META and SUV in Mark
> Richard Richmond wrote:that
> > consistent corrections made to a text of Mark
> > pre-dated what we have today.narrative.
> > 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
> > The following are examples.text
> > 1:13 with the wild beats is questionable in the
> > context. QHRIWN does not appear elsewhere in the
> > of Mark and serves no apparent point in thenarrative.
Jeffrey Gibson wrote:
> That a word does not appear elsewhere in GMark is astrange criterion
> for declaring that a verse or phrase which containsit is
> "questionable". Is there some law I am unaware ofthat says that if he
> is going to use a word, he must use it more thanonce? More
> importantly, there are other words that Mark usesonly 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 mewhether your claim that
> the reference to being "with the wild beast" makesno 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 Marks repetitive style. It sticks
out like a sore thumb and reads like an afterthought.
We have several examples of Satans 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 Marks contrast but rather that of his
Your reference to Psalm 91 is in keeping with
Matthews 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
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