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?

Faierstein, Why do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?

Faierstein, Morris M. "Why Do the Scribes Say that Elijah Must Come First." JBL 100/1 (1981): 75-86.

There is ongoing debate over whether or not Elijah is the forerunner of the Messiah. Some (such as Fitzmyer) say that he is, while others are not so sure, as there is little evidence to make a certain claim (76-77).

Faierstein looks at the evidence in MT, Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Philo, Qumran, Targum, Talmud, and Midrash.

Mal 3.23-24 (MT) state that God will send Elijah before the coming of the great and terrible Day of the Lord. This is not an explicit reference to being a forerunner of the Messiah. Messiah is not mentioned here (77). (However, the great and terrible Day of the Lord is usually Messianic, isn't it?)

He argues that ancient evidence does not support this interpretation. No one thought this because of this verse. (77)

Furthermore, in Sirach 48, the same assumption is made. Sirach talks about Elijah returning to restore the people, but does not mention a messiah, but many draw messianic implications from this reference. (Faierstein seems to regard this as eisegesis.) (78)

References in 1 Enoch (90:31, 37) seem to point to Ej as forerunner to Messiah, but here again, acc. to Faierstein, if one approaches the text with a priori expectations, then of course you will see Elijah in the room. But again, no explicit reference to Elijah (80).

4QarP offers a fragment bearing an explicit reference to Elijah coming before... something, but it is only a fragment. Fitzmyer warns against attributing this frag. to the Elijah-forerunner hypothesis because we can't be sure what this frag. is talking about (80).

Philo is also unclear on the matter (80).

Targumic material speaks more easily of Elijah as forerunner, but there are problems in dating this material as it may be from as late as the 600s A. D. (81)

Second-Temple Judaism liturgy mentions Elijah, but Faierstein is yet unconvinced because of issues in the manuscripts (text-critical problems). Some man. contain a ref to waiting for Elijah while some do not. He wonders if this has been added later in Rabbinical era (85).

Justin Martyr (Trypho) mentions that Elijah will anoint the Messiah when he comes, but this may be retrospective of the canonical Gospels in which JB anoints Jesus before his ministry begins (86).

In conclusion, Faierstein is unconvinced that Elijah will be forerunner to Messiah. He thinks that this may be a novum in the NT, and that, since there is no compelling evidence in contemporaneous literature, our notions of JB's role in the NT needs to be reunderstood, and our questions about Elijah as forerunner need to be reexamined. (86)