Re: [XTalk] Was the Young Man Cephas?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Karel Hanhart" <K.Hanhart@...>
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 1:43 AM
Subject: Re: [XTalk] Was the Young Man Cephas?
> The proposal is ingenuous. However, if Mark's ending
is indeed a midrash
> 29,2.3; LXX Isa 22,16; 33,16, - a thesis perhaps
repeated ad nauseam in
> list created to enlist discussion - the conclusion
must be that Mark was
> one who consistently translated the Aramaic Cephas
to the Greek Peter. He
> in order to create a comparison between "the
monument hewn from the rock
> (15, 46) and "tell it to Peter [Petroi] in 16,7.
This suggestion appears
> been confirmed by Matthew ( 16,18).
> If I am right, your proposal of an
interpolation in the Galation
passage is a
> possibility. It is also possible that the
translation or rendition of the
> Cephas to Peter was an invention of Paul himself and
taken over by Mark.
Dear Karel Hanhart:
That Mark alludes to LXX Gen. 29:2-3, Isa. 22:16 &
33:16 in his narration of
the burial of Jesus and in his narration of the
"empty" tomb does not
necessitate that they are a midrash based on these
For example, as I have pointed out in a previous post,
Mark might allude to
LXX Isa. 22:16 in order to clue in his intended
readers that the tomb in
which Jesus was interred had been owned by Herod
Antipas. Again, as I have
pointed out in a previous post, Mark might allude to
LXX Isa. 33:16 in order
to clue in his intended readers that the young man in
the tomb had been a
Before we enter into an exhaustive argument whether or
not Mark wrote a midrash, may I propose a frank alternative.
(a) Either Mark wanted to impress on his readers that Jesus'
wondrous deeds and his final open tomb story literally happened
while he himself DID NOT believe their historicity OR (b) he
wrote to a community whose leadership was familiar with
searching the Scriptures and explain by means of as midrash
the meaning of his miracle stories to their members.
If I understand your post correctly, I believe you would
subscribe to (a) and not to (b).
But wouldn't that make Mark a dishonest author trying
to mystify his readers about something he himself knew
wasn't true? (c) A third possibility is you yourself believe the
tomb historically was found to be empty. That is a legitimate
belief, of course, but in that case our ways must part.
You claim Mark "alluded to LXX Isa 22:16 in order to clue in his
readers that the tomb in which Jesus was interred had been owned by
Antipas." But you circumvent thereby the scathing denunciation of Sebna
the prophet Isaiah in LXX Isa 22,15. This parallel forces the reader to
interpret Arimatea's actions as a scathing denunciation as well. It
difficult to find confirmation of this. In his passion narrative Mark
emphasizes that ALL [pantes] members of the Council sentenced Jesus to
death. Mark then states that Joseph was one of its members. As I see it
Joseph is an opponent of the ecclesia, not a friend, as I have clarified
in my exegesis. One small aspect of this exegesis is that
Mark in the structure of his epilogue to the crucifixion, placed the
'petra' in 'a tomb hewn from the rock [petras, 15,46] opposite to Gr
'Petros' = Peter, the Rockman, last named in the Gospel (16,7). This
exegesis was confirmed by Matthew IMHO in Mt 16,16-18
Mark firmly believed Jesus was raised from the dead and was seated at
the right hand of God. His climactic ending was not meant to prove this
He rather offered his readers a message of hope in spite of the
of the Fall of Jerusalem, the capital of his homeland and the wanton
So let us first settle where you stand. Perhaps we may still find
to continue the discussion.