Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

beowulf wrote:Who is the Gospel writer that quotes Isa 22?

Isaiah 22:16 and Mark 15:46 have at least verbal parallels.

Isa 22:16
τί σὺ ὧδε, καὶ τί σοί ἐστιν ὧδε, ὅτι ἐλατόμησας σεαυτῷ ὧδε μνημεῖον καὶ ἐποίησας σεαυτῷ ἐν ὑψηλῷ μνημεῖον καὶ ἔγραψας σεαυτῷ ἐν πέτρα σκηνήν;

Mark 15:46
καὶ ἀγοράσας σινδόνα καθελὼν αὐτὸν ἐνείλησεν τῇ σινδόνι καὶ ἔθηκεν αὐτὸν ἐν μνημείῳ ὃ ἦν λελατομημένον ἐκ πέτρας καὶ προσεκύλισεν λίθον ἐπὶ τὴν θύραν τοῦ μνημείου.

The word for "Tomb" (μνημειον) Isaiah has only one other time in Isa 26:19. It reads:

Isa 26:19
The dead shall rise, and they that are in the tombs shall be raised, and they that are in the earth shall rejoice: for the dew from thee is healing to them: but the land of the ungodly shall perish.
ἀναστήσονται οἱ νεκροί, καὶ ἐγερθήσονται οἱ ἐν τοῖς μνημείοις, καὶ εὐφρανθήσονται οἱ ἐν τῇ γῇ· ἡ γὰρ δρόσος ἡ παρὰ σοῦ ἴαμα αὐτοῖς ἐστιν, ἡ δὲ γῆ τῶν ἀσεβῶν πεσεῖται.

It is okay that these parallels for you are a mere coincidence. But I think you should be fair and admit that the assumption is quite possible, that Mark alludes here to Isaiah.

Another clue is Matthew. We know Matthew used Mark and rewrote parts of it. From where did Matthew get his idea to quote Isaiah 22 in having Jesus give Peter the keys of the kingdom and in having the church built upon him? Given his knowledge of Mark and the OT it is quite likely that he was prompted by Mark's allusion to Isaiah 22 in the tomb scene. But of course he changes things. The body had escaped the tomb hewn out of the rock in Mark; Matthew used the same pun to have Christ's body built upon the rock. If -- as I have sometimes wondered and so have a few scholars -- Joseph of Arimathea in Mark is not a noble character but another representative of faithlessness (he came to bury Jesus, an act not consistent with faith in his resurrection and headship of the kingdom for which he waited), then we find another similarity with the Isaiah 22 passage. Isaiah 22 speaks of a transfer of authority just as Mark depicts a promise of Jesus giving special prominence to Peter after the failure of the Jewish leadership.

The fact that Mark uses "monument" for a tomb and not the usual word for grave further suggests he is thinking of something more than just a crass place of burial. The "ecclesia" to be built on this rock is a word taken from the Septuagint and is a signifier of Israel. There is no reason to think of "ecclesia" in the thought of the evangelist as a reference to the church as opposed to Israel. Rather, the word expresses a challenge over who is to be identified as the Israel of the future. The ecclesia of Israel once emanated from or around the Temple; now it is to be built upon that Rock -- so we see the layers of symbolism weaving their layers and allusions of meaning.

Just as Isaiah's priest was to be stripped of authority and cast into a wide space so Peter was to be the foundation of the resurrected ecclesia in a land of the gentiles.

Such speculations are not implausible --- something is certainly happening given the way we know the evangelists Mark (especially) and Matthew loved to play games with words.

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:

beowulf wrote:Who is the Gospel writer that quotes Isa 22?

Isaiah 22:16 and Mark 15:46 have at least verbal parallels.

Isa 22:16
τί σὺ ὧδε, καὶ τί σοί ἐστιν ὧδε, ὅτι ἐλατόμησας σεαυτῷ ὧδε μνημεῖον καὶ ἐποίησας σεαυτῷ ἐν ὑψηλῷ μνημεῖον καὶ ἔγραψας σεαυτῷ ἐν πέτρα σκηνήν;

Mark 15:46
καὶ ἀγοράσας σινδόνα καθελὼν αὐτὸν ἐνείλησεν τῇ σινδόνι καὶ ἔθηκεν αὐτὸν ἐν μνημείῳ ὃ ἦν λελατομημένον ἐκ πέτρας καὶ προσεκύλισεν λίθον ἐπὶ τὴν θύραν τοῦ μνημείου.

The word for "Tomb" (μνημειον) Isaiah has only one other time in Isa 26:19. It reads:

Isa 26:19
The dead shall rise, and they that are in the tombs shall be raised, and they that are in the earth shall rejoice: for the dew from thee is healing to them: but the land of the ungodly shall perish.
ἀναστήσονται οἱ νεκροί, καὶ ἐγερθήσονται οἱ ἐν τοῖς μνημείοις, καὶ εὐφρανθήσονται οἱ ἐν τῇ γῇ· ἡ γὰρ δρόσος ἡ παρὰ σοῦ ἴαμα αὐτοῖς ἐστιν, ἡ δὲ γῆ τῶν ἀσεβῶν πεσεῖται.

It is okay that these parallels for you are a mere coincidence. But I think you should be fair and admit that the assumption is quite possible, that Mark alludes here to Isaiah.

Thank you

Mark 15:46 says that someone was buried in an expensive place reserved for the use of a wealthy family. Isa 22:16 says that Shebna saw his position in the Palace as permanent and was making plans for an aristocratic burial in the place reserved for the ones above him.
Sheol, Hades , the dead ...are often mentioned in ancient literature by unlike cultures.

Linking Mark to Cesar, Antigonus, Zodiac, Homer, Karel ... are all silly stories made up from trivial similarities common to all men and women.

beowulf wrote:Mark 15:46 says that someone was buried in an expensive place reserved for the use of a wealthy family. Isa 22:16 says that Shebna saw his position in the Palace as permanent and was making plans for an aristocratic burial in the place reserved for the ones above him.
Sheol, Hades , the dead ...are often mentioned in ancient literature by unlike cultures.

And? Kudos for at least halfheartedly trying to engage the argument for once, even if most of it consists of assertions again.

You seem to forget that Mark is using Isaiah extensively in his gospel. He already mentions him right at the beginning, and there are enough other parts directly lifted from there. Which means that he was very familiar with all the images used in Isaiah. As Mark chose to end his gospel with an image of an empty tomb, it's quite obvious to ask what he means, given that the very scene relies on other images, like that of the young man. He's working with images in nearly every scene, so the question is more why we would want to take the "empty tomb" at face value.

Which still doesn't rule out that he just meant it that way. You seem to ignore that nobody here says that the allusion to the temple is a done deal. Quite the opposite actually. And as there is no way to actually decide these questions, you can only make a case for how likely a specific interpretation is. That's what this is about.

beowulf wrote:Linking Mark to Cesar, Antigonus, Zodiac, Homer, Karel ... are all silly stories made up from trivial similarities common to all men and women.

That may well be. It's funny though that you put "linking gMark to the OT" into the same basket. Which says something about how valid your comparison actually is, given that the text is using the OT extensively.

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:The more I think about it, the harder it seems to decide whether meant is a spiritual or the historical destruction of the temple or nothing. The way over the OT-allusions seems very promising. We should look at how clearly the OT-allusions may refer to the Jewish War.

I was looking for markan OT-allusions that meet two criteria. The allusion must be clear and the OT-scene must make reference in addition to war, destruction or judgement. The mother of such an allusion is Mark 4:12 - Isaiah 6:9-13. First, I do not want to draw conclusions.

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:I would first check Jeremiah for parallel passages in Mark

It seems that we have only one such significant Jeremiah-allusion: the “den of robbers”.

allusion - Mark 11:17/LXX-Jeremiah 7:11 (direct speech in the temple)

Mark 11:17
And he was teaching them and saying to them, “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers (σπήλαιον λῃστῶν ).”

LXX-Jeremiah 7:11
Is my house, whereon my name is called, a den of robbers (σπήλαιον λῃστῶν) in your eyes?

further topic - destruction of the temple

(LXX-Jeremiah 7:12-14)
For go ye to my place with is in Selo, where I caused my name to dwell before, and see what I did to it because of the wickedness of my people Israel. 13 And now, because ye have done all these deeds, and I spoke to you, but ye hearkened not to me; and I called you, but ye answered not; 14 therefore I also will do to the house whereon my name is called, wherein ye trust, and to the place which I gave to you and to your fathers, as I did to Selo.

little more informations online

Larry Perkins, The Markan Narrative's Use Of The Old Greek Text Of Jeremiah To Explain Israel's Obduracy (pdf)
Sug-Ho Lee, Jan G. Van der Watt, The portrayal of the hardening of the disciples' hearts in Mark 8:14-21

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:It seems that we have only one such significant Jeremiah-allusion: the “den of robbers”.

Indeed. Here it's about the judgment over Ephraim/Israel and the destruction of the temple at Shilo. The flanking "fig tree" story would do the same by the way (at least the Ephraim/Israel part), but this time it's Hosea's version. The latter is much more obscure, though, and we have talked about it already.

I will read the linked articles later on.

Edit: Okay, I read the articles. The first one is a very nice summary of all the direct quotations and allusions to Jeremiah in Mark. All in all, it makes theme that most of the center of the gospel sets up the destruction scene very likely. The article doesn't even touch the elements of other prophets, besides a few mentions of Daniel. The second article touches also on this subject, but is mostly an apologetic treatise regarding the apostles. Personally, I wouldn't go as far as the author, but I agree to the "not all is lost" outlook in the gospel.

beowulf wrote:
Linking Mark to . . . Homer, Karel ... are all silly stories made up from trivial similarities common to all men and women.

Baloney. You have evidently never studied the arguments and are not reading any of them now. It is the very untrivial similarities and uncommon details that are at the core of the arguments.

If you have an argument then make it. Just silly dismissal on the grounds of ignorance isn't a counter-argument. I won't dig in and defend all of McDonald's and Hanhart's points and nor do they -- but you can't just dismiss their entire theses through some prejudice against literary analysis as a tool for understanding ancient texts.

In case there is some antimythicist viscera lurking in your criticism I should point out that McDonald and Hanhart are definitely not mythicists and the arguments I have advanced here are not directed at any mythicist agenda either.

neilgodfrey wrote:

beowulf wrote:
Linking Mark to . . . Homer, Karel ... are all silly stories made up from trivial similarities common to all men and women.

Baloney. You have evidently never studied the arguments and are not reading any of them now. It is the very untrivial similarities and uncommon details that are at the core of the arguments.

If you have an argument then make it. Just silly dismissal on the grounds of ignorance isn't a counter-argument. I won't dig in and defend all of McDonald's and Hanhart's points and nor do they -- but you can't just dismiss their entire theses through some prejudice against literary analysis as a tool for understanding ancient texts.

In case there is some antimythicist viscera lurking in your criticism I should point out that McDonald and Hanhart are definitely not mythicists and the arguments I have advanced here are not directed at any mythicist agenda either.

An accusation of ignorance , from you?????

I have read the tread "Loaves and Fishes".


You are derailing this thread.

beowulf wrote:

neilgodfrey wrote:

beowulf wrote:
Linking Mark to . . . Homer, Karel ... are all silly stories made up from trivial similarities common to all men and women.

Baloney. You have evidently never studied the arguments and are not reading any of them now. It is the very untrivial similarities and uncommon details that are at the core of the arguments.

If you have an argument then make it. Just silly dismissal on the grounds of ignorance isn't a counter-argument. I won't dig in and defend all of McDonald's and Hanhart's points and nor do they -- but you can't just dismiss their entire theses through some prejudice against literary analysis as a tool for understanding ancient texts.

In case there is some antimythicist viscera lurking in your criticism I should point out that McDonald and Hanhart are definitely not mythicists and the arguments I have advanced here are not directed at any mythicist agenda either.

An accusation of ignorance from you?????

I have read the tread "Loaves and Fishes".


You are derailing this thread.

Oh, sorry. I kinda thought that since I have read and engaged in some detail with the arguments of literary analysis, including those from MacDonald and Hanhart, that I knew a little about how they worked and that they were doing anything but comparing trivial things common to all humanity. Guess I was wrong.

I also thought the points I was making were directly pertinent to Mark and the theme of Jews and the destruction of the temple especially since something I had posted about them elsewhere was introduced here for discussion. Sorry for my mistake.

neilgodfrey wrote:sorry. I kinda thought that since I have read and engaged in some detail with the arguments of literary analysis, including those from MacDonald and Hanhart, that I knew a little about how they worked and that they were doing anything but comparing trivial things common to all humanity. Guess I was wrong.

I also thought the points I was making were directly pertinent to Mark and the theme of Jews and the destruction of the temple especially since something I had posted about them elsewhere was introduced here for discussion. Sorry for my mistake.

You are forgiven.