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

8627Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Lk21:20-28, on Jerusalem

Expand Messages
  • Karel Hanhart
    Aug 13, 2002
      The thesis Mark radically revised a pre-70 gospel is relevant to the exchange
      between Ron and Manu cited below re Lk 21,20-28. I based the thesis on a lengthy
      exegesis of Mark's ending, read as a midrash on LXX Isa 22,15; 33,16 and Gn 29,2.3.
      In a following post I hope to make clear why the thesis throws new light on the
      vexing synoptic problem. Here I wish to clarify my motivation.
      Without Jesus' resurrection christianity would loose its foundation. Mark
      certainly was convinced Jesus was raised from the dead. The exegete ought to
      approach his open tomb story, therefore, with prudence and circumspection. Fools
      rush in where angels fear to tread.
      The exegete should also and at all times take account of historical and literary
      facts. One of those is the impact of the temple's total destruction. Psalm 74
      offers an impression of the religious feelings of indignation the violation of the
      temple aroused. "Your foes have roared within your holy place...set up their
      emblems there...hacked the wooden trellis with axes and hammers..all the carved
      work...set your sanctuary on fire, desecrated the dwelling place of your name,
      bringing it to the ground" (4ff.). While the psalm probably describes the
      devastation wrought by the Babylonians, the destruction in 70 CE was even more
      severe and initiated a far longer exile.
      The second literary fact is that Mark - as some rightly stress - quoted :LXX
      Isa 22,16, a text in which "a tomb hewn from the rock" is a metaphor for the temple
      about to be destroyed.
      Also a third fact hasn't been faced adequately in the commentaries, namely,
      that the Pharisees had fixed the first day of the harvest on Nisan 16. This is
      still the official date in the synagogue for the beginning of the 50 pentecostal
      days. However, in the open-tomb-ending this is the very day Jesus was buried. On
      the other hand, all four gospel writers testify that the stone was rolled away on
      the first of the fifty days according to the christian Judean calendar in apparent
      accordance with Lv 23,15. Other traditions also took the Sunday after Pesach to be
      right date (e.g. the Samaritans). Mark considered "the Pharisees" to be hostile to
      the Jesus' movement (3,6). Mark wouldn't have been ignorant of the implications,
      for Jesus' resurrection was often compared with the sacrifice of the "first fruits"
      on that first day (1 Cor 15,20). How to account for these facts?
      According to the earliest creed Jesus rose from the dead "on the third day
      according to the Scriptures". Thus far most commentators suppose that the
      "Scriptures" were mentioned to support the testimony of the resurrection (Hosea
      6,2) especially by those who take the empty tomb story literally However,
      "according to the Scriptures" most likely refers primarily to Lv 23,15; it deals
      with the day of the first fruits, i.e. the Sunday after Pesach according to the old
      priestly calendar..
      It will lead too far afield to even briefly describe the elements of Mark's
      post-70 redaction of an earlier manuscript. The purpose of this introduction is too
      introduce the post on the benefits this theory of a revision by Mark has on
      synoptic studies as a whole. I hope to list them in a next post..


      Karel Hanhart.

      Manu asked:

      > You have not answered the question : if this phenomenon is not
      > a track of an earlier redaction for Lk 21:20-28 (proto-gospel
      > or rough draft), then where does it come from ? <snip>

      > Ron stated:

      > > >Just imagine that my 'First Edition of Luke' would be

      > > >the same of yours, with just a little modification on
      > > >Lk21:20-28, where my will follow the Luke minus Mark
      > > >pattern. Then my 'First Edition of Luke' would passe (1) and (2)
      > > >as easy as yours, and would passe (3) better, since some
      > > >difficulties on Lk 21:20-28 have been canceled.

      <large snip>

      Manu stated:

      > In fact, what we find on Lk21:20-28 is like a scrap of papyrus :
      > it looks as a fragment.

      He continued at a later point:

      > Your argument is easily controvertible : many many christians may have
      > wanted to write the story of Jesus, but only few may have wanted to write
      > it twice. If we find four early christians that had motivation to write gospels,
      > why
      > not a fifth, a sixth, a seventh, and many others ? And on the other hand,
      > where are your model which show us that a double edition was a common
      > praxis in early christianity ?

      (to be continued, KH).

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Show all 18 messages in this topic