Kata Markon

["Ted Weeden" <weedent AT atw.earthreach.com>]

Jack Kilmon wrote:

> A thought came to me while reading this very interesting treatment and
> I will isolate it for the sake of brevity.

Ted Weeden had written:

> > But while Mark borrows copiously from the OT, it is striking that he
> seldom
> > explicitly informs his hearers that an OT quote or reference which he
> > incorporates into his drama does in fact come from the OT.   On only
seven
> > occasions (1:2; 7:6; 9:12, 13; 11:17; 14:21, 27) does he introduce OT
> quotes
> > or references with the introductory formula GEGRAPTAI .   It appears
that
> on
> > those occasions, when he does introduce an OT citation with the formula
> > GEGRAPTAI, that he does so because it is important at those particular
> > points in his narrative to have the authority of scripture to support
what
> > he has Jesus state (7:6; 9:12,13; 11:17; 12:10; 14:21, 27, 49) or what
he
> > himself is about to dramatize (1:2).

Jack wrote in response:

> One thing stands out to me concerning the GEGRAPTAI verses in Mark. With
> the exception of the introductory 1:2, they are all attributed to Jesus.
It
> then becomes
> significant to me that, as you point out, Mark does *not* routinely
> gegraptize
> (newly coined word) his own OT references.  This makes me wonder, contra
> Jesus Seminar, that Jesus may have used this formula on occasion.  The JS
> rejected sayings with this formula as Yeshuine based on a consensus that
he
> would not quote scripture but instead rely on his own authority.  I
> disagree.
> I think there is a strong christological element to that reasoning.  The
> only
> gegraptai saying voted above black by the JS is 11:17 which appears to me
> to be a Markan thematically expanded GoT 64.  Although it is certainly
> possible
> an earlier source may have listed a whole gaggle of OT gegraptais (perhaps
> hinted by GoT 52), we may not be able to entirely snatch a gegraptai or
> two from the verba Iesu.

My response:

I was not a part of he JS when the discussion and vote was taken on the
formula saying, GEGRAPTAI.

But had I been, I would have voted citations of the formula as black, for
the reasons you cite from JS, plus these.   I think the formula is a scribal
formula, which a scribe would use to draw upon the authority of scripture,
or perhaps more likely impose the authority of scripture on others, that is
the Judean imposition of the authority of its "great tradition."   I am
persuaded by Horsley's argument (to which I referred in my 3/26 post to Joe
Alward) that Galilean Jews and Judean Jews, while cousins of  a common
heritage prior to the break-up of the Solomonic kingdom, developed their
religious heritage after the break-up  following different paths in the
evolution of their respective traditions.   When the Hasmoneans came to
power in Judea, they sought to force Judean hegemony upon their separated
cousins to the north in Galilee.   Galileans became resentful and resistant
to this intrusion of the 'great tradition" of the south upon their "little
tradition" and its ways.   I think Jesus represents this pro-Galilean and
anti-Judean view.   And I think one of the things he was about was to free
his followers from the tyrany of Jerusalem and the temple establishment.
That is why, in my judgment, he "demonstrated" against the oppression of the
temple system in the so-called cleansing of the temple.

Consequently, I think it is unlikely that Jesus, as a Galilean opposed to
the oppressive imposition of the Judean Torah on the marginalized people of
his Galilee, would quote scripture, using a scribal oppresive formula to
communicate his message.   In support of this I do not find any use of the
formula GEGRAPTAI  in the tradition of 1Q or the tradition behind the Gospel
of  Thomas.  GEGRAPTAI does appear for the first time in the 2Q redaction of
1Q, namely it occurs at Q 7:27 (OUTOS ESTIN PERI OU GEGRAPTAI,  IDOU
APOSTELLW TON AGGELON MOU PRO PROSWPOU SOU, hOS KATASKEUASEI THN hODON SOU
EMPROSQEN SOU ("This is he concerning whom it is written, 'Behold, I send my
messenger before thy face, who shall prepare the way before you.'").    But
this is a late Q development to which I wish to turn attention, since Q7:27
has direct bearing on Mark and his use of it and the formula GEGRAPTAI in
the opening of his introduction (1:2).   Let me explain with a brief
treatment of what I see is the history of Q7:27.

Contrary to Leif Vaage ("More Than a Prophet, and Demon-Possessed: Q and the
'Historical' John," in _Conflict and Invention_, ed. J. S. Kloppenborg, 185)
and others, I think Q 7:27 was a part of the original 2Q redaction (7:18-35)
of Q1, and not a later insertion.  I am working on an essay to show that
Q7:18-35 is a carefully constructed whole in which Q7:27 serves as a part of
its internal integrity.  Furthermore, I think Q 7:27 reflects scribal
influence and authority in the later stages of the Q community as it turned
apocalyptic.   I also think that that scribal influence reflected a more
pro-Judean ("great tradition") leaning which becomes even more pronounced in
the 3Q redaction story of the temptation, Q 4:1-13.   There the 3Q "Jesus"
on three occasions uses the authority and power of the Torah, introduced by
the scribal formula GEGRAPTAI, in a supernatural battle against the power of
the devil.  On the last occasion, Jesus is taken to the temple itself by the
devil, in 3Q's view now a user-friendly site and the Torah's home ground, to
refute the power of the devil.   I see this as a growing influence of Q
scribal rapprochement with a former adversarial tradition, the Judean temple
establishment and its Torah thumping "preachers."


Thus I would see the following evolution with respect to the Judean "great
tradition" in Q.   1Q reflects an independence of the Judean great tradition
and even perhaps hostility toward it.   There are no references or allusions
to Temple or Torah in 1Q.   The sole authority behind 1Q is the authority of
the Wisdom endowed Jesus, which is likely an accurate description of the
charismatic character of the historical Jesus.    When the 1Q community's
evangelistic efforts began to fail and it suffered persecution, it deferred
to new scribal leaders within in the community to rethink its paradigm in
order to incorporate the failure of its mission.   That scribal leadership
turned to apocalypticism and was more open to Judean great tradition
influence.  It was also at this point I think that 1Q, originally orality,
was transformed into textuality by these community scribes.

The openness of the Q community to a rapprochement with the Judean great
tradition is reflected in its recourse to Mal 3:1, and following, where the
Temple establishment is not done away with but purified.  That tradition
from the Judean great tradition was blended with a new exodus tradition
reflected in 2Q's appropriation of Ex. 23:20 to accomplish the conflation of
the two theological traditions (Ex. 23:20, the new exodus tradition, and
Mal. 3:1, the future, purified Temple cult) to produce Q7:27.   As far as I
can tell that is the first time that an actual marriage was made between Ex.
23:20 and Mal 3:1.   The Midrash Rabbah, the date of whose rabbinic
traditions are uncertain, does have two passages (Exod.  Rab. 32:9 and Deut.

Rab. 11:9) in which  Mal. 3:1 and Ex. 23:20 appear in the same context and
in relatively close proximity to each other.  But a conflation of the two
passages has not taken place.   I think the conflation originated in the 2Q
community.   Then with 3Q an even greater openness to a rapprochement with
the Judean great tradition of Torah and Temple is reflected in the
temptation story.

I am now convinced, against a formerly held position, that Mark knew the Q
community (which was located in northern Galilee not far from Mark's
homebase in the village region of Caesarea Philippi, as per my references in
my post of 3/26).  I think Mark not only knew 2Q but used it and refuted
2Q's Judean leaning tendencies, as well as its wisdom-oriented theology with
the emphasis on the continuing presence of Jesus in the oral performance of
his sayings (a la Richard Horsley in _Whoever Hears You Hears Me_).   I am
convinced that Mark sought to correct that Judean leaning perspective of 2Q
by starting off his Gospel with Q7:27 in Mk. 1:2.  Mk. 1:2  is almost a
verbatim presentation of Q 7:27, sans the "erroneous" attribution of the
scriptural quote to Isaiah and the final phrase EMPROSQEN SOU.  Thus Mark
1:2 KAQWS ...GEGRAPTAI,  IDOU APOSTELLW TON AGGELON MOU PRO PROSWPOU SOU,
hOS KATASKEUASEI THN hODON SOU vis-a-vis Q7:27, GEGRAPTAI,  IDOU APOSTELLW
TON AGGELON MOU PRO PROSWPOU SOU, hOS KATASKEUASEI THN hODON SOU EMPROSQEN
SOU.

Mark, I submit, sought to correct the Malachi Temple-renewal tradition
highlighted by the gist of the Mal. 3:1 part of  Q 7:27 and redirect the
thrust and meaning of that passage to the Ex. 23:20 orientation of a new
exodus.   He created that Markan pro-new exodus---which for Mark had its
fledgling beginning in Galilee with Jesus' public ministry and would appear
in full flower and force in the eschaton, 13:24-27 vis-a-vis 14:27/16:7---
orientation of Q7:27 by encasing that 2Q formulated conflation  within the
"false" Isaianic ascription to the Q7:27 text and the "authentic" text of
Isa. 40:3, the proclamation of the new exodus.   As a result of Mark's
intentional hermeneutical spin on Q7:27, he has caused consternation upon
the part of his readers ever since.   Many try to save Mark from the
embarrassment of a serious goof in quoting Isaiah.   Matthew and Luke
decided to delete Q7:27 from their rewrite of the Markan introduction and
later copyists attempted to rectify Mark's mistake by substituting "the
prophets" for "Isaiah the prophet" in some mss. traditions.  And still
commentators try to explain away what they interpret to be Mark's
inexplicable goof in quoting scripture.   It was no goof.

Ted Weeden