Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 10:28 am But what I find most interesting are more significant is that we no longer have to be trying to decipher hidden theological meanings in many of the stories of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark on the basis of scriptural allusions. They are as much there as raw story material and nothing more than that as, some might say, are the allusions to Homer.

A deity is scripturalized only to supply mere lack of imagination by "Mark", when there are more and more people there out who are going to reject these same scriptures? Too much innocent to be true.

… …. …

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 4:28 am

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 10:28 am But what I find most interesting are more significant is that we no longer have to be trying to decipher hidden theological meanings in many of the stories of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark on the basis of scriptural allusions. They are as much there as raw story material and nothing more than that as, some might say, are the allusions to Homer.

A deity is scripturalized only to supply mere lack of imagination by "Mark", when there are more and more people there out who are going to reject these same scriptures? Too much innocent to be true.

Yet are not El and Yahweh themselves sourced from "pagan" cultures of the region? And Noah from a Mesopotamian myth? And Adam from Adapa? The second temple era story of Abraham being rescued from a fiery furnace most likely owes its origin to the Hebrew word for Ur also meaning "fire"?

Conclusion: it is arguably a good idea for authors to not go out of their way to draw attention to their sources.

A classic example of an author not wanting readers to notice a source for an idea would be Mark's story of the execution of John the Baptist: In Mark 6 what happens to John the Baptist is based on what happens to Haman and Queen Vashti, with the young girl dancer being constructed on the role played by Esther. Nothing is added to Mark's story by drawing attention to the Esther source; arguably the story only becomes somewhat odd and confusing if one does attempt to understand how the story of Esther was adapted to create the Mark 6 narrative. It's like the way its better not to know how sausages are made if one wants to continue enjoy eating sausages.

---

ETA: Another relevant example is the martrydom of Isaiah -- his being sawn in two and buried beside the spring of Siloam appears to have been derived from early local myth related perhaps even to human sacrifice (Bernheimer, linked and discussed here.).

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 3:10 pmIt's like the way its better not to know how sausages are made if one wants to continue enjoy eating sausages.

Remaining in the metaphor: in whiletime he has already gained his goal: to continue enjoy eating sausages.

I see that apparently "Mark" isn't adding nothing, de facto, to Esther's story, by deriving from it the Baptist's story.

However my point is that, by merely scripturalizing the John's death, "Mark" is preventing others from considering negatively the final fate of John (see for example the role of John in Mcn, where John is not disappointed by his death by hand of Herod, but rather by the news about Jesus as messiah of an alien god: a "death" of messianic hopes surely well more embarrassing than the physical death of John à la Aman).

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 1:48 pm

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 10:52 am ...is based on Mark's women finding the empty tomb, then, according to Vette's logic, one has to infer that ' "Orig. World" has a historical nucleus, afterall!

Technically, perhaps, but not really. The key reference of Vette is the introduction of the women standing watching the crucifixion "from afar". That is the scene (and persons) he describes as "scripturalized tradition".

But you are pointing to one of the difficulties that I had with Vette's conclusion. If the women are a historical tradition that are presented in a "scripturalized" context, then does it not follow that in some sense, as Vette suggests, the women are traditional witnesses who had a different story to tell from "the twelve". But what was it that was historical about their witness? The late trial just on the eve of Passover which knowing meant crucified bodies being strung/nailed up potentially into the sabbath? the empty tomb? the young man in the tomb and his message? .... it is hard to imagine what realistic historical event they are said to be witnesses for.

If the only event they witness is the crucifixion then what is their significance as witnesses? Was there any doubt that Jesus was crucified that it needed a historical witness of the women? But once they are said to be watching "from afar", how could they be reliable witnesses that it was Jesus who was being crucified anyway? So the case for them being added to the narrative because of some "historical tradition" raises problems, I think, when it is thought through.

Their only role is to explain why no one has ever heard of a resurrection. Mark invents the resurrection as part of his efforts to counter Marcion / Chrestianity, and I'm confident that you'll like at least the detailed comparison between Mark and Luke when it comes to the post crucifixion events

Mark does by no means start this process but is at the late end of a long procedure.

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 3:34 pm
The idea of piercing --- showing hands and feet with nail wounds, the reference to Zech 12:10, the specific mention of piercing -- all of that seems to come late (Gospels of Luke, Peter and John) and is not part of the earliest narrative. (Though "pierced" in John is as likely to bring to mind the spear thrust into the side of Jesus.)

Hello @Neil,
I just read your article on the connections between Zechariah 12 and Isaiah 52-53 :

https://vridar.org/2014/11/23/the-influ ... istianity/

I think it is a very good lead to understand where the idea of crucifixion could come from in the Pauline epistles.
And it answers your message at the same time.

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 3:10 am I had thought I posted a question relating to this point some time back but cannot see what I thought I posted so I will try again -- do excuse me if I have missed an earlier reply.

Sinouhe wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 11:20 pm
I think you are right that the original meaning of the verse is "like a lion...". But as you know, the word in Hebrew is very close to the word "pierced", which could have misled some scribes. This would explain why we find the form "pierced" in the Greek translation or in the Nahal Hever manuscript.

My question remains, though -- What and where is the Greek word that means "pierced" in Ps. 22:17?

An earlier post linked to a Mormon article professing belief in God and the meaning of the Greek word as "pierced", but it lacked any supporting evidence for the claim.

ὀρύσσω - 'to dig'

Cringing Greek as usual for the NT - yes, that's what I'm saying.
The LXX reflects what the Patristics want to have attested, even though there is no mention whatsoever of anything being pierced or dug (and certainly not 'dug into').
Evidence that the LXX got fabricated in order to corroborate the Churchian narrative at large?

I think so

The falsifier Schaff gives us Justin Martyr, chapter 38 of First Apology

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01. ... xviii.html

And again, when He says, “They cast lots upon My vesture, and pierced My hands and My feet. And I lay down and slept, and rose again, because the Lord sustained Me.”

Foderunt is what the Latin has, and that also means 'to dig'; https://www.latin-is-simple.com/en/voca ... verb/4020/

This is most mysterious - where does the dumb English come from?!

https://biblehub.com/multi/psalms/22-16.htm

Look at the oldest Bibles, the Dutch Staten Vertaling is faithful, the French has pierced already in 1744, Finnish: Bible (1776) is falsified as well, so is Riveduta Bible (1927) as is the Giovanni Diodati Bible (1649), Det Norsk Bibelselskap (1930), Reina Valera 1909, Synodal Translation (1876), Swedish (1917).
Douay-Rheims Bible is faithful, Swete's Septuagint, Luther 1912, the 1899 German has the MT even, and Vulgata Clementina

What the hell is going on here

Psalm 22 (Nahal Never 1st century AD)
For dogs encircled me, An evil congregation surrounded me; They dug my hands and my feet.

Peter Flint, a scholar heavily involved in Dead Sea Scrolls research, summarized this manuscript witness as follows, “For the crucial word, the Hebrew form is grammatically difficult; but it is clearly a verb, not a noun, and means : "they have bored or they have dug or they have pierced".