A Non-Transvalued Story
Posted: Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:48 pm
1. Well...or not so well...I've lost Ben and that's not good. "Go your own way" makes a great song by Fleetwood Mac (Not as good as "Oh Well, Part 1" but what are you gonna do?). Mebbe the "Go your way and I'll go mine" came out a little harsh. Apologies, Ben.
BTW, Ben, Yes, "Sleep" is used a lot as a cover for "Death" but in describing a specific stoning, the distance required to "objectify" it may come later. "We liquidated the Kulaks" covers a lot but Solzhenitzyn took it a little more personally. Euphemisms. Move on, CW.
2. I still owe Ben a Plausible Start on a Non-Transvalued Story that could be seen as a Jewish Story that was ripped apart and rewritten. The Story may have been written by people such as Nicholas of Damascus or Mucianus or other Roman Functionaries, probably at Caesarea. Side Note: If the Story was written by NoD, M or others (Mucianus was HIGHLY efficient at functioning in Greek) then the Greek Thesis of the complete NT should be verified. If it was a "stolen" Jewish Story then another layer of production should have occurred and be apparent. The Greekies are convinced. The Aramaicists are convinced. I will start. I will also attempt to rewrite my own rewrites in the hope that this time I can make it more readable and acceptable to others
3. Some Rules for Understanding the Construction: If there was a Story that was "Stolen and Rewritten" for a New Religion [no matter the source] , I have used the term "Transvaluation" often to describe this and I think it is appropriately used. The purpose of this exercise is to Un-Transvalue many of the Set Pieces (esp. in Mark) and try to understand them in their time. This means that, to the people in the Stories, there was no "Father, Son and Holy Spirit". There was No Perception that there could have been such a thing. God gave the acceptable Forms of Worship in the Form of the Priesthood and there was no reason to believe otherwise:
Matthew 5: 10, 20. 6: 25 and 34 (RSV):
[10] "Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
***
[20] For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
***
[25] "Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you shall eat or what you shall drink, nor about your body, what you shall put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?
***
[34] "Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Let the day's own trouble be sufficient for the day.
This is Priestly and it comes from someone who has witnessed his mentor and Priest Crucified in battles with the State. It mirrors Ecclesiastes, bitterness and all. We know this because of verses 10 and 20 - "Kingdom of Heaven" is a Transvalued term. We should see that this is not some "Somewhere-Over-the-Rainbow" place. It will be seen that "Realm of Heaven" (Moffatt trans.) is a Real, Physical Place.
This is how far we have to go to revise our (Transvalued) thought.
4.If this is a Story, it must have a beginning. Where to start? This might work:
Luke 9: 51 -62 (RSV):
[51] When the days drew near for him to be received up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem.
[52] And he sent messengers ahead of him, who went and entered a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him;
[53] but the people would not receive him, because his face was set toward Jerusalem.
[54] And when his disciples James and John saw it, they said, "Lord, do you want us to bid fire come down from heaven and consume them?"
[55] But he turned and rebuked them.
[56] And they went on to another village.
[57] As they were going along the road, a man said to him, "I will follow you wherever you go."
[58] And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head."
[59] To another he said, "Follow me." But he said, "Lord, let me first go and bury my father."
[60] But he said to him, "Leave the dead to bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God."
[61] Another said, "I will follow you, Lord; but let me first say farewell to those at my home."
[62] Jesus said to him, "No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God."
Verse 51 has been "breathed on" slightly here. We are invited to think of "Jesus" getting ready to go to his death - "received up" is awkward, not to 2000 years of accepted commentary but we are undoing some of this Transvalued material and here is a good place to start. I understand that "...set his face to Jerusalem" is a Semiticism. There must be more linguistix to "the people would not receive him" relating this to "set his face to Jerusalem". It is a Samaritan village which locates this geographically MOL.
Verse 54 is interesting. Who would say, "Lord, do you want us to bid fire come down from heaven and consume them?"? That would be children and to see this requires some cross-references:
Mark 13: 27 (RSV):
[27] And then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.
This verse, BTW, is in the middle of some heavy-duty Constructions. The point, however, is that these are children and they must be there for what is expected. This is because of what we will begin to see in the verses that follow.
This is 12 years after the Conflagration of 4 BCE.
Mark 1: 23 - 24 (RSV):
[23] And immediately there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit;
[24] and he cried out, "What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God."
"What have you to do with us?". This is looking back. 12 years. "Have you come to destroy us?" REMEMBER: Un-Transvalue this!!! These people KNOW who this guy is. "You think we're the same people?!??" Short answer: Yes, they are.
The character "Peter" was a child at the Temple Slaughter of 4 BCE, probably between 8/9 to 12 years old. He is now 12 years older. Peter saved the Priest "through a miracle" and the Priest is now marching on Jerusalem at the insistence of Jairus 12 years later.
There are 2 Stories that have been rewritten and compressed into one.
The Priest is obsessed with obtaining a repetition of the Event that occurred 12 years earlier. Peter, a child, saved the Priest those 12 years ago and children will be required for the Fulfillment of what should come next. "This time will be different."
What follows in verses 56 - 58 strikes me as Authentic Dialogue from somewhere. There exists at least one person who accepts what is about to happen and is OK with it. If it weren't so Tragic it would be fun. Then we get to Those Who Know what is to happen.
59 - 61 lists the excuses of Those Who Know. "We have supported you these 12 years but we're really not in the mood to get murdered right now. I gotta root canal surgery scheduled and I can't miss it, ya' know?" The Transvalued understanding reads about the same: "I'd love to help but..."
AS we move forward, come back to this and see if the unvarnished assertions made have been answered with reasons that are Plausible for an Un-Transvalued Story. I believe that the 10 maids in Matthew 25 and the "Watch" Sequence in Mark ARE telling the same Story. Some of this Story is told from a vantage point 12 years later - at a "Second" Crucifixion.
Thnx,
CW
BTW, Ben, Yes, "Sleep" is used a lot as a cover for "Death" but in describing a specific stoning, the distance required to "objectify" it may come later. "We liquidated the Kulaks" covers a lot but Solzhenitzyn took it a little more personally. Euphemisms. Move on, CW.
2. I still owe Ben a Plausible Start on a Non-Transvalued Story that could be seen as a Jewish Story that was ripped apart and rewritten. The Story may have been written by people such as Nicholas of Damascus or Mucianus or other Roman Functionaries, probably at Caesarea. Side Note: If the Story was written by NoD, M or others (Mucianus was HIGHLY efficient at functioning in Greek) then the Greek Thesis of the complete NT should be verified. If it was a "stolen" Jewish Story then another layer of production should have occurred and be apparent. The Greekies are convinced. The Aramaicists are convinced. I will start. I will also attempt to rewrite my own rewrites in the hope that this time I can make it more readable and acceptable to others
3. Some Rules for Understanding the Construction: If there was a Story that was "Stolen and Rewritten" for a New Religion [no matter the source] , I have used the term "Transvaluation" often to describe this and I think it is appropriately used. The purpose of this exercise is to Un-Transvalue many of the Set Pieces (esp. in Mark) and try to understand them in their time. This means that, to the people in the Stories, there was no "Father, Son and Holy Spirit". There was No Perception that there could have been such a thing. God gave the acceptable Forms of Worship in the Form of the Priesthood and there was no reason to believe otherwise:
Matthew 5: 10, 20. 6: 25 and 34 (RSV):
[10] "Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
***
[20] For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
***
[25] "Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you shall eat or what you shall drink, nor about your body, what you shall put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?
***
[34] "Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Let the day's own trouble be sufficient for the day.
This is Priestly and it comes from someone who has witnessed his mentor and Priest Crucified in battles with the State. It mirrors Ecclesiastes, bitterness and all. We know this because of verses 10 and 20 - "Kingdom of Heaven" is a Transvalued term. We should see that this is not some "Somewhere-Over-the-Rainbow" place. It will be seen that "Realm of Heaven" (Moffatt trans.) is a Real, Physical Place.
This is how far we have to go to revise our (Transvalued) thought.
4.If this is a Story, it must have a beginning. Where to start? This might work:
Luke 9: 51 -62 (RSV):
[51] When the days drew near for him to be received up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem.
[52] And he sent messengers ahead of him, who went and entered a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him;
[53] but the people would not receive him, because his face was set toward Jerusalem.
[54] And when his disciples James and John saw it, they said, "Lord, do you want us to bid fire come down from heaven and consume them?"
[55] But he turned and rebuked them.
[56] And they went on to another village.
[57] As they were going along the road, a man said to him, "I will follow you wherever you go."
[58] And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head."
[59] To another he said, "Follow me." But he said, "Lord, let me first go and bury my father."
[60] But he said to him, "Leave the dead to bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God."
[61] Another said, "I will follow you, Lord; but let me first say farewell to those at my home."
[62] Jesus said to him, "No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God."
Verse 51 has been "breathed on" slightly here. We are invited to think of "Jesus" getting ready to go to his death - "received up" is awkward, not to 2000 years of accepted commentary but we are undoing some of this Transvalued material and here is a good place to start. I understand that "...set his face to Jerusalem" is a Semiticism. There must be more linguistix to "the people would not receive him" relating this to "set his face to Jerusalem". It is a Samaritan village which locates this geographically MOL.
Verse 54 is interesting. Who would say, "Lord, do you want us to bid fire come down from heaven and consume them?"? That would be children and to see this requires some cross-references:
Mark 13: 27 (RSV):
[27] And then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.
This verse, BTW, is in the middle of some heavy-duty Constructions. The point, however, is that these are children and they must be there for what is expected. This is because of what we will begin to see in the verses that follow.
This is 12 years after the Conflagration of 4 BCE.
Mark 1: 23 - 24 (RSV):
[23] And immediately there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit;
[24] and he cried out, "What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God."
"What have you to do with us?". This is looking back. 12 years. "Have you come to destroy us?" REMEMBER: Un-Transvalue this!!! These people KNOW who this guy is. "You think we're the same people?!??" Short answer: Yes, they are.
The character "Peter" was a child at the Temple Slaughter of 4 BCE, probably between 8/9 to 12 years old. He is now 12 years older. Peter saved the Priest "through a miracle" and the Priest is now marching on Jerusalem at the insistence of Jairus 12 years later.
There are 2 Stories that have been rewritten and compressed into one.
The Priest is obsessed with obtaining a repetition of the Event that occurred 12 years earlier. Peter, a child, saved the Priest those 12 years ago and children will be required for the Fulfillment of what should come next. "This time will be different."
What follows in verses 56 - 58 strikes me as Authentic Dialogue from somewhere. There exists at least one person who accepts what is about to happen and is OK with it. If it weren't so Tragic it would be fun. Then we get to Those Who Know what is to happen.
59 - 61 lists the excuses of Those Who Know. "We have supported you these 12 years but we're really not in the mood to get murdered right now. I gotta root canal surgery scheduled and I can't miss it, ya' know?" The Transvalued understanding reads about the same: "I'd love to help but..."
AS we move forward, come back to this and see if the unvarnished assertions made have been answered with reasons that are Plausible for an Un-Transvalued Story. I believe that the 10 maids in Matthew 25 and the "Watch" Sequence in Mark ARE telling the same Story. Some of this Story is told from a vantage point 12 years later - at a "Second" Crucifixion.
Thnx,
CW