Kata Markon

["Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000 AT comcast.net>]

RickR370 AT aol.com wrote:

 
One last comment on the quotation question. Kathws is a conjunction that Mark uses 8 times. Everytime he uses it he compares something before the conjunction with something that comes after. That is the very nature of a conjunction. It forms a connective bridge between two literary items. What comes before the conjuction in Mark 1:2 is "The beginning of the Gosple of Jesus Christ the son of God". What comes after the conjuction is "Just as it stands written in the prophet Isaiah.
The subject of the first clause is the beginning of the Gospel. This is the item Mark wants to connect with with Isaiah the prophet. If we turn to Isaiah 40 verse 9.

9 Get you up to a high mountain, O Zion, herald of euaggeliou; lift up your voice with strength, O Jerusalem, herald of  euaggeliou  lift it up, fear not; say to the cities of Judah, "Behold your God!"

It is the euaggeliou good news that stands written in Isaiah not the statement of direct address that follows.

This should settle the issue for nay sayers, but I am sure it wont.  The interesting question for me is "How did scholars miss this when executing hundreds of translations of the text?"
 

I am really astonished to hear you make the claim that what you are saying
here is something that  has been **missed** by virtually everyone
who has ever dealt with this text.

A quick glance at the very first commentary on Mark that I laid my hands on (that of Guelich) not only shows that at least one scholar (Guelich himself) did not "miss" the conclusion you have come to, but that  your "discovery" has long been something of a scholarly common place, since he notes that he is only one of a large company who holds (and has held) "your" view about what KAQOS (GEGRAPTAI) means and what function it serves here in Mk. 1:2 .

So the question that interests **me** is: "How, given your claims to have read dozens of "criticisms" of this passage, **you** were unaware of this?".

And as an aside, let me remind you (once again), that, as per protocols, you should construct the subject header of your messages to reflect accurately the actual subject you are intent to discuss in your message.  The subject header you have used for this message (and for virtually all of your recent messages to Kata Markon), i.e.,  "GMark Digest, Vol 10, Issue 4", does not do this

Yours,

Jeffrey GIbson
---

Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
Chicago, IL 60626

jgibson000 AT comcast.net