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?
Showing posts with label Allison. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Allison. Show all posts
Sunday, October 30, 2011
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)
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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)