2009 - daniel frayer-griggs - ‘everyone will be baptized in fire’. mark 9.49, q 3.16, and the...

8/13/2019 2009 - Daniel Frayer-Griggs - Everyone Will Be Baptized in Fire. Mark 9.49, Q 3.16, and the Baptism of the Comi

1/33

Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 7 (2009) 254285 brill.nl/jshj

Everyone Will Be Baptized in Fire: Mark 9.49,Q 3.16, and the Baptism of the Coming One

Daniel Frayer-GriggsDurham University, Durham, [email protected]

AbstractMark 9.49, with its odd juxtaposition of the images of salt and fire, is a noto-riously diffi cult text, which has mystified many interpreters and engenderednumerous conflicting interpretations. In a regrettably disregarded article,.J. Baarda suggested that the original form of the saying may have been Foreveryone will be baptized in fire. Tis study argues that Baardas proposalis remarkably plausible given its coherence with the preaching of John the

Baptist and other aspects of the Jesus tradition. Also considered herein is thepreviously unobserved possibility that Baardas reconstruction may offer solu-tions to problems that have long frustrated interpreters of the Baptists pro-nouncement regarding the coming one who would baptize with the HolySpirit and fire (Q 3.16).

Keywordsbaptism, coming one, divine passive, fire, John the Baptist, salt

Introduction

For everyone will be salted with fire (Mk 9.49).1 Tese words, attrib-uted to Jesus by the second evangelist, constitute what is no doubt oneof the most perplexing pronouncements in the Synoptic tradition. obe sure, two prominent commentators have recently deemed it one of

1) All biblical quotations are taken from the NRSV.


2/33

D. Frayer-Griggs / Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 7 (2009) 254285 255

2) Eugene Boring,Mark: A Commentary(NL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox,2006), p. 284.3) Joel Marcus, Mark 9-16 (AYB, 27A; New Haven; London: Yale University Press,2009), p. 698. See also the exhaustive catalogue of similar verdicts in James Morison,

Marks Memoirs of Jesus Christ: Or, A Commentary on the Gospel according to Mark(London: Hamilton, Adams, & Co, 2nd edn, 1876), p. 283.4) Cf. W.G. Kmmel, Introduction to the New estament(trans. A.J. Mattill; Nashville:

Abingdon Press, 14th rev. edn, 1966), p. 45: Only three short reports (Mk. 4:26-29,

parable of the self-growing seed; 7:31-37, healing of a deaf mute; 8:22-26, the blindman of Bethsaida) and three very short texts (3:20f., the relatives regard Jesus as besidehimself; 9:49, salt with fire; 14:51f., the fleeing youth) of Mark are found neither inMatthew nor Luke. It is interesting to note, however, that atian does preserve thiscurious verse in his Diatessaron(25.23).5) Ambrose of Milan, Exp. Ev. Sec. Luc.5, 8 (CCSL 14, ed. M. Adriaen, p. 137), whocites the scribal gloss in Mk 9.49bomnis victima sale salietur (every sacrifice willbe salted with salt)is, to my knowledge, the first patristic exegete who comes closeto breaking this silence. See . Levi9.14 and G. Phil. 35 for other possible allusions toMk 9.49b of an early date.6) Marcus Jarstrow,A Dictionary of the argumim, the almud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the

Midrashic Literature, II, (New York: Pardes Publishing House, Inc., 1950), p. 1644.

the New estament passages that defy interpretation2 and perhaps themost enigmatic logion of Jesus in the N.3 Tese judgments do not,

however, reflect a solely modern sentiment, for it is apparent that theapprehension that attends this peculiar saying is nearly as ancient as theverse itself. Mark 9.49 is, for instance, one of the few Markan texts thatneither Matthew nor Luke incorporated into his Gospel.4 Furthermore,the Greek manuscript tradition contains a number of textual variantsof this logion, providing a strong indication that even those ancientscribes whose mother tongue was Greek were uncertain what to makeof it. And strikingly, the history of the interpretation of our verse in the

early patristic period is, so far as I can tell, a history of silence.5

Tis exegetical unease has led many modern scholars to concludethat the Greek text is corrupt, thus prompting the proliferation of sev-eral Semitic retroversions, which, having been misheard or mistrans-lated at some stage in the sayings oral or textual history, may have givenrise to the Greek text now preserved in Marks Gospel. Te most note-worthy of these reconstructions is arguably that of .J. Baarda, whosuggests that the Greek verb (will be salted) may derivefrom confusion between the Aramaic verbs (to spice, season)6


3/33

256 D. Frayer-Griggs / Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 7 (2009) 254285

7) Marcus Jastrow,A Dictionary of the argumim, the almud Babli and Yerushalmi, and theMidrashic Literature, I, (New York: Pardes Publishing House, Inc., 1950), p. 517.8) .J. Baarda, Mark IX.49, NS5 (195859), pp. 318-21 (320).9) Baarda, Mark IX.49, p. 320. I have elected to translate the dative as infirerather than withfire. Although it is the latter that is typically found in translations ofMk 9.49, the preposition in is just as likely as with, if not more so, for the Hebrew

and Aramaic verb , like the Greek verb , most often suggests immersioninsomething, usually a liquid; cf. Gerhard Delling, , Nov2 (1957), pp. 92-115 (95-102); Oepke, , ., DN1 (1964), pp. 529-46.Moreover, the Greek dative of presupposes the Semitic preposition , which maybe translated as in just as readily as with. Tis last judgment may find support inmss C 1342, which supply the preposition (most often in but possibly with)before (fire).10) Baardas article is occasionally cited in a passing comment or footnote, but it isnever satisfactorily engaged: cf. Rudolf Pesch, Das Markusevangelium, II, Kommentarzu Kap. 8,27-16,20 (HKN; Freiburg: Herder, 1977), p. 117; Joachim Gnilka,

Das Evangelium nach Markus, II (EKK; Zurich: Benziger Verlag, 1978), p. 66 n. 15;Harry Fleddermann, Te Discipleship Discourse (Mark 9:33-50), CBQ43 (1981),p. 70, n. 68; Urban C. von Wahlde, Mark 9:33-50: Discipleship, the Authority thatServes, BZ 29 (1985), pp. 44-67 (60 n. 33); R.. France, Te Gospel of Mark: ACommentary on the Greek ext (NIGC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), p. 383n. 75. Eugen Drewermann, Markus Evangelium, II, Mk 9,14 bis 16,20 (Olten:

Walter-Verlag, 2nd edn, 1989), p. 84 n. 24, who asserts, [a]m ehesten zuzustim-men ist dem Vorschalg von . J. BAARDA (Te proposal of . J. BAARDA is mostagreeable), relegates this endorsement to a footnote in which he provides no fur-ther explanation or justification for his judgment. Others limit their interactionwith Baardas article to mere bibliographical references: cf. William L. Lane, TeGospel according to Mark(NICN; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), p. 347; Simon

and (to immerse, to bathe for purification)7, which may haveoccurred at the oral stage. He also allows that it may have been the

result of a scribal mistranslation of the verb , which accordingto Baarda could mean to season in addition to its more commonmeaning to immerse, bathe for purification.8 In either case, Baardaproposes that the original Aramaic form of our saying may have been ,which should have been translated into Greek as (For everyone will be baptized in fire).9

Despite the fact that Baardas retroversion can be shown to fit quiteplausibly within the context of the life and preaching of the histori-

cal Jesus, his attempt at unravelling this mysterious saying has gonelargely unappreciated.10A more thorough consideration of the merits


4/33


Lgasse, LEvangile de Marc, II (Paris: Les ditions du Cerf, 1997), p. 588; CraigEvans,Mark 8:27-16:20(WBC, 34B; Nashville: Tomas Nelson, 2001), p. 67.

and implications of his reconstruction is, therefore, in order. As I shallseek to demonstrate, whereas the Greek text of this fiery logion gener-

ates more smoke than light, Baardas proposal not only illumines thispreviously dark saying, but in heretofore unexplored ways, it may alsothrow new light on a similar pronouncement attributed to John theBaptistHe [the coming one] will baptize you with the Holy Spiritand fire (Q 3.16)the original wording and precise meaning of whichhave long been subjects of vigorous debate.

Since the very need for such a reconstruction hangs on the assump-tion that the Greek text is corrupt, it is necessary first to consider the

manifold diffi culties that accompany the present form of our sayingbefore entering into an evaluation of Baardas proposal.

ext-Critical Issues

As is well known, the Greek manuscript tradition attests to three prin-cipal forms of Mk 9.49:

1. (For everyone will be salted with fire,B L 0274f1.1328*. 565. 700pcsysbopt(: ));

2. (For every sacrifice will besalted with salt, D itb,c,d,ff

2,i), which alludes to Lev. 2.13 LXX:

(And every one ofyour sacrificial gifts will be salted with salt); and

3. (For everyone will be salted with fire, and every sacrifice will be

salted with salt, A (2427)lat syp.hbopt(C: )).

Other less well-attested variants include the following:

4. (For every loaf of bread will besalted with fire, 11. 88. 124. 220. 230);


5/33


11) Paul-Louis Couchoud, Was the Gospel of Mark written in Latin?, CrozQ5 (1928),pp. 35-79 (47-48); Paul-Louis Couchoud, Notes de Critique Verbale sur St. Marc etSt. Matthieu,JS34 (1933), pp. 113-38 (124); cf. Ernst Lohmeyer, Das Evangeliumdes Markus(KKN, 1; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1953), p. 197.12) Joseph Scaliger, Notae, in . Noviestamenti: Libri Omnes, Recens nunc Editi: cum Notis & Animaduersionibus Doctis-simorum, Praesertim Ver Roberti Stephani, Iosephi Scaligeri, Isaaci Casauboni(London:

Richard Whittaker, 1633), p. 380.13) Alexander Pallis,A Few Notes on the Gospels according to St. Mark and St. MatthewBased Chiefly on Modern Greek (Liverpool: Liverpool Booksellers Co 1903) p 18

5. (For everyone will be consumed with fire and every sacrifice will be

salted with salt, );6.

(For everyone will be salted with fire and every sacrifice will be con-sumed with salt, );

7. (For everyone will be polluted withfire, W); and

8. (For everyone will be tested byfire, 1195).

Paul-Louis Couchoud, moreover, has argued that the original form ofour saying may be preserved in the Latin Codex Bobiensis:

9. omnia autem substantia consumitur (And all [their] substance willbe consumed, itk), which Couchoud translates into Greek as . In their Markan context these wordswould refer to the fate of those thrown into Gehenna.11

Last, at least two hypothetical Greek variants for which there are noextant textual witnesses have been proposed:

10. (Every burning [that is, every offering made by fire] shall be salted,and every sacrifice will be salted with salt), as proposed by JosephScaliger;12 and

11. (For everyone will be purified with

fire), as suggested by Alexander Pallis.13


6/33


14) Cf. Nestle-Aland, Novum estamentum Graece (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelges-ellschaft, 27th rev. edn, 1993), p. 121. See, however, Heinrich Zimmermann, Mit

Feuer Gesalzen Werden: Eine Studie zu Mk 9,49, Q139 (1959), p. 28-39 (28-31),who offers the dissenting opinion that the longer reading (3) is the original and thatthe shorter reading (1) resulted from an instance of homeoteleuton, in which the copy-ists eye slid from the (will be salted) at the end of the first clause to thesame verb at the end of the second, thus omitting the second clause altogether. See also

J.K. Elliot, An Eclectic extual Commentary on the Greek ext of Marks Gospel, inJ.K. Elliot (ed.), Te Language and Style of the Gospel of Mark(Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1993),pp. 189-211 (199), who argues for the longer reading on the basis of Marks frequentuse of repetition, which he takes to indicate that [t]he so-called conflate reading ischaracteristic of Mark.15)

Bruce Manning Metzger, A extual Commentary on the Greek New estament:A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies Greek New estament(New York:United Bible Societies 1994) p 102

Most textual critics agree that of these eleven extant and hypotheticalvariants, the earliest Greek form of our saying is reading (1), For eve-

ryone will be salted with fire, for it is attested by some of the best andearliest uncials (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus), and it alone could have givenrise to all of the variants enumerated above.14 Regarding the textual his-tory of Mk 9.49, Bruce Metzger ventures the following explanation:

At a very early period a scribe, having found in Lv 2:13 a clue to themeaning of Jesus enigmatic statement, wrote the Old estament passagein the margin of his copy of Mark. In subsequent copyings the marginalgloss was either substituted for the words of the text, thus creating reading(2), or was added to the text, thus creating reading (3).15

Metzgers conjecture provides a plausible explanation for the genesisof the principal variants, and one can easily perceive how the minorvariants might have originated from the most primitive reading (1) orfrom the later conflated reading (3). For instance, while reading (4) isan intentional modification of (1), several of the other variants can beexplained either as scribal errors in which copyists mistook the original

verb (will be salted) for a similar looking verb, or asscribal attempts to correct what they perceived as a previously commit-ted scribal error. In either case, the verb in question was replaced with(will be consumed) in variants (5) and (6), and with


7/33


16) Tat the reference to salting with fire could be interpreted as a fiery test is con-firmed by the comment of Teophylact in Ennaratio in Ev. Marci (PG 123.70): , , , , (He says,For everyone will be salted with fire, that is, will be tested). Te saying is simi-

larly interpreted by the anonymous ancient commentator in J.A. Cramer (ed.),Catenae Graecorum Patrum in Novum estamentum, I, Catenae in Ev. S. Matthaei etS. Marci(repr., Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1967), pp. 368-69,who likens Mk 9.49 to 1 Cor. 3.13, according to which the fire will test ( ) what sort of work each one has done. Cf. Did.16.5: Ten all humankindwill come to the fiery test (), in Michael W. Holmes(ed.), Te Apostolic Fathers: Greek exts and English ranslations(Grand Rapids: Baker

Academic, 3rd edn, 2007), pp. 208-209; . Ab.13.11: and he tests () theworks of men through fire () (trans. E.P. Sanders, in James H. Charlesworth[ed.], Te Old estament Pseudepigrapha, I, Apocalyptic Literature and estaments[Garden City: Doubleday, 1983], p. 890).17) Morison,Marks Memoirs of Jesus Christ, p. 284.

(will be polluted) in variant (7). Variant (8), however,cannot be explained in this manner, for the verb (will

be tested) could never have been confused with the verb (will be salted). Rather, this variant likely represents one of the earliestattainable interpretations of reading (1).16 Variant (9) is likely a Latintranslation of a variant closely related to reading (2) in which the Greeknoun (sacrifice) was mistaken for (substance). As JamesMorison observes, Scaligers proposal (10) requires the invention of asacrificial word, (burning, i.e. offering made by fire), a factwhich tells strongly against its authenticity.17 Finally, while Palliss sug-

gested reading (11) is attractive and its meaning clear, the absence of asingle supporting textual variant anywhere in the manuscript traditionis detrimental to the claim that it represents the original Greek text. Itseems most probable, then, that reading (1) preserves the earliest attain-able Greek form of our saying.

History of Interpretation

Te history of the interpretation of Mk 9.49 is as convoluted as thehistory of its textual transmission. Unlike Matthew, Luke, and the earlyChurch Fathers, who were perhaps allergic to this sayings ambiguity


8/33


9/33


Ishodad of Merv, I (HSem, 6; ed. Margaret Dunlop Gibson; London: Cambridge

University Press, 1911), pp. 136-37; John Calvin,A Harmony of the Gospels Matthew,Mark, and Luke, I (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), p. 176; see also Johan AlbrechtBengel, Gnomon of the New estament, II (trans. J. Bandinel and A.R. Aufsset; ed. A.R.Fausset; Edinburgh: & Clark, 6th edn, 1858), pp. 542-43, who discerns in Mk.9.42-50 three degrees of discipline: being salted with salt; being salted with fire; andbeing cast into the fires of hell. He writes, [t]he first degree is the most desirable : thethird is the most bitter of the three : the second is intermediate. Being salted with fireis a more severe cure than being salted with salt, but it similarly preserves one frombeing cast into the fires of hell.21) John Lightfoot,A Commentary on the New estament from the almud and Hebraica,

II,Matthew-Mark(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), p. 425, emphasis origi-nal; cf. Hugo Grotius, Operum Teologicorum, II.I,Annotationes in Quatuor Euangelia& Acta Apostolorum(Amsterdam: Joannis Blaeu, 1679), pp. 316-17.22) John Wesley, Commentary on the Whole Bible: A One-Volume Condensation ofHis Explanatory Notes (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), p. 430; John Gill, GillsCommentary, V,MatthewActs(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980), pp. 367-68.23) Cf. Julius Wellhausen, Das Evangelium Marci(Berlin: Druck und Verlag von GeorgReimer, 1903), p. 82; Karl Ludwig Schmidt, Der Rahmen der Geschicte Jesu(Damstadt:

Wissenschaftliche Buchgesselschaft, 1969), p. 233. Vincent aylor, Te Gospel accord-ing to Mark(London: Macmillan, 1953), p. 415; D.E. Nineham, Te Gospel of Saint

Mark(New York: Seabury Press, 1963), p. 255; Morna Hooker, Te Gospel accordingto Mark(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), pp. 230-31.

In contrast to those who read the two clauses in synonymous par-allelism, those who look to our verse and see antithetical parallelism

suggest that in the first clause , all, is not to be understood ofevery man, but of every one of them whose worm dieth not andhas as its antecedent those who in the preceding verses are threatenedwith the unwelcome fate of being cast into Gehenna.21 According tosome, moreover, the purpose of the salting is not for the preservationof believersfromcorruption, but for the preservation of sinners intheirstate of eschatological punishment, with the effect of prolonging theirunbearable torment unto eternity.22

Tese classical interpretations bring to light the extent to whichnearly all exegesis of our verse up to the past century has been influ-enced by both the scribal gloss in Mk 9.49b and the Markan context.However, just as the textual critics have informed us that the scribalgloss is likely not original to our saying, the form critics have suggestedthat the Markan context (Mk 9.33-50) is most probably secondary.23


10/33


24) Cf. Vincent aylor, Te Formation of the Gospel radition (London: Macmillan,

1953), p. 92: Tis kind of artificial arrangement appears to be especially characteris-tic of the sayings in Mark. So also Frans Neirynck, Te radition of the Sayings of

Jesus: Mark 9, 33-50, in Pierre Benoit, Roland E. Murphy and Bastiaan van Iersel(eds.), Te Dynamism of Biblical radition (Concilium, 20; New York: Paulist Press,1967), pp. 62-74 (65); Ernest Best, Marks Preservation of the radition, in WilliamR. elford (ed.), Te Interpretation of Mark(Edinburgh: & Clark, 2nd edn, 1995),pp. 153-68 (159).25) J. Duncan M. Derrett, Salted with Fire: Studies in exts: Mark 9:42-50, Teo76(1973), pp. 354-68.26) Henry Burton Sharman, Te eaching of Jesus about the Future according to theSynoptic Gospels (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1909), p. 74, asserts thatv. 49 is a Markan invention created for the sole purpose of linking vv. 42-48 and

Modern exegesis, therefore, typically begins with the recognition thatMk 9.49 owes its present position to the verbal similarities it shares

with the preceding and following verses. Six clearly discernable catch-words hold together Mk 9.33-50, suggesting that the passage is notorganically unified but is composed of several originally independentlogia: (name) links vv. 37, 38, 39 and 41; (child)links vv. 37 and 42; (to cause to stumble) links vv. 42,43, 45, and 47; (fire) links vv. 48 and 49; and (to salt)and its cognate (salt) link vv. 49 and 50.24

Tose who have insisted upon holding these verses together in

their exegesis of this text have produced dubious interpretations.J.D.M. Derrett, for instance, suggests that since salt and fire were usedin the ancient world to cauterize and cleanse flesh after the amputationof limbs, the reference to salt and fire in vv. 49-50 stands in a naturalrelationship to vv. 42-48, which speak of cutting off ones hand or footto prevent oneself from sinning.25Against such exegesis, it seems thattoo obvious a disjuncture exists between vv. 43-48, 49 and 50 to main-tain their unity. First, in vv. 43-48 fire refers to the fires of Gehenna andclearly has a negative meaning. Next, in v. 49 salt and fire are function-ally equated with one another, thereby attributing to salt the negativeconnotations already associated with fire. Last, in v. 50 salt is describedin an unambiguously positive sense: Salt is good. Tis incongruitystrongly indicates that Mk 9.49 was an originally independent sayingwhich was found to be a convenient, albeit poorly integrated, transitionfrom the fire sayings in vv. 43-48 to the salt sayings in v. 50. 26 On the


11/33


v. 50. For more recent proponents of this position see Robert W. Funk, Roy W. Hoover,and the Jesus Seminar, Te Five Gospels: Te Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus(SanFrancisco: HarperCollins, 1993), p. 87; Gerd Ldemann,Jesus after 2000 Years: WhatHe Really Said and Did(Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2001), p. 65; and Fleddermann,

Te Discipleship Discourse, p. 71. Tis, however, is highly improbable, for if Markhad wished to create a saying merely for transitional purposes, it seems that he wouldhave devised something more easily intelligible and contextually relevant.27) Von Wahlde, Mark 9:33-50, p. 61.28) Cf. C.E.B. Cranfield, Te Gospel according to Saint Mark: An Introduction andCommentary(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), p. 315. Although his-torically speaking Mk 9.33-50 was not likely a unified whole, the attempt to discernMarks redactional purposes in organizing this cluster of sayings in his Gospel is still avalid pursuit; cf. I.H. Henderson, Salted with Fire (Mark 9,42-50): Style, Oraclesand (Socio)Rhetorical Gospel Criticism, JSN 80 (2000), pp. 44-65, who argues

that Mk 9.33-50s pivotal location and uncharacteristic length (it is the third longestdiscourse in Mark) must indicate that Marks redactional intentions are at work inthis passage. He goes on to suggest, however, that we should take seriously the pos-sibility that Marks rhetorics failed here. Such a possibility is suggested by the radicaldismemberment of the Markan Jesus speech in both Matthews and Lukes redactions(p. 47). If he is correct, the failure of Marks rhetorics to persuade Matthew and Lukemay be a further indication that these originally distinct sayings were too unwieldy tobe integrated effectively into a cohesive discourse.29) See also Mk 4.21-25 (vv. 22, 25); Mk 8.35-38, which similarly use to linkclusters of pre-Markan tradition.30) Robert H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1993), p. 527.

other hand, Urban von Wahlde believes v. 49 was originally a para-doxical answer to the question of how to salt the flavorless salt men-

tioned in v. 50 and that the Markan redactor transposed the sayings invv. 49 and 50 so as to establish the catchword fire between vv. 48 and50.27 Tis is, however, an unlikely proposition, for it would suggest thatthe redactor was more concerned with creating catchwords than withmaintaining meaning. Any historically oriented consideration of Mk9.49 must, therefore, provide a plausible meaning for this saying that isindependent of its secondary Markan context.28 It is also probable thatthe postpositive (for) in v. 49 was introduced by the compiler of

these disparate logia in order to link it to the preceding verses.29

Tis recognition makes interpretation of our saying all the more dif-ficult, for if we disengage v 49 from its present context almost anyguess is as good as another.30 It is for this very reason that conflicting


12/33


31) Cf. Hauck, , DN1 (1964), p. 229; Joachim Gnilka, Das Evangelium nachMarkus, II, p. 66; France, Te Gospel of Mark, pp. 383-84. Tis reading ignores theinelegance of the phrase salted withfire which strangely suggests that fire is somehowthe means of salting. J.R. Linder, Bemerkungen ber einige Stellen der Evangelien,SK32 (1859), pp. 511-19 (515) seeks to alleviate this awkward tension by suggest-

ing that should be read not as an instrumental dative, but as a dative indirectobject: Everyone will be saltedforthe (sacrificial) fire (cf. 2 Pet. 3.7), which would beequivalent in meaning to the scribal gloss. Against this is the parallelism of the scribalgloss itself, in which the dative is clearly instrumental since the gloss could notpossibly be translated and every sacrifice will be salted for the salt. Tis suggests thatat least one ancient reader preferred to read as an instrumental dative rather thanas a dative indirect object. Anton Fridrichsen, Wrzung mit Feuer, SO4.1 (1926),pp. 36-38 (37), believes the saying to allude not to sacrificial ritual but to domesticcooking practices: just as fire and salt season food to make it savoury and enjoyable,suffering and hardship produce disciples pleasing to God.32) Cf. Eduard Schweizer, Te Good News according to Mark(trans. Donald H. Madvig;Richmond: John Knox, 1970), p. 199; Cranfield, Gospel according to Saint Mark,p. 316; Dale C. Allison, Jr, Te End of the Ages Has Come: An Early Interpretation of thePassion and Resurrection of Jesus(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), p. 127; Hooker, Gospelaccording to Mark, p. 233.33) Joachim Jeremias, , DN1 (1964), pp. 657-58 (658); cf. E.P. Gould,

A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Mark (ICC;Edinburgh: & Clark, 1912), p. 181.34) Cf. C.G. Montefiore, Te Synoptic Gospels, I (London: Macmillan and Co., 1909),p. 233, who cites Loisy to this effect.35) Cecil John Cadoux, Te Historic Mission of Jesus: A Constructive Re-Examination of theEschatological eaching in the Synoptic Gospel (London: Lutterworth Press, 1941), p. 242.

interpretations abound among modern exegetes. Some have continuedto see here a reference to Lev. 2.13 and suggest that the saying stresses

the sacrificial nature of Christian discipleship.31 Others find here acryptic allusion to the eschatological tribulation which all must face.32

A handful of scholars continue to believe it to be a reference to the firesof Gehenna, but some take the salt imagery to indicate the purificatorycharacter of the final fire of judgment.33 Still others see in Mk 9.49 areference to the end-of-the-world cosmic conflagration that dissolvesthe elements with fire (cf. 2 Pet. 3.10-12).34 Last, at least one exegetehas discerned in this saying a metaphor for persecution with no escha-

tological significance whatsoever.35


13/33


Cadoux does, however, concede that the verses present location in Mark suggests thatthe evangelist interpreted the saying in an eschatological sense.36) Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book, p. 123.37) For the many uses of salt in the ancient world see Pliny, Natural History31.34-45;N.D. Coleman, Note on Mark ix 49, 50: A New Meaning for ,JS24 (1923),pp. 387-96; N.D. Coleman, Salt and Salted in Mark ix. 49, 50, E48 (1937),pp. 360-62; Wolfgang Nauck, Salt as a Metaphor in Instructions for Discipleship,S6 (1952), pp. 165-78; James E. Latham, Te Religious Symbolism of Salt(TologieHistorique, 64; Paris: Editions Beauchesne, 1982).38) Te power of salt to preserve from corruption was also apparently important in earli-est Christianity. See, for instance, Ignatius, ad Mag.10: Have yourselves salted in him

Tis brief foray into the history of the interpretation of Mk 9.49should suffi ce to underscore Meyers conclusion, which confirms what

the textual variants have already shown us, namely that [t]his greatdiversity of interpretation is a proof of the obscurity of the utterance.36

Indeed, it would be an understatement to say that the Greek text of thissaying is inherently ambiguous.

Te Problem of Polyvalent Images

It is diffi cult to avoid the inference that at the root of the confusionevinced by so many textual variants and conflicting interpretations ofMk 9.49 is the juxtaposition of two highly polyvalent images in oursaying: salt and fire. In the literature ranging from the Hebrew Bible tothe earliest Christian writings and beyond, the images of both fire andsalt carry a surplus of meanings which at times seem antithetical to oneanother and thus contribute to the cryptic nature of this text.

Indeed, the image of salt evokes an array of symbolic meanings.37

o begin with, Lev. 2.13b commands, with all your offerings you shalloffer salt (cf. Ezek. 43.24; 1 Esd. 6.24, 30; Jos., Ant. 3.9.1; 12.3.3;11Q18 21; 11Q19 XX.13; XXXIV.11-14; 11Q20 7; G. Phil. 35;. Levi 9.14), from which salt derives its sacrificial connotations(cf. Illiad1.449;Aeneid2.133). According to Philos interpretation ofthis commandment, salt was employed to preserve the sacrifice fromdecay just as the soul preserves the body from moral corruption (Spec.Leg. 1.53).38 A meal of bread and salt played a role in the sealing of


14/33


[Christ], and then there will be no scent of corruption about any of youfor it is byyour odour that you will be proved (trans. Holmes, pp. 208-209).39) rans. Geza Vermes (ed.), Te Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (New York:Penguin, 2004), p. 337.40) Cf. James D.G. Dunn, Te Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (NIGC;Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), pp. 266-67; Eduard Lohse, A Commentary onthe Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (trans. Robert J. Karris and WilliamR. Poehlmann; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971), p. 169.41) Cf. W.D. Davies and Dale C. Allison Jr, A Critical and Exegetical Commentaryon the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, I (ICC; New York: & Clark, 1988),p. 473.42) See also G. Phil. 36, where salt is associated with the barrenness of Sophia.43) Cf. Friedrich Lang, , ., DN6 (1968), pp. 928-48; Vinzenz Hamp,, DO1 (1977), pp. 424-28.

covenants in the Covenant of Salt and by extension symbolized hos-pitality (Num. 18.19; 2 Chron. 13.5). Additionally, salt was believed

to have purifying qualities, and thus all things from newborn babies(Ezek. 16.4) to the spiritual works of the marvelous firmament arepurified with salt (4Q405 19 ABCD).39 In the New estament, Col.4.6 alludes to the idea that speech could be seasoned with salt, anidiom that draws upon the observation that just as salt seasons food andmakes its flavor more interesting, speech should likewise be seasonedwith wit and wisdom to prevent it from becoming insipid and bor-ing.40 Mark 9.50 (cf. Mt. 5.13//Lk. 14.34) gives a manifestly positive

description of saltSalt is goodand Jesus exhorts his disciples tohave salt in themselves. Precisely what positive quality the salt symbol-izes, however, is unclear.41 Negatively, it was recognized in the ancientworld that too much salt, like too much water or fire, could be destruc-tive, particularly given that soil which has been sown with salt becomessterile (Ps. 107.33-34; Jer. 17.6; Judg. 9.45).42 Tese negative quali-ties, moreover, are often associated with the destruction of Sodom andGomorrah (Deut. 39.23; Zeph. 2.9), where Lots wife was transformedinto a pillar of salt (Gen. 19.24-26).

As with the image of salt, that of fire conjures several occasionallyconflicting connotations.43 Beyond its mundane sense, fire can be asso-ciated with theophanies in which it symbolizes or accompanies thepresence of Yahweh (Gen. 15.17; Exod. 3.2; 13.21; 19.18; Judg. 13.20;


15/33


44) Latham, Religious Symbolism of Salt, p. 239.45) Coleman, Salt and Salted, p. 361.46) For the view that Jesus did intend his teachings, especially his parables, to con-

found his hearers, see Steven Davies,Jesus the Healer: Possession, rance, and ChristianOrigins(New York: Continuum, 1995), pp. 128-36 (cf. Mk 4.11-12).

Ezek. 1.4-28; Dan. 7). It is sometimes the means of divine judgmentintervening in the course of history (Gen. 19.24; Lev. 10.2; Num. 11.1;

16.35; 2 Kgs 1.10) or of eschatological judgment or tribulation on theDay of the Lord (Isa. 66.15-16, 24; Mal. 4.1; Jud. 16.17; 2 Pet. 3.7).Occasionally in association with the Day of the Lord, fire also serves apurifying and refining function (Isa. 1.24; 6.6; Ezek. 10.6; Mal. 3.2-3).In the Gospels especially, fire is associated with punishment in Gehenna(Mt. 13.42; 18.8-9; 25.41; Mk 9.43, 45, 47, 48). Less frequently in theNew estament it is used to describe the cosmic conflagration in whichthe heavens and the earth are dissolved (2 Pet. 3.10-12) or as a meta-

phor for earthly trials (1 Pet. 4.12).Given the multi-faceted nature of both of these images, it is notsurprising that James Latham concludes his exhaustive survey of thereligious symbolism of salt in the ancient world with the observationthat Mk 9.49 is too rich in symbolism to settle on any one meaning.Tis is especially evident because the two symbols, salt and fire, con-tain, each one, contrary meanings.44 It is understandable that the richsalt symbolism paired with the equally evocative image of fire in Mk9.49 has led to many diverse and conflicting interpretations. Te poly-valence of these symbols in which the poet takes delight is the bane ofthe exegete who seeks to unravel their meaning. And while it is evidentthat Jesus was fond of employing provocative images in his parabolicspeech, the text we are investigating seems particularly recondite, andone is forced to ask, [m]ay we not say that in the womb of this verseare two parables striving to be born, one of fire and the other of salt?45

In light of such extreme ambiguity, one is left to surmise either thatit was the intention of Jesus (or whoever first formulated this saying)

to flummox his hearers with such an esoteric utterance, or that oursaying has been imperfectly handed down through its oral and scribaltransmission.46


16/33


47) Hirsch Perez Chajes,Markus-Studien(Berlin: C. A. Schwetschke, 1899), p. 53.48) Baarda, Mark IX.49, p. 318.49) Charles Cutler orrey, Te Four Gospels: A New ranslation(New York: Harper andBrothers, 1933), p. 302.50) Charles Cutler orrey, Our ranslated Gospels: Some of the Evidence (New York:Harper and Brothers, 1936), p. 11.51)

Cf. aylor,Mark, p. 413, who deems orreys translation prosaic.52) Gnther Schwarz, (Markus 9,49), BN11 (1980), p. 45.

Semitic Solutions

Given the many interpretive diffi culties inherent in Mk 9.49, it is nosurprise that several modern scholars have assumed that our Greek textrepresents a mistranslation of an Aramaic or Hebrew original and haveconsequently attempted to reconstruct Semitic retroversions that cir-cumvent the diffi culties we have observed in the received text. Teseproposed reconstructions, some of which are more commendable thanothers, are almost as numerous as the Greek textual variants surveyedabove.

According to Hirsch Perez Chajes, the Aramaic original of Mk 9.49may have been , which he translates as denn jedesFeuer wird mit Feuer gesalzen (For every fire will be salted with fire).47

Such a reconstruction is unfortunately still more obscure than theGreek and therefore no more plausible.48 Charles orrey, who deemsthe Greek text of our saying pure nonsense,49 proposes that in Aramaicthe verse Every one ( ) with fire () will be salted could also betranslated as, Anything spoiling is salted.50 It is diffi cult, however, toimagine why such a colourless and pedestrian pronouncement wouldhave been committed to memory by Jesus disciples or preserved by theearly Church.51 Only slightly better is Gnther Schwarzs proposal. Hepresupposes that behind the Greek lies an Aramaic text, which read (Everyone will be salted with fire). Tis he believesto derive from a misreading of a more original

- ,

which he renders into Greek as and trans-lates as Jeder wird aus dem Feuer grettet werden (Everyone will besaved from the fire).52 In support of his reading, Schwarz appeals to

similar notions found in 1 Cor. 3.17 and Jude 23. Notably lacking,


17/33


53) Weston Fields, Everyone Will Be Salted with Fire (Mark 9:49), GJ6.2 (1985),pp. 299-304 (302); cf. Grotius, Operum Teologicorum, p. 316; Pierson Parker, TePosteriority of Mark, in William Farmer (ed.), New Synoptic Studies(Macon: MercerUniversity Press, 1983), pp. 67-142 (71-72). Gundry,Mark, p. 526, however, conteststhe purported linguistic parallels in Judg. 9.45 and Isa. 51.6 cited by Fields.54) Fields, Everyone Will Be Salted with Fire, p. 302; bracketed and parentheticaltexts original.55) Although it is perhaps the least likely retroversion of Mk 9.49, that ofTomas F. McDaniel, Clarifying Mark 3:7 and 9:49, online: http://tmcdaniel.palmerseminary.edu/Mark_3&9.pdf [accessed 15 November 2008], is, for thesake of thoroughness, worthy of mention. McDaniel proposes that when our say-ing is reconstructed in Hebrew as , it can be translated not only

however, are any corroborating declarations within the Jesus traditionthat could substantiate his proposal.

Perhaps more persuasive is the contribution of Weston Fields, whoargues that when Mk 9.49 is translated into Hebrew ( ,(an alternative and much preferred interpretation presents itself. Fieldsobserves that while in both Hebrew and Aramaic the verb mostfrequently means to salt, it can also mean to destroy. 53 Fields seizesupon this second meaning and contends, [i]t would fit this context per-fectly to translate 9:49, everyone [who is sent to hell] will be completelydestroyed(destroyed by fire).54While it is true that Fieldss reconstruc-

tion does fit its Markan context better than many other proposed ren-derings of our saying, the qualifier who is sent to hell with which hefeels compelled to modify his translation indicates that his reconstruc-tion does not fit its context as perfectly as he would like. Indeed, if weare correct in maintaining that the Markan context is secondary, thereis no reason to believe that the indefinite pronoun (everyone),which Fields renders as (every man), refers to those who havebeen thrown into Gehenna, for there is no such indication within Mk9.49 itself. When this is taken into consideration and Fieldss recon-struction is divorced from its Markan context, his reading amountsto nothing less than a nihilistic proclamation of universal destruction,which surely could not have been the sayings original meaning.

All of the above proposed solutions fail to resolve adequately the mys-tery of Mk 9.49.55While the proposals of Chajes and orrey are no lessproblematic than the Greek text, the meaning of Fieldss retroversion


18/33


as for everyone will be salted with fire, but also as for everyone will be draggedthrough the muck. He takes this to be a description of the fate of those who are stonedas a punishment for causing the little ones in v. 42 to stumble and whose bodies areconsequently dragged through the garbage in (the Valley of Hinnom), whichMcDaniel mistakenly interprets not as a metaphor for hell but as a literal reference tothe terrestrial region known by that name (pp. 6-12).56) Cf. E.P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), p. 11,

who lists Jesus baptism at the hands of John as an indisputable fact. On the ques-tion of whether Jesus was a disciple of John, see Jrgen Becker, Johannes der uferund Jesus von Nazareth(Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1972), pp. 12-15;Paul Hollenbach, Te Conversion of Jesus: From Jesus the Baptizer to Jesus theHealer, ANRW II/25.1 (1982), pp. 196-219 (215-16); John P. Meier, A Marginal

Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, II, Mentor, Message, and Miracles (New York:Doubleday, 1994), pp. 116-30; and Daniel S. Dapaah, Te Relationship between Johnthe Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth: A Critical Study(Lanham, MD: University Press of

America, 2005), pp. 93-96.57) On the authenticity of Jesus praise of John the Baptist, see Ben F. Meyer, Te

Aims of Jesus (London: SCM Press, 1979), pp. 124-28; Ragnar Leivestad, Jesus inHis Own Perspective: An Examination of His Sayings, Actions, and Eschatological itles

remains captive to its secondary Markan context. And while Schwarzsproposal may be intelligible and its meaning may be independent of its

secondary context, it can find no sure footing within the Jesus tradi-tion. Strikingly, however, when we return to Baardas reconstruction, -(For everyone will be baptized in fire), we confront none of these shortcomings.

Tere is, in fact, much to commend in Baardas proposal. Its mean-ing is clear and in no way dependent upon its Markan context, andperhaps most importantly, it finds a very plausible context within theJesus tradition. John the Baptist preached a baptism in fire (Q 3.16),

and Jesus was baptized by John and was likely, at least for some time,one of his disciples.56As one who submitted to the water baptism ofJohn, Jesus would have undoubtedly heard and known well Johns mes-sage. o be sure, his willingness to receive Johns baptism indicates, atthe very least, a tacit endorsement of his proclamation. Jesus, moreover,makes his approval of Johns message explicit elsewhere when he deemsJohn more than a prophet (Q 7.26) and the greatest among thoseborn of women (Q 7.28) and indicates that Johns baptism is fromheaven (Mt. 21.25//Mk. 11.30//Lk. 20.4).57 It would, therefore, be


19/33


(trans. David E. Aune; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1987), pp. 88-92; Joan E. aylor, TeImmerser: John the Baptist within Second emple Judaism(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1997), pp. 299-316; and especially the careful treatment in Meier, A Marginal Jew,II, pp. 130-71.58) Cf. Robert L. Webb, John the Baptist and his Relationship to Jesus, in BruceChilton and Craig A. Evans (eds.), Studying the Historical Jesus (Leiden: E.J. Brill,1994), pp. 179-229 (227-29), who notes several sociological similarities between thetwo: John and Jesus were both popular prophets who led reform movements and

stood in apparent opposition to the emple, John through his offer of forgivenessthrough the rite of baptism rather than through the recognized emple rites and Jesusthrough his emple demonstration (p. 228); both had disciples; and both met similarfates at the hands of political rulers. Dale C. Allison, Jr, Te Continuity between

John and Jesus,JSHJ1 (2003), pp. 6-27 (16-22), identifies several instances in whichJesus teaching reflects the influence of John. Both rejected the belief that descent fromAbraham was suffi cient to secure ones place in the world to come ( John: Q 3.8; Jesus:Q 6.43-45; Mt. 7.16-21, 12.33-35), and both employed the following imagery: treesfailing to bear good fruit being chopped down (John: Q 3.9; Jesus: Lk. 13.6-9); thewicked being thrown into the fire ( John: Q 3.9; Jesus: Mt. 7.19; 13.40; Mk 9.47-50;

Jn 15.1-16); eschatological judgment as a harvest (John: Q 3.17; Jesus: Q 10.2; Mt.13.24-30//G. Tom.57; Mk 4.1-9; 4.26-29); and baptism in fire ( John: Q 3.16; Jesus:Lk. 12.49-50). See also in this regard David R. Catchpole, John the Baptist, Jesusand the Parable of the ares, SJ31 (1978), pp. 557-70; and aylor, Te Immerser,pp. 149-54, who proposes that the disciples request in Lk. 11.1, Lord, teach us topray, as John taught his disciples, to which Jesus responds with the Lords Prayer, mayindicate that the prayer actually originated with John the Baptist and that Jesus wassimply handing on that which he had received from his mentor.59) On the historicity of Lk. 12.49-50 and its original unity, see James D.G. Dunn,Te Birth of a MetaphorBaptized in Spirit, Exp89 (19771978) pp. 134-38;173-75 (137-38); Allison, End of the Ages, pp. 124-28; and George Beasley-Murray,

Jesus and the Kingdom of God(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), pp. 247-52.

surprising if in his own preaching ministry Jesus had not adopted ele-ments of Johns message for which he clearly had profound respect.

Several scholars have made a case for a high degree of continuitybetween the preaching of John the Baptist and that of the histori-cal Jesus.58 For our purposes, the most significant of these points ofcontinuity is that which exists between Q 3.16, Johns prophecy ofthe coming one who would baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire, andLk. 12.49-50: I came to bring fire to the earth, and how I wish itwere already kindled! I have a baptism with which to be baptized, andwhat stress I am under until it is completed! 59 In this last saying Jesus


20/33


60) Tis saying has parallels in G. Sav.71; Origen, Hom. in Jer. lat.20.3; Didymusthe Blind, Comm. in Ps.88.8; and Ephraem, Exposition of the Gospel83; and may bealluded to in Ignatius, ad Smyrn. 4.2. On the authenticity of G. Tom.82, see EdwinK. Broadhead, An Authentic Saying of Jesus in the Gospel of Tomas?, NS 46(2000), pp. 132-49, who offers the most rigorous and sustained argument in favourof its historicity; cf. J.B. Bauer, Das Jesuswort, Wer mir nahe ist, TZ15 (1959),pp. 446-50; Joachim Jeremias, Unknown Sayings of Jesus(trans. Reginald H. Fuller;

London: SPCK, 2nd edn, 1964), pp. 66-73; Dunn, Birth of a Metaphor, p. 137.Of course, not all have found this saying authentic. Te Jesus Seminar assigns thissaying a gray designation due to its similarity to Aesops proverb Whoever is near toZeus is near the thunderbolt (on which see Jeremias, Unknown Sayings, p. 70) and onaccount of the exalted status ascribed to Jesus, which the seminar fellows assume Jesuscould not have held of himself (Te Five Gospels, pp.517-18). Ldemann simply pro-nounces, [t]he saying is inauthentic and completely rooted in Gnostic thought (Jesusafter 2000 Years, p.631). Such assumptions and assertions cannot assail the detailedarguments presented by Bauer, Jeremias, and Broadhead.Nicholas Perrin, Tomas: TeOther Gospel(Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007) hints that atian may be thesource of this saying (p. 105, n. 73); however, the probable allusion in Ignatius, adSmyrn.4.2 would suggest an earlier date.

combines the images of fire and baptism in what appears to be an inten-tional allusion to Johns proclamation about the coming ones baptism

with fire.Tose who judge Jesus baptism by John to be historical and the say-

ing preserved in Lk. 12.49-50 to be authentic will find a very plausibleframework within which to locate Baardas reconstruction of Mk 9.49,for the pronouncement Everyone will be baptized in fire comportswith the proclamation of the Baptist, and Lk. 12.49-50 provides inde-pendent attestation that Jesus deliberately echoed precisely this sayingof John. Te apocryphal logion attributed to Jesus in G. Tom. 82,

which may very well be dominical, provides further attestation that inJesus mind entry into the kingdom was inextricably linked with fire:Whoever is near me is near the fire, but whoever is far from me is farfrom the kingdom.60

Although certainty regarding the historical authenticity of Baardasretroversion is beyond our grasp, it must be admitted that the revisedsaying harmonizes remarkably well with John the Baptists procla-mation of the coming ones baptism with fire (Q 3.16) and with thepreaching of Jesus attested to elsewhere in the tradition (Lk. 12.49-50;


21/33


61) Allison, Continuity, p. 7.62) Marie Francois Arrouet de Voltaire, A Philosophical Dictionary, I (New York:Coventry House, 1932), p. 195.63) Carl H. Kraeling, John the Baptist (New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1951),pp. 116-17; N.A. Dahl, Te Origin of Baptism, in Interpretationes ad Vetus estamen-tum Pertinentes Sigmundo Mowinckel: Septuagenario Missae (Oslo: Forlaget Land

G. Tom. 82), the historicity of which can be affi rmed with a highdegree of probability. Te retroversion thus presents a plausibleand

more coherentalternative to the problematic logion found in theGreek text of Mk 9.49. Given the merits of this reconstruction, itspotential implications for the interpretation of Q 3.16 are worthy ofconsideration.

John, Jesus, and the Baptism in Fire

Although only very few texts provide us with information about Johnthe Baptist, it is often assumed that an increased awareness of him willfacilitate a more complete understanding of the historical Jesus. Whilethere is no doubt some warrant for this belief, the fact remains that ourpresent sources reveal far more about Jesus than they do about John; itis therefore ironic that we expect John to shed light on Jesus, for theforerunner is the darker figure.61What is perhaps most striking aboutBaardas proposal, then, is that if it is accepted as authentic, it not onlyelucidates Jesus own eschatological convictions, but it may also illu-mine our understanding of John the Baptist. Could it be, then, thatthe one whom the Christian Gospels identify as the coming one might,against all expectation, bear witness to the forerunner? It is with thisquestion in mind that we consider the several diffi culties involved inthe interpretation of Q 3.16.

Voltaire, in his Philosophical Dictionary, opined, [t]hese words,He will baptize with fire, have never been explained.62 Many today,however, would agree that in comparing his own baptism in water with

the baptism of the coming one, Johns intended message was that justas he was baptizing in a river ofwater, the coming one would baptize ina river offire.63 Strikingly, the river of fire features in a number of Jewish


22/33


Og Kirke, 1955), pp. 36-52 (44-45); L.W. Barnard, Matt. III. 11//Luke III. 16,JS8 (1957), p. 107; John Scobie,John the Baptist(London: SCM Press, 1964), pp.68-69; Hartwig Tyen, , in

James M. Robinson (ed.), Te Future of Our Religious Past: Essays in Honor of RudolfBultmann(New York: Harper & Row, 1971), pp. 131-68 (132 n. 6); Dunn, Birth of

a Metaphor, pp. 135-36; Davies and Allison,Matthew, I, p. 316. Tis interpretationis by no means merely a modern construct; it can be found already in Origen (Hom.

24 on Lk. 3.16).64) Cf. Dan. 7.10; 1QH 11.29-32; 1 En. 14.19; 67.13; Sib. Or.2.196-205; 252-254;3.54; 84-87; 4 Ezra13.10-11; 2 En.10.20; Apoc. Pet. 6; 12; . Isaac 5.21-25; Apoc.Paul31-36. Te clearest parallel in the Zoroastrian literature is Bundahishn30.19-20:Afterwards the fire and halo melt the Shatvairo in the hills and mountains, and it remainson this earth like a river. Ten all men will pass into that melted metal and become pure;when one is righteous, then it seems to him just as though he walks continually in warmmilk; but when wicked, then it seems to him in such manner as though, in the world, he

walks continually in melted metal (trans. E.W. West in F. Max Mller [ed.], Te SacredBooks of the East, V [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1880], pp. 125-26).65) Dunn, Spirit-and-Fire Baptism, Nov14 (1972), pp. 81-92; Davies and Allison,

Matthew, I, pp. 316-18; Robert Webb,John the Baptizer and Prophet: A Socio-historicalStudy(Sheffi eld: Sheffi eld Academic Press, 1991), p. 275. Others interpret not as spirit, but as wind; see, for instance, C.K. Barrett, Te Holy Spirit and theGospel radition (New York: Macmillan, 1947), p. 126; Kraeling, John the Baptist,pp. 59-63; E. Best, Spirit-Baptism,Nov4 (1960), pp. 236-43. Harry . Fleddermann,

Mark and Q: A Study of the Overlap exts(Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1995),pp. 34-35, however, observes, [t]he Synoptic writers use almost one hundredand fifty times, and nowhere else does it mean wind. Te three Synoptic writers andQ consistently use for wind.

and Christian apocalyptic texts and is an image that appears to haveancient Zoroastrian roots.64 Given that this was a widespread apoca-

lyptic motif of which a prophet like John would have been well aware,it is very likely that he envisioned the eschatological judgment takingplace through immersion in just such a river of fire. Tese observationsmay show Voltaires ruling to be overly hasty, but a number of linger-ing questions remain regarding the precise form and meaning of theBaptists original proclamation about the coming one and his baptism.

First, the similar sayings in Mk 1.8; Jn 1.33; Acts 1.5; 11.18, whichspeak of a baptism with the Holy Spirit alone, raise questions about

the earliest form of the saying. Did John originally speak of a bap-tism with both the Holy Spirit and fire?65 Did he proclaim a baptism


23/33


66) See E. Earle Ellis, Te Gospel of Luke(London: Tomas Nelson, 1966), p. 89: Fire

is absent in Mark and probably is a Christianpesher-ing to the Pentecostal fulfilment.Cf. Meier,A Marginal Jew, II, p. 36, who favors the multiply attested tradition of thebaptism with the Holy Spirit alone. Compare, however, Eduard Schweizer, ,, DN6 (1968), pp. 332-451 (398): Omission of the diffi cult is readily understandable, but not its addition, for there was never any baptismwith fire. Lk. himself did not see any such in Ac. 2:3, since he quotes the saying onlyin the Marcan form in 1:5. Hence it must go back to the Baptist.67) .W. Manson, Te Sayings of Jesus(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), p. 41; RudolfBultmann, Te History of the Synoptic radition (trans. John Marsh; Oxford: BasilBlackwell, 1972), p. 246; Jrgen Becker, Jesus of Nazareth(trans. James E. Crouch;

Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1998), p. 45; Adela Yarbro Collins,Mark: A Commentary(Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008), p. 146.68) Scobie,John the Baptist, p. 71; Lang, , ., p. 943.69) Becker,Jesus of Nazareth, p. 45; Tyen, , p. 132 n. 6; Marius Reiser,

Jesus and Judgment: Te Eschatological Proclamation in its Jewish Context(trans. LindaM. Maloney; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997), p. 185.70) Dunn, Spirit-and-Fire Baptism, p. 86; Davies and Allison,Matthew, I, p. 316.71) Cf. Paul B. Bretscher, Whose Sandals? (Matt 3:11),JBL86 (1967), pp. 81-87;

John H. Hughes, John the Baptist: Te Forerunner of God Himself, Nov14 (1972),pp. 191-218; Reiser,Jesus and Judgment, pp. 181-86.72) Becker, Jesus of Nazareth, pp. 46-47; Joachim Gnilka, Jesus of Nazareth (trans.Siegfried Schatzmann; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997), pp. 74-75.

with the Holy Spirit alone?66 Or, as some modern critics contend, didhe anticipate a baptism with fire only?67 Second, precisely who would

receive the baptism in fire and what effect it would have on its recipi-ents are both subjects of debate. Some believe that while the righteouswould receive a gracious baptism with the Holy Spirit, the baptismwith fire would be reserved as punishment for the wicked.68 Likewise,those who regard the reference to baptism in the Holy Spirit to be sec-ondary typically hold that the coming ones baptism in fire would besolely destructive.69 Others have maintained that the baptism with theHoly Spirit (or breath) and fire is a single baptism (hendiadys) which

would be required of all and would serve the dual function of refin-ing the repentant while simultaneously punishing the unrepentant.70

Tird, disparate proposals have been offered in attempt to discern theidentity of Johns expected coming one. Te most plausible candidatesare as follows: the coming one was God;71 he was the son of man;72


24/33


73) J.A.. Robinson, Elijah, John and Jesus: An Essay in Detection, in welve Newestament Studies (London: SCM Press, 1962), pp. 28-52 (30), emphases original:it is the characterof the coming one which is the real indication that John may haveseen him as Elijah redivivus. For he is before anything else to be a man of fire. And theman of firepar excellencewas Elijah. See also Raymond E. Brown, John the Baptistin the Gospel of John, in New estament Essays(Milwaukee: Te Bruce PublishingCompany, 1965), pp. 132-40.74) Bultmann, History of the Synoptic radition, p. 246; Manson, Sayings of Jesus, p. 41;Davies and Allison,Matthew, I, p. 314.75) Dunn, Spirit-and-Fire Baptism, p. 84.76) Some have proposed that Q spoke only of the baptism with fire and that Matthewand Luke both independently conflated this tradition with the baptism in the HolySpirit tradition found in Mk 1.8, resulting in the pairing of the Holy Spirit andfire; cf. Adolf von Harnack, Te Sayings of Jesus: Te Second Source of St. Matthewand St. Luke (trans. J.R. Wilkinson; New York: G.P. Putnams Sons, 1908), p. 3;Manson, Sayings of Jesus, p. 41; Ulrich Luz,Matthew 1-7: A Commentary(trans. JamesE. Crouch; Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), p. 138; Franois Bovon,Luke 1: A Commentary on Luke 1:19:50(trans. Christine M. Tomas; Hermeneia;Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), p. 126. Tis position seems plausible at first; however, itwould be an unlikely coincidence if both Matthew and Luke had conflated Mark andQ in precisely the same manner. Tis phrase is, in fact, the only instance of verbatimagreement between Matthew and Luke in the entire verse; to suggest that this point of

he was Elijah redivivus; 73 or he was the Messiah.74 Seasoned and soberscholars stand divided over each of these issues.

It is striking, therefore, that if one accepts Baardas proposal, fruitfulavenues for exploring each of these vexing questions reveal themselves.First, the most readily apparent difference between Johns proclamationin Q 3.16 and Baardas retroversion of Mk 9.49 is the presence of theHoly Spirit in the former and its absence in the latter. It is frequentlyasserted that John the Baptist originally spoke of a baptism with firewithout mention of the Holy Spirit; however, while it is certainly imag-inable that the prophecy concerning the Holy Spirit was added to Johns

proclamation in the wake of the early Christians pneumatic experienceat Pentecost, James D.G. Dunn notes that there exists no text whichspeaks of baptism in fire [alone]; it is a purely hypothetical construc-tion.75We have only the tradition in Mk 1.8; Jn. 1.33; Acts 1.5; 11.18that attests to a baptism of the Holy Spirit and the tradition in Matthewand Luke (Q 3.16) that attests to a baptism with both the Holy Spiritand fire.76 It is, however, possible that Baardas reconstruction furnishes


25/33


similarity did not exist in Q runs counter to the evidence. If ever the prophecy existedwith only the mention of the baptism in fire and not the Holy Spirit, it must havebeen a pre-Q tradition.77) James D.G. Dunn,Jesus Remembered, I, Christianity in the Making(Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 2003), p. 804, commenting on Lk. 12.49-50 and its relationship to Q 3.16,notes, [t]hat two of the three key images in the Baptists prediction (baptism, fire)should reappear here with similar effect and in a not dissimilar combination (both pre-dictive of intense tribulation) can hardly be dismissed as merely coincidental. Dunnis surely correct, but the absence of the third element (the Holy Spirit) cannot beso easily dismissed, for if baptism in the Holy Spirit had figured prominently in theBaptists proclamation, one would expect it to appear in those sayings of Jesus thatare most clearly indebted to John. On the contrary, the only instance in which Jesuslinks baptism and the Holy Spirit is in Mt. 28.19, which is widely believed to be alate tradition.78) Dunn, Spirit-and-Fire Baptism, p. 86; cf. Davies and Allison, Matthew, I,p. 316.

us with the missing testimony to a baptism in fire alone and offers awindow into the earliest tradition. If we may presume that in his own

preaching Jesus faithfully represents the message of his mentor, John,Jesus proclamation of an imminent baptism in fire, which makes nomention of the Holy Spirit, may correspond to the tradition he receivedfrom the Baptist. Tis possibility finds further support in Lk. 12.49-50,which similarly links baptism and fire while excluding any mention ofthe Holy Spirit.77Judging from the witness of his most famous disciple,then, it may be possible to maintain that John proclaimed the comingones baptism with fire alone.

Second, if Jesus words, Everyone will be baptized in fire, faithfullyconvey the message of John, it would confirm the arguments of thosewho believe that when the Baptist said, He [the coming one] will bap-tize you () in (the Holy Spirit and) fire, he addressed both thepenitent baptisands whom he immersed in water and the unrepent-ant scoffers standing on the banks of the Jordan whom he decried asa brood of vipers (Q 3.7). Tat is, everyone would be subjected tothe same baptism in fire. As Dunn observes, [i]ts effect would thenpresumably depend on the condition of its recipients: the repentantwould experience a purgative, refining, but ultimately merciful judg-ment; the impenitent, the stiff-necked and hard of heart, would bebroken and destroyed.78


26/33


79) rans. J.K. Elliott, Te Apocryphal New estament (Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 1993), p. 603.80) rans. W.F. Stinespring in James H. Charlesworth (ed.), Te Old estamentPseudepigrapha, I,Apocalyptic Literature(Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983), p. 909.81) rans. John J. Collins in Charlesworth, Old estament Pseudepigrapha, I, p. 351.Tese texts are admittedly all from the second century or later; the motif, however,antedates the texts in which it is found. Cf. Richard Bauckham, Te Fate of the Dead:Studies on the Jewish and Christian Apocalypses(Leiden: Brill, 1998), p. 204: this idea

Tis expectation coheres well with several apocalyptic texts thatimagine the eschatological judgment of all humankind taking place

through immersion in a river of fire. Of these texts, the sixth chapter oftheApocalypse of Peteris representative:

Ten shall he command them to enter into the river of fire while theworks of every one of them shall stand before them. [Rewards shall begiven] to every man according to his deeds. As for the elect who havedone good, they shall come to me and not see death by the devouringfire. But the unrighteous, the sinners, and the hypocrites shall stand inthe depths of darkness that shall not pass away, and their chastisement isthe fire, and the angels bring forward their sins and prepare for them aplace wherein they shall be punished for ever, every one according to histransgression.79

Similarly, in the estament of Isaacthe seer reports the following:

Ten he brought me to a river of fire. I saw it throbbing, with its wavesrising to about thirty cubits; and its sound was like rolling thunder.

I looked upon many souls being immersed in it to a depth of about ninecubits. Tey were weeping and crying out with a loud voice and greatgroaning, those who were in that river. And that river had wisdom in itsfire: It would not harm the righteous, but only the sinners by burningthem. It would burn every one of them because of the stench and repug-nance of the odor surrounding the sinners (5.21-25).80

Or, as the Sibylline Oracles depicts the final judgment, all will passthrough the blazing river and the unquenchable flame. All the right-

eous will be saved, but the impious will then be destroyed for all ages(2.252-254).81 Notably, in all of these texts both the elect and the


27/33


of the eschatological river of fire which distinguishes the righteous from the wicked isa genuinely old Iranian one, which is found already in the Gathas. Te Apocalypse ofPeter seems to be the earliest Jewish or Christian text in which it occurs, but it presum-ably was already to be found in Jewish apocalyptic tradition.82) Dunn, Birth of a Metaphor, perceives Jesus expectation that he too must endurethe eschatological baptism (Luke 12.49-50) as an indication that Jesus has reinter-preted the message of the Baptist: the baptism is one which is to accomplished onhimself rather than by himselfhe sees himself as the baptisand rather than as the

baptizer (p. 137, emphasis original). Given the dearth of sources at hand for recon-structing the Baptists original expectation, it seems unwarranted to assume that Johncould not have anticipated the coming one as being both the baptizer and a recipientof the fiery baptism. Te parallelism between Lk. 12.49 and 50 indicates that Jesusdid not perceive these as mutually exclusive roles, unless we assume a radical change ofmind has taken place between the two verses.83) Cf. Joachim Jeremias, New estament Teology: Te Proclamation of Jesus (trans.

John Bowden; New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1971), p. 11 n. 2; Pesch, DasMarkusevangelium, II, p. 117; Dunn, Birth of a Metaphor, p. 137; Drewermann,Markus Evangelium, II, p. 84 n. 24; H. Lichtenberger, , in Horst Balz andGerhard Schneider (eds.), Exegetical Dictionary of the New estament, III (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1993), p. 199.

wicked are immersed in the selfsame river of fire; it is only the effect ofthe fire upon them that differs.

Luke 12.49-50 may again be of some relevance here, for accordingto this tradition, Jesus anticipated fire being cast upon the earth andthat even he would not be exempted from this fiery lustration. Whatis more, if Mk 10.39b is historical (with the baptism with which I ambaptized, you will be baptized), Jesus also expected the same eschato-logical ablution for his closest followers. All of this would be exceed-ingly odd if John, from whom Jesus received this tradition, had believedthe baptism in fire to be a punishment reserved only for the wicked as

so many have alleged.82

Last, regarding the identity of the coming one, it may be of somesignificance that some scholars have understood the passive verb(will be salted) in Mk 9.49 as an instance of the divinepassive, implying God as the active subject.83 If this is the correct inter-pretation of the Greek text of Mk 9.49, it would suggest that the passiveverb in Baardas reconstruction should be interpreted similarly. Tus, ifJesus spoke the words Everyone will be baptized in fire, it would atfirst glance appear that he was employing the divine passive to indicate


28/33


84) For a parallel argument concerning the similarly phrased and clearly germaneprophecy of the risen Jesus in Acts 1.5; 11.16 (John baptized with water, but you willbe baptized with the Holy Spirit), see James D.G. Dunn, Christology in the Making:

A New estament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation (GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 2nd edn, 1989), p. 143: whether they [the first Christians] thoughtof Jesus as the baptizer in Spirit is put in doubt by the divine passive form.85) Cf. Jeremias, New estament Teology, p. 11: Te divine passive occurs roundabout a hundred times in the sayings of Jesus. Jeremias does go on to caution, how-

ever, that there are a number of borderline cases in which it is not certain whether thepassive is intended as a circumlocution for an action on the part of God or whether itis used without this consideration.86) Scobie, John the Baptist, pp. 66-67; see, however, Hughes, John the Baptist,p. 196, who appeals to Pss. 60.8 and 108.9Moab is my washbasin; on Edom I hurlmy shoeto demonstrate that such anthropomorphic language, while rare, was notunheard of.87) Kraeling,John the Baptist, p. 54; cf. W.H. Brownlee, John the Baptist in the NewLight of Ancient Scrolls, in Krister Stendahl (ed.), Te Scrolls and the New estament(New York: Harper & Brothers, 1957), p. 41.88) Manson, Sayings of Jesus, p. 67. On the historicity of this encounter, see JamesD.G. Dunn,Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience

that he understood the coming one whom John the Baptist expected toadminister the baptism in fire to be none other than God.84

In favour of this interpretation, one may appeal to the fact that thedivine passive form occurs frequently in the words attributed to Jesuswhen he speaks of the activities of God.85 Tis is, however, only onefactor within a much more complex discussion, and several objectionshave been raised against the proposition that John identified the com-ing one as God. Many have judged the reference to the coming onessandals (Mt. 3.11//Mk. 1.7//Lk. 3.16) to be too anthropomorphic animage for John to have applied to God.86 Perhaps even more compel-

ling is the argument that Johns use of comparative language in callingthe coming one (mightier) weighs heavily against thelikelihood that God is the referent, for to compare oneself with God,even in the most abject humility, would have been presumptuous forany Jew in Johns day.87 Last, the question put by Johns disciples toJesus, Are you the one who is to come (), or are we to waitfor another? (Q 7.19), suggests that John did not anticipate the com-ing of God but of a human figure, for implicit in the question is thepossibility that Jesus could have answered in the affi rmative.88


29/33


of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New estament (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1975), pp. 55-60; Meier,A Marginal Jew, II, p. 136; Walter Wink, Jesus

Reply to John: Matt. 11:2-6/Luke 7:18-23, Forum5 (1989), pp. 121-28 (125): Teearly church would scarcely have ascribed uncertainty to John and then answered hisuncertainty with baffl ing ambiguity.89) J. Callow, Some Initial Toughts on the Passive in New estament Greek, Selectedechnical Articles Related to ranslation15 (1986), pp. 32-37.90) See Reisers Excursus on Te So-called Passsivum Divinum inJesus and Judgment,pp. 270-71. Tat this is not, strictly speaking, an instance of the divine passive, as isoften asserted, is suggested by the fact that the Synoptic evangelists do not interpret itas such. Tey present the scribes as accusing Jesus of blasphemy (Mt. 9.3//Mk. 2.7//Lk. 5.21) and asking, Who can forgive sins but God alone? (Mk. 2.7//Lk. 5.21 only),indicating that at least Mark and Luke understood Jesus words to be an implicit claimto the authority to forgive sins.

In light of these substantial arguments against the probability thatJohn envisioned God as fulfilling the role of the coming one, it is per-

haps necessary to question the absolute nature of the divine passive.Tere are naturally instances in which the passive verb without expressedagency may be used without the purpose of identifying the subject asGod.89 More to the point, the Synoptic episode in which Jesus pro-nounces over the paralytic, Son, your sins are forgiven ()(Mt. 9.2//Mk 2.5//Lk. 5.20), provides an instance of Jesus using thepassive form to describe his own actions, which may be a case in whichthe passive is chosen as a circumlocution for the first person singular.90

Hence, a possible use of the passive verb, particularly in reference toeschatological activities of a human agent, may be to draw attentionaway from oneself as the subject in humble recognition that it is Godwho is the ultimate subject behind such activities.

Tere is, in fact, further evidence from within the Synoptic traditionitself indicating that Jesus did in certain cases employ the passive formwhen speaking of his own deeds, particularly deeds of healing that weretypically considered the eschatological activities of God or the Messiah(cf. Mk 1.12; 4.11; 8.12; Mt. 9.29; Lk. 7.47-48; 13.32). Of obviousrelevance to our discussion is Jesus response to the question posedabove by Johns disciples. In his reply, Jesus makes what appears to bean implicit claim to be Johns expected coming one by answering witha catalog of his own activities, many of which are listed in the passiveform: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed


30/33


91) Tat the passive verbs alternate with intransitive verbs may also be significant, foras E.M. Sidebottom, Te So-called Divine Passive in the Gospel radition, E87(1976), pp. 200-204, notes, [t]here are a great number of intransitives in the gos-pels, and often they are taken by the evangelists themselves as equivalent to passives(202).92) See also John J. Collins, Te Works of the Messiah, DSD1 (1994), pp. 98-112,who judges the similar catena of healings recorded in 4Q521 to be particularly indica-tive of the prophetic Messiahs participation in the divine activity.93) Gnilka,Jesus of Nazareth, pp. 74-75; cf. Paul Volz, Die Eschatologie der JdischenGemeinde im Neutestamentlichen Zeitalter: Nach den Quellen der Rabbinischen,

Apokalytischen und Apokryphen Literatur(Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhand-lung, 2nd edn, 1966), pp. 224-26; Webb,John the Baptizer and Prophet, pp. 219-60.

(), the deaf hear, the dead are raised (), thepoor have good news brought to them () (Q 7.22).91

It is particularly striking that it is precisely in the context of identifyinghimself with (the coming one)the one whom Johnexpected to execute the divine activity of judgment by means of bap-tizing in the river of firethat Jesus uses the supposed divine passiveform to describe several of his own activities.92

If, then, Jesus identified himself as the coming one of Johns pro-clamation with whom Gods eschatological activities were associatedand believed God to be the ultimate source of those eschatological

deeds, it is plausible that he employed the so-called divine passiveto describe the actions he himself had performed and would performin the role of Gods eschatological agent. Tis position is strength-ened by the observation that in the eschatological expectation of con-temporary Judaism there were notions according to which God andthe eschatological bearer of salvation work together very closely, wheretheir respective work in fact merges.93 Tus, it is possible that Jesussaw his own eschatological activities as indistinguishable from theeschatological work of God and for this reason used the passive formwhen speaking of his own deeds.

Hence, given (1) that weighty arguments have been adduced againstthe probability of understanding the coming one as God, (2) that Jesusused the passive form to allude to his own eschatological activities onother occasions, and (3) that it was believed that exalted or human agentscould partake in the divine activity, it follows that the possible divine


31/33


passive in Baardas reconstruction of Mk 9.49 need not and should notlead us to the conclusion that when John the Baptist spoke of the com-

ing one who would baptize with fire, he had in mind God. Tis is not tosay precisely whom John anticipated, only whom he did not.

Conclusion

Perhaps most remarkable in our discussion of the verse For everyonewill be salted with fire are the manifold ways in which interpreters

down through the ages have expressed their respective bewildermentconcerning this text. Te scribes alter it, replace it, or affi x to it explana-tory allusions; Matthew and Luke exclude it; the patristic writers passover it in silence; the history of interpretation offers an array of incom-patible readings; and several modern scholars suggest disparate, hypo-thetical Semitic reconstructions. If anything is clear, it is that there isno self-evident reading of Mk 9.49 and that there will likely never beanything approaching a consensus on this text.

However, one proposal considered herein, that of .J. Baardawho forwards the proposition that in Aramaic Mk 9.49 originally read (For everyone will be baptized in fire)strikesus as particularly suggestive and quite attractive given the way in whichit coheres with other aspects of the Jesus tradition and Jesus relation-ship to John the Baptist. Indeed, whereas there is no known literaryor historical context that makes clear sense of the saying For everyonewill be salted with fire, the reconstructed version, For everyone will bebaptized in fire, makes eminent sense as a reformulation of John the

Baptists proclamation that the coming one would baptize with (theHoly Spirit and) fire (Q 3.16).Further, insofar as this saying can be attributed to Jesus and is a faith-

ful transmission of the preaching he received from the Baptist, Baardasreconstruction may provide new answers to those questions that havecontinued to plague the exegesis of Q 3.16. First, it may support theargument that John pronounced a baptism in fire alone and that thereference to the Holy Spirit was a later addition, for if Baardas proposal

is correct, then we have multiple attestation for Jesus combination ofthe images of baptism and fire without any mention of the Holy Spirit.


32/33


Second, it may indicate that when John proclaimed to his audience hewill baptizeyouwith the Holy Spirit and fire, byyouhe meant everyone.

It was an inclusive reference not only to those receiving his baptism,but also to those who stood by watching skeptically. Tis universal-ity is supported by the similar expectation in several apocalyptic textsand their Zoroastrian antecedents that both the wicked and the repent-ant would face the selfsame baptism in the eschatological river of fire.Last, the possible divine passive in Baardas reconstructed version neednot lead us to the conclusion that the coming one was unambiguouslyequated with God. In addition to the obvious fact that there could be

more mundane uses of the passive form, the Synoptic tradition itselfprovides examples of Jesus using the passive to speak of his own escha-tological activities, possibly suggesting that he saw God as the ultimatesubject of his own deeds.


33/33

Copyright of Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus is the property of Brill Academic Publishers and its

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

2009 - daniel frayer-griggs - ‘everyone will be baptized in fire’. mark 9.49, q 3.16, and the...

Documents