Another Look at Salted / Scattered Mark 9:49

[Burning one]

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

---

There is this similar text in Leviticus 2:13a.

·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,

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

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

---

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