*Ev 9:29:
(M. Vinzent, Christ's Torah, p. 226, my bold)
Exodus 34:30
I wonder why Mark had added such detail.
I have found that only the following text raises partially the same question:
I think that the reason is found in the legend about James being killed by the fuller's club. For example, in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2.23.15-18:
The white is symbol of purity/glory/divinity etc, while the fuller is a subtle allusion to the martyrdom of James. Is Mark saying that, as much as martyrdom ("fuller") may procure glory ("shining white") for other human beings (James in primis), it can never make that glory remotely similar to that of Jesus.
The allusion to the "fuller" may be therefore a veiled attack against James. It is expected by Mark.
Marcion would have no reason to remove it. This supports *Ev's prority over Mark.
And while he prayed, it happened: the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became dazzling white.
Mark’s adaptation of the scene preserves this setting as well as the description of the transfiguration from *Ev 9:29, with an added flourish: when Jesus’s appearance changes, his garments turn white, and Mark expounds: “whiter than anyone in the world could bleach them.”
(M. Vinzent, Christ's Torah, p. 226, my bold)
Exodus 34:30
When Aaron and all the Israelites saw Moses, his face was radiant, and they were afraid to come near him.
I wonder why Mark had added such detail.
I have found that only the following text raises partially the same question:
To observe a small point, Mark’s description of Jesus’s clothes as
stands out as fresh and creative in contrast to the vocabulary the above texts employ.
“whiter than any fuller on earth could bleach them”
stands out as fresh and creative in contrast to the vocabulary the above texts employ.
I think that the reason is found in the legend about James being killed by the fuller's club. For example, in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2.23.15-18:
And they fulfilled the Scripture written in Isaiah, ‘Let us take away the just man, because he is troublesome to us: therefore they shall eat the fruit of their doings.’ So they went up and threw down the just man, and said to each other, ‘Let us stone James the Just.’ And they began to stone him, for he was not killed by the fall; but he turned and knelt down and said, ‘I entreat thee, Lord God our Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.’ And while they were thus stoning him one of the priests of the sons of Rechab, the son of the Rechabites, who are mentioned by Jeremiah the prophet, cried out, saying, ‘Cease, what do ye? The just one prayeth for you.’ And one of them, who was a fuller, took the club with which he beat out clothes and struck the just man on the head. And thus he suffered martyrdom. And they buried him on the spot, by the temple, and his monument still remains by the temple. He became a true witness, both to Jews and Greeks, that Jesus is the Christ. And immediately Vespasian besieged them.”
The white is symbol of purity/glory/divinity etc, while the fuller is a subtle allusion to the martyrdom of James. Is Mark saying that, as much as martyrdom ("fuller") may procure glory ("shining white") for other human beings (James in primis), it can never make that glory remotely similar to that of Jesus.
The allusion to the "fuller" may be therefore a veiled attack against James. It is expected by Mark.
Marcion would have no reason to remove it. This supports *Ev's prority over Mark.
Statistics: Posted by Giuseppe — Mon Jan 27, 2025 9:18 am