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

Re: [XTalk] Re: Mark's Epilogue (15,42 - 16,8)

Expand Messages
  • Karel Hanhart
    ... From: Anthony Buglass To: Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 4:03 PM Subject: Re: [XTalk] Re: Mark s
    Message 1 of 20 , Jun 13, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Anthony Buglass <TonyBuglass@...>
      To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 4:03 PM
      Subject: Re: [XTalk] Re: Mark's Epilogue (15,42 - 16,8)


      > Geoff Hudson wrote:
      > Simply by changing "for" to "at" in Mk.16:6, the verse makes better
      > sense, i.e. the women were "alarmed" because they were looking AT the
      > body of their dead prophet HJ.

      Geoff,

      I am not sure what you mean by "at" and "for" in Mk 16,6. I read nowhere
      in 16,1-8 that women were looking "at a body". I certainly wouldnot want to
      alter
      the Greek text.

      Geoff wrote:
      < It also makes more sense in the
      > context of the common Jewish belief in the immortality of the spirit,
      > i.e. "his spirit has risen!"..Your theory seems to start from the belief
      that Jews commonly believed in immortality. They did > not. The Hebrew
      anthropological framework is a unity, as opposed to the Greek duality.

      Karel wrote,
      I grant you , a long list of interpreters in the latter half of the 20th
      century have insisted
      on a categorical cleft between " the Hebrew anthropological framework as a
      unity and the Greek [Platonic! KH] duality". This supposed cleft was then
      used as
      an argument in favor of a literal understanding of Mark's epilogue. William
      Craig f.i. stated
      flatly that a Jew couldnot imagine an afterlife without a body. To which I
      replied: "Nobody can. One
      need not be a Jew for that".
      If in religious metaphoric language a person is envisioned in the afterlife,
      he/she was of course to have something like a "spiritual body". However that
      may be,
      one may not start an interpretation on the basis
      of a "common Jewish belief".Qumranites, Pharisees, Sadducess, students of
      Philo etc. differed a
      good deal among themselves.You no doubt pondered Jesus' own answer to the
      Sadducaic question in Mk 12,18ff. illustrating a variety of opinions on the
      afterlife.

      Geoff wrote:
      <If there is none, then you are working methodologically backwards - you
      have a theory, and you wish to shape the evidence to fit.

      Karel's reply:
      I spent a lifetime studying biblical texts on eschatology and I changed my
      views considerably several times,
      but then always forced by the texts themselves to do so. I take as an
      example my article on Paul's Hope in
      the Face of Death in JBL vol 88, part IV, 1969, pp.445 - 457, in which I
      addressed the problem
      on anthropology you mentioned.

      However, in what way would you respond to my thesis re. Mark's references to
      LXX Isa 22,16; 33,16
      and LXX Gn 29.3? And would you not agree that Mark should have written
      "idete (plur) ton topon (accus)".
      in 16,6, if he had wanted to convey a literal meaning. But he wrote instead
      "ide ho topos [Hb r'eh ha-maqom];
      see the Holy Place".

      cordially,

      Karel

      K.Hanhart@...
    • Jan Sammer
      ... From: Karel Hanhart To: Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 11:46 PM Subject: Re: [XTalk] Re: Mark s Epilogue
      Message 2 of 20 , Jun 14, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Karel Hanhart" <K.Hanhart@...>
        To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 11:46 PM
        Subject: Re: [XTalk] Re: Mark's Epilogue (15,42 - 16,8)


        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: Anthony Buglass <TonyBuglass@...>
        > To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
        > Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 4:03 PM
        > Subject: Re: [XTalk] Re: Mark's Epilogue (15,42 - 16,8)
        >
        >
        > > Geoff Hudson wrote:
        > > Simply by changing "for" to "at" in Mk.16:6, the verse makes better
        > > sense, i.e. the women were "alarmed" because they were looking AT the
        > > body of their dead prophet HJ.
        >
        > Geoff,
        >
        > I am not sure what you mean by "at" and "for" in Mk 16,6. I read nowhere
        > in 16,1-8 that women were looking "at a body". I certainly wouldnot want
        to
        > alter
        > the Greek text.
        >
        > Geoff wrote:
        > < It also makes more sense in the
        > > context of the common Jewish belief in the immortality of the spirit,
        > > i.e. "his spirit has risen!"..Your theory seems to start from the belief
        > that Jews commonly believed in immortality. They did > not. The Hebrew
        > anthropological framework is a unity, as opposed to the Greek duality.
        >
        > Karel wrote,
        > I grant you , a long list of interpreters in the latter half of the 20th
        > century have insisted
        > on a categorical cleft between " the Hebrew anthropological framework as a
        > unity and the Greek [Platonic! KH] duality". This supposed cleft was then
        > used as
        > an argument in favor of a literal understanding of Mark's epilogue.
        William
        > Craig f.i. stated
        > flatly that a Jew couldnot imagine an afterlife without a body. To which I
        > replied: "Nobody can. One
        > need not be a Jew for that".
        > If in religious metaphoric language a person is envisioned in the
        afterlife,
        > he/she was of course to have something like a "spiritual body". However
        that
        > may be,
        > one may not start an interpretation on the basis
        > of a "common Jewish belief".Qumranites, Pharisees, Sadducess, students of
        > Philo etc. differed a
        > good deal among themselves.You no doubt pondered Jesus' own answer to the
        > Sadducaic question in Mk 12,18ff. illustrating a variety of opinions on
        the
        > afterlife.
        >
        > Geoff wrote:
        > <If there is none, then you are working methodologically backwards - you
        > have a theory, and you wish to shape the evidence to fit.
        >
        > Karel's reply:
        > I spent a lifetime studying biblical texts on eschatology and I changed my
        > views considerably several times,
        > but then always forced by the texts themselves to do so. I take as an
        > example my article on Paul's Hope in
        > the Face of Death in JBL vol 88, part IV, 1969, pp.445 - 457, in which I
        > addressed the problem
        > on anthropology you mentioned.
        >
        > However, in what way would you respond to my thesis re. Mark's references
        to
        > LXX Isa 22,16; 33,16
        > and LXX Gn 29.3? And would you not agree that Mark should have written
        > "idete (plur) ton topon (accus)".
        > in 16,6, if he had wanted to convey a literal meaning. But he wrote
        instead
        > "ide ho topos [Hb r'eh ha-maqom];
        > see the Holy Place".
        >
        > cordially,
        >
        > Karel
        >
        > K.Hanhart@...
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
        >
        > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
        crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > List managers may be contacted directly at:
        crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
        >
        >
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >
      • Jan Sammer
        Sorry for inadvertently sending a reply message without any contribution of mine a few minutes ago. I was preparing to respond to Karl s point about the
        Message 3 of 20 , Jun 14, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Sorry for inadvertently sending a reply message without any contribution of
          mine a few minutes ago.

          I was preparing to respond to Karl's point about the grammatical form of the
          "ide ho topos".
          Of course the expression is not (just) "ide ho topos" but "ide ho topos
          hopou eqhkan autou", meaning "Behold the place where they laid him." Thus
          Mark is not directly instructing the women to look at the place where
          Jesus's body had been placed but rather citing the empty place as evidence
          of the fact that he was risen. Taking this as a reference to the Temple
          requires a stretch of the imagination that I am unable to accomplish, though
          I have given it a fair try. Analyzing a fragment of a sentence in isolation
          is seldom helpful to its interpretation.

          The entire passage is intended to reinforce Christian belief: The young
          man's statement that precedes the words we have been discussing is: "You are
          looking for Jesus of Nazareth the crucified one. He has risen, he is not
          here." What follows is a statement of the evidence for the foregoing. A
          somewhat interpretive translation would be: "The place where he was laid is
          right there!"

          The women encounter a young man, whose identity the gospel writer does not
          reveal, who tells the women what they are looking for. Thus the writer
          sacrifices some of the realism of the scene he is narrating to catechistic
          needs. John's narrative is more effective, and probably closer to the
          original, in that it is the apparition (two angels) that asks Mary why she
          is crying and whom she is looking for. (Ti klaieis? Tina zhteis?) Luke's
          narrative takes up the story in reporting a further hint dropped by the
          apparition at the tomb (two men in bright shining clothes). The apparition
          asks the women why they are looking for a living one among the dead. Since
          Karl referred to the literary for of a tragedy, I feel free to cite in
          comparison a passage from Sophocles' Electra. Electra carries an urn which
          she believes contains the ashes of her brother Orestes, when she is met by a
          young man (whom she does not yet identify as Orestes). It would be rather
          anticlimactic if Orestes had simply told her something like "You might as
          well throw that urn away. I am your brother Orestes." That would be an inept
          piece of drama. Rather he takes an indirect approach and reveals himself to
          Electra in a more subtle way. As he does so he uses almost precisely the
          same words as the apparition at the tomb in Luke: He first informs her that
          the body she thinks she is giving honor to is not really there. She does not
          understand yet, and asks, where then is Orestes buried? (Similarly to Mary
          asking the "gardener" in John's gospel where he had placed the body.) To
          this Orestes drops an even stronger hint: "The living have no tomb". These
          words are sometimes translated as: "There is no grave for living men." The
          idea is practically identical to Luke's "Why are you looking for a living
          one among the dead?"

          The point I am trying to make is that taken together, as is legitimate if we
          postulate a lost passion narrative as an antecedent to the versions given in
          the gospels, the gospel accounts of the empty tomb indicate a progressive
          self-revelation of the apparition at the tomb. What we have in the
          postulated lost passion narrative is a classic recognition scene, an
          essential element of ancient tragedy (as well as comedy and epic poetry: cf.
          the progressive self-revelation of Odysseus to his wife Penelope). What this
          implies is that in the lost passion narrative Mary and the women were led to
          the recognition of the identity of the young man by a series of hints, and
          that the the hints pointed in one direction only: the young man at the tomb
          a.k.a. gardener, was none other than the risen Jesus. This was the climax of
          the tragedy which the gospel writers exploited for their narrative. However,
          since the ending of the tragedy involved an immediate ascension by the risen
          Jesus, it became unacceptable for the gospel writers for theological
          reasons--it would have negated the rock on which the Christian faith was
          based, the apparitions of the risen Jesus to his disciples. It was in order
          to satisfy the theological requirement of an ascension after 40 days that
          the gospel writers had to fudge the true identity of the young man at tomb.
          At the point where the recognition should have occurred, we have the young
          man sending the women to Galillee, where the canonical appearances shall
          take place. Thus the abrupt ending of Mark mainly served the function of
          avoiding a theological pitfall. It cut off the climax of the tragic
          narrative he had been following in order to allow the appearances to occur.

          Jan Sammer
          Prague, Czech Republic


          > However, in what way would you respond to my thesis re. Mark's references
          to
          > LXX Isa 22,16; 33,16
          > and LXX Gn 29.3? And would you not agree that Mark should have written
          > "idete (plur) ton topon (accus)".
          > in 16,6, if he had wanted to convey a literal meaning. But he wrote
          > instead
          > "ide ho topos [Hb r'eh ha-maqom];
          > see the Holy Place".
          >
        • Anthony Buglass
          Just a point of clarification. My first post in this thread began by quoting Geoff s post, but everything from the beginning of the second paragraph The
          Message 4 of 20 , Jun 14, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Just a point of clarification. My first post in this thread began by quoting Geoff's post, but everything from the beginning of the second paragraph "The prior question is..." is mine. Karel's reply makes me think he is reading it all as Geoff's. So for example the 'backward methodology' is a comment on Geoff's suggestion that the text of Mark ought to be changed to fit his idea, rather than basing his idea on the existing text.

            I hope that makes it all clear. I will take responsibility for my own mistakes, and let Geoff defend his :-)!

            Cheers,
            Rev Tony Buglass
            Pickering Methodist Circuit



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Eric Eve
            ... Just to reinforce this point, the change in reading Geoff Hudson was proposing would require not a change of preposition, but a change of verb in 16.6 from
            Message 5 of 20 , Jun 16, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              Tony Burglass wrote:

              > The prior question is why you think Mk.16:6 should have "at" instead
              > of "for". If there is linguistic or manuscript evidence for your thesis,
              > it is worth considering. If there is none, then you are working
              > methodologically backwards- you have a theory, and you wish to shape the
              > evidence to fit. Proper method begins with the evidence, and then sees
              > what shape the theory becomes.

              Just to reinforce this point, the change in reading Geoff Hudson was
              proposing would require not a change of preposition, but a change of verb in
              16.6 from ZHTEITE to, say, QEWREITE. Not only is there no textual support
              for this (that I know of, at any rate), but the proposed emendation would
              make the text read very strangely, since it would occur, not it the
              narrator's account of the women's actions, but in the young man's words to
              the woman, which would become:

              "Don't be alarmed; you are looking at Jesus the crucified Nazarene; he isn't
              here; behold the place where they put him."

              Even if one could stretch "he isn't here" to mean that, whereas the women
              can see the corpse, his spirit has risen (which does seem quite a stretch),
              the invitation to look at the place where they put him seems
              incomprehensible if the women are already looking at his body. It's also far
              from clear to me why the women should be alarmed by discovering a corpse
              they'd come looking for.

              Best wishes,

              Eric
              ----------------------------------
              Eric Eve
              Harris Manchester College, Oxford
            • Anthony Buglass
              Geoff wrote: If the writer of Mk.16:4 is deliberately citing Isa. 22:16, one could infer that he was fabricating his resurrection account. Possibly. There is
              Message 6 of 20 , Jun 18, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Geoff wrote:
                If the writer of Mk.16:4 is deliberately citing
                Isa. 22:16, one could infer that he was fabricating his resurrection
                account.

                Possibly. There is an underlying question, which concerns the function of midrash. It is usually argued (Crossan, Spong, et all) that a narrative which is a midrash is therefore a non-factual account, based on and referring to another scripture. In Karel's thesis, Mk.16:6 refers back to Isa.22:16 LXX through the word 'mnemeion'. The original passage in Isaiah is a criticism of Shebna's presumption in cutting himself a monumental tomb - is a midrash on this a criticism of those who presume to bury God's anointed one? Why, apart for the single key word, should this text be the foundation for a midrash of a tomb which (allegedly) will become empty?

                My question concerns the assumption that midrash is always non-factual or non-historical. Is it not possible that a factual event (in this case, a tomb which was found to be empty) can then become the core for literary treatment in the style of midrash? My analogy is in the understanding of myth and mythology. Following Bultmann, it was usually assumed that if something was mythological, it must therefore be non-historical. However, Pannenberg argued that Hebrew thought used historical events (particularly the Exodus from Egypt) in a mythological way, therefore a mythological function did not preclude a historical event. In this case, I raise the question whether a similar issue may arise with midrash. If for the sake of argument there was an empty tomb, why could Mark not have developed his account in a midrashic style, as opposed to fabricating it in Geoff's inference?

                Cheers,
                Rev Tony Buglass
                Pickering Methodist Circuit




                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Jan Sammer
                From: Geoff Hudson ... If the gospel accounts had a common source in a pre-gospel passion narrative, Mark may have had reasons
                Message 7 of 20 , Jun 18, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  From: "Geoff Hudson" <geoff.hudson@...>

                  >Compared to the other gospels, it is interesting to note that the
                  >accounts of the execution and burial of HJ in Mark are the least
                  >elaborate, leading one to think that Mark is more original.

                  If the gospel accounts had a common source in a pre-gospel passion
                  narrative, Mark may have had reasons for abbreviating this narrative more
                  drastically than the other gospel writers. Your assumption that Mark is more
                  original because of the brevity of his account is only valid if the other
                  gospel writers were merely editorializing Mark. That is a legitimate
                  position to take, but there are other equally legitimate alternatives, such
                  as the given above.

                  >I am not sure that one could prove that the writer of Mk.15:46 was
                  >purposely citing Isa. 22:16 - "What are you doing here and who gave
                  >you permission to cut out a grave for yourself here, hewing your
                  >grave on the height and chiselling your resting place in the rock."
                  >The parallels are obvious and striking - Mk.16:4 has the women
                  >looking up to the tomb location which implies it was high up in a
                  >rock face.

                  anablhpsasai does not necessarily mean "looking up"; it more likely means
                  "looking once more" based on the context. After all, a few verses earlier
                  the women had been seen the stone rolled over the entrance to the tomb and
                  witnessed the place where Jesus' body was laid. Now coming back to the tomb
                  they looked once more and saw that the stone had been rolled away. Thus
                  there is no more to the alleged parallel than a rock-cut tomb, a common
                  enough phenomenon around the ancient Mediterranean.

                  ....

                  >If it was a leading disciple speaking, the sentence "But go, tell his
                  >disciples" (Mk.16:7) should be "But go, tell the others". In the same
                  >verse, "He is going ahead of you into Galilee" is highly significant,
                  >alluding to an exile and an exodus somewhat in the style of Israel's
                  >from Egypt when God showed his presence in the pillar of smoke by day
                  >and the pillar of fire by night. These words were undoubtedly spoken
                  >by a leader who now saw himself in a Moses-like role. God (the
                  >Spirit of God) would go before the disciples into exile
                  >in "Galilee".

                  You make no serious attempt to show why any notion of exile should be
                  involved in the instruction to go to Galilee; in fact, Mark lays the ground
                  for this Galilean appearances already in 14:28. The unidentified young man's
                  reference to the Galilean appearances appearas to be simply Mark's way of
                  integrating his source, a pre-gospel passion narrative, with established
                  Christian dogma, the core of which were the appearances, as we know from
                  Paul's listing of the same (I Corinthians). Earlier, the Markan Jesus had
                  informed the disciples that he would go to Galilee after he is resurrected
                  (Mk 14:28) and now the young man merely asks the women to remind Peter of
                  this. From Paul we know that the appearances to specific individuals and
                  groups were the basis of authority in the early church. Mark had to link up
                  to them and he did so at the cost of what is clearly an abrupt and
                  unsatisfactory ending. Had he continued any further in drawing on the
                  pre-gospel passion narrative, he would have had to reveal the identity of
                  the young man at the tomb (i.e., the resurrected Jesus) which would have
                  been fatal to the notion of the resurrected Jesus having left for Galilee to
                  make the obligatory appearances. Mark realized that he just couldn't have it
                  both ways and opted for the appearances in Galilee, rather than following
                  his source any further. The other gospel writers adopted different solutions
                  for integrating portions of the pre-gospel passion narrative into their
                  respective works, without violating accepted dogma.

                  >After the death of its leader the church was to leave
                  >Jerusalem, ostensibly contradicting the command in Acts 1:4, "Do not
                  >leave Jerusalem."

                  Oh, but that was *after* the resurrection. They had not been issued any such
                  instruction by their leader before his death. On the other hand, the
                  pre-resurrection Jesus of GMark 14:28 tells Peter exactly where he will be
                  after the resurrection: Galilee.


                  Jan Sammer
                  Prague, Czech Republic
                • Jan Sammer
                  ... up ... to ... it ... The main reason why Mark ceased following his source and cut off his account before the identity of the young man as the resurrected
                  Message 8 of 20 , Jun 18, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    A few further remarks to my post of yesterday. I wrote:

                    > From Paul we know that the appearances to specific individuals and
                    > groups were the basis of authority in the early church. Mark had to link
                    up
                    > to them and he did so at the cost of what is clearly an abrupt and
                    > unsatisfactory ending. Had he continued any further in drawing on the
                    > pre-gospel passion narrative, he would have had to reveal the identity of
                    > the young man at the tomb (i.e., the resurrected Jesus) which would have
                    > been fatal to the notion of the resurrected Jesus having left for Galilee
                    to
                    > make the obligatory appearances. Mark realized that he just couldn't have
                    it
                    > both ways and opted for the appearances in Galilee, rather than following
                    > his source any further.

                    The main reason why Mark ceased following his source and cut off his account
                    before the identity of the young man as the resurrected Jesus was
                    definitively established (in his source this was done on the basis of a
                    question and answer exchange between the young man and the women involving a
                    crescendo of hints, with recognition occurring at the moment that the young
                    man addressed Mary directly by name, cf. John 20:16) is that a first
                    appearance of the resurrected Jesus to the women would have changed the
                    pecking order of appearances and given these women authority in the early
                    church greater than that of Peter and the other male witnesses. That was
                    probably his main concern since Jesus' appearance to the women, as in the
                    other gospels, could have been combined with the appearances in Galilee. But
                    Mark preferred to play it safe and have the women only witness the empty
                    tomb; unlike the other three gospels, he did not want them to encounter the
                    resurrected Jesus--for reasons that are not difficult to fathom. John (or
                    his interpolator) preserves the priority of the male disciples by the rather
                    clumsy insertion of verses 20:2-10.

                    Jan Sammer
                    Prague, Czech Republic
                  • Karel Hanhart
                    ... From: Geoff Hudson To: Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 1:06 PM Subject: [XTalk] Re: Mark s Epilogue
                    Message 9 of 20 , Jun 19, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: Geoff Hudson <geoff.hudson@...>
                      To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 1:06 PM
                      Subject: [XTalk] Re: Mark's Epilogue (15,42 - 16,8)


                      --- In crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com, "Karel Hanhart" <K.Hanhart@n...>
                      wrote:

                      Karel wrote (in her post dated 6/14/2003):

                      My main question to you, however, concerns the reference to LXX Isa
                      22,16 in Mk 15,46 concerning "the tomb hewn out of the rock". Do you
                      not agree that Mark was purposely citing Isa 22, as it refers
                      to a monumental tomb and a 'burial;' of Jesus?
                      ********


                      Geoff:
                      Compared to the other gospels, it is interesting to note that the
                      accounts of the execution and burial of HJ in Mark are the least
                      elaborate, leading one to think that Mark is more original.

                      Karel:
                      Mark's Gospel is indeed the oldest extant Gospel.

                      Geoff,:
                      I am not sure that one could prove that the writer of Mk.15:46 was
                      purposely citing Isa. 22:16 - "What are you doing here and who gave
                      you permission to cut out a grave for yourself here, hewing your
                      grave on the height and chiselling your resting place in the rock."

                      Karel:
                      The reason for my research was 1) that the wording of Mark' version
                      agrees with LXX Isaiah on several counts a): monument - hew - rock
                      b) the expression "hewing a monumental tomb from the rock" occurs
                      just once in de Hebrew Bible and the LXX, a hapax, bolstering. the
                      supposition
                      that Mark wrote a midrash; c) the same (b) holds true for Gn 29,3, rolling
                      away the stone;
                      2) The second reason was (a) the context in both passages of an attack on
                      Jerusalem
                      (b) in both cases the metaphors are placed within the framework of prophetic
                      vision.
                      3) In combination with the term 'skene' - tabernacle, used for the Shechinah
                      ( Presence) in the period before the temple was built, the metaphor
                      'monumental grave'
                      stands for the doomed temple of Jerusalem.

                      Geoff,

                      The monumental tomb is essential to the resurrection account.
                      Without it, there could be no empty tomb to prove the rising of HJ's
                      body from the dead. If the writer of Mk.16:4 is deliberately citing
                      Isa. 22:16, one could infer that he was fabricating his resurrection
                      account.

                      Karel:
                      I for one do not speak of an "empty tomb", but of an
                      "opened momument' . I still take Mark's resurrection message of the angel
                      seriously. Markwas not fabricating. I do believe, however, that faith in
                      Jesus' resurrection
                      is something different from faith that a stone was removed by
                      counterphysical force.
                      I repeat, one must primarily ask what message Mark wanted to convey. If he
                      wrote a midrash - thus far this hasn't been not explored -what are the
                      implications of
                      Mark's references to Isaiah and Genesis here?

                      Re. the remainder of your post, I too went through the multitude of comments
                      on this passage. comments that take the passage literally. Your exposé tells
                      me that
                      you are well versed in this literature. I maintain however, that first
                      things
                      must come first: Mark's own words. .

                      cordially,

                      Karel
                    • Karel Hanhart
                      Dear Tony, My apologies for wrongly attributing your remarks to Geoff and vice versa. And thank you for setting matters straight. E-mail correspondence does
                      Message 10 of 20 , Jun 19, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Dear Tony,

                        My apologies for wrongly attributing your remarks to Geoff
                        and vice versa. And thank you for setting matters straight.

                        E-mail correspondence does create problems at times.

                        Your
                        Karel

                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: Anthony Buglass <TonyBuglass@...>
                        To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
                        Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 4:11 PM
                        Subject: Re: [XTalk] Re: Mark's Epilogue (15,42 - 16,8)


                        > Just a point of clarification. My first post in this thread began by
                        quoting Geoff's post, but everything from the beginning of the second
                        paragraph "The prior question is..." is mine. Karel's reply makes me think
                        he is reading it all as Geoff's. So for example the 'backward methodology'
                        is a comment on Geoff's suggestion that the text of Mark ought to be changed
                        to fit his idea, rather than basing his idea on the existing text.
                        >
                        > I hope that makes it all clear. I will take responsibility for my own
                        mistakes, and let Geoff defend his :-)!
                        >
                        > Cheers,
                        > Rev Tony Buglass
                        > Pickering Methodist Circuit
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
                        >
                        > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
                        crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                        >
                        > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                        >
                        > List managers may be contacted directly at:
                        crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        >
                        >
                      • Karel Hanhart
                        ... From: Jan Sammer To: Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 12:03 PM Subject: Re: [XTalk] Re: Mark s Epilogue
                        Message 11 of 20 , Jun 19, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: Jan Sammer <sammer@...>
                          To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
                          Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 12:03 PM
                          Subject: Re: [XTalk] Re: Mark's Epilogue (15,42 - 16,8)


                          > Sorry for inadvertently sending a reply message without any contribution
                          of
                          > mine a few minutes ago.
                          >
                          > I was preparing to respond to Karl's point about the grammatical form of
                          the
                          > "ide ho topos".
                          > Of course the expression is not (just) "ide ho topos" but "ide ho topos
                          > hopou eqhkan autou", meaning "Behold the place where they laid him." Thus
                          > Mark is not directly instructing the women to look at the place where
                          > Jesus's body had been placed but rather citing the empty place as evidence
                          > of the fact that he was risen. Taking this as a reference to the Temple
                          > requires a stretch of the imagination that I am unable to accomplish,
                          though
                          > I have given it a fair try. Analyzing a fragment of a sentence in
                          isolation
                          > is seldom helpful to its interpretation.

                          Jan,

                          I well understand your remarks. One must, however, distinguish between the
                          miracle story itself that Mark tells and the meaning of the mesaage he wants
                          to convey to his adult hearers. The setting is liturgical. The passover
                          haggadah
                          was meant to be read in worship in the Pesach season and the miracle stories
                          were told in the first place on behalf of the children., the 'little ones of
                          10,15, who were sitting, so to speak, in the front row of the ecclesia
                          eagerly
                          listening.to the Passover story of Messiah Jesus. " Das Wunder ist des
                          Glaubens verhätcheltes Kind" (Goethe), For the children should know most of
                          all, that God would not forsake his beloved son but would rescue him from
                          death. Religious
                          language is metaphorical language; faith in God's saving deeds can only be
                          expressed through a miracle story. This is true for the miracles in the
                          original Passover Haggadah of the Exodus. Moses mighty deeds, for instance,
                          performed in front of Pharaoh were not meant to be taken literally: the
                          plagues in Egypt, the parting of the waters, the mannah in the desert. These
                          stories were a suitable means in rhe liturgy to put the children (and the
                          uneducated hearers) on the right track of perceiving the divine Presence in
                          life. The local presbyter could explain these midrashic stories to the
                          children in school or catechism. So Mark did not want to convince his adult
                          hearers that Jesus was a magician, literally able to walk on water,
                          although he did
                          want to convey his faith that in greatest danger and in similar
                          circumstances Jesus' Spirit was able to see his own through, thus making
                          them able to fulfill their mission among the Gentiles. The context of Mark
                          4,35ff shows that Jesus ordered his disicples to go to heathen territory "on
                          the other side (35). When this story was read. the hearers actually were "on
                          the other side" in heathen territory, in an ecclesia somewhere in Rome or
                          Alexandria. They had heard the news of history that the beloved city had
                          fallen and that the temple had been destroyed and they were listening to the
                          tale about the Messiah who was cruelly crucified by the Romans. Moreover,
                          the apostles had themselves gone "on the other side". However, not Caesar,
                          nor a corrupt Caiaphas would hold the destiny of humanity, but the One, who
                          was now deated "at hew right hand" of God.
                          Thus the story of crossing the sea has a two fold thrust.
                          (a) It is a vehicle to clarify Jesus' teaching and his mission in life. It
                          tells in a vivid manner in what way his own teaching had overcome the evil:
                          discrimination of the poor, the lepers, the Samaritans - how he even had
                          taught to love an enemy..Upon arrival "to the other side" :Jesus heals Legio
                          (a Latin word for a Roman legion) casting out the demons that possessed the
                          man.
                          (b) To an audience faced with adversity, even persecutions, the miracle
                          story thus expresses in a marvelous way the faith in the person of Jesus
                          that prevailed in the community and in the power of the Spirit that had
                          guided him.fulfill his divine mission

                          So, yes, on a primary level the children were told that Jesus should not be
                          sought in a grave. God had raised him to life and went before his people
                          into exile.
                          On a deeper level, however, adults were.addressed in their precarious
                          situation and confronted by the seemingly inexplicable facts of the
                          crucifixion of Messiah Jesus and destruction of the temple of God. Mark
                          found in his bible the answers he needed to awaken faith in God working his
                          purpose out. It explains why Mark referred to LXX Isa 22, with its context
                          of the Babylonian attack on Jerusalem, the doomed temple and Isaiah's
                          prophecy condemning a corrupt priest.

                          In this setting the exegete must try to interpret the midrash. Why did Mark
                          refer to LXX Isa 22,16 , Isa 33,16 and LXX Gn 29,3 in their context.

                          cordially yours,

                          Karel
                        • Jan Sammer
                          From: Karel Hanhart ... stories ... of ... The suggestion that the resurrection accounts were tailored to an audience of children is
                          Message 12 of 20 , Jun 20, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            From: "Karel Hanhart" <K.Hanhart@...>

                            ...
                            > The setting is liturgical. The passover haggadah
                            > was meant to be read in worship in the Pesach season and the miracle
                            stories
                            > were told in the first place on behalf of the children., the 'little ones
                            of
                            > 10,15, who were sitting, so to speak, in the front row of the ecclesia
                            > eagerly listening.to the Passover story of Messiah Jesus.

                            The suggestion that the resurrection accounts were tailored to an audience
                            of children is new to me; you are using it as a working assumption, without
                            stating the reasons why it should be so.


                            " Das Wunder ist des
                            > Glaubens verhätcheltes Kind" (Goethe), For the children should know most
                            of
                            > all, that God would not forsake his beloved son but would rescue him from
                            > death. Religious
                            > language is metaphorical language; faith in God's saving deeds can only be
                            > expressed through a miracle story. This is true for the miracles in the
                            > original Passover Haggadah of the Exodus. Moses mighty deeds, for
                            instance,
                            > performed in front of Pharaoh were not meant to be taken literally: the
                            > plagues in Egypt, the parting of the waters, the mannah in the desert.
                            These
                            > stories were a suitable means in rhe liturgy to put the children (and the
                            > uneducated hearers) on the right track of perceiving the divine Presence
                            in
                            > life.

                            What is the evidence that the Exodus narratives were not meant to be taken
                            literally? The prophets never give an indication of anything of the sort.
                            The Exodus was the formative experience of ancient Israel. It does sound
                            like a fairytale to modern ears, but to retroject this impression into the
                            past seems unwarranted.


                            > The local presbyter could explain these midrashic stories to the
                            > children in school or catechism.

                            That is what often happens today, but were young children in Isaiah's time
                            told the Exodus events were not to be taken literally? Any evidence of that
                            at all?

                            > So Mark did not want to convince his adult
                            > hearers that Jesus was a magician, literally able to walk on water,
                            > although he did
                            > want to convey his faith that in greatest danger and in similar
                            > circumstances Jesus' Spirit was able to see his own through, thus making
                            > them able to fulfill their mission among the Gentiles.The context of Mark
                            > 4,35ff shows that Jesus ordered his disicples to go to heathen territory
                            "on
                            > the other side (35). When this story was read. the hearers actually were
                            "on
                            > the other side" in heathen territory, in an ecclesia somewhere in Rome or
                            > Alexandria. They had heard the news of history that the beloved city had
                            > fallen and that the temple had been destroyed and they were listening to
                            the
                            > tale about the Messiah who was cruelly crucified by the Romans. Moreover,
                            > the apostles had themselves gone "on the other side". However, not
                            Caesar,
                            > nor a corrupt Caiaphas would hold the destiny of humanity, but the One,
                            who
                            > was now deated "at hew right hand" of God.
                            > Thus the story of crossing the sea has a two fold thrust.
                            > (a) It is a vehicle to clarify Jesus' teaching and his mission in life. It
                            > tells in a vivid manner in what way his own teaching had overcome the
                            evil:
                            > discrimination of the poor, the lepers, the Samaritans - how he even had
                            > taught to love an enemy..Upon arrival "to the other side" :Jesus heals
                            Legio
                            > (a Latin word for a Roman legion) casting out the demons that possessed
                            the
                            > man.
                            > (b) To an audience faced with adversity, even persecutions, the miracle
                            > story thus expresses in a marvelous way the faith in the person of Jesus
                            > that prevailed in the community and in the power of the Spirit that had
                            > guided him.fulfill his divine mission.
                            > So, yes, on a primary level the children were told that Jesus should not
                            be
                            > sought in a grave. God had raised him to life and went before his people
                            > into exile.
                            > On a deeper level, however, adults were.addressed in their precarious
                            > situation and confronted by the seemingly inexplicable facts of the
                            > crucifixion of Messiah Jesus and destruction of the temple of God. Mark
                            > found in his bible the answers he needed to awaken faith in God working
                            his
                            > purpose out. It explains why Mark referred to LXX Isa 22, with its context
                            > of the Babylonian attack on Jerusalem, the doomed temple and Isaiah's
                            > prophecy condemning a corrupt priest.
                            >
                            > In this setting the exegete must try to interpret the midrash. Why did
                            Mark
                            > refer to LXX Isa 22,16 , Isa 33,16 and LXX Gn 29,3 in their context.
                            >
                            You do not address any of the points of my email in which I question the
                            notion that Mark refers to Isaiah. This notion depends on the rock cut tomb
                            in both passages being high up; since Mark's anablepsasai (16:4) most likely
                            should be understood not as "looked up" but "looked again", the only point
                            of reference is a rock-cut tomb, a common cultural artifact around the
                            ancient Mediterranean, and insufficient grounds for inferring a reference to
                            Isaiah. How is Isaiah's priest hewing a tomb for himself high up in a rock
                            face alluded to in the story of Joseph "of Arimathea" (i.e., Joseph "de
                            Aromatis", i.e., an undertaker/embalmer in contemporary parlance) burying
                            Jesus in his own tomb?
                            On the other hand there is compelling evidence that the pre-gospel
                            resurrection account was of a common type of literary form--a recognition
                            scene in which the women gradually come to the realization that the figure
                            they consider the gardener or an angel is none other than the resurrected
                            Jesus. That is the key fact for understanding the story of the empty tomb
                            and its relation to the Galilean appearances.
                            What I find hard to understand is that the most far-fetched allusions to
                            Isaiah are given much credence and endlessly debated, while quite specific
                            parallels with Sophocles' Electra are seemingly beyond the pale--judging by
                            their being so studiously ignored on this list--even though we can safely
                            assume that Sophocles' Electra was commonly performed in Jesus' time in the
                            numerous outdoor theaters of the Hellenized cities of the Decapolis.

                            Besdies, what in the resurrection accounts refers to the destroyed temple?
                            The closest allusion is Luke's torn curtain of the holy of holies (24:45) at
                            the death of Jesus. In fact there is considerable evidence in the the
                            gospels and acts to indicate that the Temple was still standing at the time
                            of the closing of the NT canon. But this is for a whole different debate.

                            Jan Sammer
                            sammer@...
                          • Karel Hanhart
                            ... Karel replies: You are right, Jan, the aor of anablepo, taken by itself, might mean having looked once more . I already indicated, however, that the
                            Message 13 of 20 , Jun 20, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Jan wrote:
                              > anablhpsasai does not necessarily mean "looking up"; it more likely means
                              > "looking once more" based on the context.

                              Karel replies:

                              You are right, Jan, the aor of anablepo, taken by itself, might mean
                              'having looked once more'. I already indicated, however, that the
                              reference to Isa 22, the appearance of various midrashim in Mark
                              and Mark's style in general demand the translation "having looked up"
                              in the sense of looking up into heaven. This meaning is parallel
                              to Jesus' looking up to heaven to utter the prayer of blessing, before
                              breaking the loaves (Mk 6,41), the only other occurrence of the verb
                              in Mark. Three verbs of seeing are carefully chosen.
                              The setting of Isa 22 is a "the valley of vision!" and in Isa 32,9 the
                              'daughters of Zion' receive a vision of the future fall of Jerusaalem.
                              The careful choice and repetition of key words is typical for
                              the Hebrew language and may also be observed in Semitic Greek. Take
                              for example the book of Jonah, a compositional jewel. One feature of
                              its structure is this repeating of key words and verbs. It can be verified
                              with the help of any Hebrew concordance, f.i. Jonah 3, the 'renouncing'
                              of evil by the Ninevites and the 'renouncing' of his burning wrath by God
                              (3x in 3,8.9.10); the stark contrast in chpts 1 and 2 between 'sea' (11x)
                              and 'dry land' (3x); Jonah's.'going down' to Joppa and 'going down' into
                              the ship (1,3) and 'going down' to the roots of the mountains (2,6)
                              illustrating
                              the depth of his fall; etc.
                              Mark too uses this method of communicating truth thus imitating his Hebrew
                              Bible. His use of 'euthus' and 'palin' and his use of 'paradidomi' are
                              famous examples.
                              I also referred to Mark's writing a midrasj at important junctures of his
                              narrative, including in the opening verses (1,2.3), the centre (9,2-4), and
                              the end
                              (15,46). Ignoring the fact that the author was a Christian 'ioudaios',
                              writing to a mixed
                              audience of Judeans and Gentiles, and that he definitely was not a Greek or
                              Roman
                              author makes all the differeence in the world!.

                              Jan wrote:

                              > You make no serious attempt to show why any notion of exile should be
                              > involved in the instruction to go to Galilee; in fact, Mark lays the
                              ground
                              > for this Galilean appearances already in 14:28.

                              Karel's reply:

                              The reference to Isa 22,15-20 implies a context of the Fall of Jerusalem
                              and the following exile (certainly of Sebna). This is underlined
                              by the contrast between "here" in the temple and "there" in "a wide
                              land" 22,17. This contrast between "here" and "there' is parallelled in Mark
                              16,6
                              and 7. Matthew's well known references to Scripture in 4,13 confirms the
                              double meaning of Galilee (as the place where Jesus taught) and
                              the "Galilee of the Gentiles" (the region where Judeans and Gentiles were
                              living side by side in contrast to the Holy Place on Zion). In Mark the
                              language
                              of 'holy geography' is also found elsewehre f.i. with the emphatic
                              mentioning of
                              "a boat", "the sea of Galilee" in stead of "the lake Kinnereth" ; so also
                              Jesus' crossing over
                              several times into heathen territory, performing healing deeds, and then
                              returning
                              to Judean villages. They all serve to remind the readers of their own
                              situation and
                              mission.. The "going before" of the risen Jesus in Mk 16,7 (into the
                              diaspora)
                              is foreshadowed f.i. in 6,48; 7,31 and 14,27.28; the latter with the
                              scriptural
                              terminology for the Dispersion "the sheep will be scattered!".

                              Jan wrote:
                              > The unidentified young man's reference to the Galilean appearances
                              appearas
                              > to be simply Mark's way of integrating his source, a pre-gospel passion
                              narrative,
                              > with established Christian dogma, the core of which were the appearances,
                              > as we know from Paul's listing of the same (I Corinthians).

                              Karel's reply:

                              Here we fundamentally disagree. You imply that Paul (and those who
                              formulated
                              the earliest tradition concerning the resurrection) had taken it for granted
                              that Paul
                              and his audience not only knew a tradition that Jesus' grave was discovered
                              empty,
                              but also believed that the term "resurrection" or "being awakened" to life
                              by God,
                              involved the literal disappearance of a corpse. Appearances in this line of
                              thought
                              would have been impossible if not a dead body of the appearing person would
                              first
                              have disappeared from the grave. Such assumptions precisely are not found in
                              the
                              text of 1 Cor 15. Some Corinthians evidently doubted the proclamation that
                              Jesus
                              was raised. Paul would have certainly used this supposedly widely known
                              tradition
                              of the rolled away stone as 'proof' for these would be uninformed doubters.
                              In Judean writings, moreover, the various terms for resurrection have a
                              wider semiotic
                              field than the magical removal of a gravestone and the disappreance of a
                              body. Besides,
                              the gripping imagery of opened tombs is used positivelky as a fitting
                              metaphor for God's
                              saving initiative in the Hebrew Bible:. Ezekiel 37,12. It is therefore
                              perfectly legitimate
                              to regard also Mark'siamgery as a metaphor. His audience knew this metaphor.
                              In the early the confession , the proclamation 'egerthe' ("he was raised" to
                              life by God) was
                              emphatically underlined by the phrase "ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURES). After the
                              confession
                              "he died for our sins ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURES" and after "he was buried"
                              followed again this condition of the confession "raised". They believed it
                              because their faith
                              ACCORDED WITH SCRIPTURES.
                              This early tradition is certainly basic; but the interpertration of the
                              removal of a stone and
                              removal of Jesus' body on the other hand is highly questionable.

                              Jan wrote:

                              ... The other gospel writers adopted different solutions
                              > for integrating portions of the pre-gospel passion narrative into their
                              > respective works, without violating accepted dogma.

                              Karel's reply:

                              We do not know what this pre-gospel narrative looked like -
                              nor may we base a preconceived notion of an "accepted dogma"
                              bolstering the interpretation of a literal "empty grave". with regard to
                              the undoubedly earliest confession that God raised Jesus to life.
                              Eegetes are bound, however, to rhyme his/her exegesis of
                              the ending of the other gospels with their interpretation of Mark's
                              opened monument epilogue no matter which option, the literal
                              or the metaphorical one, they have chosen.

                              cordially

                              Karel
                            • Karel Hanhart
                              ... account ... Karel s reply: You are right, Jan, bringing the identity of the young man into play. Both (a) the identity of Joseph (who came from Ramathaim
                              Message 14 of 20 , Jun 20, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Jan Sammer wrote:

                                >
                                > The main reason why Mark ceased following his source and cut off his
                                account
                                > before the identity of the young man as the resurrected Jesus.....

                                Karel's reply:

                                You are right, Jan, bringing the identity of the "young man" into play. Both
                                (a) the
                                identity of Joseph (who came from Ramathaim or Rama), a member of the
                                Council that condemned Jesus, and (b) the identity of the young man dressed
                                in a white stola, are part of Mark's message
                                (b) that Mark suggested that this angelic young man in the tomb, dressed in
                                white and addressing the women, might have been your "resurrected Jesus"
                                has indeed been suggested by some. Other say that he stands for a baptized
                                neophyte (buried with Jesus in order to rise with him). But as Neirynck well
                                pointed out, Mark clearly referred already to this young man in Gethsemane.
                                There the young man, dressed in linen, is fleeling naked from the scene. Our
                                imagination is stretched too far assuming this to be a picure of the Jesus
                                of history and also not any baptized neophyte. Baptism and a struggle with
                                swords clashing have little in common with him.
                                That young man is now dressed in a white stola while in Getsemane
                                was wrapped in a precious linen cloth, used by the rich, especially
                                by priests.
                                This young man. moreover, is uttering the resurrection message to the women
                                and in a positive way he is fulfilling a role of conveying a heavenly
                                message similar
                                to that of the prophet Isaiah in Isa 22, 15-20. Any attempt to identify this
                                cryptic
                                young man must fit these data.

                                (a) .In my haggadic approach Mark the literal description of Joseph
                                "having come from Rama", "also looking for the kingdom" and "being
                                a member of the Council" are cryptic and partly ironical hints pointing to
                                an individual well known to his audience (but alas, to us unknown).
                                Close reading of the story leads to the conclusion that Joseph's acts were
                                frustrated by God because this frustrated attempt to bury the "body of
                                Jesus"
                                was seen by Mark as an hostile act. So this "enemy" must have been a well
                                known
                                Judean personality both to the community in Rome and to Mark himself and
                                hostile
                                to the Jesus' movement.
                                The attempt at identifying this well known individual must remain in the
                                area
                                of speculation. I have ventured the suggestion that it concerned Josephus
                                (Joseph
                                bar-Matthias !), who indeed was a well known member of the Council,
                                a priest-general in the Roman war and after his surrender to Vespasian,
                                turned out to be a prominent and privileged person in Caesarean Rome.
                                Admittedly, Josephus functioned during and after the destrcution of th
                                Temple
                                bu his role would fit into an epilogue precisely dealing with the trauma of
                                70.

                                Jan wrote:
                                ... > that a first appearance of the resurrected Jesus to the women would
                                have changed the
                                > pecking order of appearances and given these women authority in the early
                                > church greater than that of Peter and the other male witnesses. That was
                                > probably his main concern since Jesus' appearance to the women, as in the
                                > other gospels, could have been combined with the appearances in Galilee.

                                Karel:

                                Mark was writing at times in the 'language of the persecuted' (Leo Straus),
                                certainly so in the Golgota and epilogue episodes. Cryptic descriptions that
                                would clearly indicate that Mark was addressing Judean friends concerning
                                hostile persons in the aftermath of the war won by the foreign power. Hence
                                our problem at identifying Joseph.
                                In a former post I already noted that "appearance of Jesus" do not imply
                                the necessity of an empty tomb; they do attempt to convey the experience
                                of faith in the risen Messiah. The apperances told in following gospels
                                are certainly in need of separate interpretation in line with Mark's tale.

                                cordially

                                Karel
                              • Karel Hanhart
                                ... From: Geoff Hudson To: Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 11:07 PM Subject: [XTalk] Re: Mark s Epilogue
                                Message 15 of 20 , Jun 21, 2003
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  From: Geoff Hudson <geoff.hudson@...>
                                  To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
                                  Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 11:07 PM
                                  Subject: [XTalk] Re: Mark's Epilogue (15,42 - 16,8)


                                  --- In crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Hudson" <geoff.hudson@n...>
                                  wrote:
                                  > My suggestion is that the person who buried HJ,
                                  > was none other than the leader elect of the disciples, and that
                                  > Joseph of Arimathea is a pseudonym and possibly close to a
                                  homophone.

                                  Geof,

                                  Reading the story as if it were the end of a biography of Jesus, one
                                  is bound to look for solutions to enigmatic features of the text that
                                  would fit into a historically possible plot. Isn't that what you are
                                  trying to do in your post? You have come up with a plot in which
                                  a man named Joseph was in reality Simon Peter.
                                  The result of this approach is that the author was either misinformed or
                                  a bungling writer.
                                  Determining the genre and date of Mark's "good news" remains i.m.o.
                                  essential to unraveling its meaning. What then is wrong with the genre
                                  Passover Haggadah? The subject is a Jewish one throughout. It
                                  is focussed on events on Passover Day: The epithets of the main
                                  protagonist are Messiah and son of God. So the genre Passover
                                  Haggadah, told in liturgical surroundings, seems to me, better
                                  suited than a biography. Read as a Passover Haggadah within the framework
                                  of First Century Judaism the difference between the feast calender in
                                  the synagogue and in the ecclesia demands an explanation. In the synagogue
                                  the first of the fifty days of the Pentecostal harvest always falls on
                                  Nisan 16.
                                  In Mark's story this happens to be the sabbath of the burial. Or pinpointing
                                  it
                                  more precisely, the burial takes place at the onset of the sabbath (the
                                  evening
                                  of the christian Good Friday). In the ecclesia the first of the fifty days
                                  of
                                  the Pentecostal harvest, however, always falls on a Sunday
                                  (the christian Easter Sunday). The latter is in accord with the old priestly
                                  calendar.

                                  cordsially

                                  Karel
                                • Karel Hanhart
                                  ... From: Jan Sammer To: Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 11:09 AM Subject: Re: [XTalk] Re: Mark s Epilogue
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Jun 22, 2003
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    ----- Original Message -----
                                    From: Jan Sammer <sammer@...>
                                    To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
                                    Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 11:09 AM
                                    Subject: Re: [XTalk] Re: Mark's Epilogue (15,42 - 16,8)


                                    > From: "Karel Hanhart" <K.Hanhart@...>
                                    >
                                    > ...
                                    > > The setting is liturgical. The passover haggadah
                                    > > was meant to be read in worship in the Pesach season and the miracle
                                    > stories
                                    > > were told in the first place on behalf of the children., the 'little
                                    ones
                                    > of
                                    > > 10,15, who were sitting, so to speak, in the front row of the ecclesia
                                    > > eagerly listening.to the Passover story of Messiah Jesus.

                                    Jan wrote:
                                    > The suggestion that the resurrection accounts were tailored to an audience
                                    > of children is new to me; you are using it as a working assumption,
                                    without
                                    > stating the reasons why it should be so.

                                    Karel answered:

                                    Statements of faith are meant for children and adults alike and should be.
                                    They are expressed in religious language which of necessity is metaphorical
                                    language as it unreservedly takes divine wisdom and action beyond human
                                    wisdom and action into account.
                                    Next to passages as 10,15 (the little ones) and I Cor 13,11.12, I would
                                    mention Deut 13,8. The children do play an important role at the Passover
                                    meal.
                                    And Paul well expressed the distinction adult - child, "childish things"
                                    could well stand for a literal interpretation by adults while they should
                                    know better ( f.i. conclusions that historically the waters of Nile turned
                                    into
                                    blood.
                                    If this 'evidence' does not suffice, I am afraid we would be engaged in a
                                    'dialogue des sourds or a dialogue of the deaf.

                                    Jan wrote:

                                    > You do not address any of the points of my email in which I question the
                                    > notion that Mark refers to Isaiah.

                                    Our postings crossed. I tried to answer you on the points below in a
                                    separate posting.

                                    cordially,

                                    Karel
                                  • Karel Hanhart
                                    Dear listers: Below I have added the second instalment, namely, thesis 9 and 10; a third instalment will soon follow. If exegetes believe Mark s epilogue is a
                                    Message 17 of 20 , Jun 23, 2003
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Dear listers:

                                      Below I have added the second instalment, namely, thesis 9 and 10; a third
                                      instalment will
                                      soon follow. If exegetes believe Mark's epilogue is a post-70 midrash on the
                                      temple's destruction,
                                      they should offer an interpretation of the pre-70 creedal formula., "raised
                                      on the third day
                                      according to the Scriptures".


                                      THE ORIGINAL OPEN TOMB STORY (MARK 15,42 - 16,8)

                                      1. Soon after the traumatic fall of Jerusalem, John, surnamed Mark, native
                                      of Jerusalem (Acts 12,12) wrote his euaggelion for the ecclesia of Rome (and
                                      Alexandria?). Trained in Greek rhetorica, he chose the form of a tragedy
                                      (Standaert) for his account of Jesus' heavenly mission and tragic death on a
                                      Roman cross. In the prologue (1,1-13) two protagonists are introduced, scl.
                                      the Baptist and Jesus, the latter holding center stage in the narrative
                                      itself with its climax on Golgotha. In the epilogue, - the first original
                                      open tomb story -, a window to the future is opened after this dramatic
                                      denouement, in which Jesus' victory over death and his continued mission to
                                      Israel and the nations is prophesied.

                                      2. The only source references, omitted in Nestle's margin, are precisely the
                                      ones concerning the 'monumental tomb' of Jesus [mnemeion]. These references
                                      are LXX Isa 22.16; LXX Isa 33,16; LXX Gn 29,3 (Montefiore). They constitute
                                      a midrash. The 'grave hewn from the rock' (LXX Isa 22,16), a hapax in
                                      Tenach, is a metaphor for the doomed temple (Rashi, van der Kooij).

                                      3. Since Mount Zion is often simply referred to as the holy 'Place', (Hb.
                                      maqom, LXX topos') and every pilgrim was seeking the maqom that "JHWH had
                                      chosen to put his name there" (Dt 12,5; cf. Ps 25,8), the reader would
                                      readily associate ho topos in Mk 16,6 with the temple. The angel is not
                                      pointing the women (plur.!) to a shelf (accus.!) in a memorial grave, where
                                      Jesus body had literally lain (- requiring idete ton topon -); he rather
                                      reveals to them in a vision (anablepsasai-looking up!, cf Mk 6,4} the
                                      future destruction of the temple! Hence the Hebraism ide (sing.!), ho
                                      topos (nomin.!), [Hb re'eh ha-maqom].

                                      4. With the harsh wordplay body - corpse (soma - ptoma) in 15,43.45 Mark
                                      distinguishes between the actual burial of the dead body of Jesus and Paul's
                                      metaphor of the ecclesia as the living body of Christ. Arimathea's attempt
                                      to 'bury' the.ecclesia of Jerusalem proved to be in vain. The Romans, in the
                                      epilogue represented by Pilate, were only able to present him with a dead
                                      body. Arimathea's vain attempt to 'bury Jesus' for good symbolizes the
                                      persecution of the apostles in Jerusalem, barring them from preaching in the
                                      temple square (esp. Acts 12,1ff). The stone before the door of the
                                      monumental tomb stands for the Nicanor gate of the temple giving access to
                                      the "Holy". On the first day of the Pentecostal harvest the women see the
                                      future destruction of the temple - the stone was removed, the entrance to
                                      the Shekinah secured (cmp. 15,38). Thus Mark cited Isaiah's prophetic
                                      judgment of Sebna, a high priest, in 15,46 to shed a heavenly light on the
                                      present disaster

                                      5. This exegesis, supported by the above cross references, is bolstered by
                                      (a) the previous references to the temple's destruction in 13,2; 14,58;
                                      15,29 and 38 - the torn veil!.and by (b) the emphatic here and there in
                                      LXX.Isa 22,16.18 paralleled by here (hode - scl Mt Zion) and there in Mk
                                      16,7 (ekei, scl in the Galil ha-goyim). Cmp.Dt 12,5 "to put his name there"
                                      (ekei) in contrast to the Samaritan Mt Gerizim.

                                      6. "Midrash means the searching of the Scriptures (Tenach), whereby "a text
                                      is read..through the lens of a specific event and/or special concern that
                                      may or may not be explicitly referred to in the text. In the relationship
                                      between the original text and the focussing event and/or concern, the
                                      meaning of the original text is expanded and the significance of the
                                      focussing event and/or concern is underscored" (Eron). The relationship
                                      between the original text and Mark's ending is in this case focussed on the
                                      temple's destruction by a foreign army and unlawful acts by temple priests c
                                      ontributing to the disaster.

                                      7. According to content the gospels's unique genre is not that of a sacred
                                      biography, nor of a Greek tragedy; it is best defined as a messianic
                                      Passover Haggadah. Its theme is Israel's 'pass-over' into exile led by its
                                      Messiah (16,7), thereby introducing the last phase in history (13,10; cf.
                                      Rm. 11,25). Mark does not describe a counter-natural miracle. The angel
                                      rather reminds the women that Jesus was raised and exalted "to the right
                                      hand of power" (9,1; 14,62) and announces the post-70 consequences thereof
                                      for themselves and for the nations: he will lead his own during the coming
                                      exile (16,7).

                                      8. In a lost pre-70 version the euaggelion (Urmarkus) was read in the
                                      ecclesia for the Pesach - Pentecost season. In the present post-70 version
                                      it is retold, now in the shadow of the doomed temple. It concerns Jesus'
                                      journey through the Land ending on Zion (cmp. the Way of JHWH, 1,3 and
                                      hodos, passim). The following features confirm Mark writing a Messianic
                                      Passover Haggadah in the wake of the trauma of 70 CE. (I) the parallels
                                      between Joshua's conquest of the Land (Josh 3,16ff; 4,20; 5.2-15 ) and Jesus
                                      ' principle deeds (Mk 1,9-12; 3,14, Bowman); (II) the three main midrashim
                                      in Mk 1,2f.; 9,2-11; 15,46; (III) the depiction of the Baptist as Elijah
                                      redivivus (1,6; 8,28; 9,5.11f.; 15,36); (IV) the references to the sacrifice
                                      of Isaac (1,11; 9,7; 14,32-36, Vermes, Le Déaut); (V) the haggadic order of
                                      the four questions on the temple-square, a parallel of the order in the
                                      Jewish Passover Haggadah in Mk 12 (Daube); (VI) the Pesach setting of the
                                      last supper (14,12); (VII) the Shabuoth terminology in 16,2: " on Day One
                                      (en miai hemerai)" of the fifty days of the Pentecostal harvest (ta
                                      sabbata), on Nisan 17 (16,2); (VIII) the timing of the 'frustrated' burial
                                      at the onset of the Sabbath, Nisan 16, the Pharisaic dating of Day One of
                                      Shabuoth (Mk 15,42). The 'black' date Nisan 16 reminded the readers of the
                                      bloody persecution of the ecclesia in Jerusalem, when the new Pharisaic
                                      calendar for the harvest festival was probably introduced under Herod
                                      Agrippa I (40-44 CE).

                                      9. Mark's post-70 ending and Luke's presentation of the days after the
                                      crucifixion in Acts 1 and 2 lead to the following conclusions: (I) that the
                                      earliest creedal formula "he was raised on the third day and appeared to
                                      Peter" probably capsulized theologically the historic event of Simon Peter
                                      addressing the pilgrims gathered in the temple square "on the third day"
                                      after the crucifixion. He proclaimed Jesus' exaltation into heaven and
                                      called for repentance. (II) As a result Judeans, sympathetic to the Jesus'
                                      movement from various walks of life, f.i. Essenes and diaspora Judeans,
                                      joined Jesus' Galilean followers. Twelve apostles then were elected (cmp
                                      Acts 1,15-26 being a post-70 substitute). The leadership of twelve, conform
                                      the twelve tribes of Israel was an Essene notion. These twelve were headed
                                      by (a) James, Jesus' brother, (b) Peter and (c) John of Jerusalem, probably
                                      an Essene (Acts 3,1.11; 4,19; 8,14; 13,5.13). Thus the ecclesia was born. In
                                      that historical context "raised on the third day" would refer to the earthly
                                      manifestation of Jesus' exaltation on Good Friday (cf Lk 23,43; Phil 2,9).
                                      One should distinguish between 'egerthe' (Mk 16,7) or 'egegerthe' (1Cor
                                      15,20, referring to the exaltation and 'anastenai' or 'anastesetai' (Mk
                                      8,31; 9,31; 10,33) as the earthly manifestation thereof..(III) Thus the
                                      Spirit, who had inspired the Messiah, lives on in his followers (cmp Acts
                                      2). At baptism the Spirit like a dove (Hb yonah} had entered "into Jesus"
                                      (Mk 1,10). As Jonah was once sent to Nineveh, the archenemy, so through his
                                      followers Jesus would go before into the Galilee of the Gentiles with its
                                      capital Rome (Mk 16,7; cf. 4,35- 41; 6,48, 42-56). (IV) The "third day" was
                                      the first of the fifty days of the harvest period, Shabuoth (Mk 16,2). In
                                      pre-Agrippa years 'Day One' of Shabuoth (Mlk 16,2) still fell on a Sunday
                                      (Lv 23,11.15), hence the "third day" after Good Friday. Farmers would then
                                      bring the first sheaves of barley for the 'weave offering'; hence the
                                      metaphor for Jesus' resurrection as "the first fruits of those who have
                                      died" (1 Cor 15,20). Acts 1 contains an expanded post-70 narrative
                                      including an ascension after 40 days, being the formative period in
                                      Jerusalem between the crucifixion and the destruction of the temple

                                      10. The destruction of the temple cast its shadow over the Gospel. The
                                      first section ends with the
                                      insipid salt (of the templecult, 9,49f). Jesus' pilgimmage for the Passover
                                      in Jerusalem is the leading motif of the following chapters (10,32). At the
                                      entry he accuses the hierarchy of the temple, ("you have turned it into a
                                      rebels' den" (11,11.17.20). The withered fig tree is a dark omen of the
                                      coming catastrophe. Follow the disputes on the temple square, introduced by
                                      the parable of the vineyard "given to others" (12,9), while the unfaithful
                                      tenants, the high priests, will perish. But seated opposite the treasury
                                      Jesus praises the widow, who put in the box everything she had (12,41ff).
                                      Leaving the temple he turns around and prophecies - a vaticinium ex
                                      eventu? -. "Not one stone will be left here (!)
                                      upon another". Afterwards. Seated on Mt. Of Olives opposite the temple,
                                      with just four of his disciples, he foretells future wars and the imminent
                                      desecration of the temple (13,8.14). At the trial he is falsely accused, "we
                                      heard him say: I will destroy this temple" (14,58), The same charge is
                                      leveled at the foot of the cross, "Aha, you would destroy the temple .
                                      Finally, when breathing his last, the curtain of the temple is torn in two
                                      (15,28.37). This temple background forms an integral part of the
                                      dramatic plot of the narrative.
                                    • Karel Hanhart
                                      ... From: Karel Hanhart To: Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 5:36 PM Subject: Re: [XTalk] Re: Mark s Epilogue
                                      Message 18 of 20 , Jun 23, 2003
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        ----- Original Message -----
                                        From: Karel Hanhart <k.hanhart@...>
                                        To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
                                        Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 5:36 PM
                                        Subject: Re: [XTalk] Re: Mark's Epilogue (15,42 - 16,8)


                                        CORRECTION !
                                        Dear listers:

                                        By accident I sent the wrong summary of thesis 9 and 10. One quickly
                                        bypasses
                                        important details of an argumentation in a summary. I was trying to
                                        summarize the work
                                        of Klaus Berger and accidentally sent it off while in the process of
                                        correction.
                                        So, please, ignore the E-mail of June 23, 2003 at 5.36 pm.

                                        Below I have added the second instalment, namely, thesis 9 and 10; a third
                                        instalment will soon follow. If exegetes believe Mark's epilogue is a
                                        post-70 midrash on the
                                        temple's destruction,
                                        they should offer an interpretation of the pre-70 creedal formula., "raised
                                        on the third day
                                        according to the Scriptures".

                                        THE ORIGINAL OPEN TOMB STORY (MARK 15,42 - 16,8)

                                        1. Soon after the traumatic fall of Jerusalem, John, surnamed Mark, native
                                        of Jerusalem (Acts 12,12) wrote his euaggelion for the ecclesia of Rome (and
                                        Alexandria?). Trained in Greek rhetorica, he chose the form of a tragedy
                                        (Standaert) for his account of Jesus' heavenly mission and tragic death on a
                                        Roman cross. In the prologue (1,1-13) two protagonists are introduced, scl.
                                        the Baptist and Jesus, the latter holding center stage in the narrative
                                        itself with its climax on Golgotha. In the epilogue, - the first original
                                        open tomb story -, a window to the future is opened after this dramatic
                                        denouement, in which Jesus' victory over death and his continued mission to
                                        Israel and the nations is prophesied.

                                        2. The only source references, omitted in Nestle's margin, are precisely the
                                        ones concerning the 'monumental tomb' of Jesus [mnemeion]. These references
                                        are LXX Isa 22.16; LXX Isa 33,16; LXX Gn 29,3 (Montefiore). They constitute
                                        a midrash. The 'grave hewn from the rock' (LXX Isa 22,16), a hapax in
                                        Tenach, is a metaphor for the doomed temple (Rashi, van der Kooij).

                                        3. Since Mount Zion is often simply referred to as the holy 'Place', (Hb.
                                        maqom, LXX topos') and every pilgrim was seeking the maqom that "JHWH had
                                        chosen to put his name there" (Dt 12,5; cf. Ps 25,8), the reader would
                                        readily associate ho topos in Mk 16,6 with the temple. The angel is not
                                        pointing the women (plur.!) to a shelf (accus.!) in a memorial grave, where
                                        Jesus body had literally lain (- requiring idete ton topon -); he rather
                                        reveals to them in a vision (anablepsasai-looking up!, cf Mk 6,4} the
                                        future destruction of the temple! Hence the Hebraism ide (sing.!), ho
                                        topos (nomin.!), [Hb re'eh ha-maqom].

                                        4. With the harsh wordplay body - corpse (soma - ptoma) in 15,43.45 Mark
                                        distinguishes between the actual burial of the dead body of Jesus and Paul's
                                        metaphor of the ecclesia as the living body of Christ. Arimathea's attempt
                                        to 'bury' the.ecclesia of Jerusalem proved to be in vain. The Romans, in the
                                        epilogue represented by Pilate, were only able to present him with a dead
                                        body. Arimathea's vain attempt to 'bury Jesus' for good symbolizes the
                                        persecution of the apostles in Jerusalem, barring them from preaching in the
                                        temple square (esp. Acts 12,1ff). The stone before the door of the
                                        monumental tomb stands for the Nicanor gate of the temple giving access to
                                        the "Holy". On the first day of the Pentecostal harvest the women see the
                                        future destruction of the temple - the stone was removed, the entrance to
                                        the Shekinah secured (cmp. 15,38). Thus Mark cited Isaiah's prophetic
                                        judgment of Sebna, a high priest, in 15,46 to shed a heavenly light on the
                                        present disaster

                                        5. This exegesis, supported by the above cross references, is bolstered by
                                        (a) the previous references to the temple's destruction in 13,2; 14,58;
                                        15,29 and 38 - the torn veil!.and by (b) the emphatic here and there in
                                        LXX.Isa 22,16.18 paralleled by here (hode - scl Mt Zion) and there in Mk
                                        16,7 (ekei, scl in the Galil ha-goyim). Cmp.Dt 12,5 "to put his name there"
                                        (ekei) in contrast to the Samaritan Mt Gerizim.

                                        6. "Midrash means the searching of the Scriptures (Tenach), whereby "a text
                                        is read..through the lens of a specific event and/or special concern that
                                        may or may not be explicitly referred to in the text. In the relationship
                                        between the original text and the focussing event and/or concern, the
                                        meaning of the original text is expanded and the significance of the
                                        focussing event and/or concern is underscored" (Eron). The relationship
                                        between the original text and Mark's ending is in this case focussed on the
                                        temple's destruction by a foreign army and unlawful acts by temple priests
                                        contributing to the disaster.

                                        7. According to content the gospels's unique genre is not that of a sacred
                                        biography, nor of a Greek tragedy; it is best defined as a messianic
                                        Passover Haggadah. Its theme is Israel's 'pass-over' into exile led by its
                                        Messiah (16,7), thereby introducing the last phase in history (13,10; cf.
                                        Rm. 11,25). Mark does not describe a counter-natural miracle. The angel
                                        rather reminds the women that Jesus was raised and exalted "to the right
                                        hand of power" (9,1; 14,62) and announces the post-70 consequences thereof
                                        for themselves and for the nations: he will lead his own during the coming
                                        exile (16,7).

                                        8. In a lost pre-70 version the euaggelion (Urmarkus) was read in the
                                        ecclesia for the Pesach - Pentecost season. In the present post-70 version
                                        it is retold, now in the shadow of the doomed temple. It concerns Jesus'
                                        journey through the Land ending on Zion (cmp. the Way of JHWH, 1,3 and
                                        hodos, passim). The following features confirm Mark writing a Messianic
                                        Passover Haggadah in the wake of the trauma of 70 CE. (I) the parallels
                                        between Joshua's conquest of the Land (Josh 3,16ff; 4,20; 5.2-15 ) and Jesus
                                        ' principle deeds (Mk 1,9-12; 3,14, Bowman); (II) the three main midrashim
                                        in Mk 1,2f.; 9,2-11; 15,46; (III) the depiction of the Baptist as Elijah
                                        redivivus (1,6; 8,28; 9,5.11f.; 15,36); (IV) the references to the sacrifice
                                        of Isaac (1,11; 9,7; 14,32-36, Vermes, Le Déaut); (V) the haggadic order of
                                        the four questions on the temple-square, a parallel of the order in the
                                        Jewish Passover Haggadah in Mk 12 (Daube); (VI) the Pesach setting of the
                                        last supper (14,12); (VII) the Shabuoth terminology in 16,2: " on Day One
                                        (en miai hemerai)" of the fifty days of the Pentecostal harvest (ta
                                        sabbata), on Nisan 17 (16,2); (VIII) the timing of the 'frustrated' burial
                                        at the onset of the Sabbath, Nisan 16, the Pharisaic dating of Day One of
                                        Shabuoth (Mk 15,42). The 'black' date Nisan 16 reminded the readers of the
                                        bloody persecution of the ecclesia in Jerusalem, when the new Pharisaic
                                        calendar for the harvest festival was probably introduced under Herod
                                        Agrippa I (40-44 CE).

                                        9. Mark's post-70 ending and Luke's presentation of the days after the
                                        crucifixion in Acts 1 and 2 lead to the following conclusions: (I) that the
                                        earliest creedal formula "he was raised on the third day and appeared to
                                        Peter" probably capsulized theologically the historic event of Simon Peter
                                        addressing the pilgrims gathered in the temple square "on the third day"
                                        after the crucifixion. He proclaimed Jesus' exaltation into heaven and
                                        called for repentance. (II) As a result Judeans, sympathetic to the Jesus'
                                        movement from various walks of life, f.i. Essenes and diaspora Judeans,
                                        joined Jesus' Galilean followers. Twelve apostles then were elected (cmp
                                        Acts 1,15-26 being a post-70 substitute). The leadership of twelve, conform
                                        the twelve tribes of Israel was an Essene notion. These twelve were headed
                                        by (a) James, Jesus' brother, (b) Peter and (c) John of Jerusalem, probably
                                        an Essene (Acts 3,1.11; 4,19; 8,14; 13,5.13). Thus the ecclesia was born. In
                                        that historical context "raised on the third day" would refer to the earthly
                                        manifestation of Jesus' exaltation on Good Friday (cf Lk 23,43; Phil 2,9).
                                        In Mark a distinction is made between (a) 'egerthe' (Mk 16,7) referring to
                                        this Pentecostal event of the birth of the ecclesia on the Day of the First
                                        Fruits (cf. 1Cor 15,20) and (b) 'anastenai' or 'anastesetai' in Mk 8,31;
                                        9,31; 10,33 referring to a different moment in history (see the third
                                        instalment). (III) Thus the Spirit, who had inspired the Messiah, lived on
                                        in his followers (cmp Acts 2). At baptism the Spirit like a dove (Hb yonah}
                                        had entered "into Jesus" (Mk 1,10). As Jonah was once sent to Nineveh, the
                                        archenemy, so through his followers Jesus would go before into the Galilee
                                        of the Gentiles with its capital Rome (Mk 16,7; cf. 4,35- 41; 6,48, 42-56).
                                        (IV) The "third day" was the first of the fifty days of the harvest period,
                                        Shabuoth (Mk 16,2). In pre-Agrippa years this 'Day One' fell always on a
                                        Sunday (Lv 23,11.15). Farmers would then bring the first sheaves of barley
                                        for the 'weave offering'; hence the metaphor of Jesus' exaltation as "the
                                        first fruits of those who have died" (1 Cor 15,20). Acts 1 contains an
                                        expanded post-70 narrative including an ascension after 40 days, being the
                                        formative period in Jerusalem between the crucifixion and the destruction of
                                        the temple

                                        10. The destruction of the temple cast its shadow over the Gospel. The
                                        first section ends with the
                                        insipid salt (of the templecult, 9,49f). Jesus' pilgimmage for the Passover
                                        in Jerusalem is the leading motif of the following chapters (10,32). At the
                                        entry he accuses the hierarchy of the temple, ("you have turned it into a
                                        rebels' den" (11,11.17.20). The withered fig tree is a dark omen of the
                                        coming catastrophe. Follow the disputes on the temple square, introduced by
                                        the parable of the vineyard "given to others" (12,9), while the unfaithful
                                        tenants, the high priests, will perish. But seated opposite the treasury
                                        Jesus praises the widow, who put in the box everything she had (12,41ff).
                                        Leaving the temple he turns around and prophecies - a vaticinium ex
                                        eventu? -. "Not one stone will be left here (!)
                                        upon another". Afterwards. Seated on Mt. Of Olives opposite the temple,
                                        with just four of his disciples, he foretells future wars and the imminent
                                        desecration of the temple (13,8.14). At the trial he is falsely accused, "we
                                        heard him say: I will destroy this temple" (14,58), The same charge is
                                        leveled at the foot of the cross, "Aha, you would destroy the temple .
                                        Finally, when breathing his last, the curtain of the temple is torn in two
                                        (15,28.37). This temple background forms an integral part of the
                                        dramatic plot of the narrative.

                                        cordially

                                        Karel
                                      • Karel Hanhart
                                        ... From: Mike Grondin To: Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 11:40 PM Subject: [XTalk] Re: Mark s Epilogue
                                        Message 19 of 20 , Jul 3, 2003
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          ----- Original Message -----
                                          From: Mike Grondin <mwgrondin@...>
                                          To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
                                          Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 11:40 PM
                                          Subject: [XTalk] Re: Mark's Epilogue (15,42 - 16,8)


                                          > --- Karel Hanhart wrote:
                                          > > Twelve apostles were elected (cmp Acts 1,15-26 being a post-70
                                          > > substitute). [The leadership of twelve, representing the twelve
                                          > > tribes of Israel was an Essene notion]. The original twelve were
                                          > > headed by (1) James, Jesus' brother, (2) Simon Peter and (3) John
                                          > > of Jerusalem, probably an Essene ...
                                          >
                                          > Not only the twelve, but the triadic leadership as well, reflects
                                          > the "Council of Community" in 4QSe=4Q259:
                                          >
                                          > "In the Council of Community, there shall be twelve men and three
                                          > priests, perfect in all that has been revealed from the whole Law..."

                                          Mike,

                                          I was and still am aware of the difference between Mark's "twel;ve'
                                          and the 'Counci of the Community".
                                          For that reason I wrote
                                          ".. an Essene notion".
                                          Since James, Jesus' brother and Simon Peter were not priests,
                                          I believe, only twelve were elected. James, Simon and
                                          John belonged to the group and were regarded as the "pillars".
                                          Of course, this can be no more than a historical reconstruction. There are
                                          good reasons,
                                          however, that Mark himself introduced Judas and Andrew for the plot of his
                                          story..

                                          cordially,

                                          Karel



                                          >
                                          > Regards,
                                          > Mike
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
                                          >
                                          > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
                                          crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                          >
                                          > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                          >
                                          > List managers may be contacted directly at:
                                          crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                          >
                                          >
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.