Miller, The Messenger, the Lord, and the Coming Judgement in the Reception History of Malachi 3

Miller, David M. "The Messenger, the Lord, and the Coming Judgement in the Reception History of Malachi 3." NTS 50 no. 1 (Jan 2007): 1-16.

No evidence of "Messiah" in Mal 3, and "no clear pre-Christian literary evidence for the belief that Elijah's future task consisted of preparing the way for the Messiah" (1; cf. n. 3, there is no unified identification of Elijah. Some point to the return of the 'prophet Elijah' while some wait for Elijah the Messiah of Aaron. These might be different people.).

"Scholars interested in Elijah traditions in the Gospels frequently attempt to resolve these questions before assessing potential allusions to Malachi in the Gospels. Unfortunately, preoccupation with what Malachi meant sometimes results in a failure to consider other plausible ways Malachi may have been construed by ancient readers. As several alternatives are possible, one should not be surprised if Second Temple sources take different sides on the precise nature of Elijah's role." (6)


So, how should I approach Mark's use of Malachi 3? Just recognize the range of opinions and let it hang as some sort of tension? Or do I allow the context of Mark to decide who Mark points to when he quotes Malachi? The ἐρχεται that points to Jesus after the Malachi quotation certainly seems to indicate Jesus as the one for whom the voice cries out in the desert. And JB is in the desert, speaking to the people, so the stage seems to be set. If Elijah is the messenger in Mal 3, then perhaps Mark intends his readers to take John as Elijah, and Jesus as whoever he prepares the way for. To what extent do I try to "resolve these questions before assessing potential allusions to Malachi" in Mark?

Analysis of Ancient Sources

• Ben Sira seems to connect the messenger of 3.1a with the messenger of the cov. in 3.2-4 as the same person. (8)
• 4Q521 seems to identify "the Lord" (האדון) with God because the author consistently uses אדני in place of the divine name, YHWH (10).
• LXX translates both אדני and אדון with κύριος, likely leading readers to assume both are references to the LORD, though distinction is possible (e.g., between "κύριος παντοκράτωρ who narrates the oracle and the coming κύριος who is the subject of the oracle") (11). 
• Summary: LXX limits Elijah's role to restoration, assigning 'fiery purification' to the coming 'Lord'. 4Q521 focuses on the divine Lord throughout. Ben Sira sees Elijah filling as associated with both the 'burning day' of judgement and the restoration. (11) With these as a varied background, how does Mark use Malachi? Can we conclude Mark's use based on what happens or what is emphasized in his narrative? Who does the restoring and who does the burning in Mark? Do these things happen, and if they do, are they done by the same person, or by different people?
• Luke links the task of Malachi's Elijah to JB and not to Jesus (16; though Luke has no problem associating Jesus with the Elijah of 1-2 Kings; these Elijahs seem to be different people in Luke). Luke identifies Jesus as the coming Lord of Mal 3, demonstrating that Jesus was "both prophet and messianic Lord during his earthly existence" (16).
  

"Luke's solution to the puzzle of Malachi 3 involved distinguishing between the Elijah of 1-2 Kings, who is associated with Jesus, and the Elijah of Malachi 3, who is consistently identified with John, the forerunner of the messianic 'Lord'." (1)

Does Mark do this as well? While Mark seems to point to JB as Elijah the messenger, Brodie and others make quite a case for Jesus' connection/imitation of Elijah-Elisha stories and miracles. Could Luke have picked up this differentiating from Mark?

Hooker, "What Doest Thou Here, Elijah?"

Morna D. Hooker, “‘What doest thou here, Elijah’?: a look at St Mark’s account of the Transfiguration.,” in Glory of Christ in the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Pr, 1987), 59-70.

 "Elijah with Moses" does not support the traditional view that the two represent the Law and the Prophets. This works in Matt and Luke who 'correct' Mark's account by rephrasing as "Moses and Elijah" (61).

For Hooker, Elijah's presence at the Transfig. is tied to "the popular hope for Elijah's return -- a hope which he sees fulfilled in John the Baptist, who is the herald of Christ's coming." (62)

Jesus was previously (in Mk 8) thought to be Elijah or The Prophet like Moses. It is possible that by having both Elijah and Moses appear with Jesus, both of these identifications are negated (62).

Only Lk connects the Transfig. explicitly with Jesus' death with ref. to it as Jesus' ἐξοδος (Lk 9.31); the characters do not speak in Mk. In connection with Jesus' death, it is likely, along with Thrall, that the Transfig. is a prefiguring of the glory Jesus will have in his res. (63)

For Hooker, Elijah and Moses are key for the unveiling of Jesus' true identity because they are both predecessors of Jesus -- JB is Elijah, and Jesus is the fulfillment of all that Moses said (is Hooker nearing the 'traditional view' above?). By showing themselves with Jesus, Jesus is shown to be not either one of these men, but as greater than both (similar to Thrall). (66)

Fitzmyer, "More about Elijah coming first"

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “More about Elijah Coming First.” JBL 104 2 (June 1985): 295-96.

Fitz. disagrees that the disciples' question ("Why do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?") and Jesus' response to it indicates that Elijah must come before the coming of Jesus the Messiah. Fitz. says that the disciples' question is actually about Elijah prefiguring the raising of the dead, not of the coming of the Messiah since this is what they go on to talk about in Mark. (295)

That's fine to say, but it seems that Fitz. is making the same mistake as Faierstein. Is it possible that the raising of the dead was also a well-known part of the day of the Lord? If so, this is the same issue. Messiah, raising of the dead, and Elijah may have all been understood to be part of the great and terrible day of the Lord. In order to judge this pericope properly, we, as disconnected 21st century people, need to understand the first-century understanding of the day of the Lord.

Daniel 12.2 should also be figured in to the disciples', scribes', first-century people's understanding of the Day of the Lord. Does this verse have verbal connections or at least connotations strong enough to suggest it should play a part in the disciples' question?

Allison, "Elijah Must Come First"

Allison, Dale. “Elijah Must Come First.” JBL 103 (1984): 256-58.

Based on Mark's text itself (on its own rhetoric), Mark presupposes that the question of Elijah as forerunner already exists. The disciples' question, "Why do the scribes say . . ." posits that "any one wishing to affirm that the concept of Elijah as forerunner was a Christian development must explain why that concept came to be imputed to the Scribes" (256).

Faierstein's greatest failure is that he does not take seriously what is written in Mark. He does not allow the situation in Mark to develop, but nevertheless the situation (the disciples' question) is there, and we must deal with it. (256)

Faierstein states that b. 'Erub. 43a-b is too flimsy a foundation to support that Elijah-as-forerunner was widely spread throughout the Jewish world. In Allison's opinion, Faierstein is right as long as he keeps the word "widely" in the equation. (257). b. 'Erub. 43a-b proves that at least somebody looked to Elijah as the forerunner to the Messiah in the same manner as the scribes and disciples in Mark. (257)

A further failing of Faierstein is his unwillingness to hear as the first-century person might hear. Many believed the Messiah would return on "the Great and Terrible Day of the Lord". If Mal 3.23 states that Elijah will come before the great and terrible day of the Lord, then simple logic involves Elijah in the Messiah's return. (257) If b. 'Erub. 43a-b is dated much later than the Gospels (presumably 300 A. D.), then it appears Malachi 3 is enough to make the first-century folks believe Elijah would come as precursor to the Messiah. The term "great and terrible day of the Lord" seemed to be sufficiently infused with Messianic significance on its own, and anything associated with it ends up in the same arena.

Furthermore, the similar claim of later rabbinical literature about Elijah as forerunner should be seen not as inconsequential because it comes later, but as highly relevant because it comes later. If the Rabbis didn't want to support the Christian eschatology about Elijah's return, why would they have not played down Elijah's role rather than agreeing so easily with Mark's account? Mal 3.23 seemed to carry enough weight to cause early Xns and Rabbis alike to expect Elijah's involvement in the day of the Lord. (257)

Issues remaining from Roth's "Hebrew Gospel" book

Kee, Howard Clark. Review of Hebrew Gospel: cracking the code of Mark, by Wolfgang Roth. Journal of Biblical Literature, 109 no 3 (Fall 1990): 538-539.

According to Howard Clark Kee's 1990 review of Roth's Hebrew Gospel: cracking the code of Mark, these areas are poorly covered and have yet to be resolved (at least by 1988 when Roth wrote this book):

• inadequate attention to Mark's apocalyptic nature (Mk 13, and the demonic confrontation)
• the issue of redefining the people of God is virtually ignored
• Jesus and the Temple is misrepresented. Roth states that reestablishing the Temple is an aim of Jesus', but this is not apparent (acc. to Kee) in Mark's gospel
• no attention given to the fact that most of Mark's engagement with the OT actually comes out of LXX, not MT. (So there may be a need for closer attention to verbal/language-level connections)
• DSS are not explored

Brodie, The Crucial Bridge - Elijah-Elisha narrative in Mark

Brodie, Thomas L. The Crucial Bridge: the Elijah-Elisha Narrative as an Interpretive Synthesis of Genesis - Kings and a Literary Model for the Gospels. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 2000.

The Gospels are clearly marked by Graeco-Roman ancient biography, but, "the Greco-Roman world does not have one particular account which by itself provides a credible model for the composition of the Gospels" (80).

Brodie argues instead that the Elijah-Elisha narrative provides this model.

Possible connections to Primary History (Gen-Kgs)

• 1.1, "the beginning" to Gen 1.1
• 1.1, "εὐαγγέλιου . . . Ἰῆσου Χρίστου to Rom 1.1
• 1.3-4, "voice cries . . ." to first and last books in the Prophets (Isa 40 and Mal 3) (all from Brodie, 86).

These might be a bit of a stretch, but perhaps we're not so used to listening to Mark's use of OT.

Mark work to reflect the whole range of Primary History (cf. Swartley's Israel's Scripture Traditions) in which "Mark gives a special role to the history's interpretive synthesis, to the Elijah-Elisha foundational model, through which to engage both the larger history and other sources" (86).

Jesus, in Mark, is not simple, but complex. He and his disciples "reflect the complexity and vitality of God. Jesus' identity as the Christ, for instance, is not a simple matter of information, of getting the fact straight, of telling it or keeping it secret. Rather, the secrecy is expressive of mystery, in a context where mystery indicates not a lack of truth but a great richness of it" (87).

History, in Mark, "has an extra mystery-filled divine dimension, and this dimension shows in people's lives" (87; such as the disciples who move from enthusiasm to unreliability to Peter's tears of repentance to a new sense of life upon hearing of Jesus' res.).

History and biography are at work in Mark. That Mark is biographical means "not that Mark gives a life of Jesus, but Mark uses Jesus' life to express the larger reality of history" (87) (While this may be true, there is often historiographic material found in ancient biographies, though the historical bits are included for the purpose of expressing the essence of the subject.)

"Thus biography is at the service of the portrayal of mystery-filled history." (87).

Caution is needed here. Burridge comes from a classical background, so he is more adept in finding Graeco-Roman elements in Mark's story. Brodie admits he has spent 25 years in the E-E narrative, and so is more likely to find strains of E-E throughout. However, E-E is more evident because 1) Elijah is explicitly mentioned at key points throughout the narrative, 2) Mark is writing a biography of Jesus who is a prophet in a long tradition of prophecy; his story fits into the continuing narrative of God's people from Abraham and on. Tread carefully so as to not be overly impressed with either side. It's complex because Mark is leaning on OT narratives, but expressing them through a narrative account of Jesus' actions and teachings, flavoured by Graeco-Roman ancient biography.

If Elijah and Elisha can be placed along side Moses as 'prophets like Moses' because they (or at least Elijah) renewed the old faith in YHWH, then perhaps the E-E narrative can legitimately be held as primary in Mark because Jesus, too, comes to renew the old faith in YHWH, to put it into new terms, into a new context, to call Israel again to obedience.

This is in support of Brodie's statement:
"the Elijah-Elisha narrative is also biographical. Its portrayal of history is accomplished largely through describing the lives of prophets, especially of Elijah and Elisha. Yet biography, as such, never dominates; it is subject to the more basic purpose of portraying the working of the divine in history" (88).

Brodie points to the length of Mark as evidence that E-E is behind its composition. (88) This is a little spurious. Mark fits well within the range of ancient biography, some of which (such as Plutarch) were meant to be heard in one sitting (cf. Burridge, Jesus Now and Then). Brodie suggests that "The similarity of length becomes even closer if parts of the Elijah-Elisha narrative--the formulaic reigns (esp. 2 Kgs 8:16-29; 13:1-13)--are regarded as padding" (88).

I find this unconvincing. It seems more likely that Mark would follow the conventions of his day. However, if, as some claim, Greek was not Mark's first language but Hebrew or Aramaic, perhaps he would have been more familiar with Hebrew forms of literature, and thus he framed a Hebrew-minded text based on E-E in a contemporary literary form, namely, ancient biography.

Brodie makes an interesting point connecting the rate of expansion of Mark's episodes. They begin rather disconnected from one another, pieces of narrative, though coherently connected, broken into episodes and not always smoothly leading one into the next. However, when Jesus descends from his Transfig, the narrative becomes nearly unbroken, and from Jesus' clearing of the Temple to his crucifixion is a continuous narrative. This same phenomenon occurs in E-E. Episodic narrative until 2 Kgs 9-13, which proceeds as a single, continuous narrative. Could Mark be emulating E-E's style? (89)

Clear Connections as Key Points: Beginning, Middle, and End (Brodie, 90)

•  BEGINNING
• Malachi's messenger (Mk 1.2) is not anonymous; Mal id's the messenger as Elijah (Mal 3.1, 23)
• Other features recall Elijah: abrupt beginning, wilderness, the Jordan, prophetic speaker's external appearance, animals/ravens, angels, abrupt calling to discipleship (1 Kgs 17.3, 6; 19.4-8, 19-21; 2 Kgs 1.8)
• MIDDLE
• at center of E-E heavenly fire comes down on mt top (2 Kgs 1); fire carries Ej to heaven (2 Kgs 2).
• in Mark, mt-top drama is Transfiguration with heavenly light (rather than fire). The connection is intentional - Elijah's name is mentioned five times.
• END
• Mark's end is abrupt and enigmatic (16.8); Elisha's death and burial are enigmatic, including the dead man's rising to life (2 Kgs 13.21)
• Women flee from the tomb in Mark; pall-bearers flee from the tomb of Elisha
• Jesus is thought to call out to Elijah from the cross אלי אלי rather than אליה אליה.
  (91)

 Further Structural Links

• The way particular events and miracles occur in Mark mirrors or emulates those in E-E. 
• Jesus heals a leper. The only other person to do this in OT/NT is Elijah (Naaman).
• Feeding the 5000/3000 with loaves and fish; multiplying of loaves by Elisha (2 Kgs 4.42-44) (Rather than manna with Moses? I didn't remember his story of Elisha.)
• The focus of Mark and E-E both turn toward the Temple at the end of their narratives (2 Kgs 10.18-27; chs. 11-12)
• anointing and conspiracy (2 Kgs 9.1-11; Mk 14.1-14)
• accession (cheering; cloaks on the ground (2 Kgs 9.12-13; Mk 11.7-10)
• pause before taking over the temple (2 Kgs 12.5-17; Mk 12.41-44);
• challenging authorities (2 Kgs 9.22-10.27; Mk 11.12-12.12)
• giving money for the Temple (2 Kgs 12.5-17; Mk 12.41-44)

According to Brodie, "The Old Testament text does not account for Mark's narrative, but it has made an inextricable contribution." (93)

"While there is no doubt but that Mark had his own specifically Christian sources and that he incorporated a wealth of Greco-Roman features, literary and oral, there can also be little doubt but that, in shaping these sources, he drew on the Elijah-Elisha narrative--the succinct interpretive synthesis which culminates the Scriptures' greatest history. No other explanation accounts so well for the data." (95)

Goodacre, "Mark, Elijah, the Baptist and Matthew"

Mark Goodacre, ―Mark, Elijah, the Baptist and Matthew: The Success of the First Intertextual Reading of Mark‖ in Tom Hatina (ed.), Biblical Interpretation in Early Christian Gospels, Volume 2: Matthew (Library of New Testament Studies 310; London & New York: T & T Clark, 2008), 73-84

*NOTE: page numbers listed below are from the online PDF, which does not follow the 73-84 pagination. I'll need to cite this as an online viewing.

Connection between JB and Elijah in Mk

• clothing (1.6; cf. close verbal connection to 2 Kg 1.8 (LXX))
• new Ahab and Jezebel (6.14-29)
• echo of Elijah's complex relationship with the weak king Ahab and his manipulative wife Jezebel. Similar situation in Mk 6, which presents a similarly weak Herod and similarly manipulative Jezebel (Goodacre, 5).
• Verbal links in Mk 6 are limited (cf. Gundry, 313), however, in its innertextual context, the story is placed between two very clear references to Elijah (1.6; 9.11-13). Pointing out that the verbal connections are weak "might be seen as declining the invitation to read Mark intratextually as well as intertextually since both the broader context (1.6, 9.11-13) and the immediate context (6.14-16) draw the reader's attention to Elijah" (5).
• "as part of a developing discourse in which this theme is clearly important, it is difficult not to spot Jezebel's haunting presence lurking in the shadows of Herod's court" (5).
• ID confirmed (9.11-13)
• This third reference to Elijah clarifies and proves the 2nd. Jesus declares, upon descending the mountain, that Elijah has come, and that he has suffered as he was supposed to. Elijah was identified in JB earlier on for this purpose. This statement that "Elijah indeed has come" in JB confirms Jesus' messianic identity that the disciples are beginning to perceive (7).
• Jesus mentions that the Son of Man is going to suffer like Elijah, "they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written of him" (the SofM will also "suffer many things" which are "written" about him [7]).

Elijah in Matthew, and what this means for Mark

• Matthew takes Mark and clarifies, sharpens, and interprets it. As a result, Matthew can be a very helpful guide, at the very least, a good interpreter close to Mark's writing. (9)
• Mt 17.13 clarifies Mk 9.11-13, "the the disciples understood that Jesus was speaking about John the Baptist". How much clearer can it get? (9; cf. Mt 16.12/Mk's story of bread and the boat; Mt clarifies what Jesus says in Mk about leaven spreading through the dough)
•   Mt 11.13-14 explicitly connects JB with Elijah.
• Mt's version of JB with Herod and Herodias does not mention Elijah. Mark takes a lot of space to "hint so gently" at the Elijah theme, whereas it is explicit in Matthew. Perhaps Matthew thought hidden ref to E at this point was unnecessary. As a result, contemporary scholarship still isn't sure if an echo of 2 Kings is there at all. (11-12) (This calls for careful comparison of the MT, LXX and GNT. What can I find?)
• Implications of JB=E is that "If Elijah has already come and was mistreated, then surely this greater-than-Elijah will also suffer at their hands." (14)
• Jesus' statement about Mk in 9.11-13 is tricky as the Mal 3.23 prophecy does not come completely true in JB. JB does not "restore all things". He loses his head and is dead. Rather than submitting to this difficulty, Mark has Jesus refute it head on - but how is this done? (15, n. 19; cf. Marcus, The Way of the Lord, 94-110; how does Jesus refute what is left lacking in Mal 3.23?)

Elijah and JB before Mark

• Some suppose that John himself thought he was Elijah, but Goodacre thinks Mark might be the source of this connection between JB and E since Mark's gospel is the earliest evidence (17). Mark points to another interp., which erroneously understands Jesus to be Elijah (6.15; 8.28).
• Mark's focus on Elijah is strong. In the Transfig scene, "there appeared Elijah with Moses." And so great was the emphasis on Elijah that the disciples ask about him immediately on their way down the mountain (no questions about Moses). (18).
• Jesus cannot be Elijah because Elijah appeared with Jesus (18). This fact seems to have needed reinforcement since the disciples seemed to be confused on the matter. "If Jesus isn't Elijah, who is?" (19, n. 25). JB is dead, so either JB appeared with Jesus as Elijah, or it was the actual Elijah (my thought).

Evaluation

JB's identity as Elijah is not only contested in the literature, but in the Gospels themselves. John and Luke seem to point to Jesus as Elijah, while Mark is (subtly) emphatic, with Matthew explicitly. This comparison of the 4 Gospels is valuable, and I especially appreciated his critique of Marcus' The Way of the Lord, to which I'll return when I read Marcus.