A Mark - Matthew Overlap

[Charles Wilson]

While Proofing my other Post from today, a small consistency appeared between Mark and Matthew. I don't recall seeing it elsewhere so it this is repetitious, allow this of me today.

Mark finds Jairus asking the person I identify as a Mishmarot Priest to help save his daughter. I quoted it earlier today:

Mark 5: 23 (RSV):

[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."

If we are allowed a small bit of Continuity of Storyline, we get to the very Opaque Chapter 6 where we find this:

Mark 6: 1 (RSV):

[1] He went away from there and came to his own country; and his disciples followed him.

"...His own country..."

Which would be...Galilee, correct?

Matthew 26:

[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."
[70] But he denied it before them all, saying, "I do not know what you mean."
[71] And when he went out to the porch, another maid saw him, and she said to the bystanders, "This man was with Jesus of Nazareth."
[72] And again he denied it with an oath, "I do not know the man."
[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."

"You also were with Jesus the Galilean." AND "Certainly you are also one of them, for your accent betrays you."

Less certain testimony but:

Mark 14: 70 (RSV):

[70] But again he denied it. And after a little while again the bystanders said to Peter, "Certainly you are one of them; for you are a Galilean."

There could be other markers for proving Galilean Origin (Clothes, f'rinstance).

Luke 22: 59 (RSV):

[59] And after an interval of about an hour still another insisted, saying, "Certainly this man also was with him; for he is a Galilean."

John's Version is different. I have unpacked some of it before. It may be time to unpack it again.

The point of this is that Matthew gives an explicit evidence that "Jesus" was Galilean. The others are assertions.

CW

[mlinssen]

Gathercole makes a similar statement about the Coptic village (ϯⲙⲉ) turning into a fatherland (πατρίδι): 'In fact, over half of the cases of πατρίς in the Greek NT (5 out of 8) are translated with ϯⲙⲉ in the Sahidic version' and naturally that is only one side of the coin, and it is also assuming that the Sahidic is a translation of the Greek: there are 28 occurrences of 'village' in the Greek NT and the word used there is κώμη, and the Sahidic NT has 22 occurrences of 'village' (ϯⲙⲉ). The 8 examples of Gathercole can be found in the Sahidic NT as well, and Mark prefers the Greek loanword ⲡⲟⲗⲓⲥ ('city') over ϯⲙⲉ ('village') there, as does Hebrews - and those are the 3 "exceptions" of Gathercole, and 4 out of the remaining 5 are copies of this logion right here: 50% of the cases where the Greek NT uses the word πατρίς concerns this very logion right here, and given that percentage it is perfectly probable that the word got introduced via the Greek copy of Coptic Thomas - which in turn got copied by the canonicals themselves - given its rare occurrence; a Greek scribe like the one we have seen so far, perhaps, who isn't afraid of deviating significantly from his source, who doesn't scare to add a conjunctive here and there, or insert a 'god' even? 7 of the 8 verses are entirely related to this verse right here, and only Hebrews is the odd one out - it actually is perfectly feasible that the existence of the word πατρίδι in the NT is owed to a rather liberal Greek copy of Coptic Thomas, and perhaps we are looking at it right now...

From the Commentary

Mark is only introducing the word πατρίδι in 6:1 so he can have it followed up by his copy of logion 31 in 6:4

[Paul the Uncertain]

In some manuscripts, Mark 14:70 also has somebody refer to Peter's speech as the basis for recognizing him as a Galilean.

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/mark/14.htm

But he again denied it. After a little while again those who stood by said to Peter, “You truly are one of them, for you are a Galilean, and your speech shows it.”

Harmonization maybe?

Anyway, it's an interesting point.

[mlinssen]

While Proofing my other Post from today, a small consistency appeared between Mark and Matthew. I don't recall seeing it elsewhere so it this is repetitious, allow this of me today.

Mark finds Jairus asking the person I identify as a Mishmarot Priest to help save her. I quoted it earlier today:

Mark 5: 23 (RSV):

[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."

If we are allowed a small bit of Continuity of Storyline, we get to the very Opaque Chapter 6 where we find this:

Mark 6: 1 (RSV):

[1] He went away from there and came to his own country; and his disciples followed him.

"...His own country..."

Which would be...Galilee, correct?

Matthew 26:

[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."
[70] But he denied it before them all, saying, "I do not know what you mean."
[71] And when he went out to the porch, another maid saw him, and she said to the bystanders, "This man was with Jesus of Nazareth."
[72] And again he denied it with an oath, "I do not know the man."
[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."

"You also were with Jesus the Galilean." AND "Certainly you are also one of them, for your accent betrays you."

Less certain testimony but:

Mark 14: 70 (RSV):

[70] But again he denied it. And after a little while again the bystanders said to Peter, "Certainly you are one of them; for you are a Galilean."

There could be other markers for proving Galilean Origin (Clothes, f'rinstance).

Luke 22: 59 (RSV):

[59] And after an interval of about an hour still another insisted, saying, "Certainly this man also was with him; for he is a Galilean."

John's Version is different. I have unpacked some of it before. It may be time to unpack it again.

The point of this is that Matthew gives an explicit evidence that "Jesus" was Galilean. The others are assertions.

CW

I don't know where I should begin or end, Charles

Matthew 26:73 Μετὰ (After) μικρὸν (a little while), δὲ (also) προσελθόντες (having come to him) οἱ (those) ἑστῶτες (standing by), εἶπον (they said) τῷ (-) Πέτρῳ (to Peter), “Ἀληθῶς (Surely) καὶ (also) σὺ (you) ἐξ (of) αὐτῶν (them) εἶ (are), καὶ (even) γὰρ (for) ἡ (the) λαλιά (speech) σου (of you) δῆλόν (away) σε (you) ποιεῖ (gives).”

Naturally, Strong says the following:

λαλιά, λαλιᾶς, ἡ (λάλος, cf. Alexander Buttmann (1873) Ausf. Sprchl. § 119 Anm. 21), in secular authors (from Aristophanes down) loquacity, talkativeness, talk (German Gerede) (see λαλέω, at the beginning); in a good sense conversation; in the N. T.
1. speech, equivalent to story: John 4:42.

2. dialect, mode of speech, pronunciation (Winer's Grammar, 23): Mark 14:70 Rec.; Matthew 26:73; speech which discloses the speaker's native country: hence of the speech by which Christ may be recognized as having come from heaven, John 8:43 (where cf. Meyer).

If you really want to know how far and wide Christian falsification is spread, use Middle Liddell:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 3Dlalia%2F

λαλιά 1 λαλέω

I.talking, talk, chat, Ar., Anth.
2.speech, conversation, NTest.; talkativeness, loquacity, Aeschin.
II.a form of speech, dialect, NTest.
1 λα^λιά, ἡ,

Hundreds of words that mean one thing in the entire history of Greek literature, prose and poetry, and suddenly they mean something completely different when it's in the NT

You are an incompetent fool and a gullible idiot if you try to derive any meaning whatsoever from any translation of any bible without carefully having checked every single original Greek word and translation.
Christianity equates to falsification; it not only permeates all early works but it is the very driver to its creation

What does Peter say?

69 And Peter was sitting outside in the court, and one servant girl came to him, saying, “You also were with Jesus the Galilean.” 70 And he denied it before all, saying, “I do not know what you say.” 71 And having gone out to the porch, another saw him, and says to those there, “This man was with Jesus of Nazareth.” 72 And again he denied it with an oath, “I do not know the man.”

How obvious must it be that someone is lying when he neither confirms nor denies something, yet merely evades?
Are the words giving Peter away? No, because they're meaningless, they tell us nothing. It is what is behind the words that gives him away: his talking, the way he says everything by disclosing nothing. His speech? No, it is not the way he pronounces those words, as we can simply analyse them by reading them, and they make perfect sense that way: there is no need for any additional element here, it is blatantly obvious what is being said

"Child, why is that vase lying on the floor in a thousand pieces?!"
"I don't know what you're talking about, mummy"
"If you didn't do that, then who did?!"
"I didn't know it was broken until you told me just now, mummy"

I know everyone of you, save for a few exceptions, is just doing all this because you're bored or want to have an opinion of your own so you can impress others, perhaps only yourself.
That's fine, we all have our hobbies, most of which lead to nothing but spending time. It's a free world, our lives are meaningless and this useless chatter only costs a bit of bandwidth

But for fuck's sake, will you cease your relentless building onto your Babylonian Towers of Assumptions

The comment by klaus is misleading as it omits the very evident fact that all the manuscripts that he mentions are late, mostly 9th / 10th CE ( with one 5th and 6th)

Mark-14-70_NA28.jpg (592.91 KiB) Viewed 1346 times

NA28_MSS-Codes.jpg (538.19 KiB) Viewed 1346 times

[mlinssen]

And the interesting thing is that, together with the NT having quite different meanings for a word, so does the Septuagint:

https://logeion.uchicago.edu/%CE%BB%CE% ... E%B9%CE%AC

And the suspicion that the Septuagint was written by the same Romans who edited Chrestianity into Christianity is growing by the day

Logeion, by the way, has a much more pleasant UI than Perseus

[Charles Wilson]

But for fuck's sake, will you cease your relentless building onto your Babylonian Towers of Assumptions

As always, thank you for your kind words of support.

If there was only a word with a number of charts referencing occurrences in Historical Literature, that would one thing, important as it is. There is more to this, however, and it is as deep as can be:

Did you miss it?

Mark 14: 66 - 67 (RSV):

[66] And as Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the maids of the high priest came;
[67] and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him, and said, "You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus."

Matthew 26: 69 - 70 (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."
[70] But he denied it before them all, saying, "I do not know what you mean."

Luke 22: 55 - 57 (RSV):

[55] and when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and sat down together, Peter sat among them.
[56] Then a maid, seeing him as he sat in the light and gazing at him, said, "This man also was with him."
[57] But he denied it, saying, "Woman, I do not know him."

Well, well, well, here we are warming ourselves by a fire. Quite cozy.

1. In Luke, Peter is SITTING.
2. In Matthew, Peter is OUTSIDE the Courtyard.
3. In Mark, Peter is BELOW in the Courtyard.

What about John?

John 18: 15 - 18, 25 (RSV):

[15] Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. As this disciple was known to the high priest, he entered the court of the high priest along with Jesus,
[16] while Peter stood outside at the door. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the maid who kept the door, and brought Peter in.
[17] The maid who kept the door said to Peter, "Are not you also one of this man's disciples?" He said, "I am not."
[18] Now the servants and officers had made a charcoal fire, because it was cold, and they were standing and warming themselves; Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself.
[25] Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They said to him, "Are not you also one of his disciples?" He denied it and said, "I am not."

[Note: I have commented on verses 19 - 23. I believe that the order of the verses has been changed. YMMV.]

I keep going round and round over "Peter" vs. "Simon Peter". Oh, well.

The point here is that Peter is STANDING. When Peter is allowed in, he STANDS.

WHERE is this happening, WHEN is this happening and WHY is it important that Peter's Galilean identity be known?
This is much more important than a Transvalued word identifying a dialect.
It is a KEY to proving that "Jesus" was rewritten into what we have today as the NT.

CW

[mlinssen]

But for fuck's sake, will you cease your relentless building onto your Babylonian Towers of Assumptions

As always, thank you for your kind words of support.

You're most welcome Charles! Always happy to invest my time and energy in effectively phrasing the issue at hand

If there was only a word with a number of charts referencing occurrences in Historical Literature, that would one thing, important as it is. There is more to this, however, and it is as deep as can be:

Did you miss it?

I reacted to everything in your post Charles - don't be mean now

viewtopic.php? to remind you

But I'll happily spend energy on this new addition of yours

p=134818#p134818

Mark 14: 66 - 67 (RSV):

[66] And as Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the maids of the high priest came;
[67] and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him, and said, "You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus."

Matthew 26: 69 - 70 (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."
[70] But he denied it before them all, saying, "I do not know what you mean."

Luke 22: 55 - 57 (RSV):

[55] and when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and sat down together, Peter sat among them.
[56] Then a maid, seeing him as he sat in the light and gazing at him, said, "This man also was with him."
[57] But he denied it, saying, "Woman, I do not know him."

Well, well, well, here we are warming ourselves by a fire. Quite coy.

Mark 14:66 Καὶ (And) ὄντος (being) τοῦ (-) Πέτρου (Peter) κάτω (below) ἐν (in) τῇ (the) αὐλῇ (courtyard), ἔρχεται (comes) μία (one) τῶν (of the) παιδισκῶν (servant girls) τοῦ (of the) ἀρχιερέως (high priest), 67 καὶ (and) ἰδοῦσα (having seen) τὸν (-) Πέτρον (Peter) θερμαινόμενον (warming himself), ἐμβλέψασα (having looked at) αὐτῷ (him), λέγει (she says), “Καὶ (Also) σὺ (you) μετὰ (with) τοῦ (the) Ναζαρηνοῦ (Nazarene) ἦσθα (were), τοῦ (-) Ἰησοῦ (Jesus).”

Luke 22:54 Συλλαβόντες (Having seized) δὲ (then) αὐτὸν (Him), ἤγαγον (they led Him away), καὶ (and) εἰσήγαγον (led Him) εἰς (into) τὴν (the) οἰκίαν (house) τοῦ (of the) ἀρχιερέως (high priest). ὁ (-) δὲ (And) Πέτρος (Peter) ἠκολούθει (was following) μακρόθεν (afar off). 55 Περιαψάντων (They having kindled) δὲ (then) πῦρ (a fire) ἐν (in) μέσῳ (the midst) τῆς (of the) αὐλῆς (courtyard), καὶ (and) συνκαθισάντων (having sat down together), ἐκάθητο (was sitting) ὁ (-) Πέτρος (Peter) μέσος (among) αὐτῶν (them).

82. said IS : he-who being-nigh to I he being-nigh to the(F) fire*(F) and he-who being-distant to I he being-distant to the(F) reign-of(F) king

1. In Luke, Peter is SITTING.
2. In Matthew, Peter is OUTSIDE the Courtyard.
3. In Mark, Peter is BELOW in the Courtyard.

What about John?

John 18: 15 - 18, 25 (RSV):

[15] Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. As this disciple was known to the high priest, he entered the court of the high priest along with Jesus,
[16] while Peter stood outside at the door. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the maid who kept the door, and brought Peter in.
[17] The maid who kept the door said to Peter, "Are not you also one of this man's disciples?" He said, "I am not."
[18] Now the servants and officers had made a charcoal fire, because it was cold, and they were standing and warming themselves; Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself.
[25] Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They said to him, "Are not you also one of his disciples?" He denied it and said, "I am not."

[Note: I have commented on verses 19 - 23. I believe that they have changed in order. YMMV.]

I keep going round and tound over "Peter" vs. "Simon Peter". Oh, well.

The point here is that Peter is STANDING. When Peter is allowed in, he STANDS.

WHERE is this happening, WHEN is this happening and WHY is it important that Peter's Galilean identity be known.
This is much more important than a Transvalued word identifying a dialect.
It is a KEY to proving that "Jesus" was rewritten into what we have today as the NT.

CW

John 18:25 Ἦν (Was) δὲ (now) Σίμων (Simon) Πέτρος (Peter) ἑστὼς (standing) καὶ (and) θερμαινόμενος (warming himself). εἶπον (They said) οὖν (therefore) αὐτῷ (to him), “Μὴ (Not) καὶ (also) σὺ (you) ἐκ (of) τῶν (the) μαθητῶν (disciples) αὐτοῦ (of Him) εἶ (are)?”

Ek = out (of). There is no door in John. No variants there either.
Peter is warming himself except in Matthew.
Luke has him sit, John makes him stand

There is no point to your theories, they go left and right and up and down. There is no consistency to any of it save for the poor argumentation that is based on biased bible translations and rooted in chaotic reasoning.
You remind me of a dog walking into the woods for the first time in his life and going completely out of his mind "Squirrel! Squirrel! Squirrel!!!"

I'll leave you to it Charles. Goodbye

[Charles Wilson]

https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/arti ... service-of
https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/arti ... literature

"The priests were divided into twenty-four patrols ("mishmarot"), which were changed every week. The patrol was quartered partly in the Chamber of the Flame and principally in the Chamber of the Hearth, both of which were on the north side of the inner court ("'azarah"). The latter chamber was a capacious one, surmounted by a dome. Half of the chamber extended outside the court to the "ḥel," a kind of platform surrounding the courts, which was considered as secular, in contrast to the sacred premises within, where the priests were not allowed to sit down, much less to sleep. A fire was always kept burning in the outer extension, at which the priests might warm their hands and bare feet. Here also they might sit down and rest for a while..."

This is a Story concerning the Priesthood, not a savior-god. There is much more here but you should be able to see the Transvaluation, from Priestly Story to rewrite into the story of an individual. The Priesthood is to be "Done-Away-With".

There appears to be some of the Story that has been removed to hide meaning and replace it with the new story, the story of the Roman savior-god. Peter has been rewritten in "The Denial of Peter". What came before? The answer is to be found in the answer to the question, "Why would Peter want to get into the Chamber of the Flames in the first place"?

It must have been a matter of Life or Death.

It was.

[Charles Wilson]

In some manuscripts, Mark 14:70 also has somebody refer to Peter's speech as the basis for recognizing him as a Galilean.

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/mark/14.htm

But he again denied it. After a little while again those who stood by said to Peter, “You truly are one of them, for you are a Galilean, and your speech shows it.”

Harmonization maybe?

Anyway, it's an interesting point.

Thank you for this!

CW

[mlinssen]

https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/arti ... service-of
https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/arti ... literature

"The priests were divided into twenty-four patrols ("mishmarot"), which were changed every week. The patrol was quartered partly in the Chamber of the Flame and principally in the Chamber of the Hearth, both of which were on the north side of the inner court ("'azarah"). The latter chamber was a capacious one, surmounted by a dome. Half of the chamber extended outside the court to the "ḥel," a kind of platform surrounding the courts, which was considered as secular, in contrast to the sacred premises within, where the priests were not allowed to sit down, much less to sleep. A fire was always kept burning in the outer extension, at which the priests might warm their hands and bare feet. Here also they might sit down and rest for a while..."

This is a Story concerning the Priesthood, not a savior-god. There is much more here but you should be able to see the Transvaluation, from Priestly Story to rewrite into the story of an individual. The Priesthood is to be "Done-Away-With".

There appears to be some of the Story that has been removed to hide meaning and replace it with the new story, the story of the Roman savior-god. Peter has been rewritten in "The Denial of Peter". What came before? The answer is to be found in the answer to the question, "Why would Peter want to get into the Chamber of the Flames in the first place"?

It must have been a matter of Life or Death.

It was.

And how common are the events you describe, Charles?

You are only paying attention to what you want to see, and you see everything that you want to see and ignore everything that you don't want to see.
It's pathetic Charles, you are like a little kid playing hide and seek by simply holding your hands in front of your eyes: you put in the most minimal effort. Look at what I bolded: how convenient is that for you? In essence you concede that your claim is weak and not very well corroborated by the data but you hide behind the "remaking"

Where are your texts? Demonstrate verbatim agreement, argue for order, plagiarism. You know through how many veils of deliberate obfuscation you are trying to draw parallels, and you know that is entirely unfeasible. If you want attention for your story then get one of the earliest texts, from both sides, and compare them

And stop the stupid hopping from one scene to the other when criticised - that alone painfully clearly proves that you have put in so little effort in a case that you easily drop it, without even putting up as much as a fight, when challenged

Theories are like children, Charles - if not accompanied by the disclaimer "just thinking aloud here". You can't be like a chicken and lay an egg every day; a good researcher is like an elephant who carries her child for some 22 months - and cares for it accordingly. Defends it ferociously

But you and Giuseppe behave like chicken instead, while sticking to your single elephant theory that is nothing more than a fading glow after having been disproven countless times: a Voldemort as he exists in Harry Potter Part I. You and your Priest idea, Giuseppe and his ... ah too many Voldemorts there to pick from