Mk 1.2, Mt 27.9 and higher criticism

From: Brian E. Wilson (
Date: Thu Feb 20 1997 - 12:05:49 EST

>Carl Conrad wrote:
>what Mark is doing is conflating two passages, using as an introduction
>the Malachi 3:1 segment to speak of a "messenger" to appear before the
>Lord (Jesus), but the KEY part of his citation is in 1:3, where he
>makes that link between the phrase EN THi ERHMWi in OT Scripture--in
>Isaiah 40:3 and the historical appearance of John the Baptist EN THi
>ERHMWi in 1:4.
>Carl also wrote:
>I misunderstood your original question; I thought you were really
>interested in what Mark was doing. Your question doesn't really concern
>the Greek text as such at all but is getting into the area of higher
>criticism, which I think really lies outside the proper area for the


Being "really interested in what Mark was doing" in Mk 1.2, is higher
criticism. You yourself are doing higher criticism here. Higher
criticism is "The criticical study of the literary methods and sources
used by the author" (Oxford Dictionary of the Chritian Church, page
637).If you are trying to find out what Mark was doing as an author in
Mk 1.2, discussing his supposed sources and how he treated them,
examining which parts of the Septuagint, or Hebrew text, Mark appears to
reflect, and so on, then you are a higher critic. If higher criticism
has no place on this list, then nor have your comments above!

I would like to know your views, and those of anyone else who cares to
give theirs, also on the other text which I quoted in Greek. I would
really hope to understand the Greek better, and quote it again here:


The reference to - TO TRIAKONTA ARGURIA - is from Zechariah 11.13,
and is not found in IEREMIAJ. How are we to understand a text in
Matthew which, like Mk 1.2, says that it is from a book of the Old
Testament which does not, in fact, contain it? What does the text mean?
In Mt 27.9, what is the subject of "fulfilled" - EPLHRWQH - ? If it was
not something from Jeremiah, then what was it?

Never mind what Matthew, or Mark, was, or was not, doing with supposed
sources! Does the Greek of Mt 27.9, and Mk 1.2, have a meaning?

Brian E. Wilson

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:06 EDT