Kata Markon

[JFAlward AT aol.com]

In a message dated 3/14/01 9:01:02 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
rpickett AT lsps.edu writes:


> As a number of responses have indicated, this enigmatic figure or symbol can 
> lead to endless speculation. But Mark's narrative is so tight, that in 
> order for an interpretation of any particularly pericope to be persuasive 
> it needs to relate somehow to how the narrative works as a whole. In that 
> respect I guess it is ultimately a matter of what we think about the 
> rhetorical strategy or use of this Gospel in its original setting.
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Ray Pickett


My interpretation has been guided by a single theory: Mark went out of his 
way to convince readers that Jesus was the one the Lord said would sit on the 
throne of the house of David, and that he was as holy, or holier, than other 
holy men in scripture, and almost as holy as the Lord.  He scoured the Old 
Testament for things the Lord did, and events in the lives of persons that he 
could have Jesus emulate.  And, he did I pretty good job, as far as I can 
see.  Virtually every event in Mark is has an Old Testament antecedent.  
Matthew tried to do the same thing, but he was clearly overly ambitious, and 
he made some hilarious errors of interpretation of scripture, such as in his 
virgin birth prophecy-fulfillment story, the potter's field story, and the 
donkey and colt story, to name a few.  But, that's Matthew, and this is Mark, 
so we won't get into that.


Regards,

Joe