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

3731Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: The Four-gospel-collection

Expand Messages
  • K. Hanhart
    Feb 7, 2000
      On Febr 2 Louis Lomasky commented re. the assumption "there was an
      earlier pre-70 passover haggadah before Mk was written".
      (- Unfortunately, my reply was sent (computers, computers!) before I
      had edited it. So I would like to repeat L's comment and my reply -).

      > > This is also a rather difficult assertion to maintain considering the fact
      > > that there is virtually no evidence for the existence of codified
      > > written haggados before the Mishnah was written. I believe that the
      > > earliest we have is from the Gaonic Era from Sa'adia.
      > > 'Twould be an unexpected innovation for Mark to be writing haggados before
      > > the destruction of the Temple. With a central meeting place established
      > > and a standard order well in place there would be little need for written
      > > documents telling one how to lead a seder.

      I am using the term Passover Haggadah rather broadly. I agree that the
      written Seder, as we have it, was composed for a different audience than
      Mark's audience. Mark's haggadah is certainly not like the
      Seder we all know. However, we may assume that during the Passover
      season certain prescribed passages from Tenakh were read and applied to
      the contemporary situation of the recipients. Furtheremore, it is
      accepted by many that the written Seder is rather late but has very old
      roots long before the Common Era. If I understand David Daube correctly
      he supposes that already in the pre-70 period the Passover-night was
      celebrated in the circle of family and friends with children asking
      questions about the meaning of Pesach according to Ex 12,26f; 13,8.14;
      Dt 6,20f. In the period after the crucifixion and before 70 a definitive
      break between ( - what we now call -) the synagogue and the ecclesia had
      not yet occurred. 'Synagogue' and 'ecclesia' are Greek terms which in
      the LXX refer both to the people of Israel. We may, therefore, assume
      that in that pre-70 period in christian circles the same passages from
      Tenach were read as by their compatriots. But in their case they would
      have applied these texts in particular fashion to the life and death of
      John the Baptist and of Jesus. Daube complained already in '58 of the
      "cool reception" his proposal received to follow what he termed "some
      desirable lines of exploration of the Gospels". He described the
      parallel structure and similarity of the type of questions put to Jesus
      on the Temple Square (Mk 12) and of the questions put by the wise son
      (chakham) asking about the Law, the wicked one (rasha') who asks to
      jeer, the simple one (tam) "asking for plain guidance" and the son who
      doesnot know how to ask questions" (she'eno yodhe'a lish'ol). Of special
      interest is the fact that at the Seder the person, presiding at the
      meal, poses the question himself in place of this last son "who doesnot
      know...". In the same way Jesus himself poses the last question on the
      Temple square in stead of his interlocutors. Hence Daube's suggestion
      that an early passover haggadah (40 CE?) was used in christian circles,
      which Mark knew and radically revised. This earlier version of Mk 12 is
      not a late Markan composition. There is no'euthus' here and the verb "to
      dare" (12,34b) is lacking in Matthew. This "no one dared to ask" is
      strange immediately after Jesus' commendation of 'the honest man' who
      put the third question. But originally, it would have nicely introduced
      the fact that the fourth one "didnot know how to ask...".
      There are, of course, other arguments for assuming that Mark's Vorlage
      was a passover haggadah for the early christian ecclesia. But Daube's
      research contributed to (a) defining the 'genre' of Mark as a, early
      christian Passover Haggadah and (b) assuming a radical post-70 revision
      by Mark of a pre-70 manuscript thereof. Many scholars accept that
      canonical Mark shows clear signs of an editor's hand. The Vorlage is now
      lost, alas. The reason simply be that it no longer could function in a
      post-70 context: the parousia was delayed.

      with regards Karel Hanhart
    • Show all 21 messages in this topic