Mark 6: 48 (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…
Our Story so far…
Our Markan Story has taken a strange swerve here by using a Roman Term, a military Term concerning the Watches. It may also be a Greek Military Term, I don't know. It's not a Jewish Term since the Jewish Fighters only had three Watches:
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
Michael Turton, in his Study of Mark,
( http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark_index.html ), quotes Goodacre in his review of Mark 15:
“All that Amos 8.9 is able to explain is, at best, one element in the story: the darkness at midday. But this time reference is one of many in the Passion Narrative and they all have one thing in common: they happen at three hour intervals. The darkness that comes over the earth at 12 lasts three hours until 3 p.m., when Jesus dies (15.33-4). Before the darkness begins, Jesus has already been on the cross for three hours, since 9 a.m. (15.25). Before that, Jesus was brought before Pilate at dawn, 6 a.m. (15.1, ????). Nor does the pattern stop there. There appears to be something like a twenty-four hour framework, broken up neatly into three hour segments. Thus, if we imagine the Last Supper taking place at 6 p.m. (14.17, "then it was evening . . ."), Jesus and the disciples would then go to Gethsemane at 9 p.m., Jesus would be arrested at midnight, and Peter denies Jesus during the Jewish trial at 3 a.m., cockcrow (14.72)."
“He then goes on to explain, citing Mark 13:35-37, which shows that
"The text itself appears to be drawing attention to the three hour pattern, alerting the bright reader to what is to come...”
The target audience therefore is familiar with the “Fourth Watch” terminology and is able to see this as a Template in which the Logical Structure foretells what is to be, so therefore…
WAYDAMINNIT!!!
There's a lot of verbiage here about all of this being taken from a Jewish Document(s). I, Charles, claim that Mishmarot and Jewish History is all over the NT, from Jannaeus (and before…) to 9 CE and the Passover 12 years after the Temple slaughter of 4 BCE (and after…). I'm beginning to see Johanan ben Zakai in a few things as well. If this is taken from “Jewish Documents”, would it make sense that there might be references to “Third Watch”? After all, this is the Son of God we're talkin' about.
A bit of comparison may be in order. If we look at a 12 hour period, plus or minus, we see that the Jewish Fighters had to do one more hour per shift – three hours per Roman Shift, four hours per Jewish Shift. Does this matter?
Josephus, Wars…, 6, 1. 7:
“Now two days afterward twelve of those men that were on the forefront, and kept watch upon the banks, got together, and called to them the standard-bearer of the fifth legion, and two others of a troop of horsemen, and one trumpeter; these went without noise, about the ninth hour of the night, through the ruins, to the tower of Antonia; and when they had cut the throats of the first guards of the place, as they were asleep, they got possession of the wall, and ordered the trumpeter to sound his trumpet...”
Ninth Hour, Ninth Hour...Isn't there something in the Gospels about...well, never mind.
So, this passage tells us, without getting too exact, that, in the Middle Jewish Shift or the Last Shift, some on Watch have fallen asleep. Which brings us to:
Mark 14: 33 – 42 (RSV):
[33] And he took with him Peter and James and John, and began to be greatly distressed and troubled.
[34] And he said to them, "My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch."
[35] And going a little farther, he fell on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him.
[36] And he said, "Abba, Father, all things are possible to thee; remove this cup from me; yet not what I will, but what thou wilt."
[37] And he came and found them sleeping, and he said to Peter, "Simon, are you asleep? Could you not watch one hour?
[38] Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak."
[39] And again he went away and prayed, saying the same words.
[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.
[42] Rise, let us be going; see, my betrayer is at hand."
Three Watches.
Mark 15: 25 (RSV):
[25] And it was the third hour, when they crucified him.
Third Hour? - Or Third Watch? Remember, “The Evening and the Morning...” is forgotten in Mark:
Mark 16: 2 (RSV):
[2] And very early on the first day of the week they went to the tomb when the sun had risen.
Curious. I realize that Mark is “very literary” 'n all but there is something very odd going on here.
Mark 13: 33 – 37 (RSV):
[33] Take heed, watch; for you do not know when the time will come.
[34] It is like a man going on a journey, when he leaves home and puts his servants in charge, each with his work, and commands the doorkeeper to be on the watch.
[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."
“Evening” - “Midnight” - “Cockcrow” - and “IN the Morning”.
It appears that “Third Watch” may be in the NT after all. At some point you have to bring Peter's Story into this and it certainly supports the idea that there is an ATROCITY going on from the Other Side of that Door and it happened before morning's light.
More later, mebbe.
CW
A Tale of Two Watches
Re: A Tale of Two Watches
Charles Wilson wrote:Mark 6: 48 (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…
CW
But did not the Jews themselves adopt this time verbiage since Pompeius ??? Let alone the Hellenist or possible Roman citizens in the Diaspora who would have learned to read and write with the Romans?
-
Charles Wilson
- Posts: 2107
- Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am
Re: A Tale of Two Watches
'Zactly.
That's the very good question. Mark is Literary. Was it written from Whole Cloth or did it come from the advantage of theft over honest toil?
If it's the former, then Mark is indeed the greatest writer in the History of Letters. To write such a Story on so many levels, especially including knowledge of Jewish Mishmarot while writing to an audience that would not understand the Priesthood is close to impossible.
If the latter, then did the LANGUAGE of the Stories get carried with it into the Greek/Roman World? It is so important. Someone such as Johanan ben Zakai illustrates that these people were not "Country Bumpkins", especially if he was a Priest before he help set up Rabbinical Judaism. Let us assume that the "Fourth Watch" was, by 69 - 70, common knowledge by Language in Use in Judea and Galilee. What then, would a Word Play referencing "Third Watch", for example, mean? The question answers itself. Someone is leaving a Non-Hellenized Story Fragment that gets placed in the Final Draft, past whoever Censored/Redacted the Text.
At one point precisely ONE Book of Mark existed that came to us. There is no "Original Mark" that had an ending after 16: 8. It has Latinisms, Aramaicisms and comes to us in Greek. Each part leads to a conclusion that the result was intentional. Who had access to that ONE copy? Who copied it? The Hasmoneans viscerally hated the Greeks and yet Greek Culture, as you rightly point out, permeates the Production of Mark. Yet, something remains. If "Third Watch" has meaning in Mark, someone left it there.
Thank you, outhouse,
CW
That's the very good question. Mark is Literary. Was it written from Whole Cloth or did it come from the advantage of theft over honest toil?
If it's the former, then Mark is indeed the greatest writer in the History of Letters. To write such a Story on so many levels, especially including knowledge of Jewish Mishmarot while writing to an audience that would not understand the Priesthood is close to impossible.
If the latter, then did the LANGUAGE of the Stories get carried with it into the Greek/Roman World? It is so important. Someone such as Johanan ben Zakai illustrates that these people were not "Country Bumpkins", especially if he was a Priest before he help set up Rabbinical Judaism. Let us assume that the "Fourth Watch" was, by 69 - 70, common knowledge by Language in Use in Judea and Galilee. What then, would a Word Play referencing "Third Watch", for example, mean? The question answers itself. Someone is leaving a Non-Hellenized Story Fragment that gets placed in the Final Draft, past whoever Censored/Redacted the Text.
At one point precisely ONE Book of Mark existed that came to us. There is no "Original Mark" that had an ending after 16: 8. It has Latinisms, Aramaicisms and comes to us in Greek. Each part leads to a conclusion that the result was intentional. Who had access to that ONE copy? Who copied it? The Hasmoneans viscerally hated the Greeks and yet Greek Culture, as you rightly point out, permeates the Production of Mark. Yet, something remains. If "Third Watch" has meaning in Mark, someone left it there.
Thank you, outhouse,
CW
-
Charles Wilson
- Posts: 2107
- Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am
Re: A Tale of Two Watches
Michael Turton has examined the Chiastic Structure of Mark and I look to his Site for guidance with some frequency.
It is important to consider what might have been the Ending based on Structure ("Argument from Structure", for those scoring at home):
"It is impossible to reconstruct a chiasm from the remaining verses.
2: And very early on the first day of the week they went to the tomb when the sun had risen.
3: And they were saying to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the door of the tomb?"
4: And looking up, they saw that the stone was rolled back; -- it was very large.
5: And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe; and they were amazed.
6: And he said to them, "Do not be amazed; you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him.
7: But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told 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.
There is no A' bracket to oppose v2, a bracket involving movement from one geographical location to another. v8 resembles a very typical B' bracket that should be followed by an A' bracket reading, in typical Markan style, something like: "And they returned to Jerusalem."
A And very early on the first day of the week they went to the tomb when the sun had risen.
_____B And they were saying to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the door of the tomb?"
__________C And looking up, they saw that the stone was rolled back; -- it was very large.
_______________D And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe; and they were amazed.
_______________D And he said to them, "Do not be amazed; you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is
_________________going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you."
__________C And they went out and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them;
_____B and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid.
A It was the last day of the feast of the unleavened bread and many people were going out, returning to their houses since the festival was over. (Gospel of Peter)
The lack of an A bracket to oppose 16:2 suggests that the Gospel originally ended at some point past 16:8, and that the current ending was not in fact the original ending."
Let's pull all of this together. Assume the Chiastic Structures, realizing that you may create your own that differ from turton et. al.. To state that Mark had another Ending is OK as long as you realize what must surround that statement. One "reasonable" solution might be that the Copyists were all sitting together and Head Scribe comes in and states, "The New Orthodoxy doen't like the last verse (or so). All of you take your rulers and tear off that last phrase as I have done with the Original. Consign these fragments to the flame. Now." Perhaps the One Book of Mark got caught in the rain and the Folio that would be the back page got wet and was torn off.
Uh-uh.
That would leave something like GJohn taking what became John 21 and Cut and Pasting it into GJohn. Possible, considering the relation between John and Mark. That, however, implies a VERY Close relationship between the WRITING of Mark and John with some Structure awkwardly cut out of Mark to the benefit of GJohn. That might have happened but it does not offer an explanation of Cut-Off after Mark 8. It would mean the Very Literary Author of Mark took at least one verse from his completed Structure and gave it to the Author of John. Or someone else did almost immediately after the finished product of Mark.
Possible but unlikely.
I have one addition here. Look at D':
And he said to them, "Do not be amazed; you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you."
This is very wordy. My own Internal Markers would suggest that most of this is added verbiage for effect. It should be simple, something like:
And he said to them, "Tell...Peter that he is going before you [[, Peter, ]] to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you."
Even this, however, may not be correct if Tacitus and Pliny the Younger had a hand in the Empty Tomb, to say nothing of Plutarch. Which is to say that the Author of Mark, a literary genius, finished an awkward koine Greek work, complete with Internal Structure not apparent to the immediate Readership. It contained Information that no one outside the Judaic Priesthood would know. It contained Latinisms that, to some, imply that the Author thought, at least part of the time in a Latinized manner. It comes to us in Greek, although some question that as "The first completely Greek Book of Mark was the First Book of Mark". Turton states that until you have read Mark in Greek, you haven't read Mark. Mark is finished after the Empty Tomb since the Empty Tomb Passage displays Chiastic Structures. Almost immediately it is without its last verse(s).
The purpose of the Thread was to display a possible History of the Third Watch of Jewish Fighters vs. the Fourth Watch of the Romans (and possible the Greeks as well). The Three Jewish Watches are deprecated by Josephus and in Mark as well. This is all consistent with a Noir Story of the Priesthood and the Hasmoneans fighting Yesterday's War against a Modern War Machine - which used Four Watches to guard against the sleep of the Watchers.
It's all so Literary.
CW
It is important to consider what might have been the Ending based on Structure ("Argument from Structure", for those scoring at home):
"It is impossible to reconstruct a chiasm from the remaining verses.
2: And very early on the first day of the week they went to the tomb when the sun had risen.
3: And they were saying to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the door of the tomb?"
4: And looking up, they saw that the stone was rolled back; -- it was very large.
5: And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe; and they were amazed.
6: And he said to them, "Do not be amazed; you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him.
7: But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told 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.
There is no A' bracket to oppose v2, a bracket involving movement from one geographical location to another. v8 resembles a very typical B' bracket that should be followed by an A' bracket reading, in typical Markan style, something like: "And they returned to Jerusalem."
A And very early on the first day of the week they went to the tomb when the sun had risen.
_____B And they were saying to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the door of the tomb?"
__________C And looking up, they saw that the stone was rolled back; -- it was very large.
_______________D And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe; and they were amazed.
_______________D And he said to them, "Do not be amazed; you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is
_________________going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you."
__________C And they went out and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them;
_____B and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid.
A It was the last day of the feast of the unleavened bread and many people were going out, returning to their houses since the festival was over. (Gospel of Peter)
The lack of an A bracket to oppose 16:2 suggests that the Gospel originally ended at some point past 16:8, and that the current ending was not in fact the original ending."
Let's pull all of this together. Assume the Chiastic Structures, realizing that you may create your own that differ from turton et. al.. To state that Mark had another Ending is OK as long as you realize what must surround that statement. One "reasonable" solution might be that the Copyists were all sitting together and Head Scribe comes in and states, "The New Orthodoxy doen't like the last verse (or so). All of you take your rulers and tear off that last phrase as I have done with the Original. Consign these fragments to the flame. Now." Perhaps the One Book of Mark got caught in the rain and the Folio that would be the back page got wet and was torn off.
Uh-uh.
That would leave something like GJohn taking what became John 21 and Cut and Pasting it into GJohn. Possible, considering the relation between John and Mark. That, however, implies a VERY Close relationship between the WRITING of Mark and John with some Structure awkwardly cut out of Mark to the benefit of GJohn. That might have happened but it does not offer an explanation of Cut-Off after Mark 8. It would mean the Very Literary Author of Mark took at least one verse from his completed Structure and gave it to the Author of John. Or someone else did almost immediately after the finished product of Mark.
Possible but unlikely.
I have one addition here. Look at D':
And he said to them, "Do not be amazed; you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you."
This is very wordy. My own Internal Markers would suggest that most of this is added verbiage for effect. It should be simple, something like:
And he said to them, "Tell...Peter that he is going before you [[, Peter, ]] to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you."
Even this, however, may not be correct if Tacitus and Pliny the Younger had a hand in the Empty Tomb, to say nothing of Plutarch. Which is to say that the Author of Mark, a literary genius, finished an awkward koine Greek work, complete with Internal Structure not apparent to the immediate Readership. It contained Information that no one outside the Judaic Priesthood would know. It contained Latinisms that, to some, imply that the Author thought, at least part of the time in a Latinized manner. It comes to us in Greek, although some question that as "The first completely Greek Book of Mark was the First Book of Mark". Turton states that until you have read Mark in Greek, you haven't read Mark. Mark is finished after the Empty Tomb since the Empty Tomb Passage displays Chiastic Structures. Almost immediately it is without its last verse(s).
The purpose of the Thread was to display a possible History of the Third Watch of Jewish Fighters vs. the Fourth Watch of the Romans (and possible the Greeks as well). The Three Jewish Watches are deprecated by Josephus and in Mark as well. This is all consistent with a Noir Story of the Priesthood and the Hasmoneans fighting Yesterday's War against a Modern War Machine - which used Four Watches to guard against the sleep of the Watchers.
It's all so Literary.
CW
Re: A Tale of Two Watches
I have seen references to 'natsar/na·ṣar' - נָצַר - meaning "to watch" (whereas 'netser' is said to mean "branch");Some ...think that the name of the city [of 'Nazareth'] must be connected with the name of the hill behind it, from which one of the finest prospects in Israel is obtained, and accordingly they derive it from the Hebrew notserah, i.e., one guarding or watching, thus designating the hill which overlooks and thus guards an extensive region.
http://www.christiananswers.net/diction ... areth.html
hence 'Natsarith' is said to mean watchtower, and 'Natsarim' are 'watchmen'
- There is also a view there is a passive meaning of 'preserved, protected' in reference to its secluded position -
RH Mounce, "Nazareth", in Geoffrey W Bromiley (ed) The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol 3: Eerdmans, 1986; pp 500–1
-
Charles Wilson
- Posts: 2107
- Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am
Re: A Tale of Two Watches
Very nice, MrMacSon. I will earnestly TRY to keep this response short.
"At this Archclaus (sic) was aftrighted, and privately sent a tribune, with his cohort of soldiers, upon them, before the disease should spread over the whole multitude, and gave orders that they should constrain those that began the tumult, by force, to be quiet. At these the whole multitude were irritated, and threw stones at many of the soldiers, and killed them; but the tribune fled away wounded, and had much ado to escape so. After which they betook themselves to their sacrifices, as if they had done no mischief; nor did it appear to Archelaus that the multitude could be restrained without bloodshed; so he sent his whole army upon them, the footmen in great multitudes, by the way of the city, and the horsemen by the way of the plain, who, falling upon them on the sudden, as they were offering their sacrifices, destroyed about three thousand of them..."
A book could be written about this paragraph. Note the astonishing indirection in Josephus. Josephus, supposedly a member of the Mishmarot Priesthood, does not state who conducts Sacrifices in the Temple. Whoever these people are, they return to their sacrifices as if nothing is wrong.
Something is very wrong.
Step back for a moment. I see TWO Stories here and not from Josephus vs. The Gospels. There is the Temple Slaughter as described in Josephus (and Dio...) and there is the Second Story, the Story of the Priests, with Peter, returning 12 years after the Slaughter. These two Stories are Telescoped and Compressed in the Gospels. Those who wish to see what I see should look at the possibility that Jairus is speaking 12 years after the Atrocity at Passover of 4 BCE. It is Mishmarot through and through. Immer is on Duty in 4 BCE and is also on Duty in 9 CE. Peter is a child for the Atrocity of 4 BCE and comes back 12 years later in an attempt to "finish the job". That is, eliminate the Romans and Re-Establish the (Hasmonean) Rule.
Mark 13: 27 (RSV):
[27] And then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.
Peter was a "Little Angel" in 4 BCE. He goes out and saves a Priest who should not have survived. He comes back in 12 years obsessed - See the "Foot Washing Story" - believing that this time, God will stand with him. Jairus picked his student wisely.
Mark 5: 22 - 23 (RSV):
[22] Then came one of the rulers of the synagogue, Ja'irus by name; and seeing him, he fell at his feet,
[23] and besought him, saying, "My little daughter is at the point of death. Come and lay your hands on her, so that she may be made well, and live."
The Telescoping of the 2 Stories is across the Gospels and therefore shows the Intentionality and Scope of the rewrites. Who could have rewritten a Noir Story into Glorious Metaphysics of a new savior/god? The Romans.
Nat'Sar-im is correct in respect to "Guards", "GuardTown", etc. There was a List of Settlements that was matched with the Mishmarot Priesthood (Leibner, 2009, ISBN-13: 978-3161498718 ). "Peter" was from the Group Immer, of Jabnit, about 20 Km southwest of Meiron, "Home" of the Group Jehoiarib. Supposedly, the Hasmoneans are "Housed" in Jehoiarib although Immer believes the Hasmoneans came from them.
This is the Depth of the Rewrite in Mark and GJohn and, by extension, Matthew and Luke.
The Watch failed, in the manner found and quoted above in Josephus and in Mark. The "Seditionists", the Priesthood, looked backward to a failed device. The Priests went back to their Sacrifices as if nothing had happened. Something was VERY wrong and thousands paid for it with their life. The Watch failed. Judea was absorbed, if only temporarily, with the Priesthood fighting a Battle it could not win.
Coponius, a Procurator, was recalled when some Samaritans dropped some dead bodies in the Cloisters just ahead of Passover, 9 CE. There was no "Tesselated Tile" in Jerusalem but there is in Caesarea, where Pilate and others ruled. You don't think that there is a relationship there do you?
CW
I think our author here is overthinking and looking in the wrong direction. The Mishmarot Priesthood were themselves "Guards", authorized by King David to provide Temple Service and administer the Sacrifices - and provide Rulers! The Hellenized version, administered by Herod in his Court, was the Third Level of four Groupings: "Friends", "Honored Friends", "Guards of the Realm" and "Kinsmen". Whether this provides enough mischief making, I dunno.Some ...think that the name of the city [of 'Nazareth'] must be connected with the name of the hill behind it, from which one of the finest prospects in Israel is obtained, and accordingly they derive it from the Hebrew notserah, i.e., one guarding or watching, thus designating the hill which overlooks and thus guards an extensive region.
Count me in. I believe that this view is correct, about which more below.I have seen references to 'natsar/na·ṣar' - נָצַר - meaning "to watch" (whereas 'netser' is said to mean "branch");
hence 'Natsarith' is said to mean watchtower, and 'Natsarim' are 'watchmen'
There is also a view there is a passive meaning of 'preserved, protected' in reference to its secluded position -
RH Mounce, "Nazareth", in Geoffrey W Bromiley (ed) The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol 3: Eerdmans, 1986; pp 500–1
Josephus, Wars..., 2, 1, 3 (See also: Antiquities..., 17, 9, 1 - 3):I guess, wrt Mark, it would depend on how the word watch was presented in Greek and maybe if it correlated with the Hebrew or Aramaic.
"At this Archclaus (sic) was aftrighted, and privately sent a tribune, with his cohort of soldiers, upon them, before the disease should spread over the whole multitude, and gave orders that they should constrain those that began the tumult, by force, to be quiet. At these the whole multitude were irritated, and threw stones at many of the soldiers, and killed them; but the tribune fled away wounded, and had much ado to escape so. After which they betook themselves to their sacrifices, as if they had done no mischief; nor did it appear to Archelaus that the multitude could be restrained without bloodshed; so he sent his whole army upon them, the footmen in great multitudes, by the way of the city, and the horsemen by the way of the plain, who, falling upon them on the sudden, as they were offering their sacrifices, destroyed about three thousand of them..."
A book could be written about this paragraph. Note the astonishing indirection in Josephus. Josephus, supposedly a member of the Mishmarot Priesthood, does not state who conducts Sacrifices in the Temple. Whoever these people are, they return to their sacrifices as if nothing is wrong.
Something is very wrong.
Step back for a moment. I see TWO Stories here and not from Josephus vs. The Gospels. There is the Temple Slaughter as described in Josephus (and Dio...) and there is the Second Story, the Story of the Priests, with Peter, returning 12 years after the Slaughter. These two Stories are Telescoped and Compressed in the Gospels. Those who wish to see what I see should look at the possibility that Jairus is speaking 12 years after the Atrocity at Passover of 4 BCE. It is Mishmarot through and through. Immer is on Duty in 4 BCE and is also on Duty in 9 CE. Peter is a child for the Atrocity of 4 BCE and comes back 12 years later in an attempt to "finish the job". That is, eliminate the Romans and Re-Establish the (Hasmonean) Rule.
Mark 13: 27 (RSV):
[27] And then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.
Peter was a "Little Angel" in 4 BCE. He goes out and saves a Priest who should not have survived. He comes back in 12 years obsessed - See the "Foot Washing Story" - believing that this time, God will stand with him. Jairus picked his student wisely.
Mark 5: 22 - 23 (RSV):
[22] Then came one of the rulers of the synagogue, Ja'irus by name; and seeing him, he fell at his feet,
[23] and besought him, saying, "My little daughter is at the point of death. Come and lay your hands on her, so that she may be made well, and live."
The Telescoping of the 2 Stories is across the Gospels and therefore shows the Intentionality and Scope of the rewrites. Who could have rewritten a Noir Story into Glorious Metaphysics of a new savior/god? The Romans.
Nat'Sar-im is correct in respect to "Guards", "GuardTown", etc. There was a List of Settlements that was matched with the Mishmarot Priesthood (Leibner, 2009, ISBN-13: 978-3161498718 ). "Peter" was from the Group Immer, of Jabnit, about 20 Km southwest of Meiron, "Home" of the Group Jehoiarib. Supposedly, the Hasmoneans are "Housed" in Jehoiarib although Immer believes the Hasmoneans came from them.
This is the Depth of the Rewrite in Mark and GJohn and, by extension, Matthew and Luke.
The Watch failed, in the manner found and quoted above in Josephus and in Mark. The "Seditionists", the Priesthood, looked backward to a failed device. The Priests went back to their Sacrifices as if nothing had happened. Something was VERY wrong and thousands paid for it with their life. The Watch failed. Judea was absorbed, if only temporarily, with the Priesthood fighting a Battle it could not win.
Coponius, a Procurator, was recalled when some Samaritans dropped some dead bodies in the Cloisters just ahead of Passover, 9 CE. There was no "Tesselated Tile" in Jerusalem but there is in Caesarea, where Pilate and others ruled. You don't think that there is a relationship there do you?
CW
-
Charles Wilson
- Posts: 2107
- Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am
Re: A Tale of Two Watches
In reviewing this material, I came across Mark 9: 30 - 37. I invite you to look at this section and analyze it from the POV of Peter and the Priest, marching to Jerusalem 12 years after the Temple Slaughter of 4 BCE. There are embellishments for effect from the Roman rewrite but if you look closely you can find them. Please see that you can Un-Transvalue this:
[36] And he took a child, and put him in the midst of them; and taking him in his arms, he said to them,
[37] "Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me; and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me."
This is the Priest, maybe even Peter. He remembers the role Peter played as a child at the 4 BCE Passover. He is there today because of Jairus, the President of the Synagogue - "...him who sent me".
CW
[36] And he took a child, and put him in the midst of them; and taking him in his arms, he said to them,
[37] "Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me; and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me."
This is the Priest, maybe even Peter. He remembers the role Peter played as a child at the 4 BCE Passover. He is there today because of Jairus, the President of the Synagogue - "...him who sent me".
CW