Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
'In that moment' or 'A new one'
#1
In John 1:29, we read that John the Baptist saw Yahshua walking toward him the day after the baptism. Yet in Mark 1:12 it is commonly translated that Yahshua departed to the wilderness ?immediately? after the baptism. Relying on translations, some people have claimed there is conflict here. But in the Aramaic Peshitta there is no conflict ? in Aramaic I took time to read every occurrence of the operative word here mKhda in the gospel of John and gospel of Mark, and also the gospel of Matthew for good measure ? there is no conflict in Aramaic between Mark 1:12 and John 1:29.

To read Mark 1:12 and John 1:29 without conflict, one reads this Aramaic word mKhda from its root Khda meaning ?one? or ?new?. Indeed, to say ?immediately? or ?the next moment? or "in that moment" in Aramaic, there is a better phrase - br ShEaThh (see e.g., Matthew 21:20, John 13:30). To prove this point that mKhda is a more complex word than the English ?immediately?, read especially the natural flow in John 13:32 emphasizing the oneness of Yahshua with his Father. The term (mKhda) really emphasizes the idea of one new moment of spacetime ? depending on the context in which mKhda appears. Look at every example of this word in the gospel of Matthew to see how fluidity in spacetime or a new something is represented:
  • one day (i.e., one rotation) --- Matthew 24:29 (mKhda in relation to yumTha (?days?)), Matthew 24:32 (mKhda in relation to mta (?summer?)).

    one second/minute/hour (i.e., immediately or soon) --- Matthew 3:16, Matthew 4:20, Matthew 4:22, Matthew 5:28, Matthew 8:32, Matthew 14:22, Matthew 21:2-3, Matthew 21:19, Matthew 25:15, Matthew 26:49, Matthew 27:51.

Also in Mark, the mKhda need not translate as ?immediately? where the context paints a broader picture, as in these passages: Mark 1:21, Mark 1:28, Mark 4:15, Mark 4:16 (a seed does not sprout seminal roots instantaneously), Mark 4:29, Mark 15:1 (mKhda in relation to bTspra (?in the morning?) emphasizes the new day/rotation).

And in yet another way to resolve the apparent translation conflict, the mKhda in Mark 1:12 emphasizes Yahshua?s oneness with the spirit he just received. Just as when Yahshua comes out of the baptism water mKhda, the idea of mKhda is a new rotation, a new beginning of something.

Still other resolutions to the apparent conflict are: (1) John the Baptist was already in the wilderness baptizing, so it would be natural for him to see Yahshua in that same wilderness coming toward him, and (2) the wilderness is described spiritually in Mark 1:12.

In each of these resolutions above, the apparent conflict resolves itself through perspective on the word mKhda ? the primary idea is that after the baptism Yahshua was transformed in such a way that it made sense to describe his state of being as ?in the wilderness? in both a spiritual sense and a physical sense.

Before finishing this post, I?d also like to point out the similarity of the phrase br ShEaThh (?immediately?) with braShyTh (?in the beginning?), the first letters of the bible. In the study of mKhda u br ShEaThh, expect multiple meanings and layered symbolism.

[Image: clock-sharp-edge.jpg]
Reply
#2
godparticle Wrote:John 1:29 occurred after Jesus had returned from the desert. As also it says in John 1:32 I have beheld the Spirit coming down on him as a dove (past tense), referring to when John baptized Jesus over 40 days earlier in the days preceding. No conflict whatsoever.

This quoted section of your response above is a key alternate possibility to add to the list in the original post, thank you. I think it helps to watch the assumption though whether John 1:32-34 is describing a different conversation/day than John 1:29-31 -- given that John 1:35 begins with the words ulyuma aKhrna ("and another day"). But regardless of that assumption, if you're correct that John 1:28 is not describing the baptism, then the possibility you describe would be likely for the past tense reason (which is present in Aramaic too). So the possibility that you described is yet another possibility on the list that remains valid in Aramaic, no conflict. But if John 1:28 is describing the baptism event (as I assumed too confidently), then the analysis above about the word mKhda would remain useful to John 1:28 and would resolve that conflict with Mark 1:12 (whereas in most/all translations the conflict with Mark 1:12 would remain).

So what's happened here in this post is just an analysis of the different possibilities for readers to consider, and each one has a remedy in Aramaic. You can't say the same thing about all possibilities in the translations. So for the avoidance of doubt -- there is no flaw stated in the Aramaic text, but rather the issue was my failure to document each possibility in my original post. Your response post helped remedy that by adding another key possibility, which readers will see further supports Aramaic for the reasons I've just described. (Incidentally, I also thought the original post provided a useful discussion of the word mKhda generally).

I gather that other forum members have had issues with your posts involving unprovoked insults. That may be common in some places on the internet, but it doesn't have to be that way here. If a new beginning is possible within you to be more humble and civil mKhda, I think that would be positive. Alternatively, it is beneficial lKhyuTha to see plainly the character dKhyuTha aKhrna.
Reply
#3
Godparticle, quit being a bully. I'm personally getting sick of seeing you attacking us and our beliefs. We're doing harm to no one. If you have nothing more to contribute to the forum than insults, why do you even bother writing on here?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)