Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Another Look at Salted / Scattered Mark 9:49
#1
Shlama,

Hope all are well in our Saviour.  I'm deep in translating the Gospels, and when I came to Mark 9:49, a detail stuck out at me that I think merits the confirmation / dismissal of others here.

Part of this involves something that was posted here many moons ago, to be found on this thread:
http://peshitta.org/for/showthread.php?t...+scattered

Alrighty, let's get into it!

The passage of Mark 9 has Messiah speaking about the great mistake of causing a "little one" to stumble / be offended (v. 42).  He then goes into the famous declarations about the cutting off of hand / foot (v. 43-46), and the plucking out of the eye (v.47-48), if such organs are offending parties.  He says it is better to enter into life maimed than to enter wholly into Gehenna.

He then brings up in v. 49 the line of particular interest to us: "for all will be salted with fire, and every sacrifice with salt shall be salted."

That's the typical translation.  

However, NETHM'LAKH / METHM'LAKH (depending on which Aramaic manuscript you are reading) can mean either "salted" or "scattered."  Verse 50 goes on to have Messiah speak further about "salt."  The link referred to above makes the sagacious argument that the term should be understood rather in its "scattered" application, so that "vaporized / destroyed" is the intent of Messiah's discussion.

After looking at it while translating the entire passage, I propose that this is a second instance of Messiah utilizing a Janus Parallel poetic form, where the term NETHM'LAKH / METHM'LAKH is the pivot point of the JP.  Taken with the preceding context of "cutting off / plucking out" - that is, "separating" offending body parts here, the term makes perfect sense to be viewed as "scattered," but when we get to the second half of v. 49, and the rest of v. 50, the term makes perfect sense to be viewed in its other definition as "salt."

I personally see this as a clear candidate for a second example of Messiah utilizing the Janus Parallel method of teaching.

What say the Body?

in HIM,
Jeremy
Reply
#2
If you are asking for input then I'll give mine:
I believe that "scattered" is correct.

Josephus, Wars..., 2, 1, 3:

"...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; but the rest of the multitude were dispersed upon the adjoining mountains: these were followed by Archelaus's heralds, who commanded every one to retire to their own homes, whither they all went, and left the festival..."

So Passover is cancelled (Consider that for a moment) and the worshipers are ordered to leave Passover in Jerusalem and return to their homes - They are "scattered".

Mark 14: 50 - 52 (RSV):

[50] And they all forsook him, and fled.
[51] And a young man followed him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body; and they seized him,
[52] but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked.

There were certainly plenty of "Tests" going on and the results are "scattering".

CW
Reply
#3
There is this similar text in Leviticus 2:13a.

7a1 Wrote:·ܘܟܠܗ ܩܘܪܒܢܐ ܕܣܡܝܕܟ ܒܡܠܚܐ ܬܡܠܘܚ

Codex Vaticanus (B/03) and the Sinaitic Palimpsest (SyS) have only the first part of Mark 9:49, while several early Vetus Latina MSS, such as Codex Bezae (D/05) have only the second part. So,

Quote:B: πας γαρ πυρι αλισθησεται ................. D: πασα γαρ θυσια αλι αλισθησεται

The reading of Peshitta is a combination of these two very similar statements. Since the two statements are so similar it would be easy to explain at least two scribes' omissions of the statements by means of homoiteleuton and homoiarcton (particularily if you are a peshitta primacist :) ). Even simpler seems to me the explanation (my idea today so take it with a grain of salt) that B and SyS have the original reading and that scribes erroneously recognized it as a quotation from Leviticus and changed the wording a little to make it confirm to their version of the OT (Hebrew, LXX or Peshitta). Later, scribes comparing several manuscripts would have encountered two slightly different versions and transmitted both to be on the safe side.

Perhaps this article will give some clues as well:
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogs...-salt.html
Reply
#4
Cool post, Jeremy.  Reading through some of your previous posts, I see you have a talent for Janus parallels, that’s awesome.

In further support of your original post, notice the word spellings ܡܠܚ  (“salt”) and  ܚܠܡܠܚ (“vinegar salt”) --  whether we read the letters backward or forward they point to “salt.”

Perhaps that is supporting evidence as well (a little clue) that we are indeed looking at a Janus parallel in the Aramaic.

In any case, I think you’re right.

And at the very least the Aramaic root word here ܡܠܚ -- meaning "to destroy or vaporize", also means "salt", which is why the verse is a clear wordplay in the Aramaic, "For any in the fire, they will be destroyed.  And every sacrifice will be seasoned with salt."

Salt is a simple element NaCl (sodium chloride is table salt), or just Na is sodium.  Table salt is only dissolved into separate elements Na and Cl by a sufficiently hot fire -- it will produce a steady orange flame because of the Na+ ions.

Now, if one throws a lot of salt on a small fire, the table salt will act as a fire extinguisher.  But in the gospel of Mark, we read that this fire does not go out, but rather what is put into the fire is vaporized.  So this is indeed a large fire, which emphasizes even more that this salt that has lost its flavor will be utterly vaporized.  I should also add that in a nuclear fire, Na and Cl are deconstructed even further in their vaporizing, such that you cannot even call them salt anymore.

Consider also the chemical mechanisms by which salt loses its flavor, and how the salt in Israel's Dead Sea (with which the disciples were most accustomed) was often tainted by chemical mixing and therefore not a desirable flavor for food.

The correct flavor is the Messiah.  When I read Mark 9:49 “sacrifice”, I think the purpose is to die with flavor/faith rather than die in unbelief.  The ܡܠܚܐ (“salt”) double-wordplay works with ܡܠܟܐ (“king”) because the king has faith.  And I'll venture that Mark 9:50 ܬܦܟܗ  (“bland”) is a wordplay contrast with the alternate translation of  ܬܦܟܗ  (“weak” or “dim”), which Gehenna was not. 

It’s all very meaningful and poetic when the words contrast and come together in Aramaic, like salt and fire actually on some level.
Reply
#5
(05-09-2016, 04:11 AM)Charles Wilson Wrote: If you are asking for input then I'll give mine:
I believe that "scattered" is correct.

Josephus, Wars..., 2, 1, 3:

"...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; but the rest of the multitude were dispersed upon the adjoining mountains: these were followed by Archelaus's heralds, who commanded every one to retire to their own homes, whither they all went, and left the festival..."

So Passover is cancelled (Consider that for a moment) and the worshipers are ordered to leave Passover in Jerusalem and return to their homes - They are "scattered".

Mark 14: 50 - 52 (RSV):

[50] And they all forsook him, and fled.
[51] And a young man followed him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body; and they seized him,
[52] but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked.

There were certainly plenty of "Tests" going on and the results are "scattering".

CW

Shlama, Charles,


Thank you for your input.  The context being of the offering of sacrifices and the "dispersal" of the worshipers.  Interesting, though, that in this passage, we see both "destruction" and "scattering" in the context of offering sacrifices. 

in HIM,
Jeremy Chance Springfield

(05-09-2016, 02:53 PM)sestir Wrote: There is this similar text in Leviticus 2:13a.

7a1 Wrote:·ܘܟܠܗ ܩܘܪܒܢܐ ܕܣܡܝܕܟ ܒܡܠܚܐ ܬܡܠܘܚ

Codex Vaticanus (B/03) and the Sinaitic Palimpsest (SyS) have only the first part of Mark 9:49, while several early Vetus Latina MSS, such as Codex Bezae (D/05) have only the second part. So,

Quote:B: πας γαρ πυρι αλισθησεται ................. D: πασα γαρ θυσια αλι αλισθησεται

The reading of Peshitta is a combination of these two very similar statements. Since the two statements are so similar it would be easy to explain at least two scribes' omissions of the statements by means of homoiteleuton and homoiarcton (particularily if you are a peshitta primacist Smile ). Even simpler seems to me the explanation (my idea today so take it with a grain of salt) that B and SyS have the original reading and that scribes erroneously recognized it as a quotation from Leviticus and changed the wording a little to make it confirm to their version of the OT (Hebrew, LXX or Peshitta). Later, scribes comparing several manuscripts would have encountered two slightly different versions and transmitted both to be on the safe side.

Perhaps this article will give some clues as well:
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogs...-salt.html

Shlama, Sestir,

I admittedly had not looked at this from the Greek side of things as to possible solutions via variant readings.  Spring-boarding off of your proposals from the Greek side of things, further variants now seem to legitimize the Peshitta's wording of a Janus Parallel as the original intent, in that the single term can be viewed as either "salt" or "scatter" (destroy), and the variants on the Greek side appear to uphold that very concept quite readily:

PURI ANALOTHEEESETAI = "...fire shall be consumed" Θ

THUSIA ANALOTHEESETAI ALISTHEESETAI = "...sacrifice shall be consumed [and] salted" Ψ 

The appearance of both ideas included in the Greek variants that can be rendered in a single Aramaic term that just so happens to appear in the Peshitta's text only bolsters the Peshitta Primacy viewpoint, in my opinion.  

in HIM,
Jeremy Chance Springfield

(05-11-2016, 01:50 AM)gregglaser Wrote: Cool post, Jeremy.  Reading through some of your previous posts, I see you have a talent for Janus parallels, that’s awesome.

In further support of your original post, notice the word spellings ܡܠܚ  (“salt”) and  ܚܠܡܠܚ (“vinegar salt”) --  whether we read the letters backward or forward they point to “salt.”

Perhaps that is supporting evidence as well (a little clue) that we are indeed looking at a Janus parallel in the Aramaic.

In any case, I think you’re right.

And at the very least the Aramaic root word here ܡܠܚ -- meaning "to destroy or vaporize", also means "salt", which is why the verse is a clear wordplay in the Aramaic, "For any in the fire, they will be destroyed.  And every sacrifice will be seasoned with salt."

Salt is a simple element NaCl (sodium chloride is table salt), or just Na is sodium.  Table salt is only dissolved into separate elements Na and Cl by a sufficiently hot fire -- it will produce a steady orange flame because of the Na+ ions.

Now, if one throws a lot of salt on a small fire, the table salt will act as a fire extinguisher.  But in the gospel of Mark, we read that this fire does not go out, but rather what is put into the fire is vaporized.  So this is indeed a large fire, which emphasizes even more that this salt that has lost its flavor will be utterly vaporized.  I should also add that in a nuclear fire, Na and Cl are deconstructed even further in their vaporizing, such that you cannot even call them salt anymore.

Consider also the chemical mechanisms by which salt loses its flavor, and how the salt in Israel's Dead Sea (with which the disciples were most accustomed) was often tainted by chemical mixing and therefore not a desirable flavor for food.

The correct flavor is the Messiah.  When I read Mark 9:49 “sacrifice”, I think the purpose is to die with flavor/faith rather than die in unbelief.  The ܡܠܚܐ (“salt”) double-wordplay works with ܡܠܟܐ (“king”) because the king has faith.  And I'll venture that Mark 9:50 ܬܦܟܗ  (“bland”) is a wordplay contrast with the alternate translation of  ܬܦܟܗ  (“weak” or “dim”), which Gehenna was not. 

It’s all very meaningful and poetic when the words contrast and come together in Aramaic, like salt and fire actually on some level.

Shlama, Greg,

I am fond of searching out examples of Janus Parallels, as I personally feel the presence of such are incredibly strong examples of a document being an example of content that is in its original language.  The plethora of examples found in the Hebrew Tanakh are wonderful to see how the poetic device was utilized, and the lack of such in subsequent translated texts is evident.  Thus, when going to the Peshitta and seeing the same thing in both the Gospels and the writings of Paul and James, the argument can strongly be made for originality of language with them.  

Concerning your proposals, I find it so amazing to see the concepts upheld and pushed by the terminology surrounding, and even in words of similar phonetics.  The depth is great, and we do our best to plumb as deeply as possible and share with others.  We need eyes to see, for sure!

in HIM,
Jeremy Chance Springfield
Reply
#6
(05-09-2016, 12:41 AM)Burning one Wrote: However, NETHM'LAKH / METHM'LAKH (depending on which Aramaic manuscript you are reading) can mean either "salted" or "scattered."  
Shlama All,
May I know the history of the difference between NETHM'LAKH / METHM'LAKH as follow:
[img][Image: markus%209_49.png][/img]

[img][Image: mithmalak1.jpg][/img]

Tawdi
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)