third century. Forgive me, but that is very incredulous.

Now you can say that these texts existed in different forms under different names, which I agree with, but that's not really what you're saying.

Take for instance my view of Irenaeus's AH. Sure, the five books we have now didn't exist in their current form until the third century, but they are cobbled together from older sources that DO date to the second century. That means that such witnesses had to exist at the appropriate time to write them.

Now your assessment is not the issue here, but I do what to make my opinion of your assessment known, because I vehemently reject it; just as I reject Huller's Agrippa ii opinion; just as I reject much of Carrier and Ehrman. Arguing for a uber-late date is as foolish as an uber-early date.

As far as original usage; as I said the Evangelium was probably used in much the same way the LXX was: to divine certain interpretations from. The Gospel, on the other hand, was probably an Acta text of some important figure-- likely Lukuas--and used for propaganda amongst those who supported bar Kochba, like the Ebionites. But after Marcion began circulating his own epistles (his Gospel probably came after bar Kochba) is when others had to compete for followers less they go extinct, and this involved incorporating different ideas into them.

What temporal issue are you referring to? Our Gospels in their more current form did not exist until Zephyrinus. My issue is with their older prototypes. When these texts were written there wasn't such an issue of interpretation. For my part I sequester the two periods as being two different things entirely.

User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 651
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: A strange anomaly in Mark 14:41

Post by mlinssen » Tue Feb 23, 2021 5:16 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Sun Feb 04, 2018 1:50 pm
Giuseppe wrote:
Sun Feb 04, 2018 10:22 am
But this could be so only in a sacred drama.
Jax wrote:
Sun Feb 04, 2018 12:30 pm
lsayre wrote:
Sun Feb 04, 2018 11:34 am
I'm of the opinion that all of the Gospels were stage type performances.
I third this.
That link brings us back to Goodacre's observations about the passion in Mark as liturgy.

The Marcan passion narrative as liturgy I am already more or less on board with. The whole of Mark as a sacred drama is an appealing thesis. But I am not yet convinced; the argument is purely circumstantial, and each individual bit of evidence might be better explained in other ways. It would be great if someone could mount a more complete argument (more complete than an excursus) for the proposition; I would love to be convinced.
Unsure whether this one got solved already, but I think it has: all credits go to Dick Harfield, https://independent.academia.edu/DickHarfield

His paper on this is here: https://www.academia.edu/12106716/A_Pro ... k_s_Gospel

Mark’s use of chiastic structures
Chiastic structures were widely used in the Old Testament, and they were also an important rhetorical device in Greek literature. The story of the fig tree is an interesting example because it is both an intercalation and also a chiastic structure used by Mark (11:12-21):
A Jesus takes authority over a fig tree by cursing it (11:12-14)
B Jesus takes authority over merchandisers at temple (11:15,16)
C My house will be a house of prayer for all nations (11:17a)
C' You have made my house into a den of robbers (11:17b)
B' Jewish leaders are losing their authority (11:18,19)
A' Disciples recognize Jesus' authority in the withered fig tree (11:20,21)

John Shelby Spong describes a structure in which Mark divides the last twenty-four hours before the death of Jesus into eight segments of three hours each, separated by events that form a chiastic structure in themselves 4 . In this, the opening set begins on the evening of the Last Supper and ends with the trial before the high priest and other senior priests and elders. The second set begins with the trial before Pontius Pilate and ends on the evening of the crucifixion.
A The celebration of the Passover Feast, which becomes the Last Supper, beginning "when it was evening" (Mark 14:17), or when the sun went down: approximately 6 pm and the beginning of the day of the Passover by Jewish reckoning. Mark knew that the duration of the Passover meal was three hours and that it concluded with the singing of a hymn. Jesus says, "This is my body," a metaphor that will be reflected in his burial (A').
B When was about 9 p.m. Mark then has Jesus and the disciples go to the Garden of Gethsemane, where Jesus went to pray. He suffered alone and in agony, asking God that, if possible, he take this cup (his destiny to be crucified) away from Jesus. Meanwhile his disciples, Peter, James and John, were not able to remain awake. "Could you not watch one hour?" Jesus asked. The process was repeated two more times. The disciples could not watch one, two or three hours. It was now midnight.
C The betrayal of Jesus, the darkest deed in human history, came next, occurring at the stroke of midnight. This will be reflected by the darkness at midday.
D At 3:00 a.m., Jesus was led away for a trial before the high priest and other senior priests and elders. We know the time of the first trial because Peter's threefold denial of Jesus followed, once each hour until the cock crowed, marking the watch between 3 a.m. and 6 a.m., known as cockcrow.
E "As soon as it was morning", which meant 6 o’clock, Jesus was led by the chief priests, scribes and elders for trial by Pontius Pilate.
D' At 9 o'clock: "It was the third hour when they crucified him."
C' When "the sixth hour had come" (12 noon), darkness covered the whole earth, reflecting the betrayal at 12 midnight.
B' The three hours of darkness, until 3 p.m. mirror the agony in the Garden of Gethsemene. Jesus last words, "My God. My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" reflect the recognition that his prayer in the Garden has not been answered. At 3 o'clock Jesus cried out and gave up the ghost.
A' Joseph of Arimathea then asked Pilate for the body of Jesus, so that he could be buried before the Sabbath began at 6 p.m., when the sun went down.

The framework structure

The preceding examples show that the author of Mark’s Gospel not only used a range of literary devices to make his story come alive, but that he was an expert in the techniques. He was certainly capable of developing the parallel structure that I describe next. At this point, I will introduce and explain the proposed framework structure for Mark’s Gospel, based on the parallel structure outlined in the following table:
A John explains the coming of Jesus (Mark 1:1-8)
B The baptism of Jesus (1:9)
C The voice of God from heaven, "Thou art my beloved son" (1:11)
D The forty days in the wilderness as an allusion to Elijah and Moses (1:13)
E The people were astonished at what Jesus taught (1:22)
F Jesus casts out an unclean spirit (1:23-26)
G Pharisees took counsel with the Herodians how they might destroy Jesus (3:6)
H Demons, whenever they see Jesus, fall down and say that he is the Son of God. Jesus commands that they tell no one of this (3:11-12)
I Jesus calls the 12 disciples (3:13-19)
J Jesus rejects his own family: he has a new family, his followers (3:31-35)
K Jesus rebukes the wind (4:36-41)
L The demoniac, wearing no clothes (5:15), cries out that Jesus not torment him and Jesus sends out the demons (5:1-20)
M Jesus comes into his own country (6:1) - Where he was brought up
N The people misunderstand Jesus and he can do no mighty work (6:2-6)
O Jesus sends out the disciples and curses those who will not receive them (6:7-11) - in sending the disciples with authority and expecting all to receive them, Jesus is asserting his own authority
P Herod thinks that Jesus is John the Baptist risen from the dead (6:14)
Q Herodias and her daughter conspire to kill John the Baptist (6:16-29)
R Feeding the thousands, and related miracles and discourses (6:31-8:21)
S Who do people say that I am (8:27)
T Peter affirms faith in Jesus as the Christ (8:29)
U Whosoever shall be ashamed of me: of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed (8:38)
V The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and scribes (8:31a)
W Be killed and after three days rise again (8:31b)
X Prophecy of second coming (9:1) - Jesus tells the disciples that some of them would not taste death until they saw the kingdom of God coming with power.
B' The Transfiguration of Jesus (9:2-3)
C' The voice of God from heaven, "This is my beloved son" (9:7)
D' Jesus talks to Elijah and Moses then to the disciples about Elijah (9:4-13)
E' A great multitude was amazed at Jesus (9:15)
F' Jesus cast out a dumb spirit (9:17-27)
G' Jesus says they shall kill the Son of man and he shall rise on the third day (9:31)
H' Jesus clarifies his divine status, saying that he is not God: "Why call me good? There is none good but God" (10:18)
I' Peter says the disciples have left all and followed Jesus (10:28)
J' Those who have left their family for Jesus have a new family: all Jesus' followers (10:29-30)
K' Jesus rebukes the 'sons of thunder', James and John (10:35-45 - cf 3:17)
L' Blind Bartimaeus cries out for mercy and casts off his clothes, then Jesus heals him (10:46-52)
M' Jesus comes into Jerusalem (11:1-10) - Where he will die
N' Jesus misunderstands the fig tree that can provide no fruit (11:13-14)
O' Jesus casts out them that sold and bought in the Temple and curses them for making the Temple a den of thieves (11:15-17) - Jesus is asserting his authority
P' Jesus asks whether the baptism of John is from heaven or of men, and the priests, scribes and elders can not answer (11:30-33)
Q' Parable of husbandmen who conspire to kill the vineyard owner's son (12:1-9)
X' Prophecy of second coming (chapter 13) - on clouds of glory, within the lifetimes of some of those to whom he was speaking
R' The Last Supper (14:17-25)
S' Art thou the Christ, Son of God (14:61)
T' Peter denies Jesus three times (14:66-72a)
U' And when he thought thereon, Peter wept (14:72b)
V' The chief priests, elders and scribes delivered Jesus to Pontius Pilate (15:1) - Delivering Jesus is a similar concept to rejecting him. - Both parts of the pair involve chief priests, elders and scribes
W' Jesus dies and on the third day rises again (15:37, 16:6)
A' The young man explains the departure of Jesus (16:6-8)

This is just a bit of the paper (which doesn't have the volume of a book though)

rgprice
Posts: 364
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: A strange anomaly in Mark 14:41

Post by rgprice » Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:34 am

I don't agree that Mark was a play. So much of Mark would be entirely lost on an audience. Mark is meant to be read, hence, as mlinssen said, all of the chaistic work. Also there are so many literary references that would be completely lost in a dramatic format. Were audiences really supposed to detect the relationship between Psalm 22 and the Crucifixion scene from watching a play?

Nah. But I do agree with the OP that something is odd about 14:41. But we can't explain that feature by throwing out the whole rest of the story. There is just way too much literary detail in the writing for the purpose of it to have been the script of a play. Also, a play with so much repetition would be really annoying and boring. Given that so much of Mark happens in double and triplicate, seeing the same scene played out multiple times with just slight variations would be really weird.

gryan
Posts: 176
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: A strange anomaly in Mark 14:41

Post by gryan » Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:00 am

rgprice wrote:
Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:34 am
...I do agree with the OP that something is odd about 14:41.
Literal Standard Version
And He comes the third time and says to them, “Sleep on from now on, and rest—it is over; the hour came; behold, the Son of Man is delivered up into the hands of the sinful;

That literal rendering is odd! (For those of us accustomed to reading the words as a question):

NIV
Returning the third time, he said to them, "Are you still sleeping and resting? Enough! The hour has come. Look, the Son of Man is delivered into the hands of sinners.

gryan
Posts: 176
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: A strange anomaly in Mark 14:41

Post by gryan » Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:21 am

gryan wrote:
Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:00 am
rgprice wrote:
Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:34 am
...I do agree with the OP that something is odd about 14:41.
Literal Standard Version
And He comes the third time and says to them, “Sleep on from now on, and rest—it is over; the hour came; behold, the Son of Man is delivered up into the hands of the sinful;

That literal rendering is odd! (For those of us accustomed to reading the words as a question):

NIV
Returning the third time, he said to them, "Are you still sleeping and resting? Enough! The hour has come. Look, the Son of Man is delivered into the hands of sinners.
Matthew's redaction alters it a bit:

...then He comes to His disciples and says to them,
“Sleep on from now on, and rest! Behold,
the hour has come near, and the Son of Man is delivered up into the hands of sinners.
(Literal Standard Version)

Luke's redaction turns it into a question:

...and He said to them,
“Why do you sleep?
Having risen, pray that you may not enter into temptation.”
(Literal Standard Version)

Charles Wilson
Posts: 1618
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: A strange anomaly in Mark 14:41

Post by Charles Wilson » Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:29 am

Mark 15: 40 - 41 (RSV):

[40] And again he came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were very heavy; and they did not know what to answer him.
[41] And he came the third time, and said to them, "Are you still sleeping and taking your rest? It is enough; the hour has come; the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.

How Deep do you want to go with this?

This MAY be a sophisticated Commentary on the differences between the Roman Fighting Machine and the Jewish Fighters.

Consider: The Jewish Organization of Troops had THREE Watches at night. The Romans had FOUR (See: Mark 6: 48). OT Quotations available on request. This may be vicious criticism of the Jewish System. "Are you still sleeping and taking your rest? YOU"RE SUPPOSED TO BE ON WATCH, you effing IDIOTS!!!" The Roman System is superior (To the Romans) because the soldiers on the Roman side can handle a three hour watch. A four hour Watch, especially at our 3 or 4 AM would find a number of Watch Soldiers falling asleep.

Mark 13: 35 -37 (RSV):

[35] Watch therefore - for you do not know when the master of the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or at cockcrow, or in the morning -
[36] lest he come suddenly and find you asleep.
[37] And what I say to you I say to all: Watch."

Does anyone else see this Story?

CW

Post Reply