MARKed - astonishing text variants

[Ben C. Smith]

The Jewish fighters had THREE Watches, not four. The "extra hour" may have made a difference in the Original: "Jesus" returns from Prayer 3 times and finds his Disciples asleep. The Fourth Watch is unambiguously Roman, both by Intent and in the telling of the Story.

I believe I have read a good summary of the three Jewish and four Roman watches somewhere in Theissen.

[Charles Wilson]

The First Watch:

Lamentations 2: 19 (RSV):

[19] Arise, cry out in the night, at the beginning of the watches!
Pour out your heart like water before the presence of the Lord!
Lift your hands to him for the lives of your children,
who faint for hunger at the head of every street.

The Second Watch:

Judges 7: 19 (Moffatt):

[19] So, when Gideon and his hundred men reached the outskirts of the camp at the beginning of the middle watch, just when the guard had been posted, they blew their trumpets and smashed the pitchers in their hands.

The Third Watch:

Exodus 14: 24 (RSV):

[24] And in the morning watch the LORD in the pillar of fire and of cloud looked down upon the host of the Egyptians, and discomfited the host of the Egyptians

[DCHindley]

English (RSV)	Greek (GNT)
Matthew 26:34 Jesus said to him, "Truly, I say to you, this very night, before the (a) cock crows, you will deny me three times."	Matthew 26:34 ἔφη αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· ἀμὴν λέγω σοι ὅτι ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτὶ πρὶν ἀλέκτορα φωνῆσαι [verb infinitive aorist active] τρὶς ἀπαρνήσῃ με.
Matthew 26:74 Then he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, "I do not know the man." And immediately the (a) cock crowed. 75 And Peter remembered the saying of Jesus, "Before the (a) cock crows, you will deny me three times." And he went out and wept bitterly.	Matthew 26:74 τότε ἤρξατο καταθεματίζειν καὶ ὀμνύειν ὅτι οὐκ οἶδα τὸν ἄνθρωπον. καὶ εὐθέως ἀλέκτωρ ἐφώνησεν [verb indicative aorist active]. 75 καὶ ἐμνήσθη ὁ Πέτρος τοῦ ῥήματος Ἰησοῦ εἰρηκότος ὅτι πρὶν ἀλέκτορα φωνῆσαι [verb infinitive aorist active] τρὶς ἀπαρνήσῃ με· καὶ ἐξελθὼν ἔξω ἔκλαυσεν πικρῶς.
Mark 14:30 And Jesus said to him, "Truly, I say to you, this very night, before the (a) cock crows [twice], you will deny me three times."	Mark 14:30 καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· ἀμὴν λέγω σοι ὅτι σὺ σήμερον ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτὶ πρὶν ἢ [δὶς] ἀλέκτορα φωνῆσαι [verb infinitive aorist active] τρίς με ἀπαρνήσῃ.
Mark 14:72 And immediately the (a) cock crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how Jesus had said to him, "Before the (a) cock crows [twice], you will deny me three times."	Mark 14:72 καὶ εὐθὺς ἐκ δευτέρου ἀλέκτωρ ἐφώνησεν [verb indicative aorist active]. καὶ ἀνεμνήσθη ὁ Πέτρος τὸ ῥῆμα ὡς εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι πρὶν ἀλέκτορα φωνῆσαι [verb infinitive aorist active] δὶς τρίς με ἀπαρνήσῃ·
Luke 22:34 He said, "I tell you, Peter, the (a) cock will not crow this day, until you three times deny that you know me."	Luke 22:34 ὁ δὲ εἶπεν· λέγω σοι, Πέτρε, οὐ φωνήσει [verb indicative future active] σήμερον ἀλέκτωρ ἕως τρίς με ἀπαρνήσῃ εἰδέναι.
Luke 22:60 But Peter said, "Man, I do not know what you are saying." And immediately, while he was still speaking, the (a) cock crowed. 61 And the Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said to him, "Before the (a) cock crows today, you will deny me three times."	Luke 22:60 εἶπεν δὲ ὁ Πέτρος· ἄνθρωπε, οὐκ οἶδα ὃ λέγεις. καὶ παραχρῆμα ἔτι λαλοῦντος αὐτοῦ ἐφώνησεν [verb indicative aorist active] ἀλέκτωρ. 61 καὶ στραφεὶς ὁ κύριος ἐνέβλεψεν τῷ Πέτρῳ, καὶ ὑπεμνήσθη ὁ Πέτρος τοῦ ῥήματος τοῦ κυρίου ὡς εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὅτι πρὶν ἀλέκτορα φωνῆσαι [verb infinitive aorist active] σήμερον ἀπαρνήσῃ με τρίς.

The translations, in an attempt to attribute to Jesus a divine prescience, say that "the" cock crows, when there is no definite article there at all. While some might argue that the definiteness is implied, I just see "a" cock that was crowing. If it is supposed to be a prediction, why is it an aroist verb (past distinct action) and not a future verb? Does this use of an aorist verb also fit with a nick-name for a specific watch of the morning?

It seems to me, stupid and home-boyish as I am, that Jesus had not said this to Peter in a somber, serious manner, but upon Peter insisting that he would follow him to the death and not abandon him like a sheep without a shepherd, Jesus may have simply applied humor: "Yeah sure Peter. You'll probably deny me three times this very night in the time it takes a rooster to finish its call!" Since roosters call out rather frequently day and night (and Ben, having lived among the poor in Mexico with your missionary parents, you probably heard a lot of that yourself) this just implies that denials under inquiry would come fast and furious, not that it was predicted to occur at the time of the morning watch of the day.*

Are you saying that "a cock having crowed" (which is what the verbal forms meant) was a technical term for a watch of the night/day? There may well have been a watch associated with the crowing of a rooster. When the sun comes up, the first thing you might become aware of is the sound of a rooster crowing, not that the damn beast wasn't crowing all friggin' night, but that you slept through it until the sun started to shine and woke you up. When the day is done and you're tired and it is dark, you can sleep like a baby through a tornado, crowing roosters or not, so it did not become a nick-name for a night-time, or even a mid-day watch, when you are busy and tune out the distractions.

So I can accept that as a possibility, but would it be expressed as an aorist, or without the definite article, being the watch called "a cock-crowed"?

DCH

*Robin Williams once made a movie where he played a slave of an overly anxious Roman master in ancient Rome. When sitting around with his fellow slaves, he is forced to endure one of them imitating a rooster's crow very loudly. I think his understanding of slavery in Roman society was based on slavery in the American south before the Civil War like portrayed in the movie Roots, which was of an entirely different nature if one were to ask me. But the stereotypes persist, so I do hope no one is suggesting that this was a reference to slaves or heralds walking about towns and villages crowing like a rooster to announce the morning watch.

[Ben C. Smith]

If it is supposed to be a prediction, why is it an aorist verb (past distinct action) and not a future verb?

Because it is an infinitive, and the aorist thus carries no necessary past sense. The aorist generally indicates the past only in the indicative or as a participle. An aorist infinitive implies a single point of action, rather than a process as, say, a present infinitive might imply (this is called "aspect", and some very strict grammarians even argue to the extreme, namely that finite aorist verbs do not actually indicate the past either, though it most often works out that way; but that debate is extremely detailed and complex, definitely not for the here and now). What makes the sentence a prediction is the tense of the main verb: ἀπαρνήσῃ, which is future.

Does this use of an aorist verb also fit with a nick-name for a specific watch of the morning?

I do not think it is necessarily a nickname (though by the time of the Talmud it seems to have become that). I think it is a cultural concept.

Are you saying that "a cock having crowed" (which is what the verbal forms meant) was a technical term for a watch of the night/day?

Not necessarily a technical term, no. But you tell me: what does this line mean from the Talmud? "Sometimes he came just at cock-crow, sometimes a little before or a little after." Are these the words of a person who is treating the crowing of a cock as a random event which could happen at any time of day or night? Or does the writer seem to have a particular time in mind? What about this one? "And before the cock-crow approached the temple court was full of Israelites." What about this line from Ammianus Marcellinus? "Finally, on a previously appointed festal day, he ascended Mount Casius, a wooded hill rising on high with a rounded contour, from which at the second cock-crow the sun is first seen to rise." What about Mark 13.35, for that matter? Jewish sources such as the Talmud appear to associate the (first or only) cock-crow with the rising of the sun, while Greco-Roman sources seem to associate the second cock-crow with that time of morning. And the Marcan textual history has both. It appears to me that somebody was crossing cultures and trying to make the text clear in the process.

There may well have been a watch associated with the crowing of a rooster. When the sun comes up, the first thing you might become aware of is the sound of a rooster crowing, not that the damn beast wasn't crowing all friggin' night, but that you slept through it until the sun started to shine and woke you up.

We still possess the cultural concept of the cock crowing at sunrise. I grew up with it in Saturday morning cartoons. There are fables explaining why roosters crow at dawn. It seems this concept is millenia old by now. And we can express it in various ways: at the crowing of the cock, when the cock crowed, and so forth. This is why I shrink from calling it a nickname or a technical term; it is not the exact wording which conjures the trope, but rather just the notion of the cock crowing at a particular time of day.

[Charles Wilson]

This is what makes this endlessly fascinating.
There is another point involved with this and it points to where the Story originated:

Matthew 26: 69 - 73 (RSV):

[69] Now Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard. And a maid came up to him, and said, "You also were with Jesus the Galilean."
...
[73] After a little while the bystanders came up and said to Peter, "Certainly you are also one of them, for your accent betrays you."

This stands on the knife edge of whether the Original Story was Fiction or a True Record of events. "...for your accent betrays you..." Peter is from Galilee. I believe he was from the Mishmarot Group Immer and that he lived in or around Jabnit. It can shown that Immer was on Duty for the Passover of 4 BCE, where 3000 were slaughtered. There exist Lists (Plural) of Settlements where the Mishmarot Priesthood were assigned to live (Uzi Leibner). The identification of the accent of Peter as being Galilean is therefore a clue as to the Story's Origin.

There is now the link between the status of Peter and the Priest. Again:

Mark 6: 48 - 49 (RSV):

[48] And he saw that they were making headway painfully, for the wind was against them. And about the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on the sea. He meant to pass by them,
[49] but when they saw him walking on the sea they thought it was a ghost, and cried out;

If this is the same Story (It is...), then Peter does something after the "Denial" at cock's crow. "...they thought it was a ghost..." Peter and others look out over the Massacre and see someone whom they are certain is already dead. Peter goes out into the Death and saves the Priest.

Luke 13: 23 - 24 (RSV):

[23] And some one said to him, "Lord, will those who are saved be few?" And he said to them,
[24] "Strive to enter by the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.

Matthew 18: 23 - 24 (RSV):

[3] and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
[4] Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

"Fourth Watch" tells the Story on many levels.

CW

[Ben C. Smith]

If it is supposed to be a prediction, why is it an aorist verb (past distinct action) and not a future verb?

Because it is an infinitive, and the aorist thus carries no necessary past sense.

To let someone else explain it a bit more (http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/inter-tense.htm):

In English, and in most other languages, the tense of the verb mainly refers to the 'time' of the action of the verb (present, past, or future time). In Greek, however, although time does bear upon the meaning of tense, the primary consideration of the tense of the verb is not time, but rather the 'kind of action' that the verb portrays. The most important element in Greek tense is kind of action; time is regarded as a secondary element. For this reason, many grammarians have adopted the German word 'aktionsart' (kind of action) to be able to more easily refer to this phenomenon of Greek verbs.

The kind of action (aktionsart) of a Greek verb will generally fall into one of three categories:
1) Continuous (or ‘Progressive’) kind of action.
2) Completed (or ‘Accomplished’) kind of action, with continuing results.
3) Simple occurrence, (or ‘Summary occurrence’) without reference to the question of progress. (This is sometimes referred to as 'Punctiliar' kind of action , but it is a misnomer to thus imply that, in every instance, the action only happened at one point of time. This can be true, but it is often dependent on other factors such as the meaning of the verb, other words in the context, etc.).

It is an important distinction to understand, as discussed below, that the only place in which 'time' comes to bear directly upon the tense of a verb is when the verb is in the indicative mood. In all other moods and uses the aktionsart of the verb tense should be seen as primary.

[iskander]

...2. Jay Raskin had a wonderful Analysis of the "Cock Crow" in his book, Christs and Christianities, ISBN-13: 978-1413497915. My copy got put in a box and is now an Archaeological Dig. If anyone has a copy, find a paragraph and summarize, please. I'll try to give Jay a call. Great stuff.

CW

The Evolution of Christs and Christianities Paperback – 7 Mar 2006
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Evolution-Chri ... 1413497918


16 of 17 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Jay Raskin's _Evolution of Christs and Christianities_ 30 May 2006
By Charles O. Wilson - Published on Amazon.com

What do you remember about the ' denial of Peter' ?

[iskander]

http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/review_evocc.htm

After reading Jay Raskin's recent publication entitled "The Evolution of Christs and Christianities I have presented a small review containing a number of extracts of some of the themes developed. These issues consist of:
• An Introduction to the Scope.
• Eusebius: The Master Forger.
• Eusebius and the Miraculous Founding of the Christian Churches.
• Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum of Josephus.
• The Tacitus and Suetonius Interpolation.
• Eusebian forgery of the Vienne/Lyon Martyrs' Letter.
The above is a small review of Christs and Christianities from our beloved poster mountaiman to get you going.

[Charles Wilson]

Iskander --

I managed to reach Jay from his private mountaintop retreat. He may yet respond on Peter's Denial and the Cock Crow. I found a bitter and vicious review of Jay's book which stated that Jay thought the Cock Crow was a misunderstood idiom. The bitter and vicious part I could do with out.

I might start a new Thread based in part on something you wrote.

CW

[iskander]

Iskander --

I managed to reach Jay from his private mountaintop retreat. He may yet respond on Peter's Denial and the Cock Crow. I found a bitter and vicious review of Jay's book which stated that Jay thought the Cock Crow was a misunderstood idiom. The bitter and vicious part I could do with out.

I might start a new Thread based in part on something you wrote.

CW

Thank you