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

Re: BD and neaniskos

Expand Messages
  • K. Hanhart
    ... I would ... Thanks for the encouraging remarks, Leonard. I will not enter again into the BD discussion. I ve explained it at length in my book. I would
    Message 1 of 3 , Dec 6, 1998
      Maluflen@... wrote:
      >
      I would
      > need some time to digest it, of course, before being fully sold on the idea of
      > Paul as the BD. I am considering writing a book on the presence of Paul in the
      > Gospel of Luke. This is why the idea intrigues me so much....
      >
      > More to the point one might ask:
      > is there a similar rivalry between the 'neaniskos' (Mk 14,51.52; 16,5-7)
      > and Peter. And does that argue for or against Markan priority as Matthew
      > studiously seems to erase this neaniskos from his Gospel in the key
      > Gethsemane and resurrection narratives?>>
      >
      > Looks to me like a "studious" inclusion of the neaniskos motif by a late Mark.
      > The alternative is to posit that both Matt and Luke remove the motif at both
      > points of its appearance in Mark. Possible, but not as likely as a theory that
      > does not require such remarkable simultaneity of redactional procedure by
      > "later" authors. I interpret the neaniskos as emblematic of the Markan
      > baptismal audience who are about to participate in Jesus' death and
      > resurrection through baptism, in accordance with Pauline catechesis (Rom 6,
      > especially).
      >
      > Regards,
      > Leonard Maluf

      Thanks for the encouraging remarks, Leonard. I will not enter again into
      the BD discussion. I've explained it at length in my book. I would just
      remark that Kragerud (and Neyrinck) put me on the trail of supposing the
      author posits two anonymous disciples (cf 21,2). He refers to Paul only
      in passages where a disciple is explicitly called "the disciple whom
      Jesus loved"; hence in three key passages.
      Your reference to de la Potteries article on "eis ton kolpon" (Jn 1,18)
      is well taken. It slippped my mind when I typed the word predestination.
      However, also his interpretation, "qui est de retour au sein du Père"
      would support my contention that we are not dealing with a historical
      discourse at the Supper but with christology, told by means of a
      narrative concerning the "handing over of Jesus". According to the
      author Jesus had the future crucial role of Paul in mind, I believe.
      As to your work on Paul in Luke - John's Gospel has been greatly
      influenced by Luke. of course. It seems as if John offers in chpt 21 a
      bird's-eye view of the mission of the Ecclesia guided by the risen
      Christ - a sort of Acts in miniature, as Edwyn Hoskyns suggested.
      Consider also the order of Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, healing of the
      Gentile centurion's son [cf..end of the world] in Jn2,13 - 4,54.
      Re. the neaniskos. I believe the very important role of the neaniskos
      (he pronounces the key message of the resurrection!) argues in favor of
      Markan priority. For the Mark's open tomb narrative is a closely knit,
      coherent story (Rudolph Pesch). It is somewhat forced to find traces of
      a prior source in the account. The intriguing aspect of the neaniskos
      is, of course, that Mark posits him to be an anonymous 13th disciple
      appearing with the twelve in Gethsemane ('sun'-ekoloutheoi) It is
      Matthew who appears to be secondary to Mark in the resurrection
      narrative. Mt doesnot explain, for instance, why the women went to the
      tomb. In fact, I believe he is both correcting Mark and expanding on his
      message. One of the corrections is, I think, that he exchanged the
      neaniskos for "an angel of the Lord".
      Greetings, Karel H.
    • Maluflen@aol.com
      In a message dated 98-12-06 11:54:17 EST, K.Hanhart@net.HCC.nl writes:
      Message 2 of 3 , Dec 6, 1998
        In a message dated 98-12-06 11:54:17 EST, K.Hanhart@... writes:

        << It is
        Matthew who appears to be secondary to Mark in the resurrection
        narrative. Mt doesnot explain, for instance, why the women went to the
        tomb. In fact, I believe he is both correcting Mark and expanding on his
        message. One of the corrections is, I think, that he exchanged the
        neaniskos for "an angel of the Lord". >>

        Karel,
        I enjoyed all your other observations, but we are going to have to part
        company here. It is not true to say, for one thing, that Matt does not explain
        why the women went to the tomb. He tells us clearly in 28:1 that they went
        there "to gaze at the tomb". This, I think, reveals a faith-openness to the
        mystery of the resurrection which is intended to contrast with the unbelief of
        the chief priests and Pharisees, who have just sealed the stone and placed
        guards, both measures intended to block out the resurrection message, if not
        the resurrection itself. There is no need for the women to anoint the body of
        Jesus for burial in Matt because this has already been done by the woman in
        Matt 26 (cf. 26:12). It is Luke, who has transformed the story in Matt 26 into
        that of a woman sinner, with a dynamic of its own in his chapter 7, who needs
        therefore to introduce into the resurrection story the motif of women bringing
        spices and perfumes (Lk 23:56 and 24:1) for Jesus' proper burial. Mark's
        account follows, and even develops Luke's in this respect. His account indeed
        has a coherency of its own, but this does not guarantee that it is the
        earliest account. I see it as a late and fairly sophisticated reinterpretation
        of an earlier story, with clear baptismal overtones which echo the beginning
        of his gospel.

        Regards,
        Leonard Maluf
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.