Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [XTalk] ANQRWPOI in the Gospel of Mark

Expand Messages
  • Horace Jeffery Hodges
    I m writing this from my home computer and thus can t be as specific as I d like to be. Anyway, could the reference to Satan play upon its meaning as
    Message 1 of 16 , Oct 2, 2003
      I'm writing this from my home computer and thus can't
      be as specific as I'd like to be.

      Anyway, could the reference to Satan play upon its
      meaning as adversary? The impure spirits in Mark
      encounter Jesus as one who has come to destroy them.
      They, in turn, wish to destroy him (though without
      really having the power to do so). Those who crucify
      Jesus would thus be on the side of the impure spirits
      -- and recall that when the Pharisees accuse Jesus of
      casting out impure spirits by the power of Beelzebub,
      Jesus responds by turning the charge on them and
      accusing them of (unforgivably) blaspheming the Holy
      Spirit.

      There is a Markan tendency, perhaps, to divide the
      world into two camps -- those with the impure
      adversary and those with the Holy One of God (which
      draws upon the conflict between holiness and
      impurity).

      Does Mark present "men," generally, as God's
      adversaries? That might make the link between Satan
      and "men."

      I'm not sure if this moves you in the direction that
      you would like to go, but it might spur some ideas.

      Jeffery Hodges

      =====
      Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges (Inv.) [Ph.D., U.C. Berkeley]
      Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
      447-791 Kyunggido, Osan-City
      Yangsandong 411
      South Korea

      __________________________________
      Do you Yahoo!?
      The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
      http://shopping.yahoo.com
    • Stephen C. Carlson
      ... It seems like a tough case to make. I d rather attempt to connect 8:33 with 10:27 because both contrast God with humans. Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C.
      Message 2 of 16 , Oct 3, 2003
        At 02:43 PM 10/2/03 -0500, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:
        >At Mark 8:33 Mark has Jesus rebuke Peter and call him Satan because
        >Peter has shown himself with respect to his disdain for a Messiah who
        >suffers to be thinking the things of "men" (FRONEIS... TA TWN ANQRWPWN).
        >
        >I am toying with an idea that that there is a link in Mark between
        >"thinking the things of men" and "thinking as do the Markan enemies of
        >Jesus" especially the Temple Aristocracy.
        >
        >But is there?
        >
        >What if anything is there in Mark's Gospel that might
        >support the idea that for Mark the term ANQRWPOI is a reference to, or
        >a cipher for, or in some way synonymous with, the Jewish leaders who,
        >according to Mark, oppose Jesus?

        It seems like a tough case to make. I'd rather attempt to connect
        8:33 with 10:27 because both contrast God with humans.

        Stephen Carlson
        --
        Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
        Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
        "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
      • Rbsads@aol.com
        In a message dated 10/2/03 3:42:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ... Dear Jeffery, I am not a regular contributor and generally not qualified to make much
        Message 3 of 16 , Oct 3, 2003
          In a message dated 10/2/03 3:42:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
          jgibson000@... writes:

          > What if anything is there in Mark's Gospel that might
          > support the idea that for Mark the term ANQRWPOI is a reference to, or
          > a cipher for, or in some way synonymous with, the Jewish leaders who,
          > according to Mark, oppose Jesus?
          >
          >

          Dear Jeffery,

          I am not a regular contributor and generally not qualified to make much
          contribution to this list, but it seems to me that TA TWN ANQRWPWN is explained in
          Jesus' comments to the crowd in the subsequent verses. The things of God
          involve sacrifice of own life for the goal of following, for the goal of
          discipleship.

          That would make TA TWN ANQRWPWN to be something like the pursuit of own life
          at the expense of discipleship. Such might very well describe Jesus' view of
          the Jewish leadership, but I don't think it describes them exclusively as a
          distinct group of ANQRWPOUS.

          As an aside thought, it has often seemed to me that UPAGE OPISW MOU is less
          of a rebuke for Satan to go away, as it is a command for the Satan in Peter to
          follow Jesus, a command to discipleship. I can find no other instance of
          UPAGE OPISW used as anything other than as a call to follow.

          Peace,

          Richard Smith
          Chattanooga, TN


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Horace Jeffery Hodges
          Rbsads@aol.com wrote: You mean Jeffrey Gibson, not me. Jeffery Hodges ===== Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges (Inv.) [Ph.D., U.C. Berkeley]
          Message 4 of 16 , Oct 3, 2003
            Rbsads@... wrote:

            <Dear Jeffery>

            You mean "Jeffrey" Gibson, not me.

            Jeffery Hodges

            =====
            Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges (Inv.) [Ph.D., U.C. Berkeley]
            Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
            447-791 Kyunggido, Osan-City
            Yangsandong 411
            South Korea

            __________________________________
            Do you Yahoo!?
            The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
            http://shopping.yahoo.com
          • Horace Jeffery Hodges
            Here s an noteworthy article for our amusement: http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_778195.html Two Romanian astronomers, Liviu Mircea and Tiberiu Oproiu,
            Message 5 of 16 , Oct 9, 2003
              Here's an 'noteworthy' article for our amusement:

              http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_778195.html

              Two Romanian astronomers, "Liviu Mircea and Tiberiu
              Oproiu, . . . say Jesus died at 3pm on Friday, April
              3, 33 AD, and rose again at 4am on Sunday, April 5."

              Take their views with a grain of salt since they date
              the crucifixion/resurrection to the year 33 by noting
              that Jesus died at the time of a full moon (of course
              -- it was Passover!) and that there was a solar
              eclipse in 33 (perhaps so -- but not possible during a
              full moon, so their logic immediately fails).

              How professional can such astronomers be? (Besides,
              hasn't this sort of thing already been suggested and
              rejected for the same reason?)

              Jeffery Hodges

              =====
              Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges (Inv.) [Ph.D., U.C. Berkeley]
              Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
              447-791 Kyunggido, Osan-City
              Yangsandong 411
              South Korea

              __________________________________
              Do you Yahoo!?
              The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
              http://shopping.yahoo.com
            • Stephen C. Carlson
              ... They didn t do what Hoehner already did and better. If you take John s chronology, then 30, 33, and 36 are viable years (for some reason, Mircea and Oproiu
              Message 6 of 16 , Oct 10, 2003
                At 01:06 AM 10/9/03 -0700, Horace Jeffery Hodges wrote:
                >Here's an 'noteworthy' article for our amusement:
                >
                >http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_778195.html
                >
                >Two Romanian astronomers, "Liviu Mircea and Tiberiu
                >Oproiu, . . . say Jesus died at 3pm on Friday, April
                >3, 33 AD, and rose again at 4am on Sunday, April 5."
                >
                >Take their views with a grain of salt since they date
                >the crucifixion/resurrection to the year 33 by noting
                >that Jesus died at the time of a full moon (of course
                >-- it was Passover!) and that there was a solar
                >eclipse in 33 (perhaps so -- but not possible during a
                >full moon, so their logic immediately fails).
                >
                >How professional can such astronomers be? (Besides,
                >hasn't this sort of thing already been suggested and
                >rejected for the same reason?)

                They didn't do what Hoehner already did and better.
                If you take John's chronology, then 30, 33, and 36
                are viable years (for some reason, Mircea and
                Oproiu didn't extend to 36).

                There usually is one total solar eclipse somewhere on
                the globe a year, but many are over an ocean or other
                non-inhabited area. For example, the next total eclipse
                will occur on November 23, 2003, but you have to be in
                Antarctica to appreciate it first hand.

                There was a total eclipe on March 19, 33, but it was
                visible only in the southern Indian ocean. Here's a
                link to the map:

                http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhistory/SEplot/SE0033Mar19T.gif.

                A total solar eclipse visible in Syria (and a partial
                visible in Jerusalem) occurred on November 24, 29. Here
                is a map:

                http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhistory/SEplot/SE0029Nov24T-2.gif

                Stephen Carlson
                --
                Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
              • Liz Fried
                I haven t been following this thread, so forgive me if someone already mentioned it, but Leo Depuydt has an interesting article dating Jesus ministry
                Message 7 of 16 , Oct 10, 2003
                  I haven't been following this thread, so forgive me if someone
                  already mentioned it, but Leo Depuydt has an interesting article
                  dating Jesus' ministry (beginning and end). He dates it to one
                  year 29-30. The article is in JAOS 122 2002.
                  Liz Fried
                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Stephen C. Carlson [mailto:scarlson@...]
                  Sent: Fri, October 10, 2003 3:25 AM
                  To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com; crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: [XTalk] Crucifixion/Resurrection Dated


                  At 01:06 AM 10/9/03 -0700, Horace Jeffery Hodges wrote:
                  >Here's an 'noteworthy' article for our amusement:
                  >
                  >http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_778195.html
                  >
                  >Two Romanian astronomers, "Liviu Mircea and Tiberiu
                  >Oproiu, . . . say Jesus died at 3pm on Friday, April
                  >3, 33 AD, and rose again at 4am on Sunday, April 5."
                  >
                  >Take their views with a grain of salt since they date
                  >the crucifixion/resurrection to the year 33 by noting
                  >that Jesus died at the time of a full moon (of course
                  >-- it was Passover!) and that there was a solar
                  >eclipse in 33 (perhaps so -- but not possible during a
                  >full moon, so their logic immediately fails).
                  >
                  >How professional can such astronomers be? (Besides,
                  >hasn't this sort of thing already been suggested and
                  >rejected for the same reason?)

                  They didn't do what Hoehner already did and better.
                  If you take John's chronology, then 30, 33, and 36
                  are viable years (for some reason, Mircea and
                  Oproiu didn't extend to 36).

                  There usually is one total solar eclipse somewhere on
                  the globe a year, but many are over an ocean or other
                  non-inhabited area. For example, the next total eclipse
                  will occur on November 23, 2003, but you have to be in
                  Antarctica to appreciate it first hand.

                  There was a total eclipe on March 19, 33, but it was
                  visible only in the southern Indian ocean. Here's a
                  link to the map:

                  http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhistory/SEplot/SE0033Mar19T.gif.

                  A total solar eclipse visible in Syria (and a partial
                  visible in Jerusalem) occurred on November 24, 29. Here
                  is a map:

                  http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhistory/SEplot/SE0029Nov24T-2.gif

                  Stephen Carlson
                  --
                  Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                  Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                  "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35


                  Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                  ADVERTISEMENT




                  The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/

                  To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
                  crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

                  To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                  List managers may be contacted directly at:
                  crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com



                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Karel Hanhart
                  ... From: Jeffrey B. Gibson To: Crosstalk2 Cc: Kata Markon ; Synoptic-L
                  Message 8 of 16 , Oct 10, 2003
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: Jeffrey B. Gibson <jgibson000@...>
                    To: Crosstalk2 <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
                    Cc: Kata Markon <gmark@...>; Synoptic-L
                    <Synoptic-L@...>
                    Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 9:43 PM
                    Subject: [XTalk] ANQRWPOI in the Gospel of Mark


                    > What if anything is there in Mark's Gospel that might
                    > support the idea that for Mark the term ANQRWPOI is a reference to, or
                    > a cipher for, or in some way synonymous with, the Jewish leaders who,
                    > according to Mark, oppose Jesus?

                    > jgibson000@...

                    This important question is a difficult one to answer. Jeffrey's
                    startingpoint is, - rightly I think -, Peter's disdain for a suffering
                    Messiah.
                    I believe we can be more precise. Peter's thinking regards 'ta twn
                    anthrwpwn' which stands in immediate contrast to 'ho huios tou anthrwpou',
                    the word 'anthrwpos' creating the parallel. The 'huios tou anthrwopou'
                    (note
                    the arresting article: the 'son of THE man) apparently does NOT think 'ta
                    twn anthrwpwn'.
                    Peter is unwilling to accept the inevitable, that the 'huios tou
                    anthrwpou' MUST suffer. This 'dei' (must) is paradoxical. For Peter's
                    reaction is a rational, human one, hence 'TA TWN ANTHRWPWN'. The saying that
                    the Godsent eschatological 'huios TOU ANTHRWPOU' (the Human One) must
                    suffer, die and rise is therefore self-contradictory. As Carlson underlined,
                    "for humans it is impossible". Yet this suffering and death is within the
                    council
                    of God and therefore the predictions end with an humanly impossible ",,,and
                    after three days rise again".
                    So Jeffrey's question is intimately related to this enigmatic
                    eschatological 'Human One' (Son of Man) in the Gospel.
                    In the term 'ho huios tou anthrwpou' two biblical concepts are combined.
                    (a) The strange article in 'the son of THE
                    man' refers to Adam before the fall in the Genesis story. Adam is named in
                    the LXX 'ho anthrwpos', untill the Fall.After ther Fall the name Adam
                    appears
                    (Joel Marcus). (b) In the Gospel the expression 'ho huios tou anthrwpou'
                    clearly refers to Dan 7,13. Note f.i. Jesus' confession before Caiaphas in
                    Mk 14 and the 'desolating sacrilege' in 13,14.

                    In Daniel the 'bar nasj' is a collective term, refering (a) to a
                    Messianic.redeemer 'like Adam' , a Human One, to whom all dominion will be
                    given in the near future and (b) the 'saints of the Most High' who will
                    share in this dominion. Thus in the passion predictions Jesus does not say
                    "I" must suffer but the "Human One" must suffer. Mark rewrote a Passover
                    Haggadah, a tragic/victorious story, in which key events in Israel's history
                    of the past four decades, including persecution of the apostles, mission
                    among the Gentiles and the fall of Jerusalem -, are referred to in light of
                    the ministry of the Baptist and of the ministry and passion of Messiah
                    Jesus. Mark chose the form of a Greek national tragedy, but its content is a
                    Judean pass-over narrative. In Daniel 7 the God sent Messiah, the 'Human
                    One', is promised in spite of the four worldpowers that like ferocious
                    creatures dominated and at times persecuted the people: Egypt,
                    Babylon/Persia, burgeoning Rome and Hellenic Syria. The
                    Maccabean victory greatly enhanced this pre-Maccabean prophecy with its
                    parousia expectation of justice and glory. This apocalyptic prophecy was
                    still much alive as Judean apocalyptic literature demonstrates. Mark 8,38
                    testifies that the Jesus of history himself related his ministrry to the
                    coming of the Human One. In Dan 7,13ff this 'Human One', of course, does not
                    suffer.The dominion, the power and the glory will be given this 'Human One'
                    who comes with the clouds. In this seminal messianic vision the burning hope
                    for the appeaance of a Godsent, eschatological 'last Adam' is awakened
                    Now Mark is the first post-70 Christian Judean who introduced the
                    theologoumenon of a SUFFERING last Adam. He was confronted with the
                    breakdown of the imminent parousia expectation. It must be remembered that
                    religion and national political hopes were much more intertwined than is the
                    case in modern nations of the West.
                    Thus Gibson's suggestion may be narrowed down within the framework of Mark's
                    Pass-over Haggadah . Mark had a series of highpriestsn in mind, such as
                    Caiaphas and Matthias, high priest under Herod Agrippa (Acts 12!) who were
                    thinking 'ta twn anthrwpwn' in that .they had
                    condemned Jesus and persecuted the apostles and thus in Mark's mind had
                    brought doom on the entire nation.
                    The triple passion prediction concerning the Human One is Mark's
                    christological theme, as is widely ackowledged (8,31; 9.31; 10,33f). It
                    forms the plot of the haggadah. The passion story later unfolds exactly as
                    predicted by Jesus, along the lines of condemnation,.mocking, spitting,
                    flogging and 'handing over' to the nations (10,33), Now the plural
                    'highpriests' stands out as well as the 'handing over' to the 'nations'
                    (!).The plot does not only refer to the Messiah, but to his people as well
                    during the four decades. The apostles too will drink the cup, they must know
                    that 'no stone will be left on the other'. They should understand that not
                    only the 5000 were fed (Israel), but also the 4000 (the nations).The
                    Haggadah is concentrated on the last passion week told as one terse
                    messianic PASS-OVER story, offfering a theodicy of the 'why' of the
                    crucifixion, the tremple's destruction and the new exile.
                    The key to the 'must' of the suffering last Adam is found in the 'mystery'
                    Rom 11,25, in the letter Paul sent to Rome. Mark had studied it there and
                    referred to it in 4,10-12. The 'hardening of a part of Israel (the
                    highpriests and themple authorities, was necessary and the Huiman One must
                    suffer (dei), sothat the Gentiles may 'come in' . It is this theodicy,
                    adapted from Paul, that Mark as the first Christian Judean put forward to
                    explain the tragedy of the destruction of the Temple and the new Exile.
                    Hence the promise ny the angel, "he will go before you in the Galil
                    ha-goyim'.
                    At the time of the crucifixion, there was only one highpriest , Caiaphas,
                    whom Mark does NOT mention by name. So why the plural? Mark clearly and
                    repeatedly states that highpriests (plural) were responsible. Thus
                    Jeffrey's toying with 'temple authorities' appears to meet Mark's
                    intentions. (As I see it, the highpriets belonging to the 'house of Annas',
                    such as Caiaphas and Matthias under Herod Agrippa (Acts 12!) were
                    historically reponsible for the persecution of Jesus' and his movement).
                  • Horace Jeffery Hodges
                    Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
                    Message 9 of 16 , Oct 10, 2003
                      Stephen C. Carlson wrote:

                      <There was a total eclipe on March 19, 33, but it was
                      visible only in the southern Indian ocean. Here's a
                      link to the map:

                      http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhistory/SEplot/SE0033Mar19T.gif

                      A total solar eclipse visible in Syria (and a partial
                      visible in Jerusalem) occurred on November 24, 29.
                      Here is a map:

                      http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhistory/SEplot/SE0029Nov24T-2.gif>

                      Thanks for these links. I'm ever more impressed by
                      what can be found on the internet.

                      Jeffery Hodges

                      =====
                      Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges (Inv.) [Ph.D., U.C. Berkeley]
                      Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
                      447-791 Kyunggido, Osan-City
                      Yangsandong 411
                      South Korea

                      __________________________________
                      Do you Yahoo!?
                      The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
                      http://shopping.yahoo.com
                    • Steve Black
                      Why are we assuming that this says anything about the date of the crucifixion? Is it not possible that the memory of an eclipse was conflated later with the
                      Message 10 of 16 , Oct 10, 2003
                        Why are we assuming that this says anything about the date of the
                        crucifixion?
                        Is it not possible that the memory of an eclipse was conflated later
                        with the story of the crucifixion?

                        Steve Black
                        Vancouver School of Theology
                        Vancouver, BC
                        Canada
                        ---
                        Heretics have all the fun, that is until they get burnt at the stake...


                        On Friday, October 10, 2003, at 05:21 PM, Horace Jeffery Hodges wrote:

                        > Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
                        >
                        > <There was a total eclipe on March 19, 33, but it was
                        > visible only in the southern Indian ocean. Here's a
                        > link to the map:
                        >
                        > http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhistory/SEplot/SE0033Mar19T.gif
                        >
                        > A total solar eclipse visible in Syria (and a partial
                        > visible in Jerusalem) occurred on November 24, 29.
                        > Here is a map:
                        >
                        > http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhistory/SEplot/SE0029Nov24T-
                        > 2.gif>
                        >
                        > Thanks for these links. I'm ever more impressed by
                        > what can be found on the internet.
                        >
                        > Jeffery Hodges
                        >
                      • Horace Jeffery Hodges
                        Steve Black wrote:
                        Message 11 of 16 , Oct 10, 2003
                          Steve Black wrote:

                          <Why are we assuming that this says anything about the
                          date of the crucifixion? Is it not possible that the
                          memory of an eclipse was conflated later with the
                          story of the crucifixion?>

                          I can't speak for the others, but this was not my
                          assumption. Rather, I was noting some of the flaws in
                          using an eclipse to date the crucifixion since a solar
                          eclipse cannot, ever, occur during Passover.

                          Jeffery Hodges

                          =====
                          Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges (Inv.) [Ph.D., U.C. Berkeley]
                          Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
                          447-791 Kyunggido, Osan-City
                          Yangsandong 411
                          South Korea

                          __________________________________
                          Do you Yahoo!?
                          The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
                          http://shopping.yahoo.com
                        • bobkaster
                          Hello Steve, I remembered an old reference to an eclipse when Jesus died not being possible. Julius Africanus (A.D. 221) cited Thallus (A.D. 52
                          Message 12 of 16 , Oct 11, 2003
                            Hello Steve,
                            I remembered an old reference to an eclipse when Jesus died not being
                            possible. Julius Africanus (A.D. 221) cited Thallus' (A.D. 52
                            non-Christian) explanation of the darkness as being caused by an
                            eclipse. He argued that an eclipse is not possible during a full
                            moon, and Passover always occurs during a full moon.


                            http://www.synaxis.org/ecf/volume06/ECF06IIITHE_EXTANT_FRAGMENTS_OF_THE_F.htm

                            XVIII.(8) On the Circumstances connected with our Saviour's Passion
                            and His Life-giving Resurrection.

                            On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the
                            rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other
                            districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book
                            of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of
                            the sun. For the Hebrews celebrate the passover on the 14th day
                            according to the moon, and the passion of our Saviour fails on the day
                            before the passover; but an eclipse of the sun takes place only when
                            the moon comes under the sun. And it cannot happen at any other time
                            but in the interval between the first day of the new moon and the last
                            of the old, that is, at their junction: how then should an eclipse be
                            supposed to happen when the moon is almost diametrically opposite the
                            sun?

                            Bob Kaster,
                            White Lake, MI

                            --- In crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com, Steve Black <sdblack@t...> wrote:
                            > Why are we assuming that this says anything about the date of the
                            > crucifixion?
                            > Is it not possible that the memory of an eclipse was conflated later
                            > with the story of the crucifixion?
                            >
                            > Steve Black
                            > Vancouver School of Theology
                            > Vancouver, BC
                            > Canada
                            > ---
                            > Heretics have all the fun, that is until they get burnt at the stake...
                            >
                            >
                            > On Friday, October 10, 2003, at 05:21 PM, Horace Jeffery Hodges wrote:
                            >
                            > > Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
                            > >
                            > > <There was a total eclipe on March 19, 33, but it was
                            > > visible only in the southern Indian ocean. Here's a
                            > > link to the map:
                            > >
                            > >
                            http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhistory/SEplot/SE0033Mar19T.gif
                            > >
                            > > A total solar eclipse visible in Syria (and a partial
                            > > visible in Jerusalem) occurred on November 24, 29.
                            > > Here is a map:
                            > >
                            > > http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhistory/SEplot/SE0029Nov24T-
                            > > 2.gif>
                            > >
                            > > Thanks for these links. I'm ever more impressed by
                            > > what can be found on the internet.
                            > >
                            > > Jeffery Hodges
                            > >
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.