Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid For. Confirmation 16:8 Original

[mlinssen]

There is nothing in Hebrew or Aramaic that satisfies anything in any quest until all this nonsense.
This was an Egyptian product, very Hellenised, which got mutilated even further by Romans

Anyone with a bone in Hebrew or Aramaic is a daft idiot, unless it is on a special quest of its own

[JoeWallack]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eB46dRO0YZ8

JW:
15

36 And one ran, and filling a sponge full of vinegar, put it on a reed, and gave him to drink, saying, Let be; let us see whether Elijah cometh to take him down.
37 And Jesus uttered a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.
38 And the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top to the bottom.
39 And when the centurion, who stood by over against him, saw that he so gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.
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;
41 who, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered unto him; and many other women that came up with him unto Jerusalem.
42 And when even was now come, because it was the Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath,
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.
46 And he bought a linen cloth, and taking him down, wound him in the linen cloth, and laid him in a tomb which had been hewn out of a rock; and he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb.
47 And Mary Magdalene and Mary the [mother] of Joses beheld where he was laid.
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

JW:
It sure looks like "Magdalene" is a literary touch symbolizing high (Aramaic). You have the typical Markan contrast of high/low in the context of Jesus' supposed crucifixion/resurrection and the formulaic mention of each type of word 3, count em 3, times (for three types of words). Mary High Place is connected specifically to Jesus' supposed crucifixion/resurrection.

I can understand why Christians are desperate to try and find a place that this Mary came from but why do Skeptics try so hard. What are the odds that there was a place named Magdala and that a female follower of Jesus from Magdala was at the crucifixion and resurrection site compared to "Mark" using a fictional name for a theological purpose?


Joseph

Applying double standards by requiring of it[Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation. - IHRA

The New Porphyry

[Steven Avery]

Hi Gryan,

For Sinaiticus there are a wide variety of evidences that demonstrate that it was a Mount Athos production c. 1840. The stained pages (only the later 1859 haul to Russia, not the Leipzig pages of 1844) is one of many evidences. The easy-peasy flexible page turning is another. The lack of handling around the edges, not an issue of torn pages, although there are questions about it having been trimmed. There are many historical and palaeographic evidences as well, such as the Three Crosses Note dated by the Sinaiticus gate-keepers to hundreds of years after production. You have the historical imperative of Simonides, Benedict and Kallinikos shown to be working together at Athos at the exact right time.

Vaticanus has its own puzzles, but it is very possible that it is an ancient manuscript.

Only Vaticanus is early.
Possibly fourth century, possibly later. Very possibly c. 600s, definitely no later than 1400s,

Sinaiticus is 1800s.

Steven Avery:

I see from various web sources that you base your dating on stained pages and torn pages.

Have any professional textual critics responded to your hypothesis with a refutation?

[JoeWallack]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAEppFUWLfc

JW:
A Case against the Longer Ending of Mark

But it is not as clear what will count as evidence against the Longer Ending. Church Fathers who don’t quote from any passage in the Longer Ending (like Origen or Clement of Alexandria, just for the sake of argument), are not providing us with evidence that their copy (or copies) of Mark ended at 16:8. It is not even an argument from silence, it is an argument from absence. But this doesn’t really seem like solid evidence at all. Of course, it would be relevant if a Church Father preached through Mark and his sermons finished with 16:8; but of course, sermon series and commentaries on Mark are pretty much completely absent from the patristic period.

JW:
My biggest criticism here. That GMatthew & GLuke both follow the empty tomb story closely through 16:8 but go in different directions (so to speak) after is normally weighted as evidence for 16:8. Again, the only categories of evidence with significant weight by themselves are The Difficult Reading Principle and Internal evidence. So relatively speaking the coordinated Argument From Silence is not that bad here. The coordinated evidence here goes beyond GMatthew/GLuke as all likely subsequent Gospels very gradually undo The Empty Tomb:

Measurement identifications are as follows:

• Edited = "Mark" is the base with limited editing.
  
  Neutral = Does not support or contradict
  
  Contradicts

Gospel	Measurement identification
Matthew	Mark 16:1-8-----Edited
Peter	Mark 16:1-8-----Edited
Luke	Mark 16:1-6---- Edited Mark 16:7------ Neutral Mark 16:8------ Contradict
John	Mark 16:1-5---- Edited Mark 16:6------ Neutral Mark 16:7-8--- Contradict
The Epistula Apostolorum	Mark 16:1-4--- Edited Mark 16:5-6--- Contradict Mark 16:7-8--- Neutral

This fits the traditional order of composition other than Gospel of Peter second (which I think helps explain why GMark was named GMark and not GPeter. GPeter was already taken).

The other good argument from silence is Origen. In Conning Celsus Book Two starting at Chapter 59 Origen refers to detailed critical arguments Celsus makes against the post-resurrection Gospel stories. While GMark is never named all other Gospels are named multiple times and while there is nothing unique to the LE mentioned, unique text is mentioned multiple times for the other Gospels.


Joseph

I read it somewhere. I wrote it down and then read it. - Eusebius

The New Porphyry

[davidmartin]

hmm three or four posts in a row downplaying Magdalene, i'm not sorry if she doesn't support your theories, that's your bad luck!
but the story with her as 'from Magdala' is nonsensical on numerous fronts
even from a literary angle why would the chief character at the main event pick a random woman not one that had the most significance?
then we find out she has a readily applicable, linguistically sound nickname of 'the tower' and the chief liked bestowing nicknames on his inner circle
why not connect the two very obvious dots?
the only people who might not want to should be apologists who think the existential threat is the one to whom they owe their existence

But if the gospel accounts are stepping around Magdalene, unsure what to make of a significant female character it shows they were parsing historical information, or at least information they believed was historical. they weren't straight making it up even if they changed things around
Thus, Mary's claim she saw Jesus happened. It isn't unbelievable that someone claimed they saw someone after they died it happens quite a lot
If some replies come that are like the ones on a Christian believers forum I will ignore them!

[gryan]

... in the Syriac it's much clearer Mary didn't come from any place called Magdala, but was called 'The Tower'. That's why she is called 'the magdalene'

Re: Mary didn't come from any place called Magdala, but was called 'The Tower'.

I had not considered that etymology as a reason to consider the existence of two women by the name of Mary Magdalene unlikely. I learned a little more about the etymology on wikipedia:

In Hebrew Migdal (מגדל) means "tower", "fortress"; in Aramaic, Magdala means "tower" or "elevated, great, magnificent". Meyer & de Boer 2009, pp. 74–96 provide an overview of the source texts excerpted in an essay "Should we all turn and listen to her?': Mary Magdalene in the spotlight" Interpreters since the time of Jerome have suggested that Mary was called Magdalene because of her stature and faith, i.e. because she was like a tower: "Mary Magdalene received the epithet 'fortified with towers' because of her earnestness and strength of faith, and was privileged to see the rising of Christ first even before the apostles" (Haskins 2005, p. 406).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene

[Charles Wilson]

Thank you for this, gryan.

This echoes Queen Salome, who gave the fortresses to the Loyalists of Jannaeus.
A new Data Mine to look at!

THNX!

CW

[Charles Wilson]

Josephus, Antiquities..., 13, 16, 2 - 3, in part:

"However, the queen also took care of the affairs of the kingdom, and got together a great body of mercenary soldiers, and increased her own army to such a degree, that she became terrible to the neighboring tyrants, and took hostages of them: and the country was entirely at peace, excepting the Pharisees; for they disturbed the queen, and desired that she would kill those who persuaded Alexander to slay the eight hundred men; after which they cut the throat of one of them, Diogenes; and after him they did the same to several, one after another, till the men that were the most potent came into the palace, and Aristobulus with them, for he seemed to be displeased at what was done; and it appeared openly, that if he had an opportunity, he would not permit his mother to go on so. These put the queen in mind what great dangers they had gone through, and great things they had done, whereby they had demonstrated the firmness of their fidelity to their master, insomuch that they had recieved the greatest marks of favor from him; and they begged of her, that she would not utterly blast their hopes, as it now happened, that when they had escaped the hazards that arose from their [open] enemies, they were to be cut off at home by their [private] enemies, like brute beasts, without any help whatsoever. They said also, that if their adversaries would be satisfied with those that had been slain already, they would take what had been done patiently, on account of their natural love to their governors; but if they must expect the same for the future also, they implored of her a dismission from her service; for they could not bear to think of attempting any method for their deliverance without her, but would rather die willingly before the palace gate, in case she would not forgive them. And that it was a great shame, both for themselves and for the queen, that when they were neglected by her, they should come under the lash of her husband's enemies; for that Aretas, the Arabian king, and the monarchs, would give any reward, if they could get such men as foreign auxiliaries, to whom their very names, before their voices be heard, may perhaps be terrible; but if they could not obtain this their second request, and if she had determined to prefer the Pharisees before them, they still insisted that she would place them every one in her fortresses; for if some fatal demon hath a constant spite against Alexander's house, they would be willing to bear their part, and to live in a private station there.

3. As these men said thus, and called upon Alexander's ghost for commiseration of those already slain, and those in danger of it, all the bystanders brake out into tears. But Aristobulus chiefly made manifest what were his sentiments, and used. many reproachful expressions to his mother, [saying,] "Nay, indeed, the case is this, that they have been themselves the authors of their own calamities, who have permitted a woman who, against reason, was mad with ambition, to reign over them, when there were sons in the flower of their age fitter for it." So Alexandra, not knowing what to do with any decency, committed the fortresses to them, all but Hyrcania, and Alexandrium, and Macherus, where her principal treasures were.

[StephenGoranson]

Combination of a female personal name and a place name is not necessarily pejorative:
Teresa of Avila, Marguerite de Navarre, Joan of Arc, Catherine of Siena, Marie of Romania, Helen of Troy...

Mary Magdalene is portrayed in gospels as a very faithful disciple, but the symbolic reading is not attested until Origen of Alexandria.

Woman as a Tower?

(Well, there is the Commodores' song, She's a Brick House, from 1977.)

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Combination of a female personal name and a place name is not necessarily pejorative:
Teresa of Avila, Marguerite de Navarre, Joan of Arc, Catherine of Siena, Marie of Romania, Helen of Troy...

I'm not sure if Helen was ever called Helen of Troy in ancient sources. I believe that even Hypatia was not called Hypatia of Alexandria.

At first glance, as a "combination of a female personal name and a place name" in ancient sources only Abishag of Shunem comes to mind (1 Kings 1:3,15; 2:17-22).

Does anyone know of other examples and can cite the source? What about Helena of Adiabene?

Mary Magdalene is portrayed in gospels as a very faithful disciple, ...

But not in GMark, the presumed source for "Magdalene".