Re: js 29-11-98
- yochanan bitan wrote:
>I for one welcome these notes on the sessions at the Jerusalem School!
> Notes the Shabbat Evening Synoptic Gospels Seminar of the Jerusalem School
> November 29, 1998
> Pericope: The Question of Davids son (Luke 20:41-44; Mark 12:35-37a;
> Matthew 22:41-46)
> **We restated what others, had previously noted, e.g. Flusser, that the
> narrative phrase in the gospels (ouketi gar etolmwn eperwtan auton ouden
> 20:40; cf. parallels) makes the narrative flow more roughly in each
> subsequent gospel as one moves through the gospels in the order Luke, Mark,
> Matthew. It fits Lukes conflict context, but not Marks or Matthews.
> This is one of the clearest examples of a Luke to Mark to Matthew flow in
> the Synoptic Gospels.
>..we noticed the minor > agreement between Luke and Matthew against Mark in omitting apokriQeis > and didaskwn en tw ierw.
> (Abstract: M. Turnage)
I have worked all along with the hypothesis that canonical Mark is a
post-70 revision of an earlier christian hagada read in the Pesach
season along with traditional readings from Tenach. The revision was in
response to the trauma of the destruction of the temple and the
realization of the delay of the parousia. I labeled them Mark I and II
for convenience sake.
The minor agreement against Mark's "didaskon en toi hieroi" (Mk 12,35)
appears to be an argument in favor of the revision. It is my contention
that the "tomb hewn out of the rock" is a metaphor for the temple to be
destroyed; the expression is taken from LXX Isa 22,16 and it is a hapax
in the Hebrew Bible. The appr. forty hours between the death of Jesus on
the cross and the vision of the women would stand for the appr. forty
years between the crucifixion and the fall of Jerusalem. From the
present structure of Mark II it appears that from Mc 11,1 onward the
author places an heavy emphasis on the temple, distinguishing carefully
between 'hieron' and 'naos'(11,220.127.116.11; 12,35; 13.1.3; 14,49 -
14.58; 15,29.39). But this need not have been the case in Mark I.
My question is: could the correct synoptic order be (a) Mark I (who
made use of Hebrew and Aramaic material), (b) Mark II a radical post-70
revision, (c) Matthew adopting but correcting Mark II adding important
didactic material, (d) Luke (making use of Mark and Matthew but using
also the same Hebrew/Aramaic source(s) yet offering a better translation
than Mark). John offering a theological reflection on all three?
I am particularly interested in (a). It is in fact impossible to
reconstruct the source(s) the author of Mark II used. For the style of
canonical Mark is typically Markan throughout.