From: Jim West (jwest@highland.net)
Date: Thu Mar 26 1998 - 11:30:31 EST
At 08:09 AM 3/26/98 -0800, you wrote:
>
>This is a marvelous discussion. Did the centurion consider Jesus to
>be A, or B? And the answer might be NEITHER!! The lack of an article
>does indeed seem to argue for the sarcastic 'neither' view, which then
>makes the 'debate' so evenly balanced. He would then be saying in
>English idiom a scathing "Son of God indeed!"
>
>George Blaisdell
>
Lets all be careful lest we assume that Mark is reporting actual historical
events. Otherwise soon we will have an entire apocryphal gospel on the look
on the centurion's face and what color clothing he had on, as well as what
he had for breakfast. His tone of voice is immaterial, for Mark is not
interested in the Roman, only in what he says. That Mark would have him
say, in an insulting way, that Jesus was "son of god" (sneer supplied by our
apocryphal gospelists) goes against the very purpose of the Gospel.
Interpretation should keep in mind such things as authorial intent or the
text becomes subject rather than object.
Best,
Jim
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West, ThD
Petros TN
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:18 EDT