Kata Markon

[Keith Dyer <kdyer AT whitley.unimelb.edu.au>]

1. Son of Man=John?!? (in Mk 9: 11-13)

Steve, I think I recall an article in ZNW (1989?) by Joel Marcus that made
the best sense of this text for me (and I don't have his Anchor Commentary
with me to check). He argued that Jesus responds with a double question:
"Does Elijah come first to restore all things? And how does it stand
written that the Human One should suffer and be treated with contempt? But
I tell you that Elijah has come . . ." Thus Jesus questions the assumption
that Elijah (= John) 'restores all things', since the Human One will still
suffer, and suggests rather that Elijah (= John) has already come, but was
a true forerunner in every sense, since he also 'was handed over' in the
same way that the Human One will be.

Keith Dyer
Whitley College
Melbourne


>
>Subject: Son of Man=John?!?
>From: Steve Black <sblack AT axionet.com>
>Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 11:46:34 -0800
>X-Message-Number: 1
>
>Mk 9:11-13
>  ...And they asked him, "Why do the scribes say that first Elijah
>must come?" And he said to them, "Elijah does come first to restore
>all things; and how is it written of the Son of man, that he should
>suffer many things and be treated with contempt? But I tell you that
>Elijah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is
>written of him."
>
>Many commentators on this passage believe it can best be explained by
>postulating glosses or interpolations (which is possible, of course).
>
>As it stands, however, the term "Son of Man" seems to be referring to John!
>
>Is there any reason that I may have missed (other than a circular
>argument about the greater context of the text) to abandon this line
>of reasoning?
>--
>Peace
>
>Steve Black
>Vancouver, BC
>