Bethphage.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Bethphage.

Post by Stuart »

Ben,

The answer for me is, no, Mark did not make up the name, somebody before him, most likely Matthew, but it's also just as likely the writer of the source document he and Matthew shared (which I refer to as "M" version of an unpublished ür-Gospel). Understand that I am not in the camp of Markan priority (my order is prototypes not published, then Marcion, then Matthew, then John, probably Mark came next, and Luke last, with John getting an extensive revision of 15% or so verses added, the others small Catholic adjustments, less than 1%). Note, I do think Mark adhered closest to his source documents of any Gospel, and did not add a large layer of his Sects theological parables and teachings as the others did.

So when you say "Mark" came up with the name X, I am more inclined to think Mark's source came up with the name X. About Arimathea, for my purposes, the existence of the town or not is mostly irrelevant and so also whether or not the writer invented it from whole clothe. And frankly who cares if it existed? It's just a name.

My focus was on the growth of the Apocrypha around Joseph. And we see it did grow significantly after the Canonical Gospels with the Gospel of Nicodemus, attached to the Acts of Pilate. This was a character that invited a "spin off" or at least a bigger role as part of the "Acts of Pilate" spinoff series. The interest in Joseph was already high as the Canonical Gospels took form, as we can see in the sequence I laid out and the writers felt the need to fill out his details and correct any wrong impressions the audience had. Post-Gospels, this Joseph of Arimathea Apocrypha continued alone the lines defined by Luke -- so it worked. This is my view on Joseph. My post was simply to explain my position, and to ask you not to characterize it otherwise. Even though I think the town may not have existed, it is for only a very minor tangential issue, something I wont lose sleep over.

Carry on about Bethphage, it is an interesting subject, and believe it or not I find your posts for the most part very high value. No worries.
Last edited by Stuart on Sat Nov 25, 2017 12:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: A Page of Fishing Bet

Post by JoeWallack »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2017 3:20 pm
JoeWallack wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2017 11:47 amWhat does "Bethpage" (unripe figs) add to the narrative besides Marking the beginning and ending of the pericope?
I pretty much agree with Ulan here, but I am not sure I am understanding you, since I interpreted your original post on this thread as implying that you, too, thought that Bethphage was significant in a symbolic way, as more than just a way to begin and end the pericope appropriately.
JW:
Hi Ben. I think "Bethpage" is complete fiction here:

Mark's DiualCritical Marks. Presentation Of Names As Evidence Of Fiction
Wallack's criteria for figurative use of names:
  • 1) Recognition through reading or sound.

    2) Demonstrated style of the author.

    3) Contextual fit.

    4) Thematic fit.

    5) Lack of known literal fit.

    6) Fictional story.

Criterion Present Commentary
1) Recognition through reading or sound. Yes "House of unripe figs". This would be clearly reMarkable to the Greek reader/listener. "Bethpage" hides the connection to the English reader.
2) Demonstrated style of the author. Yes "Mark's" likely usage of fictional names (Barabbas, BarTimaeus, Petros, Judas, Ad Nazorean) have been well demonstrated here.
3) Contextual fit. Yes The start of the pericope would be referenced to the location of unripe figs. The end of the story would likewise refer to unripe figs.
4) Thematic fit. Yes Fits the major Markan theme that the Jewish Religious leaders/Temple are the fig trees and they have failed to bring forth "fruit" (good students/disciples) and will therefore be condemned and wither.
5) Lack of known literal fit. Maybe No evidence prior to Eusebius that there was such a town. Reasonable to think that Eusebius, the first to supposedly identify the location, based his guess on the Synoptics and nothing else. Note that "Bethpage" does not add anything literally to the narrative. It is mentioned as a passing location along with Bethany, a well known location. This would be a common phenomena that a place name identified in The Christian Bible obtained its name from the Christian Bible. On the other hand "Matthew"/"Luke" accept "Bethpage" here.
6) Fictional story. Yes The story here in general is chock full of the impossible (curse on a tree) and implausible (one man disruption of Temple activities without consequence).

Conclusion = "Bethpage" tests high here for evidence of fiction. As always though, without any Source evidence, nothing is proven and nothing is even probable. Maybe Bethpage did exist at the time and location GMark says. It's only the overall uncertainty though regarding any conclusion that makes it possible. As "Bethpage" scores high based on my criteria for evidence of fiction I think it likely that 11:
1 And when they draw nigh unto Jerusalem, unto Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount of Olives, he sendeth two of his disciples,
is fiction in some way: (at least one of the following)
  • 1. There was no Jesus.

    2. Jesus' named disciples were not with him.

    3. "Bethpage" did not exist at the time.

    4. Jesus did not go through Bethpage.

Joseph

The New Porphyry
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Bethphage.

Post by iskander »

https://halakhah.com/pdf/kodoshim/Menachoth.pdf

Talmud - Mas. Menachoth 78b
MISHNAH. IF A MAN SLAUGHTERED THE THANK-OFFERING WITHIN [THE TEMPLE COURT] AND THE BREAD THEREOF WAS OUTSIDE THE WALL [AT THE TIME]. THE BREAD IS NOT HALLOWED. IF HE SLAUGH TERED IT BEFORE [THE LOAVES] HAD BECOME CRUSTED IN THE OVEN, OR EVEN IF ALL EXCEPT ONE HAD BECOME CRUSTED, THE BREAD IS NOT HALLOWED.
GEMARA.

What does ‘OUTSIDE THE WALL’ mean? — R. Johanan says, Outside the wall of Beth Page;1
but Resh Lakish says, Outside the wall of the Temple court. ‘Resh Lakish says. Outside the wall of the Temple court’,for we must interpret ‘al in the sense of ‘near to’.2 ‘R. Johanan says,Outside the wall of Beth page’, but [if it was]
outside the wall of the Temple court it would be hallowed, for we need not interpret ‘al in the sense of ‘near to’.

https://halakhah.com/pdf/kodoshim/Menachoth.pdf

(1) A fortified suburb of Jerusalem (Jast.). It formed the boundary of the city, hence ‘outside the walls of Beth Page’ is
identical with outside Jerusalem. V. Neubauer, Geog. 147-149. Maim. in his Com. on this Mishnah gives the interesting
reading hdc ,hc, explaining it as the place close to the Temple mount where the meal-offerings were prepared and
baked. He thus connects this word with dc , Dan. I, 5, meaning food.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Bethphage.

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2017 9:38 amIn other words, Mark rarely if ever invents place names (there are a couple of puzzles, like Dalmanutha, but the overwhelming majority of place names in Mark are easy to identify with real and known locations). He may well choose existing place names for their symbolic value or their capacity as puns (an argument which would have to be mounted separately in each and every case), but he does not tend to invent them.
While I agree with your point in this thread, I believe that "Sea of Galilee" could be Mark's invention, but I'm not completely sure whether he meant this term as a "name" for the Sea/Lake of Gennesaret (or Lake of Tiberias).
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Bethphage.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Thu Nov 23, 2017 12:35 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Tue Nov 21, 2017 9:38 amIn other words, Mark rarely if ever invents place names (there are a couple of puzzles, like Dalmanutha, but the overwhelming majority of place names in Mark are easy to identify with real and known locations). He may well choose existing place names for their symbolic value or their capacity as puns (an argument which would have to be mounted separately in each and every case), but he does not tend to invent them.
While I agree with your point in this thread, I believe that "Sea of Galilee" could be Mark's invention, but I'm not completely sure whether he meant this term as a "name" for the Sea/Lake of Gennesaret (or Lake of Tiberias).
A good point; since, however, Mark invented neither the place name "Galilee" nor the designation of this particular body of water as a "sea" (θάλασσα, יָם/yam), and Gennesaret certainly existed as a viable geographical location (it being no Shangri-La), this term, whatever its origin, is not the same as what is sometimes suggested for Arimathea (a creation based purely on the pun). In keeping with the last part of what you wrote, "Sea of Galilee" does come off to me a bit like a description, like calling the Hudson the "river of New York" or some such.

The decision (if such it was) to retain the ambiguous Semiticism "sea" may have been motivated by the activities which take place on it in Mark, may it not? A reenactment of Jonah's storm, the trampling of chaos underfoot, and so on.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Bethphage.

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Nov 23, 2017 2:28 pm In keeping with the last part of what you wrote, "Sea of Galilee" does come off to me a bit like a description, like calling the Hudson the "river of New York" or some such.
Yes, that was exactly my thought but even in German I could not express it with such a fitting comparison
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Bethphage.

Post by John2 »

Not to change the subject of the thread, but the "sea" of Galilee issue reminds me of MacDonald, who suggests that Mark called it a "sea" to "in order to portray Jesus in epic proportions" and cites an interesting takedown of it by Porphyry here:

https://books.google.com/books?id=8JkFq ... ee&f=false

Ben wrote (with my underlining):
... Mark invented neither the place name "Galilee" nor the designation of this particular body of water as a "sea" ...
But MacDonald says on the above page that:
Prior to Mark's composition of this periscope, no one seems to have referred to the lake in the central Levant as "the Sea of Galilee."
That's funny. I can't see the page anymore. Google books is weird that way. Anyway, MacDonald goes on to say that Josephus "usually" calls it Genesaret, and there are notes for both of these statements but they aren't viewable for me online now (I have MacDonald's book though and will check it later), and I'm wondering what you might know about his statement that I quoted above, Ben.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Bethphage.

Post by John2 »

The Wikipedia page on the Sea of Galilee says:
The modern Hebrew name, Kinneret, comes from the Hebrew Bible, the main source of the Christian Old Testament, where it appears as the "sea of Kinneret" in Numbers 34:11 and Joshua 13:27, spelled כנרות "Kinnerot" in Hebrew in Joshua 11:2 ...

All Old and New Testament writers use the term "sea" (Hebrew יָם yam, Greek θάλασσα), with the exception of Luke who calls it "the Lake of Gennesaret" (Luke 5:1), from the Greek λίμνη Γεννησαρέτ (limnē Gennēsaret), the "Grecized form of Chinnereth" according to Easton (1897).

Sea of Ginosar

The Babylonian Talmud, as well as Flavius Josephus mention the sea by the name "Sea of Ginosar" after the small fertile plain of Ginosar that lies on its western side.[citation needed] Ginosar is yet another name derived from "Kinneret".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_of_Galilee
Huh. I wonder why MacDonald says what he says above then. I'll check his notes later.

.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Bethphage.

Post by John2 »

Yeah, there it is, yam/sea:

Num. 34:11:
I reckon MacDonald is referring to the entire expression "Sea of Galilee" rather than sea of Kinneret/Gennesaret/Ginosar. But don't mind me, I'm just thinking out loud at work.
Last edited by John2 on Fri Nov 24, 2017 8:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Bethphage.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Fri Nov 24, 2017 7:28 pm Not to change the subject of the thread, but the "sea" of Galilee issue reminds me of MacDonald, who suggests that Mark called it a "sea" to "in order to portray Jesus in epic proportions" and cites an interesting takedown of it by Porphyry here:

https://books.google.com/books?id=8JkFq ... ee&f=false

Ben wrote (with my underlining):
... Mark invented neither the place name "Galilee" nor the designation of this particular body of water as a "sea" ...
But MacDonald says on the above page that:
Prior to Mark's composition of this periscope, no one seems to have referred to the lake in the central Levant as "the Sea of Galilee."
That's funny. I can't see the page anymore. Google books is weird that way. Anyway, MacDonald goes on to say that Josephus "usually" calls it Genesaret, and there are notes for both of these statements but they aren't viewable for me online now (I have MacDonald's book though and will check it later), and I'm wondering what you might know about his statement that I quoted above, Ben.
MacDonald is saying that no one called the lake in question "the Sea of Galilee" — and, as far as we know, he is correct. But that is not the same thing as saying that no one called it a sea before. The scriptures, both in the original Hebrew and in the Old Greek, call it a sea. They just call it "the Sea of" something else, like Chinnereth.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply