https://earlywritings.com/forum/
Maybe 'Mark' wanted to present a Jesus less interested in dealing with natural events, such as a weather event, an more present a Jesus dealing with human-centric or salvation issues?Bernard Muller wrote: Then why have Jesus deal with a mere squall rather than a big storm, as in 'Jonah" and Psalm 107 (& Odyssey)?
That would make him a little god, not what "Mark" would be wanting to project.
Again, your methodology (especially when it comes to literary parallels) baffles me. What I find farfetched is that the resemblance to Psalm 107 is just a coincidence.Bernard Muller wrote:to Ben,I find rather far-fetched that "Mark" would have drawn his "calming of the sea" by combining part of 'Jonah" with part of Psalm 107, if his purpose was to invent a story proving that Jesus has God's power over wind & waves.My view of Mark's genre in no way requires Mark (or any tradents before or after him) to have drawn on the scriptures for stories or story ideas. It allows such a thing, but does not require it. But where the parallels are obvious and just jump off the page at me, I have to pay attention.
Then why have Jesus deal with a mere squall rather than a big storm, as in 'Jonah" and Psalm 107 (& Odyssey)?
That would make him a little god, not what "Mark" would be wanting to project.
That's one reason why I think the squall was true, Jesus' boat was in danger to sink because filling up with water, but the squall dissipated before it was too late, after Jesus "threw" words at it (Jesus' intervention before the squall ended being a coincidence. Squalls on the lake of Tiberias are known for their short duration).
Paying close attention to parallels which jump off the page at you, is no evidence for "Mark" remembering part of Psalm 107 (among 149 others) and inventing the ending of "calming of the sea" from it.
What makes you think that λαῖλαψ μεγάλη ἀνέμου describes a "mere squall"? LSJ:Then why have Jesus deal with a mere squall rather than a big storm, as in 'Jonah" and Psalm 107 (& Odyssey)?
Calming seas is the kind of thing that deities do (often/usually as answers to prayer).arnoldo wrote:Have you considered that Egyptian mythology also has an instance of the sea being calmed?
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection By D. M. Murdock, Acharya S
Jung would say it's an archetype.Ben C. Smith wrote:Calming seas is the kind of thing that deities do (often/usually as answers to prayer).arnoldo wrote:Have you considered that Egyptian mythology also has an instance of the sea being calmed?
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection By D. M. Murdock, Acharya S
Many times sea gets very agitated, threatening ships, but then calms again. True stories about that have been written in all ages.Have you considered that Egyptian mythology also has an instance of the sea being calmed?
A furious storm, hurricane?What makes you think that λαῖλαψ μεγάλη ἀνέμου describes a "mere squall"? LSJ:
λαῖλαψ , α^πος, ἡ,
A. furious storm, hurricane, “βαῖνον ἐρεμνῇ λαίλαπι ἶσοι” Il.12.375; “κελαινῇ λ. ἶσος” 11.747; “ἄνεμος σὺν λαίλαπι πολλῇ” 17.57; “Ζέφυρος βαθείῃ λ. τύπτων” 11.306; “Ζέφυρος μεγάλῃ σὺν λ. θύων” Od. 12.408, cf. 426; “ὅτε τε Ζεὺς λαίλαπα τείνῃ” Il.16.365; “ὦρσεν ἔπι ζαῆν ἄνεμον . . λ. θεσπεσίῃ” Od.12.314, cf. 9.68; “ὡς δ᾽ ὑπὸ λαίλαπι . . βέβριθε χθών” Il.16.384, cf. Semon. 1.15; “Νότου λαίλαπι” Anacr.113; “λαίλαπι χειμωνοτύπῳ” A.Supp.33 (anap.), cf. LXX Jb. 21.18, Plb. 30.11.6; acc. to Arist.Mu. 395a7, a whirlwind sweeping upwards: metaph., “ἔτλης λαίλαπα δυσμενέων” AP7.147 (Arch.).—Not found in early Prose, but common later, cf. “λ. ἀνέμου” Ev.Marc.4.37, Plu.Tim.28; spelt “λαῖλαμψ” Sammelb. 4324.15:—a form λαιλαπετός , ὁ, occurs in Sch. A Il.11.495, Hsch.
I answered your second point. What's wrong about looking to Galilean weather patterns? What's wrong about looking on the other side of the fence?Notice that I am not asking about Galilean weather patterns here. I am asking why you think the words in a text mean one thing and not another.
Nothing at all. I am just saying that Mark describes the storm as a mighty one, whereas your wording tended to downplay its size (a "mere squall").Bernard Muller wrote:to Ben,A furious storm, hurricane?What makes you think that λαῖλαψ μεγάλη ἀνέμου describes a "mere squall"? LSJ:
λαῖλαψ , α^πος, ἡ,
A. furious storm, hurricane, “βαῖνον ἐρεμνῇ λαίλαπι ἶσοι” Il.12.375; “κελαινῇ λ. ἶσος” 11.747; “ἄνεμος σὺν λαίλαπι πολλῇ” 17.57; “Ζέφυρος βαθείῃ λ. τύπτων” 11.306; “Ζέφυρος μεγάλῃ σὺν λ. θύων” Od. 12.408, cf. 426; “ὅτε τε Ζεὺς λαίλαπα τείνῃ” Il.16.365; “ὦρσεν ἔπι ζαῆν ἄνεμον . . λ. θεσπεσίῃ” Od.12.314, cf. 9.68; “ὡς δ᾽ ὑπὸ λαίλαπι . . βέβριθε χθών” Il.16.384, cf. Semon. 1.15; “Νότου λαίλαπι” Anacr.113; “λαίλαπι χειμωνοτύπῳ” A.Supp.33 (anap.), cf. LXX Jb. 21.18, Plb. 30.11.6; acc. to Arist.Mu. 395a7, a whirlwind sweeping upwards: metaph., “ἔτλης λαίλαπα δυσμενέων” AP7.147 (Arch.).—Not found in early Prose, but common later, cf. “λ. ἀνέμου” Ev.Marc.4.37, Plu.Tim.28; spelt “λαῖλαμψ” Sammelb. 4324.15:—a form λαιλαπετός , ὁ, occurs in Sch. A Il.11.495, Hsch.
I did not know they had hurricanes in the eastern Mediterranean sea. Certainly "Mark" was not thinking that big because that would be hurricane was only throwing water into a row boat. More like a "whirlwind sweeping upwards".
I answered your second point. What's wrong about looking to Galilean weather patterns? What's wrong about looking on the other side of the fence?Notice that I am not asking about Galilean weather patterns here. I am asking why you think the words in a text mean one thing and not another.
...the answer is that Mark did not have Jesus deal with a "mere squall". He had Jesus deal with a mighty storm.Then why [did Mark] have Jesus deal with a mere squall rather than a big storm, as in 'Jonah" and Psalm 107 (& Odyssey)?
"Mark" did not describe the storm as a mighty one, because it was only sending water into a low-lying row boat. He called it λαῖλαψ μεγάλη ἀνέμου "a great gale of wind" (RSV)Nothing at all. I am just saying that Mark describes the storm as a mighty one, whereas your wording tended to downplay its size (a "mere squall").
How likely is it that George Washington prayed before his crossing?Bernard Muller wrote:Many times sea gets very agitated, threatening ships, but then calms again. True stories about that have been written in all ages.Have you considered that Egyptian mythology also has an instance of the sea being calmed?
No need to find a parallel in ancient writings to tell a story as above.
If I wrote an account about my crossing of the Drake passage during a very violent storm (and assuming I am religious, praying God to stop that storm). Then the sea got calm, and we reached Ushuaia safely. Would I be accused to invent a story from past writings?
But everything I wrote above is true (except the praying) and I swear not drawn from older stories.
As for the praying, among the many other tourists, it is very likely some did pray for God to end the storm and then thought that God complied. So they could tell the same story including the praying and then thanking God when the storm went by.
Cordially, Bernard
LSJ again:Bernard Muller wrote:to Ben,"Mark" did not describe the storm as a mighty one, because it was only sending water into a low-lying row boat. He called it λαῖλαψ μεγάλη ἀνέμου "a great gale of wind" (RSV)Nothing at all. I am just saying that Mark describes the storm as a mighty one, whereas your wording tended to downplay its size (a "mere squall").
Yes, I know that.BTW, Psalm 107 LXX has καταιγίδι for "storm" instead of λαῖλαψ in gMark.