Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [XTalk] Was the Young Man Cephas?

Expand Messages
  • Karel Hanhart
    ... From: Karel Hanhart To: Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 1:43 AM Subject: Re: [XTalk] Was the Young Man
    Message 1 of 21 , Jun 23, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Karel Hanhart" <K.Hanhart@...>
      To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
      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
      on Gen
      > 29,2.3; LXX Isa 22,16; 33,16, - a thesis perhaps
      repeated ad nauseam in
      this
      > list created to enlist discussion - the conclusion
      must be that Mark was
      the first
      > one who consistently translated the Aramaic Cephas
      to the Greek Peter. He
      did this
      > in order to create a comparison between "the
      monument hewn from the rock
      [petra]"
      > (15, 46) and "tell it to Peter [Petroi] in 16,7.
      This suggestion appears
      to have
      > 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
      Aramaic
      > 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
      three passages.

      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
      Therapeutae.

      Dear Frank.

      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
      intended
      readers that the tomb in which Jesus was interred had been owned by
      Herod
      Antipas." But you circumvent thereby the scathing denunciation of Sebna
      [Somnas] by
      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
      isn't
      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
      Greek word
      '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
      point, however.
      He rather offered his readers a message of hope in spite of the
      traumatic news
      of the Fall of Jerusalem, the capital of his homeland and the wanton
      destruction of
      its sanctuary.
      So let us first settle where you stand. Perhaps we may still find
      common ground
      to continue the discussion.

      cordially

      your Karel
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.