Mark's DiualCritical Marks. Evidence Of Intentional Fiction

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
iskander
Posts: 2087
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: ThAlma and BetuLouise

Post by iskander » Thu Aug 04, 2016 4:52 pm

JoeWallack wrote:JW:
In The Beginning

Mark 1:1

Strong's Transliteration Greek English Morphology
746 [e] ArchēἈρχὴ [The] beginning N-NFS
3588 [e] tou τοῦ of the Art-GNS
2098 [e] euangeliou εὐαγγελίου gospel N-GNS
2424 [e] Iēsou Ἰησοῦ of Jesus N-GMS
5547 [e] Christou Χριστοῦ Christ, N-GMS
5207 [e] Huiou Υἱοῦ Son N-GMS
2316 [e] Theou Θεοῦ. of God. N-GMS

JW:
Many unorthodox items here, even by Markan standards, but starting at the beginning... Note that "Mark" (author) begins his Gospel with the word "begin". Usage of the Greek definite article does not have rules as strict as the English definite article but I have faith that starting with an anarthrous noun here would be considered unorthodox (Ben?). So is this style or slop? It seems like quite a coincidence to me to that the word that begins the Gospel is "begin". [sarcasm]And of course GMark does not also have an unorthodox ending[/sarcasm].

I find it interesting that there is something of a parallel in Hosea:

Hosea 1:2

Str Translit HebrewEnglish Morph
8462 [e] tə-ḥil-laṯ תְּחִלַּ֥ת The beginning Noun

Note that the offending Hebrew word "תְּחִלַּ֥ת" (beginning) also lacks the definite article. Hebrew definite article usage is more like the English than the Greek. I also note with great interest (but less evidence) that Hosea here has a primary context that is reMarkably similar to a primary theme of GMark. A figurative relationship between God and Israel with a non-traditional father. So too does GMark show a figurative relationship between God and Jesus with a non-traditional father.

Regarding this thematic development in Christianity, it looks to me like it would go something like this:

Paul
  • 1. No mention of Jesus' traditional father.
    2. Says Jesus was born of a woman
    3. Emphasizes that Jesus was the son of God
Conclusion at the time = Jesus' traditional father was either unknown or unimportant.

"Mark"
  • 1. No mention of Jesus' traditional father.
    2. Says Jesus had a mother.
    3. Emphasizes that Jesus was the son of God

Conclusion at the time = Jesus' traditional father was either unknown or unimportant.

Original GMatthew (no virgin birth)
  • 1. Explicit mention of Jesus' traditional father.
    2. Says Jesus had a mother.
    3. Emphasizes that Jesus was the son of God

Conclusion at the time = While GMark is confirmation of Paul, GMatthew is contradiction. Implication that Jesus did not have a traditional father is undone by Explicits that he did.

Edited GMatthew (virgin birth)
  • 1. Explanation of why Jesus' lacked traditional father.
    2. Says Jesus had a mother.
    3. Emphasizes that Jesus was the son of God

Conclusion at the time = Reconciliation with Paul/GMark. Agreement that Jesus did not have a traditional father but negation of possible reason that Jesus was a Marmzer.


Joseph

The Strange Chapter Of Dr. Jewkyll And Mr. Hymn - Day 2
JoeWallack wrote:]Conclusion at the time = Reconciliation with Paul/GMark. Agreement that Jesus did not have a traditional father but negation of possible reason that Jesus was a Marmzer.



Jesus may not have had a " traditional father " but that is of no importance: the duke of Normandy (1), William the Conqueror, did not have a traditional father ;and the messiah of Judah, Jesus the Conqueror , did not have a traditional father.

roi d'Angleterre de 1066
I'll own it's a trifle draughty
But I look at it this way you see
If it's good enough for Nelson
It's quite good enough for me
http://monologues.co.uk/musichall/Songs ... Square.htm
1- Guillaume le Conquérant (en anglais William the Conqueror), appelé également Guillaume le Bâtard, Guillaume II de Normandie et enfin Guillaume Ier
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillaume ... %C3%A9rant

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1083
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: ThAlma and BetuLouise

Post by JoeWallack » Mon Aug 08, 2016 6:21 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
JoeWallack wrote:Note that "Mark" (author) begins his Gospel with the word "begin". Usage of the Greek definite article does not have rules as strict as the English definite article but I have faith that starting with an anarthrous noun here would be considered unorthodox (Ben?). So is this style or slop? It seems like quite a coincidence to me to that the word that begins the Gospel is "begin". [sarcasm]And of course GMark does not also have an unorthodox ending[/sarcasm].
I am honestly not sure, since starting a sentence and starting an entire work may be two very different things. (I have more knowledge of Greek sentences than I do of the specifics of how Greek texts start or finish in their entirety.)

"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ" has been on my radar for some time, however, since it has a feel to it that I am not sure about. It almost comes off as a title, but it is not quite a title. I am also suspicious of the Isaianic quotation right off the bat, as Mark does not major on introducing explicit scriptural references elsewhere in his gospel, so why does John the baptist merit one right at the beginning of the entire piece? I have no answers to these questions as of yet, and they are definitely questions in my mind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W--legHCbVo

JW:
As I indicate at ErrancyWiki Mark 1:1 Tatian, one of the earliest potential witnesses to Mark 1:1 appears not to have used it in his Diatessaron (he also appears not to have used the very beginning of GMatthew/GLuke). Maybe because they did not exist at the time or maybe because he could not figure out how to reconcile them with the beginning of GJohn.


Joseph

The Israeli/Arab Conflict - Who is Easier to Demonize as Naziish?

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1083
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Phrase "Sea of Galilee" Marks Teaching & Healing Ministry

Post by JoeWallack » Tue Sep 06, 2016 4:59 am

JW:
I have demonstrated several times that "Mark" (author) has a literary technique of using the same word or phrase to mark off related blocks of material. Here I present evidence that "Mark" has likewise done so with the phrase "Sea of Galilee":

Verse Commentary
1:16 And passing along by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew The first use of "sea". (Mis)used as the geographical description "The Sea of Galilee". There is no evidence that anyone had ever previously used that name. That being said it would be normal literary usage to provide an identifying word to the first use of "sea" to try and indicate which sea.
2:13 And he went forth again by the sea side; Context = Teaching & Location = Jewish
3:7 And Jesus with his disciples withdrew to the sea Context = Jews and Gentiles are coming to Jesus
4:1 And again he began to teach by the sea side. And there is gathered unto him a very great multitude, so that he entered into a boat, and sat in the sea; and all the multitude were by the sea on the land. Three invocations of the word "sea" for the critical Teaching Parable of The Sower which is the key to the entire Gospel. Spreading the word to Jew and Gentile.
4 39 And he awoke, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm.
40 And he said unto them, Why are ye fearful? have ye not yet faith?
41 And they feared exceedingly, and said one to another, Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?
Kelber points out that in GMark "the sea" represents the physical and religious division/border between Jews and Gentiles. Here Jesus has exorcised the sea as a division between Jews and Gentiles.
5 1 And they came to the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gerasenes.
13 And he gave them leave. And the unclean spirits came out, and entered into the swine: and the herd rushed down the steep into the sea, [in number] about two thousand; and they were drowned in the sea.
After exorcising the division between Jews and Gentiles here Jesus exorcises the force of the Gentiles.
5:21 And when Jesus had crossed over again in the boat unto the other side, a great multitude was gathered unto him; and he was by the sea. Context = Healing & Location = Jewish
6 47 And when even was come, the boat was in the midst of the sea, and he alone on the land.
48 And seeing them distressed in rowing, for the wind was contrary unto them, about the fourth watch of the night he cometh unto them, walking on the sea; and he would have passed by them:
49 but they, when they saw him walking on the sea, supposed that it was a ghost, and cried out;
Jesus had previously exorcised the sea as obstacle to the Gospel but his disciples are unable to cross the sea "without" him.
7:31 And again he went out from the borders of Tyre, and came through Sidon unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the borders of Decapolis. The last narrative use of "sea" which is the only other use of the full phrase "sea of Galilee" besides the first use of "sea". While the distinguishing use of "Galilee" is understandable here with the picture of quantity of travel, the fact remains that "Mark" (author) uses an otherwise unknown phrase, "Sea of Galilee", at the first narrative use of "sea" and only once more at the last narrative use of "sea", even though there are a sea of opportunities in between (so to speak) to likewise add "Galilee". This is again evidence that "Mark" has a style of using the same word or phrase at the beginning and end of a related literary section.

JW:
In summary, "Mark" has marked off the Teaching & Healing Ministry by using the unique phrase "Sea of Galilee" at 1:16 and 7:31. "Sea of Galilee" represents the division between Jews and Gentiles. "Mark's" underlying major theological source Paul had famously written:

Galatians 3:28
There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one [man] in Christ Jesus.
1 Corinthians 10:17
seeing that we, who are many, are one bread, one body: for we are all partake of the one bread.
Paul claims that Jesus removed the division between Jew and Gentile by becoming one bread for everyone. "Mark" then gives his one loaf story in Chapter 8. Now the "sea" disappears:
8:10 And straightway he entered into the boat with his disciples, and came into the parts of Dalmanutha.

11 And the Pharisees came forth, and began to question with him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, trying him.

12 And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation.

13 And he left them, and again entering into [the boat] departed to the other side.

14 And they forgot to take bread; and they had not in the boat with them more than one loaf.

Joseph

Son Control - Mark's 2nd Amendment. Was "son of God" Added Later to Mark 1:1? The Greek Patristic Evidence.

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1083
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Rage, rage against the Light

Post by JoeWallack » Tue Sep 13, 2016 6:58 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yYX3Ra9vbI

JW:
My theory is that "Mark" (author) has contrived here to contrast Jesus/Peter. In the big picture Jesus is successful and Peter fails. "Mark's" Jesus has given a formula for success/failure that is negatively defined = denying Jesus is failure. Clearly in this section of GMark the trials of the two are being compared/contrasted with Peter denying Jesus formulaically and Jesus refusing to deny himself. One of comparison attributes used is time Marking. I think most would agree that "Mark" has deliberately/stylishly connected Jesus' supposed resurrection with the sun rising via time marking. Less noted but I think equally contrived by "Mark" is that Peter's "falling" is also connected timewise with dawn. Jesus though on the light side and Peter on the dark side (Gundry look out!).

[td][url=http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_16]16:2[/url] And [b]very early[/b] on the first day of the week, they come to the tomb [b]when the sun was risen[/b].[/td] [td]λίαν πρωῒ = very early/dawn, ἀνατείλαντος = having arisen[/td] [td]It's clear that "Mark" is connecting Jesus' supposed resurrection with dawn (the sun rising). That the women bought spices at night seems unlikely but anyway, since "Mark" is clearly comparing/contrasting Jesus/Peter here and showing their trials happening simultaneously, and using a time marker for Jesus' rise/vindication, dawn, why not also show the same time marker for Peter's fall/conviction.[/td]
Verse Absolute Timing Identifier Commentary
14:72 And straightway the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word, how that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept. the second time the cock crew, ἐφώνησεν = Call out As identified in the KK Thread the cock crowing twice was a time marker of dawn in Greco-Roman literature. "Mark" had already explicitly used cock crowing as a time marker at 13:35 (in the critical context of "watching"). KK also noted that the word is not the normal word for crowing. The most common meaning in the Christian Bible is called out in a religious sense.
15:1 And straightway in the morning the chief priests with the elders and scribes, and the whole council, held a consultation, and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him up to Pilate. And straightway in the morning, εὐθὺς = immediately So, does the "and immediately" refer to the prior cock calling or the morning? Ben? It seems to me that if you take the second cock crowing as referring to dawn then either way "and immediately" also refers to dawn (the light side). This creates one of those KK Markan logical problems. How are a series of actions performed within a time marker that denotes one specific time (dawn)? My solution, as always, is that "Mark" is more interested in the style, here contrasting results at dawn, rather than having a logical narrative, because the result is more dramatic/literary.


Joseph

Son Control - Mark's 2nd Amendment. Was "son of God" Added Later to Mark 1:1? The Greek Patristic Evidence.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 5843
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Rage, rage against the Light

Post by Ben C. Smith » Tue Sep 13, 2016 8:03 am

JoeWallack wrote:And straightway in the morning, εὐθὺς = immediately.... So, does the "and immediately" refer to the prior cock calling or the morning? Ben?
I think it has to go with the morning. Here is my reasoning.

There are many, many instances of εὐθὺς in the gospel of Mark, but very few of them attached to some other indicator of time. Standing alone, it seems clear that something is happening immediately after the events of the previous sentence. For example, in Mark 5.27-28 a woman touches Jesus' garment, and in 5.29 her flux of blood is immediately stopped. The εὐθὺς seems designed to let us know that the amount of time between her touching the garment and her being healed of her affliction was negligible.

However, consider something like Mark 9.14-15:

14 When they came back to the disciples, they saw a large crowd around them, and some scribes arguing with them. 15 Immediately [εὐθὺς], the entire crowd having seen Him, they were amazed and began running up to greet Him.

This case is different. There is no actual timing word used in addition to εὐθὺς, but there is an implied time frame in the aorist participle, ἰδόντες ("having seen"): the sense of an aorist participle can very often relate to time, and it is thus often translated as "when so-and-so did such-and-such". So I think the sense here is that the amount of time between the crowd seeing Jesus and the crowed being amazed was negligible. It makes less sense to suppose that the "immediately" applies to the previous verse, in which Jesus and his inner three see the crowds. The takeaway is that the εὐθὺς seems to apply to the implied time indication within its own sentence, when such an indication exists.

So, in Mark 15.1, I think that the sense is: "as soon as it was morning" or "immediately upon the coming of morn". BDAG seems to agree, since it has "as soon as morning came" for Mark 15.1.

Hippocrates, Epidemics 7.109 (not a pleasant read):

109. After walking about and drinking, Epicharmus' son got indigestion. The following day in the morning he was nauseous. After drinking water, vinegar, and salt, he vomited phlegm. Afterwards shivering seized him. He bathed while feverish. His chest was painful. First thing in the morning on the third day [τῇ τρίτῃ εὐθὺς πρωῒ] a coma came on for a brief time and he was delirious and there was acute fever. He had great distress from the disease. On the fourth day, sleepless. He died.

The exact words of Mark 15.1, εὐθὺς πρωῒ, are here translated as "first thing in the morning", and I do not see any better way to translate them, since "the third day" already gives us the time frame: the εὐθὺς must be honing down this time frame, telling us how early on the third day these events transpired.

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1083
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Mark's DiualCritical Marks. Evidence Of Intentional Fict

Post by JoeWallack » Thu Sep 15, 2016 5:07 am

JW:
Inclusio
In biblical studies, inclusio is a literary device based on a concentric principle, also known as bracketing or an envelope structure, which consists of creating a frame by placing similar material at the beginning and end of a section, although whether this material should consist of a word or a phrase, or whether greater amounts of text also qualify, and of what length the frames section should be, are matters of some debate. Inclusio is found in various sources, both antique and new. The purpose of an inclusio may be structural - to alert the reader to a particularly important theme - or it may be serve to show how the material within the inclusio relates to the inclusio itself.
...
While this may not be evident to many of the Bible's modern lay readers, the Hebrew Bible is actually full of literary devices, some of which, having fallen out of favor over the years, are lost on most modern readers. Inclusio, of which many instances can be found in the Bible, is one of these, although many instances of its usage are not apparent to those reading translations of the Bible rather than the Hebrew source.
Bauckham famously makes the ridiculous claim that inclusio is evidence of history but it is clearly the opposite, evidence of fiction =

Verse Emotional Reaction Commentary
15:5
But Jesus no more answered anything; insomuch that Pilate marvelled
.
θαυμάζειν to amaze Pilate's first reaction to Jesus. Typical Markan double negative in the first part.
15:44
And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead: and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead.
ἐθαύμασεν wondered Pilate's last reaction to Jesus. The same base word. Brown notes the inclusio in Death of the Messiah. Note that historians such as Josephus typically try to provide motivation for actions while authors of fiction typically expand possible motivation to include emotions. "Mark" (author) has already provided supposed motivation for Pilate's actions here, satisfying the supposed crowd, so why place inclusio amazement on Pilate? Does this fit an overall Markan theme?


Joseph

Son Control - Mark's 2nd Amendment. Was "son of God" Added Later to Mark 1:1? The Greek Patristic Evidence.

Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1324
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Mark's DiualCritical Marks. Evidence Of Intentional Fict

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin » Sun Mar 12, 2017 11:05 am

JoeWallack wrote:"Mark" associates Jesus' Ministry with the traditional understanding of the Jewish Bible. In this ministry everyone is defined by their fathers. Go through "Mark" up to the Passion and I have faith that everyone who is defined is so defined. "Mark's" literary transition is who is David's Lord's/Son?
Mark 12
35 And Jesus answered and said, as he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that the Christ is the son of David?

36 David himself said in the Holy Spirit, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet.

37 David himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he his son? And the common people heard him gladly.
"Mark's" Jesus explains that it is not the Christ who is defined by being the son of David but David who is defined by being the Father of the Christ.

Once the Passion starts all who are defined are defined by their children:
http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_15
Mark 15:21 And they compel one passing by, Simon of Cyrene, coming from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to go [with them], that he might bear his cross.
Mark 15:40 And there were also women beholding from afar: among whom [were] both Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;
Mark 15:47 And Mary Magdalene and Mary the [mother] of Joses beheld where he was laid.
http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_16
Mark 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the [mother] of James, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and anoint him.
"Mark" was communicating that Jesus' Ministry was based on ancestors' tradition and Jesus' Passion would be based on a new Generation. The past Fathers would be defined based on their children.
It could be that “Mark's literary transition” is a double point. The point for the children is Mark 12:35-37 “Who is David's Lord's/Son?”, but for the women it is Mark 12:18-27 “Jesus answers the Sadducees”. In this story the women are set free in the resurrection from the subordination under the men and the men are set free from their role as ancestors and become defined in their relationship to God. (Note that like the "Herodians" the "Sadducees" are named after a man, the priest Zadok.)

18 Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying, 19 Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man's brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. 20 Now there were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed. 21 And the second took her, and died, neither left he any seed: and the third likewise. 22 And the seven had her, and left no seed: last of all the woman died also. 23 In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife.
24 And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? 25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven. 26 And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? 27 He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.

It could be not completely impossible that the turn of the women is the following.
Mark 15:40 There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
Mark 15:40 There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome; Mark 6:22 (according to א B D L Δ 565 pc arm WH NA)
And when his daughter Herodias came in, and danced, and pleased Herod and them that sat with him, the king said unto the damsel, Ask of me whatsoever thou wilt, and I will give it thee.

It seems that the only other woman in GMark defined by a man is Peter's mother in law.
[td]Mark 16:8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; [b][u][color=#0080BF]for they trembled and were amazed[/color][/u][/b]: [b][u][color=#FF4000]neither said they any thing to any man[/color][/u][/b]; for they were afraid.[/td] [td]Mark 1:30-31 But Simon's wife's mother lay [b][u][color=#0080BF]sick of a fever[/color][/u][/b], [b][u][color=#FF4000]and anon they tell him of her[/color][/u][/b]. And he came and took her by the hand, and lifted her up; and immediately the fever left her, and she ministered unto them.[/td][/td]
Mark 15:40-41 There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome; who also, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered unto him; Mark 1:30-31 But Simon's wife's mother lay sick of a fever, and anon they tell him of her. And he came and took her by the hand, and lifted her up; and immediately the fever left her, and she ministered unto them.


User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1083
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Mark's DiualCritical Marks. Evidence Of Intentional Fict

Post by JoeWallack » Sun May 14, 2017 12:36 pm

JW:

Placement Text Themes
Beginning 1
1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
-
  • 2 Even as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, Who shall prepare thy way.
    3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make ye ready the way of the Lord, Make his paths straight;
    • 4 John came, who baptized in the wilderness and preached the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins.
5 And there went out unto him all the country of Judaea, and all they of Jerusalem; And they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.
6 And John was clothed with camel`s hair, and [had] a leathern girdle about his loins, and did eat locusts and wild honey.
7 And he preached, saying, There cometh after me he that is mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose.
8 I baptized you in water; But he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit.
9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in the Jordan.
Jesus unknown before receiving spirit
Prophecy
-
-
-
-
The Prophet
Ending 16
1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the [mother] of James, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and anoint him.
2 And very early on the first day of the week, they come to the tomb when the sun was risen.
3 And they were saying among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the tomb?
4 and looking up, they see that the stone is rolled back: for it was exceeding great.
    • 5 And entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, arrayed in a white robe; and they were amazed.
  • 6 And he saith unto them, Be not amazed: ye seek Jesus, the Nazarene, who hath been crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold, the place where they laid him!
    7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.
8 And they went out, and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them: and they said nothing to any one; for they were afraid.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The Prophet
-
-
Prophecy
-
-
-
-
Jesus unknown after losing spirit

Stylish placement of connected themes at related distances in the narrative. Here at the beginning and ending and equal distances from the transfiguration (Recognition) scene of Chapter 8.


Joseph

The New Porphyry

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1083
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Mark's DiualCritical Marks. Evidence Of Intentional Fiction

Post by JoeWallack » Sat Jul 15, 2017 7:08 am

JW:

Verse Setting Frames The Subject The Emotion Commentary
15
1 And straightway in the morning the chief priests with the elders and scribes, and the whole council, held a consultation, and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him up to Pilate.
2 And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering saith unto him, Thou sayest.
3 And the chief priests accused him of many things.
4 And Pilate again asked him, saying, Answerest thou nothing? behold how many things they accuse thee of.
5 But Jesus no more answered anything; insomuch that Pilate marvelled.
Jesus under Pilate's authority Beginning. First reaction to Jesus. Pilate 2296 [e] thaumazein θαυμάζειν to amaze V-PNA = "Amazed" -
15
43 there came Joseph of Arimathaea, a councillor of honorable estate, who also himself was looking for the kingdom of God; and he boldly went in unto Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus.
44 And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead: and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead.
45 And when he learned it of the centurion, he granted the corpse to Joseph.
Jesus under Pilate's authority Ending. Last reaction to Jesus. Pilate 2296 [e] ethaumasen ἐθαύμασεν wondered V-AIA-3S = "Amazed" A classic Wallack Emotional Frame =
1. The big picture story is framed at the Beginning & End by an emotion.
2. The emotion is exactly the same.
3. The same character possesses the emotion.
4. The context of the emotion is the same = reaction to Jesus.
5. The specific context of the emotion fits the overall context of GMark = reaction of amazement to Jesus.
6. What is being reacted to fits the general location of the structure of GMark. Pilate is amazed by Jesus controlling his Passions. During the Passion.
7. "Mark" (author) is careful not to ascribe any other emotion to Pilate during the picture so as to emphasize the emotional frames ("wishing to content the multitude" as opposed to "feared a riot" - understand Dear Reader?)
8. To his credit Brown recognizes the frame in his classic Death.
9. Note the contrived use of "amazed" at the end. "The Jews" and Romans have gone Old Testament on Jesus Gangham Style in the entire Chapter yet Pilate is amazed to learn that Jesus has given his heArt to Dada and expired. Gratuitous/unnecessary for the narrative but necessary for The Frame. Gratias Markus.


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1083
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Wallack's Emotional Frame - The Women at The Tomb

Post by JoeWallack » Sat Jul 15, 2017 8:11 am

JW:

Verse Setting Frames The Subject The Emotion Commentary
16

1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the [mother] of James, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and anoint him.
2 And very early on the first day of the week, they come to the tomb when the sun was risen.
3 And they were saying among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the tomb?
4 and looking up, they see that the stone is rolled back: for it was exceeding great.
5 And entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, arrayed in a white robe; and they were amazed.
The Tomb Entering The Tomb The Three Women 1568 [e] exethambēthēsan ἐξεθαμβήθησαν. they were greatly amazed. V-AIP-3P = "Amazed" -
16

6 And he saith unto them, Be not amazed: ye seek Jesus, the Nazarene, who hath been crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold, the place where they laid him!
7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.
8 And they went out, and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them: and they said nothing to any one; for they were afraid.
The Tomb Fleeing The Tomb The Three Women
1611 [e] ekstasis ἔκστασις· amazement, N-NFS
= "Amazed"
A classic Wallack Emotional Frame =
1. The big picture story is framed at the Beginning & End by an emotion. Here the connection is further strengthened in the middle by Paul, er the Young Man, now in his right mind, sitting and properly clothed, recognizing that they are amazed and giving them another command to disobey, "don't be amazed".
2. Here the emotions have largely the same meaning, "amazement", but are different words, and the second has an even stronger meaning of "shocked". Note the contrived narrative usage as the word is presented as supposed motivation for fleeing while the normal usage has a meaning of significant mental movement combined with suspension of physical movement (trance).
3. The same characters possess the emotion. Three women closest to Jesus in death replace three men closest to Jesus in life.
4. The context of the emotion is related irony = reaction to seeing a man they did not expect and not seeing a man they did expect.
5. The specific context of the emotion fits the overall context of GMark = reaction of amazement to Jesus.
6. "Mark" (author) is careful not to ascribe any other emotion to The Women during the picture so as to emphasize the emotional frames (No reaction to the stone being rolled away and "trembling" not an emotion - understand Dear Reader?)
7. The story ends with the emotion of "fear" but this is connected to the post fleeing the tomb information. The "why" they said nothing to no one [Have to say I'm surprised that no Apologist has tried to argue that the double negative logically means they did tell Stop at Nothing].
8. Note the Triple Double Negatives at the End:
1 - they went out and fled
2 - trembling and astonishment
3 - said nothing to no one
If a single double negative emphasizes a single point then a Triple Double Negative emphasizes a Gospel size point. More evidence for 16:8 as original.
Mark Elbart, does MJ score a Triple Double here?
ME: Yes!


Joseph

Skeptical Textual Criticism

Post Reply