From: Brian E. Wilson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Feb 19 1997 - 15:46:42 EST
>A snip from Carl Conrad:
>regarding Mk 1:2, let me say that I don't think this is a question of
>inerrancy; Mark conflates two OT passages here: 1:2 is from Malachi 3:1
>while the passage attached to it in 1:3 without interruption is from
>Isaiah 40:3. Mark intends to identify John the Baptist with Elijah and
>the key word actually appears in the line-ending EN THi ERHMWi in
>Isaiah 40:3, which he picks up in 1:4 BAPTIZWN EN THi ERHMWi. In my
>opinion, Mark is not actually mis-stating the source of his citation.
If there is no error in Mk 1.2, why is there massive manuscript evidence
- Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Washington plus lots of others - altering
EN TW HSAIA TW PROFHTH to EN TOIJ PROFHTAIJ ? The fact that Mark
may not have perceived his error, does not mean to say that he was
correct to ascribe a quotation which is a combination of Exodus 23.20a
and Malachi 3.l to HSAIAJ hO PROFHTHJ. He was wrong, as Matthew and Luke
perceived by refusing to put this material in the same context as Mark.
Moreover, you say nothing about my friend's parallel problem with
TOTE EPLHRWQH TO hRHQEN DIA IEREMIOU TOU PROFHTOU LEGONTOJ, KAI ELABON
TO TRIAKONTA ARGURIA, THN TIMHN TOU TETIMHMENOU...
The reference to TO TRIAKONTA ARGURIA is from Zechariah 11.7, and is not
found in IEREMIAJ. Again, the manuscript tradition indicates that this
was an error recognized in the early centuries by many.
What is wrong with regarding the Scripture as the supremely-
authoritative, God-breathed imperfect confirmation of the good news of
Christ? In my view, this is consistent with the above and with every
part of the Scripture, including the way in which Jesus himself regarded
Scripture as supremely-authorative, God-breathed and imperfect.
Brian E. Wilson
Please visit the Two Notebook Hypothesis homepage:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:06 EDT