Everyone will be salted with fire.

[Charles Wilson]

People should read Baarda's explanation (which won't be much loved here because it advocates both (i) an Aramaic source text and (ii) an early lost gospel behind the synoptics). But it is the best explanation of the passage. No doubt about it. The passage is certainly a Greek translation of an Aramaic source text. Mark used an Aramaic Q(uelle). Apologies to the advocates of the opposing POV but this is certain here IMHO. No other argument explains it well enough.

100%.

[Stefan Kristensen]

People should read Baarda's explanation (which won't be much loved here because it advocates both (i) an Aramaic source text and (ii) an early lost gospel behind the synoptics). But it is the best explanation of the passage. No doubt about it. The passage is certainly a Greek translation of an Aramaic source text. Mark used an Aramaic Q(uelle). Apologies to the advocates of the opposing POV but this is certain here IMHO. No other argument explains it well enough.

Do you have a link? I cannot seem to find the article on JSTOR. (I presume it is the article entitled "Mark IX.49.")

Havn't read it yet, but I do have access to it. Is it ok to share it here like this?

BaardaTJ1959-MarkIX49.pdf

Baarda

(663.42 KiB) Downloaded 196 times

[Ben C. Smith]

People should read Baarda's explanation (which won't be much loved here because it advocates both (i) an Aramaic source text and (ii) an early lost gospel behind the synoptics). But it is the best explanation of the passage. No doubt about it. The passage is certainly a Greek translation of an Aramaic source text. Mark used an Aramaic Q(uelle). Apologies to the advocates of the opposing POV but this is certain here IMHO. No other argument explains it well enough.

Do you have a link? I cannot seem to find the article on JSTOR. (I presume it is the article entitled "Mark IX.49.")

Havn't read it yet, but I do have access to it. Is it ok to share it here like this?

BaardaTJ1959-MarkIX49.pdf

Excellent. Thanks!

[Secret Alias]

Baarda just died this year. All my academic friends are dying off. Soon I will only have soccer dads and moms as my circle of friends. If I talk about a pericope from Mark with my new friends they will think that I am talking about one of the other parents from the team broadcasting highlights from the game on his Twitter handle.

[Stefan Kristensen]

If I talk about a pericope from Mark with my new friends they will think that I am talking about one of the other parents from the team

SA: "I've been thinking lately about what would be the best way to date Mark".
Other soccer dad: ...

[Stefan Kristensen]

But what do you think verse 50 means?

Here is verse 50:

Mark 9.50: 50 "Salt is good; but if the salt becomes unsalty, with what will you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another."

"Salt is good," so salt is being used in its capacity as a metaphor for seasoning. In that capacity, the seasoning often amounts to table fellowship:

T. K. Cheyne & J. Sutherland Black, Encyclopaedia Biblica: Among the ancients, as among orientals down to the present day, every meal that included salt had a certain sacred character, and created a band of piety and guest-friendship between the participants. Hence the Greek phrase ἅλας καὶ τράπεζαν παραβαίνειν, the Arab phrase, 'there is salt between us,' ....

This attitude squares with my general impressions from having studied the Classics, and the Hebrew "covenant of salt" would be a special instance of it, a case of salt serving as a bond between humans and God rather than, as typical, between humans and other humans.

But, just as salt can become insipid (this assertion may be problematic, but I do not think the issues of chemistry will affect our main point), so disciples can lose their moral edge. Disciples, therefore, ought to "have salt" in themselves; that is, they ought to be responsible for keeping their dealings with people (the ones whom they are "seasoning," so to speak) on the up and up; this is, in fact, an act of keeping the peace, which is a topic not unfit for this context (after the dispute of 9.34, for example). I take the twin injunctions to "have salt in yourselves" and to "be at peace with one another" as an example of the kind of quasi-synonymous parallelism which runs rampant in the Hebrew scriptures, by which one phrase interprets the other.

I think this may definately be on the right track. And I love the suggestion that an aspect of the concept of "covenant of salt" is from salt being a general symbol of the 'friendship' that comes through table fellowship. Concerning Mark 9:50, however, if you tell me this verse is only this basic moral teaching, à la "keeping their dealings on the up and up", which is based on a general cultural understanding of salt and fellowship then I'm divided. I mean, even though it is a way for the verse to make some sense, I'm also sceptical: I want more! Because especially with sayings of Jesus that consist of pointed statements and imperatives, such as Mark 9:49-50, I expect a theological basis. I mean a scriptural basis, as in a connection with Scritpure, any connection, direct or indirect. Your suggested interpretation for 9:50 has a cultural context as a basis, and I think such a 'secular' or 'un-theological' interpretation is a bit weak.

Of course, that's just me, but if an interpretation can be found where there is a connection, for example, with the 'covenant of salt', then that would for me be a stronger interpretation. I may sometimes find theological messages in the text of gMark that aren't there, and this is because I'm so eager to search for them and I expect them to be there most of the time. But I also think such an expectation is warranted.

[Stefan Kristensen]

As for verse 49:

I don't agree about v.49, that it is not intelligible as it stands, that it needs to be reverse-translated in order to make sense. I am a firm believer that the person responsible for our text of gMark did not leave something unintelligible.

And from all of this that i've mentioned of my understanding of gMark, I'd argue that v.49 is also cryptic, perhaps so cryptic indeed that nobody actually understands it. That would not be surprising....

On the one hand, Mark could not have left something unintelligible; on the other, it would not surprise you if this verse is so cryptic that nobody actually understands it. This is hard for me to follow.

Fair enough! What I mean is that in my understanding of gMark the author is walking along an edge and sometimes he falls: he wants the message of his story to be hidden. But he also wants it to be discovered. I described it as a "hidden revelation". In gMark, as opposed to the other three gospels, there is no commentary on the events or sayings of the narrative (with perhaps two exceptions that proves the rule). By commentary I mean explanatory comments delivered by the narrator that explicitly places the event or saying within a context, a context that can rightly be described as 'theological'. The narrator in gMark appears completely indifferent or even ignorant of the actual meaning of the events and sayings of the narrative. If there is a meaning to the story (and of course there is), then the narrator is strikingly silent.

But this deafening silence of the narrator in gMark must crucially not be misunderstood as theological ignorance on the part of the author (I'm sure you agree). Rather this is perfectly in line with a most central theme of the story: revelation, or, knowledge, understanding, vision. Some have "ears to hear", some don't. Some see the twelve baskets of leftovers, and that's all they see. Some see the true, deeper meaning. But one thing's for sure: the narrator of the story is not going to help the reader out! (Not so in the other gospels where the silent narrator is appropriated along with Mark's storytelling method, but does sometimes help out a little and sometimes a lot, e.g. Matt 1:22; John 7:39; Luke 9:51.)

So Mark hides a message inside the event with the twelve and seven baskets. But obviously he means for it to be interpreted, understood, 'discovered'. There is a message in there, but Mark consciously and carefully veils it. Why he does this is a different issue, but the fact remains, as I'd argue, that he is very intent for his whole message to be veiled, but become unveiled. I believe Mark is thinking about the Christians in the same way as Paul describes it in 1 Cor 2, that they have been given divine vision through the gift of the spirit to be able to perceive the special divine knowledge, the true plain of reality. The readers, unlike the human characters within the story, have been 'baptized with the holy spirit' so that they, like the Jesus character, can perceive the true plain of reality, behind the veil.

But the things is, then, that sometimes it is unfortunately pretty difficult to unveil it for the readers. And this is what I mean: Mark meticulously tries to make the message of the story cryptic, 'hidden', in such a way that it be 'discovered', or unveiled, by the readers. He is careful to leave various kinds of hints that make it possible for the reader to unveil what is really going on and what is really being said by Jesus. Only, sometimes it is too cryptic! For example the naked youth in Gethsemane. I think we agree that here is also a deeper meaning intended here. And maybe there is a hint in the term "youth", but it is just too cryptic. And for some reason Matthew and Luke omits this youth, so in this instance we can't even look at the way they interpreted it (perhaps they didn't understand it either).

A more relevant example would be the possible connection between Jesus' death and baptism. If Mark really intended a connection here, using such absurdly subtle hints (the rending, the 'spirit-out', the 'son of God' thing), then he really didn't do a very good job, if he actually wanted his audience to perceive this! How on earth would an audience notice this unless they carefully examined his text under a looking glass. (Perhaps he meant this for his text, of course.)

Another relevant example is a Jesus-saying, since in 9:49-50 we're dealing with a saying. Just like I'm describing here the relationship between Mark and his readers (or the narrator and narratees), such is the relationship between Jesus and his dicsiples. There is a message, a teaching. But it is consciously veiled. The disciples have problems understanding, and sometimes this issue is directly addressed, but not always. When Jesus talks about "the yeast of the pharisees and the yeast of Herod", the disciples fail to understand.

It is on this basis that I'm reluctant to accept that some things in gMark are left unintelligible as it is in the Greek text. I'd rather view it as failed communication by Mark. He meant it to be intelligible, to be understood, to be interpreted, to be "heard" with our "ears to hear". And therefore there is some theological meaning hidden here. But this is one of the more difficult instances. Perhaps 9:49 is in fact the most difficult instance in the whole text.

Now, if I'm right, and there is an intended, cryptic, meaning to this, vv.49-50, then I'd suggest some connection to the sacrificial cult. I mean on the basis of the concept of mission as understood within a levitical framework. The missionaries as 'Levites' bringing the converted gentiles as sacrifices 'well-pleasing to the Lord'. A motif built upon the theme in Scripture of Israel as an example, a 'light for the nations', bringing the knowledge of God to the nations. As well as the theme found in Is 66, the very context of vv.42-48, with the 'commission' to Israel to gather the tribes and bring them to Jerusalem as sacrifices brought to God (Is 66:20). Indeed, Is 66 could be a key in several ways. I have to say, that I'm also open to the suggestion of the verse being simply intelligible as it is. I just think it's very unlikely and more likely that Mark failed to make the hints clear enough to unveil the meaning.

[Ben C. Smith]

As for verse 49:

I don't agree about v.49, that it is not intelligible as it stands, that it needs to be reverse-translated in order to make sense. I am a firm believer that the person responsible for our text of gMark did not leave something unintelligible.

And from all of this that i've mentioned of my understanding of gMark, I'd argue that v.49 is also cryptic, perhaps so cryptic indeed that nobody actually understands it. That would not be surprising....

On the one hand, Mark could not have left something unintelligible; on the other, it would not surprise you if this verse is so cryptic that nobody actually understands it. This is hard for me to follow.

Fair enough! What I mean is that in my understanding of gMark the author is walking along an edge and sometimes he falls: he wants the message of his story to be hidden. But he also wants it to be discovered.

How much do you wrestle with the meaning of the immediately preceding verses?

Mark 9.43-48: 43 "And if your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than having your two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire, 44 [where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched]. 45 And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame, than having your two feet, to be cast into hell, 46 [where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched]. 47 And if your eye causes you to stumble, cast it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes, to be cast into hell, 48 where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.

Is the meaning here not fairly clear? It is well worth sacrificing the things of this life (giving up houses and family relationships, as in Mark 10.29-30, for example, or riches or anything else that might compromise one's chances) in order to enjoy the much better things of the next life (the kingdom), right? There is some hyperbole involved, perhaps, but that does not cause us much difficulty, I think. My point is that Mark does not always seem to strive to be super mysterious; you yourself brought up Mark 10.11-12, and how it seems to be a pretty clear statement about divorce.

You brought up those connections between the baptism and the passion that I had identified on the basis of an essay by Ulansey. I think it is an open question how much the readers/hearers of the gospel were meant to pick up on those subtle connections. On the one hand, rereading is allowed and even encouraged:

Quintilian, Institutes of Oratory 10.1.19-20: 19 On the other hand, it will sometimes also happen that an audience whose taste is bad will fail to award the praise which is due to the most admirable utterances. Reading, however, is free, and does not hurry past us with the speed of oral delivery; we can reread a passage again and again if we are in doubt about it or wish to fix it in the memory. We must return to what we have read and reconsider it with care, while, just as we do not swallow our food till we have chewed it and reduced it almost to a state of liquefaction to assist the process of digestion, so what we read must not be committed to the memory for subsequent imitation while it is still in a crude state, but must be softened and, if I may use the phrase, reduced to a pulp by frequent reperusal. 20 For a long time also we should read none save the best authors and such as are least likely to betray our trust in them, while our reading must be almost as thorough as if we were actually transcribing what we read. Nor must we study it merely in parts, but must read through the whole work from cover to cover and then read it afresh, a precept which applies more especially to speeches, whose merits are often deliberately disguised.

And you know that people read and reread the Hebrew scriptures and the LXX over and over and over again. Perhaps much the same was expected of the gospel of Mark, especially if it was first delivered in an oral manner to an audience who only later received it in writing.

On the other hand, there may be legitimate differences between the influences that went into writing a text and what the reader is expected to get out of a text. Attentive readers of modern high fantasy, for example, may be able to pick out passages in which their favorite authors were being influenced by J. R. R. Tolkien or by Poul Anderson or by Lord Dunsany, but that does not necessarily mean that the author intended them to pick up on that sort of thing. Some allusions in Mark to the scriptures, for example, are so blatant that I imagine he expected his more informed readers to pick up on them; others are so subtle that I wonder whether he himself even knew he was channeling the LXX or whatever; and there are degrees in between. Alternately, modern authors often enclose "Easter eggs" or shout-outs to previous literature in the genre, and they know that only readers who are intimately familiar with the genre are going to pick up on them, but they are also not thereby intending to exclude the more casual reader; they make sure the story stands well enough on its own, without all the cross referencing, to entertain in its own right. Perhaps ancient authors were aware of such degrees of reader awareness, as well.

Overall, I am still quite happy with Weston W. Fields' hypothesis on Mark 9.49, as described in the OP. It is sublimely simple, requiring only a totally understandable loss of information between languages. The first hearers of the saying, even in Greek, would have presumably known what was being said (just as bilingual people living on the US-Mexico border can easily pick up on idioms in one language which are actually native to the other language), but the further the saying drifted from its Semitic roots the fewer people would have understood it. The saying, on this hypothesis, was roughly as comprehensible as the verses preceding it; only the language issue eventually interfered. Possible overtones in verse 50 about the "covenant of salt" could represent those authorial influences or those layers of reader understanding which I have touched upon here; they are not crucial to an ordinary understanding of the verse, but they allow thematic interlocking on a metatextual level.

[Stefan Kristensen]

How much do you wrestle with the meaning of the immediately preceding verses?

Mark 9.43-48: 43 "And if your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than having your two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire, 44 [where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched]. 45 And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame, than having your two feet, to be cast into hell, 46 [where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched]. 47 And if your eye causes you to stumble, cast it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes, to be cast into hell, 48 where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.

Is the meaning here not fairly clear? It is well worth sacrificing the things of this life (giving up houses and family relationships, as in Mark 10.29-30, for example, or riches or anything else that might compromise one's chances) in order to enjoy the much better things of the next life (the kingdom), right? There is some hyperbole involved, perhaps, but that does not cause us much difficulty, I think. My point is that Mark does not always seem to strive to be super mysterious; you yourself brought up Mark 10.11-12, and how it seems to be a pretty clear statement about divorce.

I don't think Mark strives to be super mysterious. Only mysterious. Or 'veiled' is actually the best term for what I mean, because this is also related to the concept of revelation ('unveiling') and we stay in the theological universe of gMark. One principle which governed Mark's presentation, according to my theory, is that the true meaning of the events and sayings surrounding Jesus' ministry was veiled, exactly like the 'historical' events and prophecies in Scripture, and only later, by those 'baptized with the holy spirit', could it be unveiled or 'revealed' (cf. also 2 Cor 3-4). My hypothesis here is not that Mark strives to veil his message to a high degree, but simply that he strives to keep it veiled.

The meaning of vv.43-48 is fairly clear, we may agree, but the meaning is still not given directly. And being 'indirect' it can be discussed. Jesus' teaching in gMark is generally characterized by being indirect (a notable exception is 10:11-12, the meaning of this cannot reasonably be discussed unless "adultery" should have some sort of deeper meaning). There may be a number of reasons for it, but I want to dwell on this datum. (And in the context of my theory I argue it's part of the 'veiling'.)

You brought up those connections between the baptism and the passion that I had identified on the basis of an essay by Ulansey. I think it is an open question how much the readers/hearers of the gospel were meant to pick up on those subtle connections. On the one hand, rereading is allowed and even encouraged:

Quintilian, Institutes of Oratory 10.1.19-20: 19 On the other hand, it will sometimes also happen that an audience whose taste is bad will fail to award the praise which is due to the most admirable utterances. Reading, however, is free, and does not hurry past us with the speed of oral delivery; we can reread a passage again and again if we are in doubt about it or wish to fix it in the memory. We must return to what we have read and reconsider it with care, while, just as we do not swallow our food till we have chewed it and reduced it almost to a state of liquefaction to assist the process of digestion, so what we read must not be committed to the memory for subsequent imitation while it is still in a crude state, but must be softened and, if I may use the phrase, reduced to a pulp by frequent reperusal. 20 For a long time also we should read none save the best authors and such as are least likely to betray our trust in them, while our reading must be almost as thorough as if we were actually transcribing what we read. Nor must we study it merely in parts, but must read through the whole work from cover to cover and then read it afresh, a precept which applies more especially to speeches, whose merits are often deliberately disguised.

And you know that people read and reread the Hebrew scriptures and the LXX over and over and over again. Perhaps much the same was expected of the gospel of Mark, especially if it was first delivered in an oral manner to an audience who only later received it in writing.

Yes, yes, I think he quite possibly meant his story to be scrutinized, i.e. treated the same way they treated Scripture. I think he wanted to cram as much theological teaching as he could, that he wasted no opportunity to organize and (re)phrase his material so as to connect it somehow, anyhow, to a theological motif, idea, theme, conception, etc. He wanted everything to be theological teaching, he was not writing for entertainment purposes.

It is my impression that the possible connection between Jesus' death and baptism is relatively widely recognized, but I really must say, it seems extremely unlikely to me that he would make such a connection and then not care whether anyone ever picked up on it. Again, he was not in the business of entertainment, he had a message, a teaching, to deliver. Just like his main character.

On the other hand, there may be legitimate differences between the influences that went into writing a text and what the reader is expected to get out of a text. Attentive readers of modern high fantasy, for example, may be able to pick out passages in which their favorite authors were being influenced by J. R. R. Tolkien or by Poul Anderson or by Lord Dunsany, but that does not necessarily mean that the author intended them to pick up on that sort of thing. Some allusions in Mark to the scriptures, for example, are so blatant that I imagine he expected his more informed readers to pick up on them; others are so subtle that I wonder whether he himself even knew he was channeling the LXX or whatever; and there are degrees in between. Alternately, modern authors often enclose "Easter eggs" or shout-outs to previous literature in the genre, and they know that only readers who are intimately familiar with the genre are going to pick up on them, but they are also not thereby intending to exclude the more casual reader; they make sure the story stands well enough on its own, without all the cross referencing, to entertain in its own right. Perhaps ancient authors were aware of such degrees of reader awareness, as well.

Yes, this is a central issue I want to treat. Some allusions to Scripture are blatant, some subtle, and there are degrees in between. The same can be said with other, literary, things in the narrative such as echoes or foreshadowings or connected themes, etc. But the question is, when are these allusions understood and when are they not understood. Who would be able to understand them and who would not? Now, is it really a coincidence that we are asking this question, when this is exactly the same question which is being asked throughout the story itself? I want to show why I think it may not be a coincidence.

Overall, I am still quite happy with Weston W. Fields' hypothesis on Mark 9.49, as described in the OP. It is sublimely simple, requiring only a totally understandable loss of information between languages. The first hearers of the saying, even in Greek, would have presumably known what was being said (just as bilingual people living on the US-Mexico border can easily pick up on idioms in one language which are actually native to the other language), but the further the saying drifted from its Semitic roots the fewer people would have understood it. The saying, on this hypothesis, was roughly as comprehensible as the verses preceding it; only the language issue eventually interfered. Possible overtones in verse 50 about the "covenant of salt" could represent those authorial influences or those layers of reader understanding which I have touched upon here; they are not crucial to an ordinary understanding of the verse, but they allow thematic interlocking on a metatextual level.

I'm not sure I understand whether, according to this hypothesis, the saying was intelligible when it was first penned in Greek or whether it had lost its meaning at this point, when it was penned? The latter is what I objected to, that it was not (or no longer) intelligible in Greek when it was penned. (Perhaps this is also a question of textual development, of course, where we also have different opinions.)

[Ben C. Smith]

I'm not sure I understand whether, according to this hypothesis, the saying was intelligible when it was first penned in Greek or whether it had lost its meaning at this point, when it was penned? The latter is what I objected to, that it was not (or no longer) intelligible in Greek when it was penned. (Perhaps this is also a question of textual development, of course, where we also have different opinions.)

Well, the hypothesis itself could go either way, I imagine, but I was operating on the assumption that the meaning was still understood for a while in Greek before knowledge of the Semitism was lost somewhere along the way. Ordinarily, I would tend to think that whoever put the saying into Greek would either understand its significance or change it so as to be understandable. Unfortunately, there may be exceptions to this "rule" (to really overstate the nature of the thing), and this particular saying may well have the impact to break the rule, since "salted with fire" sounds just so darn cool. But, still, all things considered, I bet it was still understood by whoever put it into Greek.