Mark is first, give him his due translation.
Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2020 8:51 am
Investigating the roots of western civilization (ye olde BC&H forum of IIDB lives on...)
https://earlywritings.com/forum/
So, what would it look like to give Mark its due and to interpret it on its own merits?Martin Klatt wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 8:51 am The gospel according to Mark is known for more than a hundred of years to be the first gospel about Jesus written, subsequent gospels are plagiarist and corrupt and both worthless and even contra-expedient as sources to attempt to understand the original story Mark wrote.
I have serious problems about the fact that non whatsoever attempts have been undertaken to translate and interpret it on it's own merits. Current translations and following interpretations are still based on the old adagio that Mark is only the abbreviated version of Matthew, thus erroneous like in all the ages before our time.
Methodologically the whole community of experts, the ones stressing method to be their craft on anything New Testament, is to blame for this oversight, it only takes a humble lay person to spot this abomination.
"Disharmonization" may be tedious, but it's straightforward.Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Tue Mar 10, 2020 7:06 pm So, what would it look like to give Mark its due and to interpret it on its own merits?
The textual evidence favoring the boy having briefly been dead is at least as good as for the girl. The three disciples who witnessed Jesus with the girl have arrived on the scene with Jesus just before this exorcism. Wow, Peter James and John must really have been morons to fail to understand death-raising when they've seen not merely one but two examples!When Jesus saw that a multitude came running together, he rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to him, “You mute and deaf spirit, I command you, come out of him, and never enter him again!” After crying out and convulsing him greatly, it came out of him. The boy became like one dead, so much that most of them said, “He is dead.” But Jesus took him by the hand and raised him up; and he arose.
This may have some relevance to our inquiries, as Richard Feynman once said in another context.The female sex appear more especially disposed to this morbid state, on account of the misplacement of the womb ; when this is once corrected, they immediately come to themselves again. The volume of Heraclides on this subject, which is highly esteemed among the Greeks, contains the account of a female, who was restored to life, after having appeared to be dead for seven days.
Maybe it's the girl's very first menstruation, maybe not, According to Pliny, some ancients recognized apparent death as a possible gynecological complaint, even if we moderns don't. There's nothing in Pliny that associates apparent death specifically with menarche. Would it really alter the interpretation if it were her second menses?So, what would it look like to give Mark its due and to interpret it on its own merits?