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

Re: Motivation of women in Mark 16 and Matthew 27

Expand Messages
  • Yuri Kuchinsky
    ... I m glad we agree, Karel. ... This is what I think too. ... Good point. ... I vote for (1) as probable. Also (2b) is probable. I doubt that (2a) was the
    Message 1 of 14 , Jan 19, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      On Sun, 10 Jan 1999, K. Hanhart wrote:

      > My question concerning Talley's view on the "origin" of the
      > opened tomb story (not 'empty tomb') is directly related to the
      > understanding of the ancient christian calendar. You [rightly] say
      > these tomb stories are late. That is: these climactic Gospel stories
      > are post-70.

      I'm glad we agree, Karel.

      > In fact, as I maintain in my book The Open Tomb, John Mark rewrote an
      > earlier Gospel after the trauma of 70, a christian Passover hagada,
      > that formerly ended with a version of the Transfiguration story as an
      > apotheosis.

      This is what I think too.

      > He now placed the latter in the center of this second edition within
      > the 'sandwich' of a reference to 70 in 9,1 and a baffled question what
      > resurrection might mean under these new circumstances (9, 10).

      Good point.

      > But the question is not what WE think happened, - tomb stories
      > are late - but what Mark wanted to tell his post-70 readers in this
      > new epilogue to his Gospel about the frustrated attempt to bury "the
      > body of Jesus" after Pilate had presented Joseph with the
      > "corpse"(15,45). This new ending might (1) be a midrasj on LXX Isa
      > 22,16 which Mark was literally citing ["a tomb hewn from the rock" or
      > (2) reflect an early oral tradition that women did discover Jesus'
      > grave to be empty - with the conclusion that a. the grave was robbed
      > and the women were fooled or b. an angel had indeed rolled the stone
      > away.

      I vote for (1) as probable. Also (2b) is probable. I doubt that (2a) was
      the intention of the writer of Mk. The reason why women were supposed to
      witness the resurrection first is perhaps because this represents yet
      another barb for the original disciples who are not viewed positively in
      Mk.

      > In case (2) we have a solid argument for the celebration of
      > Easter on SUNDAY

      But I'm pretty sure Sunday was already observed before 70. We don't need
      to look for the origin of this in the tomb stories.

      > because all four Gospels date their tombstory on a Sunday

      Yes, but which versions? Did protoMk do this? I doubt it had a tomb story.

      > and all four would in that case imply a divine intervention into the
      > laws of nature.

      In late versions, yes.

      > However, I don't believe the evangelists took the open tomb story
      > literally. Rather Mt, Lc, and Jn built on Mark's midrasj.

      Now, that's an interesting idea.

      > In case (1) we must look for the origin of Easter-'sunday' in the
      > calendar of the Torah which John Mark adhered to. For we are dealing
      > with the first day of the harvest according to Lv 23,11.15.

      Yes, I agree.

      > I donot see a third option for the origin of Sunday worship.

      Yes, my best guess is that it was connected with the early observance of
      the Pentecost/Shavuoth Sundays -- the first and the last. But I should
      caution that this is a highly disputed area.

      > For the early confession "raised on the third day according to the
      > scriptures" does not mention that the third day was a Sunday.

      The problem is that we don't really know when this was inserted -- I
      happen to believe this was not originally written by Paul. But this does
      sound like it could have been an early modified quartodeciman confession,
      and thus quite early.

      > The "scriptures" to which Paul refers is according to Clemens of
      > Alexandria Lv 23,11.55 - re. "first fruit" and the feast of Shabuot.
      > And as I read Lv 23,11 "the day after the Sabbath, means a Sunday
      > which is according to the ancient priestly calendar.

      This may be so.

      > Following Loisy and C. Montefiore I read Mark's epilogue
      > (15,42-16,8) as his own post-70 composition, a midrash on LXX Isa
      > 22,16 and LXXIsa 33,16. For in the Septuagint "a tomb hewn from the
      > rock" (22,16), a hapax, appears to be a metaphor for the temple to be
      > destroyed. Mark may well pit Joseph of Arimatea, the councilor over
      > against Peter.

      Yes, this is likely.

      > Yuri wrote:
      > > I really don't see why would Mark do this, or how he does this. Perhaps
      > > you can clarify.
      >
      > Time and space prevent me from excerpting some 300 pages of my
      > book. You may believe me that Isa 22 and 33 both are placed in the
      > context of Jerusalem under the threat of an invading foreign army -
      > both are dealing with a sinful person(s) within the walls of the city.
      > The passages in Isaiah have especially the destruction of the first
      > Temple in mind by the Babylonians. Just as Isaiah pitted Somnas
      > (Sebna), the wicked one, overagainst the righteous Eljakim (Isa 22
      > 15-25) so the wicked Joseph, the councillor, is pitted against Peter,
      > the last person named in Mark's Gospel, as the leading apostle who
      > must now continue to follow the risen Messiah ("tell it to Peter").

      Well, there may be a problem here. I don't see that Joseph is portrayed as
      wicked. And we know that Peter is criticised heavily in Mk.

      Why are Peter and the original disciples not viewed positively in Mk? My
      vote: they were seen as heretical by the Gentile/Pauline oriented writer
      of Mk.

      > > I'm not sure if the parallel with the displacing of Shebna and the
      > > promotion of Eljakim (Isa 22,15-25) will work here.

      > One must also take into account LXX Isa 33. Esp. vs 10 must have
      > made an impression on Mark who tried to find an answer to the debacle
      > of 70.
      >
      > As I see it, in STORY time the women see in a horrifying vision
      > (anablepsasai) ± forty HOURS after Jesus' death what happened in REAL
      > time ± 40 YEARS later, the destruction of the Temple : See the Place =
      > topos= Hebr Maqom - Zion, just as in LXX Isa 32,9 the women receive a
      > vision of the future with terror ànd with hope.

      But here the women are criticized.

      > In my lengthy exegesis of Isa 22,16 the expression "tomb hewn from the
      > rock" is a metaphor of the temple to be destroyed. In Mark Joseph who
      > broke the Sabbath in 'bying' linen, a member of the Sanhedrin, is like
      > Shebna the wicked one.

      I really don't see Joseph being portrayed as wicked. I think he's actually
      portrayed in a very positive light -- much more positively that the
      original disciples who all run away. (Mk and other gospellers accept that
      they ran away. I think these accounts probably reflect the facts of
      history.)

      > This exegesis would fit in with Mark's anti-Pharisaism. For according
      > to the Pharisaic interpretation of Lv 23,11.15 the first day of the
      > fifty days of Pentecost is not a Sunday, but Nisan 16 no matter what
      > day of the week this falls.

      Agreed.

      > As I wrote you earlier, I believe, that the official calendar in the
      > temple was deliberately altered under king Herod Agrippa (40-44), who
      > favored the Pharisees,

      Now, this is the important question, isn't it?

      > in order to thwart the Jesus movement under the leadership of Peter
      > who kept preaching Jesus' resurrection on the First Day of Pentecost,
      > the (Messianic) harvest to the gathered pilgrims who had come to
      > Jerusalem to celebrate Pesach.

      I don't think the movement was very influential ca 40-44, and I don't
      think Peter was preaching in public in Jerusalem around that time. In
      Jerusalem, it was most likely private proselytizing at the early stage,
      after Stephen was martyred. Read Loisy about this.

      > The first and the fiftieth day was before Agrippa always a Sunday. He
      > changed the priestly calendar.

      But how sure are we of this?

      > If this change in the festival calendar under Agrippa is true, it
      > would in turn explain why Mark strangely writes about a 'conspiracy'
      > by the Pharisees to 'kill Jesus' together with the Herodians (3,6). It
      > would foreshadow the persecution under Herod (!) Agrippa (Acts 12
      > ,1ff.). In my view then, Joseph, "coming from Rama" (15,43), a
      > representative of the priesthood favoring the Pharisees, tries in vain
      > at the onset of the Sabbath, Nisan 16 (!) to "bury the body of Jesus".
      > With his petition for the "body of Jesus" Mark is referring to the
      > Pauline term for the ecclesia, "the boddy of Christ". Joseph fails in
      > his attempt at "burying the body" and thus silencing Jesus' voice
      > forever.

      But he doesn't fail in burying the body. He buries it "according to the
      Scriptures" (from Mark's perspective).

      > What he gets is merely the "corpse" [ptoma] from Pilate. In stead of
      > this vain attempt, on the true day of the (Messianic) harvest
      > (according to Mark),

      But which version of Mk. ProtoMk? I don't think so.

      > the women, seeing in fear and trembling the vision of the future, hear
      > the angel's gospel: that the risen Jesus is no longer to be found in
      > the "maqom = the "place - topos = Zion, that is now destroyed ("behold
      > the Place). The living Jesus "is not here"; he is going ahead of his
      > disciples into the Galil of the nations.

      So this is a secondary version of Mk?

      > Finally, re. the Quartodeciman question. Irenaeus is quite clear
      > stating that in the early days VARIOUS calculations were used for
      > determining the celebration of the christian "pascha".

      Sure they were -- before him. This is accurate.

      > However, all of them took Nisan 14, the day explicitly mentioned in
      > the Torah for the killing of the Passover lamb as their anchorpoint,
      > hence quartodeciman (=Latin for 14).

      Yes, this is what quartodecimans all did, and Irenaeus generally favoured
      quartodecimans.

      > Some followed the now official Pharisaic dating of Nisan 16 as the
      > first day of the (Messianic) harvest, others followed the ancient
      > priestly calendar in used before Herod Agrippa.

      Yes, this was the earliest Christian version of chronology in my view.

      > The Matthean version can best be explained as a commentary on
      > Mark's complex midrash and fortifies the above view. "On this Rock
      > (Peter) I will build the ecclesia" ( and not on Joseph, whoever he
      > was). Peter, much like Eljakim, receives the key." I referred already
      > to the story of the guards, who become like dead men at the very
      > moment Nisan 16 (Pharisaic date) turns to "the day after the sabbath"
      > of Lv 23,11. For 'opse' means late on the Sabbath.

      I note here that the Passion narrative in Mk, or parts of it, may well
      have been written based on Mt. The directionality here is far from clear.

      > I realize these remarks are much too brief and sketchy for
      > following the argument. But I am ready to clarify a specific detail. I
      > discussed these at length in my work. It was designed to find the
      > roots of (later) christian anti-Judaism that poisoned the tradition of
      > a Gentile church who drifted away from its Judaic roots.

      The roots of anti-Judaism are many, and some of them are pretty clear. For
      one, early Jewish-Christians, or Ebionites, were all seen as heretical by
      the proto-Catholics who were Gentile-oriented to a significant extent. And
      again, anti-Judaism was already prevalent in Hellenistic and Roman
      societies even before Jesus came about. And so on.

      > I am curious to know what you mean by "Quartodeciman"; the link with
      > Pesach and Shabuoth is clearly there.

      I believe that all earliest Christians, including Paul, were
      quartodeciman. This also seems to be the earliest stratum of all four
      gospels (and the prevailing chronology of Jn; in this sense Jn preserved
      this early tradition best).

      > Yuri wrote:
      > > your questions are predicated on the assumption that the Temple calendar
      > > was changed. But I don't see a good basis for this.
      >
      > Answer: it is generally recognized that the Pharisaic dating replaced
      > the ancient priestly one. See e.g. J. van Goudoever, Biblical
      > Calendars, Leiden.

      But when? I've read Goudoever a while back, and like it, but I don't
      remember what was his evidence exactly. Perhaps you can give me the ref
      for where he discusses it?

      Best wishes,

      Yuri.

      Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto

      http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

      The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
      equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
    • achillesz@usa.net
      Greetings, I have so far only lurked on this list, and will return to lurking after this post, but I have a question to put to you all. What are your opinions
      Message 2 of 14 , Jan 27, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        Greetings,

        I have so far only lurked on this list, and will return to lurking after this
        post, but I have a question to put to you all. What are your opinions on the
        authenticity of Mark 16:9ff?

        It was my understanding that this passage was universally rejected, but I have
        come across some who claim authenticity for it. I seem to remember some posters
        here implying that they agreed with that, though I might have misunderstood.

        This is probably old hat, but would anyone take a moment to enlighten me as to
        the consensus of scholars on this at present, if there is one?

        How damaging to claims of authenticity for this passage do you think the use of
        "prote sabbaton" instead of "te mia sabbaton" is, for instance? The catholic
        encyclopedia online informs me that in these 12 verses are found at least 17
        words of phrases which are used nowhere else in Mark. Is this a good argument
        against it's authenticity?

        Thanks and regards,


        /Achilles achillesz@...

        All rights reserved.

        Random thought for the moment:

        A formalist is someone who cannot understand a theory unless it is
        meaningless.
        -- S. Gorn's Compendium of Rarely Used Cliches
      • Julian Waterfield
        I always found it interesting that the long ending to Mk has one story from each of the other Gospels and Acts summarised. ... From: achillesz@usa.net
        Message 3 of 14 , Jan 27, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          I always found it interesting that the long ending to Mk has one story from
          each of the other Gospels and Acts summarised.
          -----Original Message-----
          From: achillesz@... <achillesz@...>
          To: Synoptic-L@... <Synoptic-L@...>
          Date: 27 January 1999 18:58 PM
          Subject: Ending of Mark?


          Greetings,

          I have so far only lurked on this list, and will return to lurking after
          this
          post, but I have a question to put to you all. What are your opinions on the
          authenticity of Mark 16:9ff?

          It was my understanding that this passage was universally rejected, but I
          have
          come across some who claim authenticity for it. I seem to remember some
          posters
          here implying that they agreed with that, though I might have misunderstood.

          This is probably old hat, but would anyone take a moment to enlighten me as
          to
          the consensus of scholars on this at present, if there is one?

          How damaging to claims of authenticity for this passage do you think the use
          of
          "prote sabbaton" instead of "te mia sabbaton" is, for instance? The catholic
          encyclopedia online informs me that in these 12 verses are found at least 17
          words of phrases which are used nowhere else in Mark. Is this a good
          argument
          against it's authenticity?

          Thanks and regards,


          /Achilles achillesz@...

          All rights reserved.

          Random thought for the moment:

          A formalist is someone who cannot understand a theory unless it is
          meaningless.
          -- S. Gorn's Compendium of Rarely Used Cliches
        • Brian E. Wilson
          /Achilles wrote - ... I think this question, although very interesting, is one for a text criticism list rather than for Synoptic-L. My own text-critical view
          Message 4 of 14 , Jan 27, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            /Achilles wrote -
            >
            >I have so far only lurked on this list, and will return to lurking
            >after this post, but I have a question to put to you all. What are your
            >opinions on the authenticity of Mark 16:9ff?
            >
            I think this question, although very interesting, is one for a text
            criticism list rather than for Synoptic-L. My own text-critical view is
            that what W. R. Farmer called "The Last Twelve Verses of Mark" in his
            book with this title, were not part of the text of autograph of the
            Gospel of Mark.

            The interesting follow-up question, however, is whether if Mk 16.9ff was
            not part of the original text of Mark, then how did the Gospel of Mark
            end? Did it end "in the middle of a sentence" at the end of Mk 16.8? Or
            has the original ending (not Mk 16.9ff) been lost?

            I find current arguments that Mark ended "abruptly" at Mk 16.8
            artificial and unconvincing. I think the original ending to Mark has
            been lost, but most of its wording is probably lurking within the ending
            of the Gospel of Matthew.

            I would go along with the hypothesis that all of the synoptic gospels
            were originally written on codices, and that the last page of Mark may
            have fallen off. (The end of a roll would not be likely to be damaged in
            the same way, because the end of a roll would be protected by the rest
            coiled around it.) All extant papyrus manuscripts of the synoptic
            gospels were written on codices.

            Best wishes,
            BRIAN WILSON

            E-MAIL : brian@... *** HOMEPAGE RECENTLY UPDATED ***
            SNAILMAIL ; Rev B. E. Wilson, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
            10 York Close, Godmanchester,
            Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK
          • Yuri Kuchinsky
            ... Agreed, Brian. ... Not lost -- but rather hidden away! ... I d say, lurking in the Apoc Peter. In my view, the Transfiguration scene in Mk was originally
            Message 5 of 14 , Jan 29, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              On Wed, 27 Jan 1999, Brian E. Wilson wrote:

              > The interesting follow-up question, however, is whether if Mk 16.9ff
              > was not part of the original text of Mark, then how did the Gospel of
              > Mark end? Did it end "in the middle of a sentence" at the end of Mk
              > 16.8? Or has the original ending (not Mk 16.9ff) been lost?
              >
              > I find current arguments that Mark ended "abruptly" at Mk 16.8
              > artificial and unconvincing.

              Agreed, Brian.

              > I think the original ending to Mark has been lost,

              Not lost -- but rather hidden away!

              > but most of its wording is probably lurking within the ending of the
              > Gospel of Matthew.

              I'd say, lurking in the Apoc Peter.

              In my view, the Transfiguration scene in Mk was originally part of the
              ending of Mk. Later it was predated into the life of HJ.

              The Apoc. Peter, with its Transfiguration-like scene _after_ the
              Crucifixion seems to be a good lead to how earliest Mk's ending may have
              looked.

              So a later editor of Mk may have taken this event from its original
              post-Crucifixion context, preserved better in Apoc. Peter, and placed it
              into the life of the historical Jesus. Why? Because such a
              post-Crucifixion Tranfiguration event would have been connected too
              closely with the concept of the spritiual Resurrection (vs. the
              materialistic bodily Resurrection that became the accepted part of faith
              later).

              Also, the Ascension scene in Acts looks suspiciously like the carbon copy
              of the Transfiguration in Mk. If they are at bottom one and the same
              event, then the Acts, like the Apoc Peter, also will have preserved better
              the earliest context of such a post-Crucifixion event, which it
              transformed into the Ascension scene.

              Best wishes,

              Yuri.

              Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto

              http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

              The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
              equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
            • David C. Hindley
              Message text written by Yuri Kuchinsky ... Crucifixion seems to be a good lead to how earliest Mk s ending may have looked.
              Message 6 of 14 , Jan 29, 1999
              • 0 Attachment
                Message text written by Yuri Kuchinsky

                >The Apoc. Peter, with its Transfiguration-like scene _after_ the
                Crucifixion seems to be a good lead to how earliest Mk's ending may have
                looked.<

                Very interesting! Perhaps your observation lends itself to the theories
                that canonical Mark is some sort of stripped down version of a previous
                Gospel.

                Dave H
              • K. Hanhart
                ... Dear Yuri, Unfortunately I haven t got the time to answer all your questions. But let me reply to the last one and thus correct a possible
                Message 7 of 14 , Jan 31, 1999
                • 0 Attachment
                  >
                  > > Yuri Kuchinski wrote Jan 19:

                  > > > your questions are predicated on the assumption that the Temple calendar
                  > > > was changed. But I don't see a good basis for this.
                  > >
                  > > Answer: it is generally recognized that the Pharisaic dating replaced
                  > > the ancient priestly one. See e.g. J. van Goudoever, Biblical
                  > > Calendars, Leiden.
                  >
                  > But when? I've read Goudoever a while back, and like it, but I don't
                  > remember what was his evidence exactly. Perhaps you can give me the ref...

                  Dear Yuri,

                  Unfortunately I haven't got the time to answer all your questions. But
                  let me reply to the last one and thus correct a possible
                  misunderstanding. Jan Van Goudoever does explain the difference between
                  the old priestly calendar and the Pharisaic calendar for the beginning
                  and ending of Shavuoth. But he nowhere suggests WHEN the priestly
                  calendar (apparently followed by the early Christians) was altered to
                  the Pharisaic interpretation of Lev 21.11.15 sothat the Pharisaic
                  calendar was introduced for the Temple's sacrificial liturgy. My own
                  conclusion is surmised from a combination of data (a) from Josephus'
                  account of the reign of Herod Agrippa I
                  (b) from Luke's interesting story of Peter's escape from prison in Acts
                  12 and (c) from the Mishna's story of the 'Boethusian controversy' on
                  this calendar question.
                  As to (c) Rivkin has shown how much this dispute must have embroiled the
                  Judean nation at some time prior to 70. On the fields of the harvest the
                  conservative farmers, adhering to the old priestly calewndar, were told
                  each year to cut the Omer (the sheaf of barley) on the day after Pesach.
                  They were forced to do this, even when it chanced to fall on a Sabbath.
                  This new rule, vividly described in Mishnah Menachot 10:3, was carried
                  out by the Pharisees "in such a manner as to publicly expose the
                  Boethusian error.(Rivkin in "Defining Pharisees") This anonymous
                  halakhah challenged the Sadducean claim that the Omer was to be reaped
                  only on the day following the Sabbath (henced on a Sunday). Men. 10:3
                  runs as follows:
                  "How did they used to do it (i.e. prepare for the cutting of the Omer).
                  The messengers of the 'bet din' used to go out on the eve of the
                  festival and make bunches while still attached to the soil, sothat it
                  would be easier to reap; and (all the inhabitants of) the towns nearby
                  assembled there in order that it might be reaped in great pomp. When it
                  grew dark he (the reaper) would say,"Is the sun set?" and they (the
                  people) would reply, "Yes". "Is the sun set?" and they would again
                  answer, "Yes". "With this sickle?" and they would answer, "Yes."
                  "With this sickle?" and they would answer, "Yes." "With this basket?"
                  And they would answer, "Yes." "With this basket?" and they would
                  asnswer, "Yes."
                  On a Sabbath he would say to them, "On this Sabbath?" and they would
                  (again) answer, "Yes." "On this Sabbath?" and they would answer, "Yes".
                  "Shall I reap?" and they would answer, "Reap." "Shall I reap?" and they
                  would answer, "Reap." He used to call out three times for each of the
                  (questions) and they would (thrice) answer "Yea!, Yea!, Yea!"
                  Why such concern? Because of the Boethusians, who said, "The cutting
                  of the Omer is not to take place on the day following the festival" (but
                  on the morrow of the Sabbath [that is, on a Sunday])."

                  This vivid story may well give us a clue to solving the puzzle. For the
                  Sabbath before (the Christian) Easterday is this very day "following the
                  festival" (of Pesach). The Pharisees held that day to be the right day
                  for the first day (counting the fifty days of Shavuoth = Pentecost). In
                  Mark this Sabbath is Nisan 16. However, the following Sunday is
                  according to the old priestly calendar the first day of Shavuoth.
                  My point is that Herod Agrippa I at the beginning of his reign first
                  appointed a Boethusian highpriest (that is from the House of Boethus).
                  Agrippa apparently followed here a policy of Herod the Great. But soon
                  after he suddenly appointed a different high priest from the house of
                  Annas. Now why would Herod Agrippa I have done this?
                  If we combine these data with Luke's story of the persecution of the
                  early Christians by Herod, we may surmise that the change of the
                  calendar may have occurred under Agrippa who favored the Pharisees.
                  I realize this requires further testing. But we know the calendar was
                  officially altered before 70 when the Temple still stood and the farmers
                  had to prepare for the sheaf offering. I think the reign of Herod
                  Agrippa(40-44) is as good as any, in fact more likely.

                  What do you think?

                  Greetings, Karel.
                • David C. Hindley
                  Message text written by INTERNET:K.Hanhart@net.HCC.nl ... the old priestly calendar and the Pharisaic calendar for the beginning and ending of Shavuoth.
                  Message 8 of 14 , Feb 1, 1999
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Message text written by INTERNET:K.Hanhart@...

                    >Jan Van Goudoever does explain the difference between
                    the old priestly calendar and the Pharisaic calendar for the beginning
                    and ending of Shavuoth.<

                    >What do you think?<

                    It sounds to me like we are not really dealing with a variant "calendar"
                    but a difference in interpretation over how the calendar should be
                    observed. At first I thought the issue revolved around an ancient schematic
                    calendar (like the fixed 364 day calendar of the DSS, which appears may
                    have been assumed in various passages of the Jewish scriptures). Now it
                    appears that everything boils down to the a possible change in officially
                    sanctioned practice, similar to the difference in interpretation regarding
                    when to slay the passover lamb. It is still the same lunar calendar.

                    BTW, I do not question your conclusion that a change in practice occurred
                    around the time that you indicated. I just felt that the term "calendar"
                    was too broad, and a more specific term should be substituted.

                    Is this really a discussion about the accuracy of the transmitted
                    tradition? If so, there are actually many possible scenarios since we
                    cannot be absolutely sure what days of the week certain festival days fell
                    on in any one year. Consequently, I do not think your observation will
                    contribute to a solution of this NT question, except on a hypothetical
                    level.

                    Dave Hindley
                    DHindley@...
                  • Yuri Kuchinsky
                    ... Thank you, David. This was not my idea of course. I came across it a few times in various places, but haven t seen any detailed defence of it as yet,
                    Message 9 of 14 , Feb 1, 1999
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, David C. Hindley wrote:

                      > Message text written by Yuri Kuchinsky
                      >
                      > >The Apoc. Peter, with its Transfiguration-like scene _after_ the
                      > Crucifixion seems to be a good lead to how earliest Mk's ending may have
                      > looked.<
                      >
                      > Very interesting!

                      Thank you, David. This was not my idea of course. I came across it a few
                      times in various places, but haven't seen any detailed defence of it as
                      yet, although it probably does exist somewhere.

                      > Perhaps your observation lends itself to the theories that canonical
                      > Mark is some sort of stripped down version of a previous Gospel.

                      I'm postulating some sort of a a proto gospel, yes, but canonical Mk is
                      not necessarily a "stripped down version" of it. Probably rather an
                      expanded version. So this proto gospel was probably a rather short gospel
                      on which the canonical Mk, as well as Mt, Lk, _and_ Jn were based. I would
                      call it protoMk.

                      By the way, to add to the idea that a Transfiguration-like event probably
                      stood originally in pMk after the Crucifixion, this is exactly what we see
                      also in Lk. I mean Lk's stripped down version of the Ascention that is
                      given in a more complete form in Acts. The complete form has some
                      interesting parallels to the Transfiguration scene, especially the two
                      angelic witnesses, presumably Moses and Elijah. So this is how the
                      original ending of Mk may have looked.

                      Regards,

                      Yuri.

                      Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto

                      http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

                      The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
                      equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
                    • K. Hanhart
                      On Jan 3 1999 Yuri Kuchinsky wrote: ... Dear Yuri, Clarify will take up too much space and time. Most of my argumentation you may find in my book put out by
                      Message 10 of 14 , Feb 2, 1999
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Jan 3 1999 Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

                        Hanhart had written :
                        > > ... The epilogue [of Mark] is, I think, a midrash
                        > > on LXX Isa 22,16 and LXX Isa 33,16. For in the Septuagint "a tomb hewn
                        > > from the rock" (22,16), a hapax, appears to be a metaphor for the
                        > > temple to be destroyed. Mark may well pit Joseph of Arimatea, the
                        > > councilor over against Peter
                        >
                        > I really don't see why would Mark do this, or how he does this. Perhaps
                        > you can clarify.

                        Dear Yuri,

                        'Clarify' will take up too much space and time. Most of my argumentation
                        you may find in my book put out by the Liturgical Press, "The Open Tomb,
                        A New Approach". The new approach is based on the premise that after the
                        trauma of 70 Mark, a christian 'ioudaios' ('interpreter' of Peter who
                        had read Paul's letters) revised an earlier Passover hagadah, used in
                        the ecclesia to commemorate Jesus' death and celebrate his resurrection.
                        The pre-70 hagada was set in the tone of the prayer 'Maranatha', for
                        they expected the coming of the bar-nash in their life time. The delay
                        of the Parousia necessitated a revised hagada on the ministry of Jesus
                        whose death was regarded as that of the Passover Lamb (1 Cor 5,7).
                        In his revision Mark attempted to build a bridge between the
                        crucifixion and the (to him recent!) destruction of the Temple some
                        forty years later. The cruelty and injustice by the Romans and the
                        impious handling of the ancient traditions by the temple priests and the
                        Jerusalem elite, would be set aright by God who had raised Jesus from
                        the dead.
                        The epilogue of the Gospel was inspired by Mark's re-reading of LXX Isa
                        22,16 and LXX Isa 33,16 dealing with the destruction of the First
                        Temple. You ask how he does this? By cleasrly referring to the text of
                        Isa 22" "a tomb hewn from the Rock", and by altering the nickname of
                        Simon, "Cephas", into "Petros = Rock" throughout his Gospel.

                        > > as Isaiah pitted Somnas (Sebna) overagainst Eljakim. It is worth
                        > > following this trail in the absence of another viable interpretation
                        > > (except the classical, literal one).
                        >
                        > The logical interpretation seems to be that Joseph of A had to be found to
                        > make the tomb burial story (remotely) possible. How else could they get
                        > the body from the authorities?

                        You put your finger on the weak link in the chain of argument. However,
                        Mark himself gave himself the impossible task of building a literary
                        bridge between the crucifixion of a single prophetic figure and the
                        national disaster of 70. This mysterious Joseph must somehow be related
                        to the death of Jesus and the persecution of the early Christians in
                        Jerusalem and also to the destruction of the Temple in 70. Arimathea is
                        not a family name. Mark writes "having come from Rama" (15,43, cf Jer
                        31,15) thus linking him to the destruction of the temple. Moreover, in
                        LXX Isa 22,16 the 'tomb' is a metaphor of the Temple to be destroyed. In
                        "story time" Joseph 'dares' to petition Pilate for the 'body of Jesus'.
                        This occurs at the onset of the Sabbath, Nisan 16, which is the first
                        day of the harvest (Pentecost) on Pharisaic counting of the 50 days.
                        The 'body of Jesus' appears to be a metaphor as well. For Pilate does
                        not grant him this 'sooma' but a corpse 'ptoma' (15,45). Joseph may
                        think he has put a final seal on Jesus' mission by rolling a stone
                        before the tomb, but this symbolic burial merely concerns a 'corpse' and
                        his socalled funeral would prove to be in vain. Mark, I think is
                        applying Paul's metaphor of the ecclesia as the "body" of the living
                        Christ to his midrash.
                        In "story time" the women have their horrifying vision (anablepsasai,
                        16,3) some FORTY HOURS after Jesus' death according to Mark's time
                        indicator in 15,33. The implication is, I believe, that the vision
                        concerns the disastrous events in 70, hence FORTY YEARS LATER; the women
                        are like the women in LXX 32,9 who behold the destruction of Jerusalem.
                        They flee the scene in horror (16,8).
                        Mark's time indicators are filled with symbolism. In "story time"
                        Joseph's frustrated attempt at 'burying Jesus for good' occurs at the
                        onset of Nisan 16; and the vision occurs in the early hours of Nisan 17.
                        According to the priestly festival calendar that is in the year of the
                        crucifixion the correct date for the first of the fifty days of the
                        harvest on which the "first fruit" is offered in the temple. It should
                        always fall on a Sunday (Lev. 23,11.15).

                        > I'm not sure if the parallel with the displacing of Shebna, and the
                        > promotion of Eliakim in Isaiah 22:15-25 will work here.
                        >

                        It works, I think, for Simon Peter became with all his failings the
                        apparent head of the ecclesia, according to Mark. It is promised by the
                        angel in 16,7. The enigma would be solved if we could know the identity
                        of the mysterious Joseph (who in "story time" follows the Pharisaic
                        counting of Shavuoth - who "came from Rama" and breaks the Sabbath laws
                        by "buying" linen). The midrash is highly complex. But Mark makes it
                        very clear that this Joseph is in his eyes an evil person. He is a
                        'bouleutes', eminent member of the Council. In his time he played a role
                        in "the plot" (sumboulion) "to kill Jesus" (3,6). In fact he wanted to
                        put a seal on it. If I'm right this Joseph must be somehow related to
                        the persecution of the christians (Acts 12,1) in "real time" and be "in
                        real time"a contemporary of Mark, a person of great eminence who could
                        be cast opposite Simon Peter.

                        > > We
                        > > both agree that the "early morning" of Mark 16,2 is Niesan 17.
                        >
                        > Yes, the earliest version of the empty tomb story would have been on 14th
                        > + 3 days = 17th. But later different versions were also tried.

                        Here I disagree. Therefore, I prefer to call it the 'open tomb', not the
                        empty tomb story. Mark is not handing on a known tradition concerning
                        Jesus' grave. He is conveying of message of hope to a community in
                        despair after 70, based on his faith in the risen Messiah. His "raised
                        after three days" is, I believe, half of a world-week; Mark wanted to
                        explain the delay of the parousia. The term "after three days"
                        symbolically stands for half-way to the End, "after six days" the
                        apotheosis of the Transfiguration will follow. For the Transfiguration
                        scene was the original ending of the pre-70 Gospel.

                        > The Sadduccee first day of Shabuoth was not fixed according to the lunar
                        > calendar. It was celebrated from the first Sunday after Passover, this
                        > falling on a variety of possible dates, to the Sunday 50 days later.

                        No, according to Lev 23,11 it must be the day after the Sabbath after
                        Pesach; not "a variety of possible dates". Pesach and Shavuoth are also
                        Spring festivals and both are related to the offering of firstlings and
                        first fruit.

                        > > The important question is WHEN and WHY was the official festival
                        > > calendar for the harvest ritual in the temple changed from the
                        > > priestly to the Pharisaic interpretation of Lv 23,11.15?
                        >
                        > But how do we know it was changed? How do our texts reflect the Temple
                        > rituals in the 1st c?

                        I already pointed to Mishna Menachot 10:3 and the Boethusian
                        controversy, dealing with Nisan 16 or the Sunday after Pesach in an
                        earlier post.

                        > I'm quite pessimistic that analysis of the endings of the gospels can
                        > provide many valid insights about the priority of any gospel. This is
                        > because I believe that the endings (as well as the beginnings) were the
                        > most heavily edited and changed parts of the gospels.

                        I am distinguishing between a pre-70 Mark I and a heavily revised
                        post-70 Mark II.

                        > > Cf 1 Cor 16,2.8 - Paul wants the Corinthians to lay aside gifts only
                        > > during these seven weeks, and not during 52 Sundays in a year).
                        >
                        > I don't quite see how this is derived from this text.

                        Paul himself sets a time limit in 1 Cor 16,8. He apparently wants to
                        present this 'contribution for the saints" on the (fiftieth) day of
                        Pentecost.

                        >> ...the first day of Pentecost - it became our Easter Day.
                        >
                        > Yes, eventually. But originally the Easter Day was the same as the Jewish
                        > Passover.

                        In pre-70 days the early christians must have celebrated Passover with
                        the 'ioudaioi'
                        in the night of Nisan 15, following the slaughtering of the lambs on
                        Nisan 14.
                        But "on the third day" - that is Nisan 17, - a Sunday! in the year of
                        Jesus' death
                        according to the Synoptics - they also rejoiced in his resurrection as
                        "first fruit".

                        >
                        > I think it is quite significant that the women are the first witnesses of
                        > the resurrection in Mt.
                        >
                        > > Now does Matthew elaborate on and clarify the Markan story? Or
                        > > vice versa - does Mark abbreviate Matthew?

                        Matthew elaborates, clarifies and corrects Mark (there is no 'neaniskos'
                        in Matthew and no 'Salome')
                        He clarifies because he lets the angel appear the very moment Nisan 15
                        turns to Nisan 16 on the eve after the Sabbath. The reader is thus
                        alerted to the Pharisaic-Boethusian controversy with its bitter
                        memories, I believe, of the persecution under Herod Agrippa (cf Acts
                        12,1; Mark 3,6).

                        > As already noted above, I think Passion narratives are in a class by
                        > themselves. They are the most elaborated and edited. I don't think it's
                        > possible to find many clues to the solution of the Synoptic problem there.
                        >
                        > > The Gr. participle "terountes" (of the guard in Mt) is also the
                        > > technical term for "observing" a feast day. In that case it is their
                        > > duty to hinder 'the observance of Nisan 17' as the beginning of the
                        > > harvest of the resurrection, as the Christians were proclaiming it on
                        > > the Day of Pentecost.
                        >
                        > Whose duty is to "hinder"? I don't quite understand.

                        In "story time" the guards are told on the Sabbath they must make sure
                        that 'no resurrection' takes place on the "third day" (cf Mt 16,21), so
                        they must keep guard until the following Tuesday. In "real (liturgical)
                        time"
                        Christians were proclaiming Jesus' resurrection on the Sunday following
                        Pesach in defiance of the forceful introduction of Nisan 16 by Herod
                        Agrippa.
                        The agricultural symbolism of seed and harvest apparently was applied
                        to the history of Jesus and his movement by the early Christians (f.i.
                        Mark 4, 1 Cor 15, 4.20.37).
                        Whatever motivated Agrippa to officially change the dates of Pentecost
                        is not clear. It is clear that Mark interpreted this as a direct attack
                        on christian observance (Mark 3,6).
                        >

                        > > These calendrical problems, which seem to be so insignificant,
                        >
                        > They are very significant.

                        >> It would become highly relevant if indeed Herod Agrippa had the official
                        > > calendar changed for religio/political reasons in opposition to Peter
                        > > and the apostles who kept proclaiming the resurrection of Jesus on the
                        > > Temple square and perhaps opposed his policies as well.
                        >
                        > I don't think Peter and friends were in any position to influence how and
                        > when Temple ceremonies were observed. They were not so influential.

                        Perhaps not. But, as you also said, Samaritan chronology coincided with
                        the christian
                        calendar. Also Qumranites seemed to have adhered to the "day after the
                        Sabbath". The opposition to Herod was perhaps stronger than you infer.


                        Best regards,

                        Karel - 's-Hertogenbosch
                      • K. Hanhart
                        ... Dear David, The terms old priestly calendar and the Pharisaic calender with regard to Shavuoth are frequently used. 1. There is no dispute re. the fact
                        Message 11 of 14 , Feb 7, 1999
                        • 0 Attachment
                          David C. Hindley wrote:
                          >
                          > Message text written by INTERNET:K.Hanhart@...
                          >
                          > >Jan Van Goudoever does explain the difference between
                          > the old priestly calendar and the Pharisaic calendar for the beginning
                          > and ending of Shavuoth.<
                          >
                          > >What do you think?<
                          >
                          > Now it appears that everything boils down to the a possible change in officially sanctioned practice, similar to the difference in inerpretation regarding when to slay the passover lamb. It is still the same lunar calendar.

                          Dear David,
                          The terms old priestly 'calendar' and the Pharisaic calender with regard
                          to Shavuoth are frequently used.
                          1. There is no dispute re. the fact that the Boethusians defended the
                          priestly calendar and that at some time the dates of Shavuoth were
                          replaced by the Pharisaic counting of the fifty days. The temple then
                          still stood and in the Talmud the Pharisaic counting of the Omer
                          beginning with Nisan 16 still prevails. The question is WHEN the
                          official celebrations began on Nisan 16 which is not necessarily a
                          Sunday.
                          Of course,thare were other halakhic controversies in the First Century
                          between Boethusians and Pharisees.
                          2. This is no small matter. For the burial took place at the onset of
                          Nisan 16. Nothing happend thereafter. For the women. however, the "first
                          day" of Shavuoth, Nisan 17, is filled with the promise of the Messianic
                          harvest to come as Jesus rose from the dead, as the first fruit.

                          Greetings, your KAREL
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.