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

META and SUV in Mark

Expand Messages
  • Richard Richmond
    ... that ... narrative. ... text ... narrative. ... strange criterion ... it is ... that says that if he ... once? More ... only once that if ... In any
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 2, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      > 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.

      Jeffrey Gibson wrote:

      > 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.

      I did not suggest that the reference to Satan was
      added. The subject of the post was the use of META and
      SUV to patch in additional material. 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. 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. 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. In
      effect you are making a case for those who opposed
      Mark as the ones responsible for making the change and
      for that I am grateful. You did however, overlook the
      most obvious reference of LXX Psa 73:19 which uses
      the same word in the form QHRIOIS for wild beasts. It
      also relates that word to dove. But it is none the
      less not Mark’s contrast but rather that of his
      opposing factions.

      Your reference to Psalm 91 is in keeping with
      Matthew’s Gospel 4:6 “and said to him, ‘If you are the
      Son of God, throw yourself down; for it is written,
      `He will give his angels charge of you,' and `On their
      hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot
      against a stone.'" which is not a point Mark makes at
      all.

      In the same temptation story according to Matthew
      Jesus said “man does not live by bread alone…” which
      is in direct contrast to Mark who uses seed and bread
      as key representations for the Word of God.

      The people that the disciples are to minister too
      according to Matthew 10:16 are fierce beasts of prey,
      like wolves as the English translations render it.
      Mark on the other hand viewed the crowd as sheep
      without a shepherd; quite a contrast of opinion.

      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.


      Rick Richmond rickr2889@...



      ____________________________________________________
      Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
      http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.