JoeWallack wrote:JW:
In The Beginning
Mark 1:1
Strong's Transliteration Greek English Morphology 746 [e] Archē Ἀρχὴ [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 Hebrew English 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:
PaulConclusion at the time = Jesus' traditional father was either unknown or unimportant.
- 1. No mention of Jesus' traditional father.
2. Says Jesus was born of a woman
3. Emphasizes that Jesus was the son of God
"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