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

[XTalk] Mk.1.4-5

Expand Messages
  • Philip B. Lewis
    What s more, as I pursue this matter further, a good deal of stuff attributed to GMark just ain t so. For example, it is often said uncritically by the most
    Message 1 of 10 , Dec 7, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      What's more, as I pursue this matter further, a good deal of stuff
      attributed to GMark just ain't so. For example, it is often said
      uncritically by the most critical of crosstalkers that Mk.1.2 is a
      conflation of Ex.23.20 and Mal.3.1. The opening phrase is indeed directly
      from Exodus - though its Greek is more like an oral citation than a literal
      copying of the LXX. But search Malachi from kiver to kiver, if you will,
      and see if you find the word KATASXEUASEI (I'm doing it from memory). You
      won't. It just isn't to be found anywhere in the LXX except the Servant
      Poems of Isaiah where it or its cognates renders the Hebrew BARAH.
      "create", etc. It is a word of limited use and is the more meaningful as a
      result.

      IF GMark in any form has been used as a source by the writers of Matt., Lk
      and John, then it is utterly ridiculous to read back into GMark the
      constructions of later Gospels. This is just one of several indicators IMO
      that Mk and Q were contemporaries, with the collector of QA2 material
      borrowing from GMark and Mark borrowing from Q2.

      Philip
    • Nathan McGovern
      ... I doubt it. ... If you re saying that Mark wanted to distinguish between the two, making Jesus the prophet from the north and making John the prophet
      Message 2 of 10 , Dec 7, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        Philip Lewis wrote:

        >Something more than "tradition" is at work here. In large part Mark is
        >insisting that we be aware of the vast difference between John and Jesus.
        >At the same time, he is sketching a Galilean's disdain for Judeans.
        >Whether or not John actually practiced "a baptism of repentance for the
        >forgiveness of sins," or whether Mark has put that construction on the
        >theological viewpoint of "those of John's baptism," may be argued. Did
        >John actually go about dressed in camel skin with a leather girdle?

        I doubt it.

        >Or did
        >Mark deck him out in the prophetic regalia in order to accentuate the
        >differences between Galilean and Judean religious practice?

        If you're saying that Mark wanted to distinguish between the two, making
        Jesus the prophet from the north and making John the prophet Elijah, the
        crusader against northern prophets, then I don't see what you mean. Why
        would Mark (or his source) intend John to be a crusader *against* northern
        apostasy when he is supposedly a messenger preparing the way *for* a
        northerner, Jesus? Maybe I've just misunderstood.

        I think that the reason Mark (or more likely, his source) decks John out in
        camel's hair and a leather belt is that it is very important to him to
        demonstrate that John was Elijah. This was very important in demonstrating
        that Jesus is the Messiah, as it was generally believed that the Messiah
        would be preceded by Elijah.

        Shalom,

        Nathan

        Nathan McGovern
        Franklin and Marshall College
        nm_mcgovern@...
      • Davies
        ... I think it s pretty unlikely that Mark thought it was all that big a deal because Mark never actually mentions it. A line saying John was Elijah would
        Message 3 of 10 , Dec 7, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          Nathan McGovern wrote:
          > I think that the reason Mark (or more likely, his source) decks John out in
          > camel's hair and a leather belt is that it is very important to him to
          > demonstrate that John was Elijah.

          I think it's pretty unlikely that Mark thought it was all that big
          a deal because Mark never actually mentions it. A line saying "John
          was Elijah" would have been a lot more effective, don't you think?

          Steve
        • Jeffrey B. Gibson
          ... But doesn t he do just this in Mk 9, after the transfiguration? Jeffrey -- Jeffrey B. Gibson 7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A Chicago, Illinois 60626 e-mail
          Message 4 of 10 , Dec 7, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            Davies wrote:

            > Nathan McGovern wrote:
            > > I think that the reason Mark (or more likely, his source) decks John out in
            > > camel's hair and a leather belt is that it is very important to him to
            > > demonstrate that John was Elijah.
            >
            > I think it's pretty unlikely that Mark thought it was all that big
            > a deal because Mark never actually mentions it. A line saying "John
            > was Elijah" would have been a lot more effective, don't you think?
            >

            But doesn't he do just this in Mk 9, after the transfiguration?

            Jeffrey


            --
            Jeffrey B. Gibson
            7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
            Chicago, Illinois 60626
            e-mail jgibson000@...
          • Philip B. Lewis
            In his Dec.7 reply to my post on Mk.1.4=5 Nathan McGovern wrote: I think that the reason Mark (or more likely, his source) decks John out in camel s hair and a
            Message 5 of 10 , Dec 8, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              In his Dec.7 reply to my post on Mk.1.4=5 Nathan McGovern wrote:

              I think that the reason Mark (or more likely, his source) decks John out in
              camel's hair and a leather belt is that it is very important to him to
              demonstrate that John was Elijah. This was very important in demonstrating
              that Jesus is the Messiah, as it was generally believed that the Messiah
              would be preceded by Elijah.


              My question, Nathan: Can you substantiate your statement that "it was
              generally believed that the Messiah would be preceded by Elijah"?

              Apart from canonical Gospel accounts (i.e., from Matt.on in the 1st
              century) what evidence is there that there was any general belief that
              Messiah would come after Elijah had prepared the way for him?

              It strikes me that we are always ready to read back later interpretations -
              in this case Matthew's elaborate chacterization - into a preChristian
              historical context. That's as indefensible as treating ALL people of
              semitic extraction as if they were "Jews" and therefore subject to
              explanation as Rabbinical Judaism presents them. After all, there were
              Qumran sectarians, sadducees, pharisees, am ha-aretz folk, Zadokites, etc.
              in the whole complex of Palestinian life. And Richard Horsley has required
              us to try to figure out what Galileans were like.

              Why should anyone appeal to the precedent of Elijah the Tishbite who
              crossed the Jordan into the kingdom of Israel, never setting foot so far as
              I can tell in Judah, to take his stand for God? And is it not significant
              that when John the Baptizer preached it was an audience made up of people
              from Judea and Jerusalem who went out to hear him and repent? That
              Galilean outlander, Jesus, ALSO went to be baptized by John. But he
              appears to have been the exception.

              Is Mark telling us real history as he composes this story which hinges,
              after all as Steve Davies has noted, on the spiritual endowment of Jesus?
              I think so, and respect Mark for telling it as he has.

              Some day we are going to come around aand understand Gospel imagery for
              what it is - imagery that conveys what different individuals visualized as
              the Jesus of history. NONE of the writers had seen him personally. Each
              painted his/her portrait using his own brush.

              Philip

              Philip Lewis, HR Presby Plains & Peaks
              574=B Sawmill Cove
              Cottonwood AZ 86326
            • Jeffrey B. Gibson
              ... But this is not an answer. What is being called for is evidence that shows what you think should be the case, given your assumptions, really **was** the
              Message 6 of 10 , Dec 9, 1999
              • 0 Attachment
                Nathan McGovern wrote:

                > Philip B. Lewis wrote:
                >
                > >My question, Nathan: Can you substantiate your statement that "it was
                > >generally believed that the Messiah would be preceded by Elijah"?
                > >
                > >Apart from canonical Gospel accounts (i.e., from Matt.on in the 1st
                > >century) what evidence is there that there was any general belief that
                > >Messiah would come after Elijah had prepared the way for him?
                >
                > I admit that I can't *prove* that there was a first century belief in
                > Elijah being the messiah's harbinger, but I do know that this is an element
                > of not only Christian, but also Jewish belief. Perhaps someone with more
                > knowledge of the Jewish tradition than myself would be able to prove (or
                > disprove) that this belief had arisen before or during the first century.
                >
                > If I had to guess, however, based on what I do know, I would stick to my
                > statement that there was a belief that the messiah would be preceded by
                > Elijah. The Malachi prophecy rather explicitly states that Elijah will be
                > sent before "the day of the LORD comes." Assuming that "the day of the
                > Lord" would have had messianic connotations to Jewish readers in the first
                > century, it seems reasonable, to me at least, that the passage would have
                > been interpreted to mean that Elijah would precede the messiah.
                >

                But this is not an answer. What is being called for is evidence that shows what
                you think should be the case, given your assumptions, really **was** the case.
                Can you point to any particular text or set of texts from groups or voices
                representative of 1st century points of view which actually show that Malachi was
                interpreted in the way you think it must have been interpreted and/or express the
                belief in an Elijah figure as a forerunner of the Messiah? Does it appear at
                Qumran, in the Pss of Solomon, in any of the testamentary/apocalyptic literature
                contemporary with the NT?

                You say that the idea of "Elijah being the messiah's harbinger" was definitely
                an element of Jewish belief. What is you **textual** evidence that this was
                indeed the case?

                Yours,

                Jeffrey
                --
                Jeffrey B. Gibson
                7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
                Chicago, Illinois 60626
                e-mail jgibson000@...
              • Jack Kilmon
                ... I believe 4QarP states that I shall send you Elijah before.... There may also be a reference to this in CD. I ll check when I get home. Jack --
                Message 7 of 10 , Dec 9, 1999
                • 0 Attachment
                  "Jeffrey B. Gibson" wrote:

                  > Nathan McGovern wrote:
                  >
                  > > Philip B. Lewis wrote:
                  > >
                  > > >My question, Nathan: Can you substantiate your statement that "it was
                  > > >generally believed that the Messiah would be preceded by Elijah"?
                  > > >
                  > > >Apart from canonical Gospel accounts (i.e., from Matt.on in the 1st
                  > > >century) what evidence is there that there was any general belief that
                  > > >Messiah would come after Elijah had prepared the way for him?
                  > >
                  > > I admit that I can't *prove* that there was a first century belief in
                  > > Elijah being the messiah's harbinger, but I do know that this is an element
                  > > of not only Christian, but also Jewish belief. Perhaps someone with more
                  > > knowledge of the Jewish tradition than myself would be able to prove (or
                  > > disprove) that this belief had arisen before or during the first century.
                  > >
                  > > If I had to guess, however, based on what I do know, I would stick to my
                  > > statement that there was a belief that the messiah would be preceded by
                  > > Elijah. The Malachi prophecy rather explicitly states that Elijah will be
                  > > sent before "the day of the LORD comes." Assuming that "the day of the
                  > > Lord" would have had messianic connotations to Jewish readers in the first
                  > > century, it seems reasonable, to me at least, that the passage would have
                  > > been interpreted to mean that Elijah would precede the messiah.
                  > >
                  >
                  > But this is not an answer. What is being called for is evidence that shows what
                  > you think should be the case, given your assumptions, really **was** the case.
                  > Can you point to any particular text or set of texts from groups or voices
                  > representative of 1st century points of view which actually show that Malachi was
                  > interpreted in the way you think it must have been interpreted and/or express the
                  > belief in an Elijah figure as a forerunner of the Messiah? Does it appear at
                  > Qumran, in the Pss of Solomon, in any of the testamentary/apocalyptic literature
                  > contemporary with the NT?
                  >
                  > You say that the idea of "Elijah being the messiah's harbinger" was definitely
                  > an element of Jewish belief. What is you **textual** evidence that this was
                  > indeed the case?

                  I believe 4QarP states that "I shall send you Elijah before...." There may also
                  be a reference to this in CD. I'll check when I get home.

                  Jack

                  --
                  ______________________________________________

                  taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon

                  Jack Kilmon
                  jkilmon@...

                  http://www.historian.net

                  sharing a meal for free.
                  http://www.thehungersite.com/
                • Michael Burer
                  ... may also ... See also Sirach 48:10: Scripture records that you are to come at the appointed time to allay the divine wrath before it erupts in fury, to
                  Message 8 of 10 , Dec 9, 1999
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > I believe 4QarP states that "I shall send you Elijah before...." There
                    may also
                    > be a reference to this in CD. I'll check when I get home.
                    >
                    > Jack

                    See also Sirach 48:10: "Scripture records that you are to come at the
                    appointed time to allay the divine wrath before it erupts in fury, to
                    reconcile father and son, and to restore the tribes of Jacob." Prior context
                    references Elijah and his earthly life directly. Sirach was composed in
                    Hebrew c. 180 BC and translated into Greek c. 132, so this reference is
                    definitely in the ballpark.

                    Michael Burer
                    Ph.D. Student
                    Dallas Theological Seminary
                  • Nathan McGovern
                    ... I admit that I can t *prove* that there was a first century belief in Elijah being the messiah s harbinger, but I do know that this is an element of not
                    Message 9 of 10 , Dec 9, 1999
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Philip B. Lewis wrote:

                      >My question, Nathan: Can you substantiate your statement that "it was
                      >generally believed that the Messiah would be preceded by Elijah"?
                      >
                      >Apart from canonical Gospel accounts (i.e., from Matt.on in the 1st
                      >century) what evidence is there that there was any general belief that
                      >Messiah would come after Elijah had prepared the way for him?

                      I admit that I can't *prove* that there was a first century belief in
                      Elijah being the messiah's harbinger, but I do know that this is an element
                      of not only Christian, but also Jewish belief. Perhaps someone with more
                      knowledge of the Jewish tradition than myself would be able to prove (or
                      disprove) that this belief had arisen before or during the first century.

                      If I had to guess, however, based on what I do know, I would stick to my
                      statement that there was a belief that the messiah would be preceded by
                      Elijah. The Malachi prophecy rather explicitly states that Elijah will be
                      sent before "the day of the LORD comes." Assuming that "the day of the
                      Lord" would have had messianic connotations to Jewish readers in the first
                      century, it seems reasonable, to me at least, that the passage would have
                      been interpreted to mean that Elijah would precede the messiah.

                      Shalom,

                      Nathan

                      Nathan McGovern
                      Franklin and Marshall College
                      nm_mcgovern@...
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.