Kata Markon

["L. J. Swain" <larry.swain AT wmich.edu>]

JFAlward AT aol.com wrote:

> 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,
>

I rather take exception to this characterization of Matthew, but that is
for another list.