Richard Richmond wrote:
> �consistent corrections made to a text of Mark that
> pre-dated what we have today.
> SUV and META emendations to the text or Mark
> At several points in the text of Mark, these two
> prepositions are used to add parties to the narrative.
> The following are examples.
> 1:13 �with the wild beats� is questionable in the
> context. QHRIWN� does not appear elsewhere in the text
> of Mark and serves no apparent point in the narrative.
That a word does not appear elsewhere in GMark is a strange criterion
for declaring that a verse or phrase which contains it is
"questionable".�� Is there some law I am unaware of that says that if he
is going to use a word, he must use it more than once?� More
importantly, there are other words that Mark uses only once that if
excised from the make nonsense of it.
In any event, I suggest that you read the texts of Ps. 91,� T.Iss. 7.7,
T.Benj. 5:2, and T. Naph. 8.4 and then tell me whether your claim that
the reference to being "with the wild beast" makes no apparent sense,
especially in conjunction with the reference in Mk. 1:13b to "angels"
ministering to Jesus and in Mk. 1:13a to the Satan.
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
Chicago, IL 60626
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]