Malachi151

What about Psalm 22?

There are several things which I think undermine the idea that the author only used these types of references in one or two places, but not others.

First of all, the fact that these types of references are used at all in any place indicates that this is something that the author is engaging in.

Secondly, we can see from every reference made in Mark, including the outright quotes, that the text in Mark doesn't exactly match the texts that we have today for the OT.

What the explanation for this is I don't know, but either the copies of the Hebrew scriptures that he had were slightly different from what we have today, or he was partly writing from memory, or he intentionally changed things up a bit.

We know for certain that the author of Mark well versed in Isaiah, Kings, the Psalms, etc., since he definitely quoted lines from these books.

What you are talking about is like saying that just because an author plagiarized two lines from a book by direct quotation, that the other 5 lines that also very close, but not exactly the same, probably were not influenced at all by the chapter next to the chapter that the other directly quoted from.

I mean come on. You don't have a line like the one in Mark 1:6 (John the Baptist) from 2 Kings, and then have another 4 or 5 scenes that are also extremely close to scenes in 2 Kings, but are supposedly unrelated to 2 Kings and not influenced by it.

Also, just look at other quotations, for example:

In very few places, even where the author indicated that he is quoting the scriptures by saying "as it is written", does the text in mark match exactly to the text in our version of the Old Testament.

So, I think that if you are looking for complete and direct word for word matches, and total harmony between all lines in the source text and the Gospel text, then your standards are not appropriate, because that's not how the author was working, or the texts he was working from were too different from ours today.

Also, everything doesn't have to be a total literary allusion in order to show influence.

I think that scenes like those from 2 Kings, a story that the author was obviously familiar with, can show influence even if no text is shared between the potential source scene and the Gospel scene.

I think its a very safe assumption that the author of Mark had read the entirety of the story of Elijah and Elisha, and whether of not he paraphrased the Elisha healing scenes or made direct literary borrowings from them, his story still shows influence from those scenes.

It would be a much different case if I were talking about one scene that was kinda similar, and there were no other similarities in other scenes, and there were no literary allusions, and there were no plot tie in, but that's not the case.

We have a paraphrase of a line that describes JtB as Elijah, we have a plot theme in which JtB has to be recognized as Elijah, we have 2 or 3 other scenes that parallel scenes in the story of Elijah and Elisha from the exact same book that the paraphrase comes from, so to say that, "oh, well maybe the description of JtB was influenced by 2 Kings, and maybe the feeding scene was too, but the healing scene and X or Y other probably weren't, because they don't contain exact word-for-word matches," to me simply doesn't hold any water.

I mean is that supposed to imply that the author read page 1 of 2 Kings, but he didn't read page 2?

Or, do you think that he read all of 2 Kings, but that it had no influence on him when he was writing of the journeys and deeds of Jesus, even though he was clearly trying to draw some parallels between the two stories?

The same exact argument goes for the book of Isaiah, etc.

I mean, its clear that the author had read Isaiah, he quotes from it directly. To think that he quoted directly from Isaiah, but then wasn't influenced by it in other areas, I mean that's a real stretch IMO.

But, in the article I'm pointing out several different things, both direct literary allusions, as well as scriptures that were simply thematically influential.

It is certainly harder to prove that a text was thematically influential, its much easier to prove a direct allusion, but I think that when we are dealing with texts that the author has directly quoted from or made clear literary allusions to in other places, then this certainly bolsters the case.

I don't exactly understand this. He was killed with criminals. The word "grave" is a bit odd, but how would the author of Mark have Jesus put in a grave with criminals and a tomb of a rich guy at the same time? The line itself kinda doesn't make sense, and I suspect that "grave" may be poor wording in the translation.

But again, this also implies that we should only be looking at complete and total compliance with a source scripture in order to consider it an influence, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

I mean look at Psalm 22, this was clearly the basis for the crucifixion scene, yet look at how many lines from Psalm 22 DON'T match with the crucifixion scene.

There are many lines in Psalm 22 that talk about animals encircling or threatening the victim, yet there is no mention of animals in the Gospel narrative. Does that mean that Psalm 22 wasn't the inspiration for the crucifixion scene? No, it just mean that the writer was selective in how he used the scriptures.

renassault

If you're referring to the description of a crucifixion in that psalm, it would be up to you to prove that Psalm 22 was written during a time when crucifixion was a popular form of execution in Judea (it would have to be around 330-200 since a date before then would hardly have had such a practice, although certainly not impossible, and a date after that is unlikely if Qumran has it).

The references which in most examples bear the slightest resemblance, of course aside from the other three?

It would be most likely textual corruption but for the most part they are certainly identifiable.

Specifically the parallel between Mark 1.6 and 2 Kings 1.8 has absolutely nothing else in common. In Mark the story resumes to Jesus' baptism and ministry whereas Herod executes John the Baptist in Mark 7 (he omits the part where the Pharisees call him), whereas in 2 Kings Elijah kills the two captains with their 50 men and the third one asks mercy from him, after which he gets on the fiery chariot. None of your references showed any such very similar 5-6 further lines, only the ones you put in bold, at least from what I've read, and if you don't think so, post the Book Chapter(s) Verses that you think match up.

If you read these three examples you'll see two things: 1) None of them have anything in common except the prophecies in bold and 2)because they are prophecies and not historical narratives in the first place (not even Isaiah and Mark match up, except in the bold, in the third example).


I don't look for word for word; textual dependence can be very clearly established. I will provide an example tomorrow because the book that has such an example (between Moses' birth in Exodus and a later pseudepigraph called the Sefer ha Zikronot). There has to be at least a few things that would point to a revision/redaction: 1) Awkwardness in the text where the author inserted/changed various things from the original text, none of which can be found (and a knowledge of ancient Greek would be very useful here especially since the LXX was probably used), since Mark's themes don't even match up with the examples you've provided! You will certainly have better luck with Matthew's nativity compared with Moses' which if anything is probably the strongest candidate for Gospel dependence on the Old Testament, or at least have that as an example and see how little dependence you establish. 2) You would definitely need to have a similar plot, and the only one that fits this one is the feeding of the 4000 and 5000, but one has to wonder why Mark would invent two separate feedings, leading some to speculate it was two different traditions of the same event.

As explained above, the only thing in common between the two is the reference to attire, and this is a clear reference to 2 Kings 1.8, but no other characteristics of the story.

Just because the author knew or had read the books does not mean he used it for the whole story.

Again, you can't assume that every similarity means dependence. For example, both the Essenes and Shinto had ritual purification through water yet it hardly means that one copied the other. And the case with Isaiah 13 vs Mark 13 is not even that similar. It is simply traditional Jewish apocalypticism, "the stars will fall down or disappear, and the moon won't shine," the same which is found in Revelation 6.13: and the stars in the sky fell to earth, as late figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind.


I think Isaiah's verse means that the Messiah died among regular people; criminals and rich alike. However, Mark certainly did not choose the criminal-like one, if he were using Isaiah, which begs us to ask the question why, and if answered, because he didn't want to "embarass" the Messiah, then we have to ask why he had Jesus die a crucifixion in the first place, and not something like the later versions of Apollonius of Tyana's death where he ascended from the Temple of Delphi (or Ephesus).

Why wouldn't it mean that? Redactors usually expand texts, yet here we have omissions from a prophecy which you claim Mark in this case based his gospel on (and not only he doesn't have it, but no one else, and Jesus' death of all things!). Nevertheless, I'll try to buy your book , because it probably has a lot more than that and the article you had is much better than most things in the net.

Malachi151

There is no description of crucifixion in that psalm. That psalm has nothing to do with crucifixion.

And why do you think that they should? Mark isn't a copy of the other story, it simply alludes to specific passages and events in it.

Yes, and?

I think you are totally missing the point and don't understand how the author was using his scriptural references.

For some passages, like Mark 1:6, the point there was obviously, and only, to identify John the Baptist as Elijah. That's the full and complete intent of the allusion. The text in 2 Kings prior and after the line that identifies Elijah is completely out of scope.

In most of the references that are made to the Hebrew scriptures, my entire point is that the passages that contain the text that is alluded to are almost all passages that are talking about the destruction of the Jews, or something to that effect.

My point is that the Markan narrative and the scriptural subtext do have seemingly different themes, but what is being alluded to is the meaning of the scriptural subtext.

The way that "Mark" used the scriptures is nothing like the way that "Matthew" used the scriptures, its 100% different.

Matthew was drawing narrative parallels, the author of Mark, in most cases, was not.

The author of Mark was drawing references to passages in the Hebrew scriptures that talked about the destruction of the Jews. That is the whole point of my article.

Take a perfect example of this:

What you are saying is, "Well, that doesn't make sense, because the rest of the passage doesn't have anything to do with the Jesus narrative".

What I am saying is, "The meaning of Amos 8 provides a completely additional meaning to the Jesus narrative. The point of the reference is "subversive" in nature. The author doesn't explicitly say in the narrative that the events during the death of Jesus were a sign that God was going to destroy the Jews, what he does is allude to a passage that talks about the sign that God will give on the day that he decides to destroy the Jews.

The "hidden meaning" in the Gospel is that the darkening of the earth at noon was a sign of the coming destruction of the Jews.

You don't get that meaning simply by reading the Gospel, you can only understand that meaning by following each of the literary allusion back to the Hebrew scritpures.

That's the point I was making throughout the whole article.

If you look at the references to the Hebrew scripture that are made throughout the Gospel of Mark, they are all either narrative parallels (such as the feeding of the many people in 2 Kings and Mark, etc.), they are identification passages (they serve to identify various character, usually Jesus, in some way), or they are references to the destruction or depravity of the Jews.

Jesus was crucified with two criminals in the story, so I don't even know what you are talking about.

Psalm 22 is not a prophecy. Most of the texts that the author used were not prophecies.

renassault

That's exactly what is so subjective and is so unconvincing in your theory. If you have examples such as the feedings (and that would qualify as a rip off of Elijah) that is convincing. The rest is too subjective.

Ted Hoffman

Hi Malachi, could you post a Bibliography of your book please?

Malachi151

There is no bibliography. The only materials I used are listed in the Sources and Materials section.