Richard Richmond wrote:
> I did not suggest that the reference to Satan was
Never said you did.
> The subject of the post was the use of META and
> SUV to patch in additional material.
But you've not demonstrated that this is what is done in GMark with the
use of META and/or SUN.
> I did not say the
> phrase had no meaning. On the contrary it had to have
> meaning for the person/s who decided to put it into
> the text. My point is that the one responsible does
> not follow the style of the writer with respect to use
> of� a similar word or phrase.
But you have not demonstrated that using words only once is contrary to
> If Mark intended the
> statement about the �wild beasts� there would have
> been a point in the flow or the narrative not just the
> Old Testament� allusions.
And if you'd actually looked at the theme of "being with wild beasts and
ministering angels" that appears and is prominent in T.Iss. 7.7,�
T.Benj. 5:2, and T. Naph. 8.4, you'd see that there most certainly
**is** a point to Mark's taking it up that most certainly fits in with
the Markan story of Jesus' "testing" of his faithfulness in the
Fess up now. You haven't read these texts, have you? -- or the published
discussions of Mk 1:13b by Allison or Garrett or Best or Bauckham or
France or van Henten or Gibson? In fact,� given your reference to them
below (i.e. you refer to them as "other documents"), I suspect that you
are not really certain what they are.
> Take for example the other
> elements in the verse. The desert is a reoccurring
> scene and theme. Likewise Satan is a reoccurring word
> and theme in the text of Mark. Wild Beasts however, is
> not in keeping with Mark�s repetitive style. It sticks
> out like a sore thumb and reads like an afterthought.
> We have several examples of Satan�s activity in the
> narrative but now example of wild beasts. The text
> reads perfectly well without it.
> I conclude therefore
> that it is at best, doubtful as to authenticity.
> In addition to all of that, you seem to be straining
> to find wild beasts in the Old Testament and other
> documents to make a case for Mark using the word.
As I've noted before, if you had actually read T.Iss. 7.7, T.Benj. 5:2,
and T. Naph. 8.4, I don't see how you could be making this claim.� So
again I ask, have you read these texts?
> effect you are making a case for those who opposed
> Mark as the ones responsible for making the change
> So I would say we have a good case for proposing that
> it was the Cephas faction which produced the Gospel of
> Matthew, was at work editing the text of Mark at 1:13.
> I am feeling much more convinced now that it is in
> fact an interpolation.
Curious isn't it, that anyone from a pro Petrine camp would interpolate
Mk. 1:13b allegedly to make Mark more pro Petrine, but leave untouched
the rather scathing rebuke of Peter in Mk. 8:33 and the other material
later on in the Gospel that is embarrassing to Peter.
It's also curious that in� order to maintain your theses that Mark was
edited at Mk. 1:13b by a pro petrine editor AND that the point of the
editing would be clear to all who read the edited version of GMark, you
not only have to assume that the audience of the edited GMark would
already know GMatthew and the references in GMatthew that you appeal to
for your case (otherwise how would they -- or for that matter **you** --
get the point that Mk. 1:13b somehow makes GMark pro petrine?), you have
to posit� a rather clumsy and thoroughly incompetent editor.
Don't buy it at all.
> Rick Richmond rickr2889@...
> Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
> Synoptic-L homepage: http://NTGateway.com/synoptic-l
> SPONSORED LINKS
Bible study tool Bible study
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> + �Visit your group "Synoptic" on the web.
> + �To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> + �Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
Chicago, IL 60626
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]