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

Fw: [XTalk] Re: Passover Haggadah

Expand Messages
  • Karel Hanhart
    Inadvertently my answer to Rikk was interrupted. My computer sent it off before I was finished. (I am an ignoramus re, computers). Tomorrow morning I will
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 10, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Inadvertently my answer to Rikk was interrupted. My computer sent it off
      before I was finished. (I am an ignoramus re, computers). Tomorrow morning I
      will continue.

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Karel Hanhart" <k.hanhart@...>
      To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 11:27 PM
      Subject: Re: [XTalk] Re: Passover Haggadah

      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: "Rikk Watts" <rwatts@...>
      > To: "xtalk" <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
      > Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 1:03 AM
      > Subject: [XTalk] Re: Passover Haggadah
      > >>
      >> Oops, that response to Karel was meant to be off list
      >> Sorry
      >> Rikk
      > Dear Rick,
      > Forgive me for being somewhat taken a back by this "Oops note". I am
      > impressed with your sticking tenaciously but with good humor to your
      > approach. Always ready to answer anyone who questions it ignoring no one.
      > Hence, my baffled reaction.
      > Why was it meant to be off list? Don't you realize that a note like
      > that leaves the impression the person raising the question is somehow
      > persona non grata? Does it not make other readers of the list at least
      > wonder why your answer shouldnot be made public? Was my contribution in
      > your opinion off the subject? Why?. Do you believe with superior knowledge
      > that readers need not be bothered? Do my contributions perhaps not measure
      > up to what you believe to be the high scholarly level of this list? Or
      > must I assume that you have not read my interventions seriously, nor
      > taken the trouble to at least consult my publications on the subject? Or
      > are you perhaps concerned that your answer might show an underdeveloped
      > knowledge of the Judean background of the Gospel and of Judean (not
      > necessarily rabbinic) methods for written communication? Sorry, to be so
      > blunt. I have the distinct impression that on the non-English speaking
      > continent, the latter approach is pursued more seriously than is evidenced
      > in this list. My answer to your off list suppressed note, follows below:
      > Rick wrote:
      > 1. I hope you don't mind if I say that it's not so much your particular
      > proposal but my copy of Mark that creates the problem
      > Answer: Isn't this simply a put down? I wrote 600 pages trying to prove
      > that the classical biographical reading of the Gospel, has led us astray.
      > Rick continued:
      > it just doesn't look anything like any Passover Haggadah that I have seen,
      > and that was one of the main criticisms of Carrington.
      > Answer:
      > The Psssover Haggadah you have seen in its present form is definitely
      > post-70, taking on its official formlation over the years. David Daube, -
      > would you question his authority? - notes this in his intriguing - never
      > answered - comments that certain structures in Mark's Gospel showed him
      > that from the very start the early community
      > followed the customary readings and rites of a Passover Haggadah (and
      > interpreted them in the light of Jesus' passion).
      > Rick wrote:
      > Perhaps the problem is with the term Haggadah. If by Haggadah you simply
      > mean that the gospel of Mark is a narration of how Jesus brought his
      > reconstructed Israel out of exile, then I have no problem.
      > Answer:
      > 1) I certainly do not mean that! I wonder what makes you formulate a
      > notion like that? Did Jesus "reconstruct Israel" and to "what exile do
      > you refer"? My impression is that in your opinion that the entire nation
      > was living in apostacy, and Jesus sest out to possibly save "his
      > reconstructed Israel". You would not agree with those Fathers of the
      > Church who firmly believed that the non-reconstructed Israelites lived
      > under divine judgment?
      > 2) You also show you have not read my contributions. Sorry, Rick. Haggadah
      > simply means a Jewish narrative which implicitly or explicitly takes its
      > cue from the biblical, divine covenant with Israel. Paul would formulate
      > his own radical version of what is meant by Israel and one might agree
      > with him. However, Paul still takes the biblical narratives seriously.
      > 3) Your suspicion again shows that you are unwilling to enter into
      > discussion. You are right that for most people Passover Haggadah is a more
      > technical term, usually associated with the Seder, and therefore following
      > a particular format. I've already said that two Passover Haggadot emerged
      > after the catastrophe of 70, when the Passover sacrifice in the Temple had
      > to be discontinued necessarily. One was was in the end became the Seder,
      > the other was the passion story. Both grew from the reading of Tenach. In
      > the years before Mark First century christian Jews shred the required
      > readings with their fellow Jews. But interpreting it "in memory of Jesus"
      > laid the ground work for what later on became the written Gospels.
      > Rick wrote:
      > If you don't mind, I think I'll leave it there.
      > Answer:
      > Yes, I do mind, because your answer is off the subject. With you I am
      > concerned about the Jesus of memory.
      > Rick wrote:
      > In response to my earlier question, you state that Matt is the first
      > unambiguous example of an early interpreter who saw Jesus' mighty deeds as
      > purely metaphorical. This is indeed surprising. I wonder if you could
      > point
      > out just where in Matt's narrative he offers an interpretation of the
      > healing of the man with the withered hand, and where in that
      > interpretation
      > he says, unambiguously, that it is "only" metaphorical? I can't for the
      > life of me see any such thing.
      > Answer
      > We all know the parable of the Good Samaritan and most of us would agree
      > Jesus would want to break through the wall of hostility (to use Paul's
      > expression) between Judeans and Samaritans. Josephus witness to the deep
      > seated feelings between the two groups. I pointed that the healing of the
      > man with the "withered hand" - an odd absolutely unknown disease, making
      > the reader "search Scripture" for its meaning - refers to the Septuagint
      > version of l Ki 13:4. The expression in its literal form occurs once in
      > Tenach (in LXX and Hb) . The arm (or hand) of the king of the Northern
      > Kingdom who had commanded to grasp the prophet from Judah, became stiff.
      > The reader accustomed to midrash would recognize the incident that
      > illustrated the hostility between the North and the South (read in the
      > present context the Samaritans and the Judeans. Thus Jesus; challenging
      > the Pharisees and healing the man, is a metaphorical illustration of
      > Jesus' HISTORICAL teachings concerning Samaritans. (I am concerned with
      > the facts concerning Jesus, Rikk)
      > The prophet had condemned the sacrifice referred to
      > Regards
      > Rikk
      >> 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
      >> Yahoo! Groups Links
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.