Elijah, Elisha, John, and Jesus.

[Stefan Kristensen]

This [treatment of discreet passages as "pericopes"] is the method invented by the form critics, and it is unfortunately, I think, still popular. The passages are not "pericopes", i.e. to be "cut around" and taken out of context. Then they lose their basic meaning.

I think that is a bit of an over-simplification. Aren't pericopes just discrete sense units? These sense units can be clauses, sentences, even multiple sentences as long as they seem related to a common message. We have always had the ability to "stack" pericopes to make greater sense of them, much like links to cells within a spreadsheet being used as elements in formulas, which seems to be what you are suggesting.

That being said, I do agree that form critics have gone down some sort of primrose path. I would speculate that what that path was is the expectation that all these pericopes served some sort of function in group devotions/worship. In my view, that assumes that how they were put to use by the later church is why they were written to start with.

IMHO, I would say that the gospels were written to serve rhetorical purposes, to help form narratives that "explained" how Jesus, the man executed by the Romans in a manner reserved for revolutionaries and bandits, was not *really* a revolutionary/bandit but a *sage* who spoke God's will, who was *tragically* accused and executed by the Judean authorities on account of *jealously*. Since Josephus's War and other parts of his works are full of accounts of Judean authorities on all levels stabbing each other in the back out of jealousy, the Judeans were an ideal foil for such rhetoric.

To the gospel writers, Jesus' death had a secret "meta purpose" that ultimately benefited all of mankind, if people become initiated into the Christian mysteries. It was only later that these rhetorical elements took on functions within group worship and community.

DCH (I've only had one so far this morning)

It is an over-simplification of course. But the way it has generally been used in form criticism is hindering our true understanding of what is really going on in the text, I think. The passages have generally been treated as self-contained units that were unrelated and foreign to each other, often even foreign to 'Mark', the compiler.

The way I think we ought to read the gospels, especially that of Mark who is the author that invents this special way of writing, is exactly the opposite: always try to seek the deeper meaning from the context, especially the immediate context. Of course, I work under the presumption that there actually is a deeper meaning to the text apart from the narrative 'surface' meaning.

So when John is described like Elijah in Mark 1:6, this is meant by Mark to be understood as an 'historical' event, but the reader (or the one with "ears to hear") can see the deeper meaning of this: John is the awaited Elijah from the book of Mal. which has just been cited of course in the immediate context (1:2).

[Ben C. Smith]

So when John is described like Elijah in Mark 1:6, this is meant by Mark to be understood as an 'historical' event, but the reader (or the one with "ears to hear") can see the deeper meaning of this: John is the awaited Elijah from the book of Mal. which has just been cited of course in the immediate context (1:2).

While I understand your broader point, this is not a great example, is it? Mark 1.2 and 1.6 are almost universally regarded as belonging to the same pericope.

[Stefan Kristensen]

While I understand your broader point, this is not a great example, is it? Mark 1.2 and 1.6 are almost universally regarded as belonging to the same pericope.

True. Just tried to come up fast with an example relevant for this thread about Elijah. But I think it's also the same in Mark 6, and that there is a 'sandwich' construction that goes:

Part 1: 6:1-13 (Jesus rejected in hometown and the sending of apostles)
Part 2: 6:14-29 (Herod and JtB)
Part 3: 6:30-52 (the feeding of 5000 and walking on water)

In the same way that the temple 'cleansing' in Mark 11 is a symbolic, between-the-lines, telling of a later historical event, i.e. the destruction of the temple in AD. 70, so I also regard Mark 6 as telling about the later 'historical' (if you ask Mark) event of the killed and risen Jesus passing on the ministry to the 'church', the apostles. Part 1 tells about the rejection of Jesus and the gospel by Israel (his "πατρις") and the subsequent ministry of the spirit-imparted church, the apostles.

Part 3 is about the apostles getting the commission to 'feed' the people by communion and preaching and afterwards about Jesus coming down in spirit-form from heaven after his death, resurrection and ascension to constitute the church with the spirit (perhaps the same idea as John 20).

And part 2, the middle of the sandwich, functions to help set the theme: Through the risen Jesus God's power is at work in the apostles as they 'serve' the saving gospel for the world, through preaching and communion (cf. John's head as food on a platter for the macabre banquet). It also sets the theme by pointing to the Elijah/Elisha-cycle, where Elisha wields God's authority (2 Kings 2:19-25) by taking over Elijah's spirit after his ascension.


I think Mark intended the events in his narrative to be understood as historical events (or in some way historical). That Jesus did in fact walk upon the water that night, according to Mark. So the stories are not just symbolic, but Mark wants his readers to understand that these 'historical' events happened that time for at specific purpose: in order to point to something else, a deeper meaning, which only those on the inside can "see" and "hear". For example Jesus is rejected by his "hometown" (πατρις), but this happened as a symbol for his rejection by his "homeland" (πατρις). In that way "everyting comes in parables" (4:11), with the surface meaning and the deeper meaning.

If this is correct we must look for coherence in gMark more at the deeper level than at the surface level. Two pericopes that might on the surface seem unrelated, like 6:1-6a and 6:6b-13, are in fact tightly connected, but on the deeper level only. If "πατρις" in 6:1,4 carries its double meaning on purpose, i.e. "hometown" on the surface level and "homeland" on the deeper level, then we can start to see that 6:1-13 is perhaps the story about the later rejection of the gospel by the Jews ("except a few", 6:5) and the apostles' subsequent mission outside of Israel ("κυκλῳ", 6:6). Mark only narrates the events that happened in connection with the earthly Jesus, so in order to be able to relate the truths about the events that happened outside of this time-span, important events concerning the 'church', Mark communicates it through the events surrounding the earthly ministry of Jesus. I.e. his theological interpretation of the events, like his theological interpretation of the destruction of the temple in AD. 70. This was because Israel didn't bear the fruit to God which they should, although it looked like it from the outside, from the distance.

And if this is correct we can look closely at the passage about Jesus in Nazareth (6:1-6) if we want to know Mark's interpretation of why the Jews, God's chosen people, rejected God's gospel. But if we seperate this pericope from its context, we can never do that.

[Stefan Kristensen]

What I'm saying is, I think these verses in Mark 6 say excactly the same thing, but on the deeper level only:
6:7 "and he gave them authority"
6:14 "these powers are at work in him"
6:37 "he said to the disciples: 'you give them something to eat'."
6:41 "and he gave the food to the disciples so that they could set it before the crowds"
6:51 "he got into the boat with them"

I think Mark with all this wants to refer to one and the same later historical event (according to Mark) of the 'church' receiving the ministry, God's authority by Jesus' name and spirit.

[Stefan Kristensen]

Another row of passages that are not normally understood as being connected is in Mark 9:

They go to the mountain and God tells them that Jesus is his son and he has something to say. As they go down from the mountain Jesus tells them not to say anything until he is raised from the dead. When they come down there is a son that cannot say anything. Until Jesus heals him so he "becomes like dead" and they say "he is dead", but Jesus "raises him and he rises". So his healing is like a resurrection upon which he can now say something. This string of passages has to be connected imo, that is no coincedence, I think.

[Ben C. Smith]

Another row of passages that are not normally understood as being connected is in Mark 9:

They go to the mountain and God tells them that Jesus is his son and he has something to say. As they go down from the mountain Jesus tells them not to say anything until he is raised from the dead. When they come down there is a son that cannot say anything. Until Jesus heals him so he "becomes like dead" and they say "he is dead", but Jesus "raises him and he rises". So his healing is like a resurrection upon which he can now say something. This string of passages has to be connected imo, that is no coincedence, I think.

Well, the form critics would explain strings of pericopes like this as arranged according to catch words (if unsophisticated) or by themes and concepts (if more sophisticated). Also, catch words and themes can be added to a pericope or to a cluster in order to make it cohere, as may be the case when Mark adds that bit about people having done to Elijah what was predicted of him; now it coheres with the passion predictions (as a foreshadowing), but it hardly does so naturally; the connection is artificially constructed. Whether it was constructed de novo by a single author or on top of traditional Christian materials is another question, but that is precisely my point; in practice, there can be little difference in the end result between an author spinning completely new materials and a fastidious editor arranging traditional materials in a thoroughgoing fashion. It takes a lot of analyzing individual clues to tell the difference, I think.

ETA: IOW, I completely agree that Mark intended pericopes to be read in light of each other, and the OP even has some examples of this stretching across the entire gospel (like the baptism and death parallels). But I disagree that this automatically means that the author was writing new stuff, if that is what you are saying. (If not, then please ignore.)

[Ben C. Smith]

True. Just tried to come up fast with an example relevant for this thread about Elijah. But I think it's also the same in Mark 6, and that there is a 'sandwich' construction that goes:

Part 1: 6:1-13 (Jesus rejected in hometown and the sending of apostles)
Part 2: 6:14-29 (Herod and JtB)
Part 3: 6:30-52 (the feeding of 5000 and walking on water)

In the same way that the temple 'cleansing' in Mark 11 is a symbolic, between-the-lines, telling of a later historical event, i.e. the destruction of the temple in AD. 70, so I also regard Mark 6 as telling about the later 'historical' (if you ask Mark) event of the killed and risen Jesus passing on the ministry to the 'church', the apostles. Part 1 tells about the rejection of Jesus and the gospel by Israel (his "πατρις") and the subsequent ministry of the spirit-imparted church, the apostles.

Completely agreed about the intercalations. The juxtaposition is (usually/always) deliberate and motivated by theological concerns.

Part 3 is about the apostles getting the commission to 'feed' the people by communion and preaching and afterwards about Jesus coming down in spirit-form from heaven after his death, resurrection and ascension to constitute the church with the spirit (perhaps the same idea as John 20).

And part 2, the middle of the sandwich, functions to help set the theme: Through the risen Jesus God's power is at work in the apostles as they 'serve' the saving gospel for the world, through preaching and communion (cf. John's head as food on a platter for the macabre banquet). It also sets the theme by pointing to the Elijah/Elisha-cycle, where Elisha wields God's authority (2 Kings 2:19-25) by taking over Elijah's spirit after his ascension.

I find that the intercalations (almost?) always involve an interplay of past and future. In the one about the family of Jesus and the controversy over Beezebul, the past is the traditional family; the future is the surrogate family preached by Jesus, later known as the church. In the one about the daughter of Jairus and the hemorrhaging woman, the past is the womanhood of the old woman; the future is the womanhood of the young girl. (I suspect that these figures together are meant to represent both the demise of the old covenant and its renewal with Jesus, but this speculation of mine may be misguided.) In the one about the mission of the twelve and the imprisonment and death of John the baptist, the past is the ministry of John; the future is the ministry of Jesus and his apostles. In the one about the cursing of the fig tree and the temple incident, the past is the temple and associated rites and rituals; the future is the community of faith which with a word can cast a mountain (the temple mount?) into the sea. In the one about the plot to kill Jesus and the anointing of Jesus, the past is Judas Iscariot and the authorities of Judaism (though one can also see the earthly ministry of Jesus as part of the past here); the future is the preaching of the gospel, not forgetting the memory of the anointing woman. In the one with Peter at the fire and Jesus before the high priest, the past is the now fulfilled prediction that Peter would betray Jesus; the future is the brief recap before the high priest of the Olivet predictions, whose fulfillment the three Petrine denials focus and guarantee.

I think Mark intended the events in his narrative to be understood as historical events (or in some way historical). That Jesus did in fact walk upon the water that night, according to Mark. So the stories are not just symbolic, but Mark wants his readers to understand that these 'historical' events happened that time for at specific purpose: in order to point to something else, a deeper meaning, which only those on the inside can "see" and "hear". For example Jesus is rejected by his "hometown" (πατρις), but this happened as a symbol for his rejection by his "homeland" (πατρις).

Completely agreed... or very nearly. I allow for the possibility that Mark is purely a symbolic text meant for initiates; but, if that is the case, then our chances of correctly interpreting the text are practically nonexistent. Therefore, I treat the text as comprehensible to the uninitiated (which all of us as modern people must necessarily be), and that option happens to be the one I consider most likely.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

I am posting this thread in order to lay out (and collect more) parallels between the John/Jesus material in the gospels and the Elijah/Elisha material in the Hebrew scriptures.

As always, a very fine and detailed overview. Thanks for that. I was not aware of the fact that the portray of Jesus as a man of prayer has its parallel in the figure of Elisha.

On the other hand, I have some reservations regarding such a demonstration of literary „parallels“. Usually, it ends with the assumption that Mark „modeled“ the Jesus-stories on the Elijah/Elisha cycle as Neil pointed out:

Jacob Aliet in his review of this commentary notes: Backed by the works of scholar like Tomas L. Brodie, Turton advances the argument that the author of Mark modeled the events surrounding Jesus on the Elija-Elisha cycle and other Old Testament characters and prophecies.

Moreover, Brodie’s final chapter arguing for a link between the Gospels and the Elijah-Elisha section is actually introduced as an attempt to corroborate [Raymond] Brown’s proposal …that the Gospels were partly modeled on the prophetic biographies, particularly the account of Elisha and his miracles … in particular to make it more precise: the foundational model for the development of the Gospels was not just the account of Elisha’s miracles. It was the entire Elijah-Elisha narrative.

imho, Mark's allusions to the story of Elijah has sense and purpose in the story. I think the first thing to get is that the Gospel of Mark rises evidently and emphatically the question „Who is Elijah?“ and gives no clear answer, but two possible answers.

This is not the case in the other Gospels. In either way, there are clear and unambiguous answers.

Matthew 11:10 This is the one about whom it is written, "Behold, I send My messenger ahead of You, who will prepare Your way before You."
Matthew 11:14 And if you are willing to accept it, John himself is Elijah who was to come.
Matthew 17:10 And His disciples asked Him, "Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?" 11 And He answered and said, "Elijah is coming and will restore all things; 12 but I say to you that Elijah already came, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they wished. So also the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands." 13 Then the disciples understood that He had spoken to them about John the Baptist.
Luke 1:17 It is he who will go as a forerunner before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah,
Luke 7:27 "This is the one about whom it is written, ‘Behold, I send My messenger ahead of You, who will prepare Your way before You.'"

John 1:19 This is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent to him priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, … 21 They asked him, "What then? Are you Elijah?" And he says, "I am not."

But in the gospels of Mark it is not explicitly said that John is Elijah. There is only a little, but fine literary allusion in Mark 1:6. On the contrary, there are people which claim explicitly that Jesus is Elijah.

Mark 6:6 King Herod heard of it, for Jesus’ name had become known. Some said, “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead. That is why these miraculous powers are at work in him.” 15 But others said, “He is Elijah.”
Mark 8:27 And on the way he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that I am?” 28 And they told him, “John the Baptist; and others say, Elijah; and others, one of the prophets.”

The way of identifying here is to note the „miraculous powers“ as signs.

But Mark's Jesus identifies Elijah by his suffering.

Mark 9:12 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? 13 But I tell you that Elijah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written of him.

I think therefore that in the Gospel of Mark is an „Elijanic secret“ and the reader has to understand that the „true“ Elijah is the stricken Elijah from Mount Horeb and not a famous miracle worker. In this sense John is the precursor for the reader to prepare the way for the „Messianic secret“.

[Ben C. Smith]

I am posting this thread in order to lay out (and collect more) parallels between the John/Jesus material in the gospels and the Elijah/Elisha material in the Hebrew scriptures.

As always, a very fine and detailed overview. Thanks for that. I was not aware of the fact that the portray of Jesus as a man of prayer has its parallel in the figure of Elisha.

Thanks, Kunigunde.

To begin with your conclusion:

I think therefore that in the Gospel of Mark is an „Elijanic secret“ and the reader has to understand that the „true“ Elijah is the stricken Elijah from Mount Horeb and not a famous miracle worker. In this sense John is the precursor for the reader to prepare the way for the „Messianic secret“.

Very perceptive and well put!

On the other hand, I have some reservations regarding such a demonstration of literary „parallels“. Usually, it ends with the assumption that Mark „modeled“ the Jesus-stories on the Elijah/Elisha cycle....

That is one possible result, one which I am inclined only partially to embrace. "Modeled" can imply a level of deliberation which may not always be the case in each and every story, even if the connections are undeniable.

imho, Mark's allusions to the story of Elijah has sense and purpose in the story. I think the first thing to get is that the Gospel of Mark rises evidently and emphatically the question „Who is Elijah?“ and gives no clear answer, but two possible answers.

Do you mean John and Jesus? If so, I think the answer "Jesus" is pretty emphatically denied in Mark, at least so far as him being the official forerunner/messenger (from Malachi) is concerned.

But in the gospels of Mark it is not explicitly said that John is Elijah. There is only a little, but fine literary allusion in Mark 1:6.

Well, there is more to the equation than that single verse, but point taken. The equation is never laid out quite so clearly in Mark as it is in Matthew and Luke (nor the nonequation so clearly as in John).

On the contrary, there are people which claim explicitly that Jesus is Elijah.

Mark 6:6 King Herod heard of it, for Jesus’ name had become known. Some said, “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead. That is why these miraculous powers are at work in him.” 15 But others said, “He is Elijah.”
Mark 8:27 And on the way he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that I am?” 28 And they told him, “John the Baptist; and others say, Elijah; and others, one of the prophets.”

The way of identifying here is to note the „miraculous powers“ as signs.

But Mark's Jesus identifies Elijah by his suffering.

Mark 9:12 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? 13 But I tell you that Elijah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written of him.

This is all excellent stuff.

[Stefan Kristensen]

Well, the form critics would explain strings of pericopes like this as arranged according to catch words (if unsophisticated) or by themes and concepts (if more sophisticated). Also, catch words and themes can be added to a pericope or to a cluster in order to make it cohere, as may be the case when Mark adds that bit about people having done to Elijah what was predicted of him; now it coheres with the passion predictions (as a foreshadowing), but it hardly does so naturally; the connection is artificially constructed. Whether it was constructed de novo by a single author or on top of traditional Christian materials is another question, but that is precisely my point; in practice, there can be little difference in the end result between an author spinning completely new materials and a fastidious editor arranging traditional materials in a thoroughgoing fashion. It takes a lot of analyzing individual clues to tell the difference, I think.

ETA: IOW, I completely agree that Mark intended pericopes to be read in light of each other, and the OP even has some examples of this stretching across the entire gospel (like the baptism and death parallels). But I disagree that this automatically means that the author was writing new stuff, if that is what you are saying. (If not, then please ignore.)

I don't infer from the coherence of the passages that the text must be Mark's own creation. I just take it as my starting point that the text is Mark's own creation. Why shouldn't we do that? But I also do think that the degree of coherence to be found at the deeper level of the text, according to my way of reading it, is good evidence that the text has been created by one single author. But really, the sensible thing to do with any given text is to regard it as a coherent unit by a single author – unless any good evidence to the contrary can be put forward. And it hasn't, imo.

Of course, it seems very unlikely that the narrative of gMark wasn't based on known Jesus-traditions to some degree, because otherwise it could hardly have gained currency, even to the extent of inspiring a whole generation of early Christians including in the end its biggest fan, the author of gMatt.

But it is completely unfair when people assume that the authors of the gospels weren't capable of creating a complex, coherent narrative of their own. We have no idea who these people were, so why this harsh judgement. If the form critics couldn't see any coherence in, for example, the pericopes within Mark 9:33-41 other than a presumed catch-word, "name", then they simply weren't looking hard enough. And similarly, if all we see in Mark 9 are catch-words or common themes about "son", "raising", speaking, etc. then surely we aren't looking hard enough.

Why couldn't the author of gMatt have been the one to invent the Our Father (Matt 6:9-13)? Somebody did, why on earth not him? Luke has another version of it. And why couldn't Luke be the one who invented the parable of the Good Samaritan? Of course he could have. Somebody did. Did Mark create the passion predictions himself? Again, I really don't see why not? We don't know who he was, so why couldn't he have thought it up? As you can understand, I really don't like the impact form criticism has had on Biblical scholarship! It's time we do away with it!



Concerning the bit about "they have done to Elijah the things they wanted", this is a difficult passage in gMark! But personally I don't see a good reason why this should be an addition to the surrounding text or why it might cohere unnaturally to the passion predictions? The motif of Elijah redivivus is naturally brought up in the narrative at this point, because Elijah has just appeared at the mountain. And the figure of John is both equalled with Elijah throughout the narrative as well as presented as foreshadowing Jesus' martyrdom fate (they are both to be "handed over", παραδιδωμι; they both share the fate of a prophet that Jesus speaks about in 6:4 and 12:1-11; John is served as food like Jesus). So I think this bit is very natural indeed.

It is true that there is no place in Scripture that reasonably suggests that the eschatological Elijah was to suffer, but there really is no place either in Scripture where any 'son of man' or Messiah is reasonably said to suffer. So the one is just as 'unnatural' as the other. And this, I think, is a main point in this passage, Mark 9:9-13: The Scriptures actually say that the Messiah/son of man (and even Elijah) is going to suffer, but who is able perceive this? Now, the scribes indeed know from Scripture that Elijah will come at the end, like the disciples point out, but: "How is it written that the son of man will suffer much and be degraded?" The point is, that the scribes with all their knowledge of Scripture don't know about the suffering messiah/son of man - nor the suffering Elijah. This is what Jesus points out to the disciples. This thing is about the scribes because it is about the understanding of Scripture. Probably therefore the scribes also appear at the foot of the mountain, even though they play no role in the subsequent healing story.