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

Re: js 29-11-98

Expand Messages
  • K. Hanhart
    ... I for one welcome these notes on the sessions at the Jerusalem School! I have worked all along with the hypothesis that canonical Mark is a post-70
    Message 1 of 2 , Mar 1, 1999
      yochanan bitan wrote:
      >
      > Notes the Shabbat Evening Synoptic Gospels Seminar of the Jerusalem School
      > November 29, 1998
      >
      > Pericope: The Question of David’s 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
      > “floating”
      > narrative phrase in the gospels (ouketi gar etolmwn eperwtan auton ouden
      > Luke
      > 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 Luke’s conflict context, but not Mark’s or Matthew’s.
      > 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 for one welcome these notes on the sessions at the Jerusalem School!
      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'(11,11.15.16.27; 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.

      sincerely, Karel
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.