Mark 9:11-13 interpolated from Matthew 17:10-12 ?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Mark 9:11-13 interpolated from Matthew 17:10-12 ?

Post by Giuseppe »

In Mark there is a strange obsessive emphasis on ''it is written'', the first time about the Son of Man and the second time about Elijiah/John. In other terms, the author means to conclude that John/Elijah's death and Jesus's death are both predicted in the previous scriptures, and ''therefore'' they are similar figures.

Mark 9:11-13

11 And they asked him, “Why do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?”
12 Jesus replied, “To be sure, Elijah does come first, and restores all things. Why then is it written that the Son of Man must suffer much and be rejected? 13 But I tell you, Elijah has come, and they have done to him everything they wished, just as it is written about him.”.

But in Matthew there is something of slightly different:

Matthew 17:10-12
10 The disciples asked him, “Why then do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?”
11 Jesus replied, “To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things. 12 But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands.”
Here there is no reference to the previous scripture as reason of the similarity of Jesus and Elijiah. Only, simply as the case of Elijah is described, the author says (via Jesus) explicitly - ''In the same way'' - that Jesus'future is similar to Elijah.


Now, the problem for Mark is that there is no previous scripture where it is said that the Son of Man has to suffer.

Hence one may realize what moved the interpolator of Mark 9:11-13.

He wanted to make the reader infer that there is really in the previous scripture the prediction of the death of the Son of Man, contra factum of the real absence in the previous scripture of that prediction.

So the Mark's logic follows strictly the logic of Matthew:

1) the death of Elijah ''is written''.
2) implicit: ''in the same way of Elijiah...''
3) the Death of the Son of Man ''is written'', too.


Point 1:
11 And they asked him, “Why do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?”
12 Jesus replied, “To be sure, Elijah does come first, and restores all things.
13 But I tell you, Elijah has come, and they have done to him everything they wished, just as it is written about him.”
Point 3: (the rethorical question)
Why then is it written that the Son of Man must suffer much and be rejected?
Why was the interpolator so eager to insert these verses to prove rethorically that also the Death of the Son of Man ''is written''?

BEST ANSWER:
Against Marcion.

For Marcion the death of the mysterious ''Son of Man'' (Jesus meant only in the his physical 'docetic' appearance) was not predicted in the scriptures of the evil Demiurge.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply