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

Re: [Synoptic-L] drinking the blood

Expand Messages
  • Yuri Kuchinsky
    ... Brian, Lk 22:19,20 is equivalent to 1 Cor 11:24,25, and this presents a serious problem. Which way does the dependence go? There was a long discussion of
    Message 1 of 21 , Feb 4, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Brian E. Wilson wrote:

      > Yuri Kuchinsky wrote --
      > >...
      > >But the whole account of the Last Supper as it is found in the gospels
      > >is probably quite late. Certainly "drinking the blood" appears to be a
      > >late element.

      > The idea of "drinking the blood" seems to be present in the writing of
      > Paul in I Corinthians 10.16 - "The cup of blessing which we bless, is
      > it not a sharing in the blood of Christ?" It would seem that the idea
      > could be early, and may even be original to Jesus.

      Brian,

      Lk 22:19,20 is equivalent to 1 Cor 11:24,25, and this presents a serious
      problem. Which way does the dependence go? There was a long discussion of
      this on Crosstalk couple of years ago. Evidence seems persuasive that
      there are interpolations in Paul in this area. You can see my arguments on
      my webpage, starting with my survey of Van Cangh's arguments that Markan
      eurcharist is the earliest. From this follows that Lk/Paul version of the
      eurcharist is late.

      I don't think there's any need to launch into linguistic speculations like
      Jack does in order to explain this matter.

      Thanks to Louis for correcting my mistake about the proper name for
      Tabernacles. If he wants to find a historical kernel in various accounts
      of the Last Supper, he should read Van Cangh who does an excellent job in
      analysing all the texts very closely.

      Best 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
    • John C. Poirier
      Your argument that Jesus was crucified during the week of Sukkoth, rather than Pesach, is interesting. I have never thought about the detail of the “upper
      Message 2 of 21 , Feb 4, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Your argument that Jesus was crucified during the week of Sukkoth,
        rather than Pesach, is interesting. I have never thought about the
        detail of the “upper room” in that way.

        Of course, the view that the Triumphal Entry happened during Sukkoth is
        not new. (As everyone notes, Mark’s time indicators, from which our
        notion of a “Passion Week” is derived, come from his hand.) It has been
        argued by a number of scholars already.

        Yet, I don’t think anyone has given the argument for a Sukkoth dating
        the attention it really deserves, and a couple of more supports could be
        added to the argument.

        First, recent studies have emphasized that Sukkoth was primarily a
        celebration of the Temple. (See esp. Hakan Ulfgard, *The Story of
        Sukkot*.) This brings an added dimension to Jesus’ comments directed
        against the Temple.

        Secondly, I don’t think that Peter’s outburst at the Transfiguration has
        been properly interpreted. Those scholars who have interpreted Peter’s
        words in the light of Sukkoth have unfortunately tended to combine it
        with other details of the story, and have only posited a general Sukkoth
        imagery lies behind the account. This, I think, is a
        misinterpretation. Peter’s reference to booths is a chronological
        indicator: the forthcoming journey to Jerusalem had the celebration of
        Sukkoth as its (immediate) purpose. The Transfiguration is the last
        thing that happened in Galilee before Jesus and the disciples made for
        Jerusalem. Peter’s comment, “Lord, let us make three booths here,” was
        a lastditch effort to dissuade Jesus from going to Jerusalem, *where he
        was going to celebrate Sukkoth*.


        John C. Poirier
        Middletown, Ohio
      • Brian E. Wilson
        Yuri Kuchinsky wrote -- ... Brian Wilson replied -- ... Yuri Kichinsky answered -- ... Yuri, I was not writing about I Cor 11.24,25 but about the passage
        Message 3 of 21 , Feb 5, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          Yuri Kuchinsky wrote --
          >...
          >But the whole account of the Last Supper as it is found in the gospels
          >is probably quite late. Certainly "drinking the blood" appears to be a
          >late element.
          >
          Brian Wilson replied --
          >
          >The idea of "drinking the blood" seems to be present in the writing of
          >Paul in I Corinthians 10.16 - "The cup of blessing which we bless, is
          >it not a sharing in the blood of Christ?" It would seem that the idea
          >could be early, and may even be original to Jesus.
          >
          Yuri Kichinsky answered --
          >
          >Lk 22:19,20 is equivalent to 1 Cor 11:24,25, and this presents a
          >serious problem. Which way does the dependence go? There was a long
          >discussion of this on Crosstalk couple of years ago. Evidence seems
          >persuasive that there are interpolations in Paul in this area. You can
          >see my arguments on my webpage, starting with my survey of Van Cangh's
          >arguments that Markan eucharist is the earliest. From this follows that
          >Lk/Paul version of the eucharist is late.
          >
          Yuri,
          I was not writing about I Cor 11.24,25 but about the passage
          concerning the worship of idols in I Cor 10. My reference, I Cor 10.16,
          was clearly given, as shown above.

          There is no reasonable doubt that Paul wrote I Cor 10.l6. There are no
          scholarly grounds for excising I Cor 10.16 which has no similarly-worded
          parallel in the synoptic gospels. Paul wrote the words of I Cor 10.16
          before the synoptic gospels were written, even supposing Mark was penned
          65 CE and the others soon afterwards.

          In which case, Paul wrote "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not
          a sharing in the blood of Christ?" at an early date compared with the
          writing of the synoptics, and the idea may indeed have originated with
          Jesus himself. This is even consistent with your argument stated above
          that the Markan version of the eucharist is the earliest, and which
          attributes to Jesus the words, "This (cup) is my blood of the covenant
          which is poured out for many" (Mk 14.24).

          Jesus did have some new things to say about God, and some of these did
          get passed on to Paul. Neither of them was a tame traditionalist. One
          was crucified for his beliefs, and the other was severely beaten
          several times, imprisoned more than once, and possibly be-headed, for
          his. There is no reasonable doubt that at least occasionally each said
          something not in conformity with the teachings of others of their day.
          We cannot validly rule out sayings attributed to Jesus or Paul merely on
          the grounds that they are not the traditional teachings of their
          contemporaries.

          I have been reading your homepage and your thought on Paul. Perhaps
          contributors to this List have also read the following paragraph from
          your homepage summarizing your findings -
          >
          >In my view it is extremely improbable that he was some Mythical and
          >Unique Apostle to the Gentiles Appointed So by God from Day One. This
          >is how he was made to look -- over a number of generations -- by his
          >dedicated followers who were adding up plenty to his original writings
          >while they were polemicizing against various other rival Christian
          >factions of their times -- especially the Jewish-Christians, who
          >actually had _real disciples of Yeshu_ to base their claims on. So the
          >Pauline school made themselves an Apostle who wasn't really a "real
          >Apostle", but was instead "more than an Apostle", and who received his
          >revelations directly from the Spiritual Jesus through a miracle.
          >
          I really feel there is no need for me, or anyone else, to comment on
          such thinking on Paul, Jesus, and their followers in the years before
          the synoptic gospels were written, or on the way in which this is
          presented here. Scholars will make their own judgement.

          Best wishes,
          BRIAN WILSON

          EM brian@... HP www.twonh.demon.co.uk TEL+44(0)1480385043
          Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE18 8EB,UK
          > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
          > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
          _
        • K. Hanhart
          ... Indeed, an original Sukkoth of the Transfiguration appears to be possible and the suggestion about the upper room is intruiging. However, (a) in
          Message 4 of 21 , Feb 5, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            John C. Poirier wrote:
            >
            > Your argument that Jesus was crucified during the week of Sukkoth,
            > rather than Pesach, is interesting. I have never thought about the
            > detail of the “upper room” in that way.
            >
            > Of course, the view that the Triumphal Entry happened during Sukkoth is
            > not new. (As everyone notes, Mark’s time indicators, from which our
            > notion of a “Passion Week” is derived, come from his hand.) It has been
            > argued by a number of scholars already.

            Indeed, an original Sukkoth of the Transfiguration appears to be
            possible and the suggestion about the "upper room" is intruiging.
            However, (a) in canonical Mark, as we have it, the last meal is dated in
            the context of Pesach. (b) Mark and the synoptics date the crucifixion
            on Pesach while John, for reasons all his own, date the crucifixion on
            Nisan 14. (c) With the typical Markan expression, "ton logon ekratesan"
            + "questioning what this rising from the dead could mean" the
            Transfiguration now appears to be related to Mark's passion story about
            Pesach. (d) Canonical Mark shows clear signs of the editing of an older
            document (e.g. 3, 13; 4, 10-12 etc).
            It appears to me that the traumatic events surrounding the Fall of
            Jerusalem led Mark to radically revise an older passover haggadah which
            ended with the transfiguration narrative (orginally read during
            Sukkoth?). Karel



            >
            > Yet, I don’t think anyone has given the argument for a Sukkoth dating
            > the attention it really deserves, and a couple of more supports could be
            > added to the argument.
            >
            > First, recent studies have emphasized that Sukkoth was primarily a
            > celebration of the Temple. (See esp. Hakan Ulfgard, *The Story of
            > Sukkot*.) This brings an added dimension to Jesus’ comments directed
            > against the Temple.
            >
            > Secondly, I don’t think that Peter’s outburst at the Transfiguration has
            > been properly interpreted. Those scholars who have interpreted Peter’s
            > words in the light of Sukkoth have unfortunately tended to combine it
            > with other details of the story, and have only posited a general Sukkoth
            > imagery lies behind the account. This, I think, is a
            > misinterpretation. Peter’s reference to booths is a chronological
            > indicator: the forthcoming journey to Jerusalem had the celebration of
            > Sukkoth as its (immediate) purpose. The Transfiguration is the last
            > thing that happened in Galilee before Jesus and the disciples made for
            > Jerusalem. Peter’s comment, “Lord, let us make three booths here,” was
            > a lastditch effort to dissuade Jesus from going to Jerusalem, *where he
            > was going to celebrate Sukkoth*.
            >
            > John C. Poirier
            > Middletown, Ohio
          • K. Hanhart
            ... I am using the term Passover Haggadah rather broadly. I agree that the written Seder, as we have it. Mark s haggadah is certainly not like the Seder we all
            Message 5 of 21 , Feb 5, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              ll wrote:
              >
              > On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
              >
              > > And further on in your [K.H.] message you seemed to assume that there was an
              > > earlier pre-70 passover haggadah before Mk was written. But this
              > > assumption is not so common among scholars.

              Louis Lomasky (11) commented:
              > This is also a rather difficult assertion to maintain considering the fact
              > that there is virtually no evidence for the existence of codified
              > written haggados before the Mishnah was written. I believe that the
              > earliest we have is from the Gaonic Era from Sa'adia.
              > 'Twould be an unexpected innovation for Mark to be writing haggados before
              > the destruction of the Temple. With a central meeting place established
              > and a standard order well in place there would be little need for written
              > documents telling one how to lead a seder.

              I am using the term Passover Haggadah rather broadly. I agree that the
              written Seder, as we have it. Mark's haggadah is certainly not like the
              Seder we all know. However, the written Seder is rather late but it must
              have had old roots long Before the Common Era.
              David Daube rightly, I think, complained already in '58 of the "cool
              reception" his proposal received to follow what he termed "some
              desirable lines of exploration of the Gospels". He described the
              parallel structure of the order of the questions put to Jesus on the
              Temple Square and the order the questions by the wise son (chakham)
              asking about the Law; the wicked one (rasha') who asks to jeer; the
              simple one (tam) "asking for plain guidance" and the one who doesnot
              know how to ask questions" (she'eno yodhe'a lish'ol). In the Seder the
              person presiding himself poses the question in place of this last son.
              So does Jesus On the Temple square. Daube opts for a very early
              tradition (40 CE?) within christian circles, which Mark used (no
              'euthus' here and the verb "to dare" (12,34b) lacking in Matthew. Note
              also the 'tribute to Caesar' question posed by some of the Herodians and
              Pharisees 12,13, cf 3,6).
              Yurinski wrote also:
              ... 2. The counting from the Sunday after Passover. According to
              Goudoever,
              > > Sadducees (Boethusians), Zadokites, Samaritans, and Karaites preferred to
              > > follow this practice. Goudoever sees this as the more traditionalist
              > > Jewish practice.

              Louis L commented:
              > It is odd that he mentioned Karaites as they did not come into existence
              > until centuries after the destruction of the Second Temple. Whether it is
              > more traditionalist is another matter.

              Van Goudoever was well aware of the phenomenon of the Karaites "probably
              in the ninth century" (see his Biblical Calendars, p 22)

              Re. your interesting observations on Sukkoth, plesse consider my
              comments to John Poirier which also deals with your research.

              regards Karel
            • Yuri Kuchinsky
              ... The first thing that came into my mind when I read this, Brian, was this verse by Belloc, But scientists, who ought to know Assure us that it must be so.
              Message 6 of 21 , Feb 5, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                On Sat, 5 Feb 2000, Brian E. Wilson wrote:
                > Yuri Kuchinsky wrote --

                > >Lk 22:19,20 is equivalent to 1 Cor 11:24,25, and this presents a
                > >serious problem. Which way does the dependence go? There was a long
                > >discussion of this on Crosstalk couple of years ago. Evidence seems
                > >persuasive that there are interpolations in Paul in this area. You can
                > >see my arguments on my webpage, starting with my survey of Van Cangh's
                > >arguments that Markan eucharist is the earliest. From this follows that
                > >Lk/Paul version of the eucharist is late.

                > Yuri,
                > I was not writing about I Cor 11.24,25 but about the passage
                > concerning the worship of idols in I Cor 10. My reference, I Cor 10.16,
                > was clearly given, as shown above.
                >
                > There is no reasonable doubt that Paul wrote I Cor 10.l6. There are no
                > scholarly grounds for excising I Cor 10.16 which has no similarly-worded
                > parallel in the synoptic gospels. Paul wrote the words of I Cor 10.16
                > before the synoptic gospels were written, even supposing Mark was penned
                > 65 CE and the others soon afterwards.

                The first thing that came into my mind when I read this, Brian, was this
                verse by Belloc,

                But scientists, who ought to know
                Assure us that it must be so.
                Oh, let us never, never doubt
                What nobody is sure about.
                -- Hilaire Belloc

                So if one accepts that I Cor 11.24,25 is an interpolation, as seems
                likely, would it be such a huge stretch of logic to recognize I Cor 10.l6,
                which seems so close to I Cor 11.24,25 in spirit, as also an
                interpolation?

                I assure you, Brian, that there are all kinds of grounds for doubting I
                Cor 10.16, as well as other passages surrounding it, the warnings against
                idolatrous foods, as interpolations. The argument has been made, but
                you'll never know it until you investigate it.

                > In which case, Paul wrote "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not
                > a sharing in the blood of Christ?" at an early date compared with the
                > writing of the synoptics, and the idea may indeed have originated with
                > Jesus himself. This is even consistent with your argument stated above
                > that the Markan version of the eucharist is the earliest, and which
                > attributes to Jesus the words, "This (cup) is my blood of the covenant
                > which is poured out for many" (Mk 14.24).

                But I don't think this originated with Jesus himself. Highly unlikely in
                my view.

                > Jesus did have some new things to say about God, and some of these did
                > get passed on to Paul. Neither of them was a tame traditionalist. One
                > was crucified for his beliefs, and the other was severely beaten
                > several times, imprisoned more than once, and possibly be-headed, for
                > his. There is no reasonable doubt that at least occasionally each said
                > something not in conformity with the teachings of others of their day.
                > We cannot validly rule out sayings attributed to Jesus or Paul merely
                > on the grounds that they are not the traditional teachings of their
                > contemporaries.

                But by the same token, we cannot validly accept sayings as attributed to
                Paul merely on the grounds that they are traditionally seen as teachings
                that are credited to Paul. Let me remind you that the traditional
                authorities attributed to Paul seven letters that he almost certainly
                didn't write. So what makes you think that they would have left the other
                seven untouched just like Paul wrote them?

                > I have been reading your homepage and your thought on Paul. Perhaps
                > contributors to this List have also read the following paragraph from
                > your homepage summarizing your findings -
                > >
                > >In my view it is extremely improbable that he was some Mythical and
                > >Unique Apostle to the Gentiles Appointed So by God from Day One. This
                > >is how he was made to look -- over a number of generations -- by his
                > >dedicated followers who were adding up plenty to his original writings
                > >while they were polemicizing against various other rival Christian
                > >factions of their times -- especially the Jewish-Christians, who
                > >actually had _real disciples of Yeshu_ to base their claims on. So the
                > >Pauline school made themselves an Apostle who wasn't really a "real
                > >Apostle", but was instead "more than an Apostle", and who received his
                > >revelations directly from the Spiritual Jesus through a miracle.
                > >
                > I really feel there is no need for me, or anyone else, to comment on
                > such thinking on Paul, Jesus, and their followers in the years before
                > the synoptic gospels were written, or on the way in which this is
                > presented here. Scholars will make their own judgement.

                Let's hope so, Brian.

                Yuri.

                Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

                Open biblical history list http://www.egroups.com/group/loisy - loisy-l,
                unmoderated. To post to loisy-l, send email to loisy@egroups.com

                The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
                equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
              • K. Hanhart
                On Febr 2 Louis Lomasky commented re. the assumption there was an earlier pre-70 passover haggadah before Mk was written . (- Unfortunately, my reply was sent
                Message 7 of 21 , Feb 7, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Febr 2 Louis Lomasky commented re. the assumption "there was an
                  earlier pre-70 passover haggadah before Mk was written".
                  (- Unfortunately, my reply was sent (computers, computers!) before I
                  had edited it. So I would like to repeat L's comment and my reply -).

                  > > This is also a rather difficult assertion to maintain considering the fact
                  > > that there is virtually no evidence for the existence of codified
                  > > written haggados before the Mishnah was written. I believe that the
                  > > earliest we have is from the Gaonic Era from Sa'adia.
                  > > 'Twould be an unexpected innovation for Mark to be writing haggados before
                  > > the destruction of the Temple. With a central meeting place established
                  > > and a standard order well in place there would be little need for written
                  > > documents telling one how to lead a seder.

                  I am using the term Passover Haggadah rather broadly. I agree that the
                  written Seder, as we have it, was composed for a different audience than
                  Mark's audience. Mark's haggadah is certainly not like the
                  Seder we all know. However, we may assume that during the Passover
                  season certain prescribed passages from Tenakh were read and applied to
                  the contemporary situation of the recipients. Furtheremore, it is
                  accepted by many that the written Seder is rather late but has very old
                  roots long before the Common Era. If I understand David Daube correctly
                  he supposes that already in the pre-70 period the Passover-night was
                  celebrated in the circle of family and friends with children asking
                  questions about the meaning of Pesach according to Ex 12,26f; 13,8.14;
                  Dt 6,20f. In the period after the crucifixion and before 70 a definitive
                  break between ( - what we now call -) the synagogue and the ecclesia had
                  not yet occurred. 'Synagogue' and 'ecclesia' are Greek terms which in
                  the LXX refer both to the people of Israel. We may, therefore, assume
                  that in that pre-70 period in christian circles the same passages from
                  Tenach were read as by their compatriots. But in their case they would
                  have applied these texts in particular fashion to the life and death of
                  John the Baptist and of Jesus. Daube complained already in '58 of the
                  "cool reception" his proposal received to follow what he termed "some
                  desirable lines of exploration of the Gospels". He described the
                  parallel structure and similarity of the type of questions put to Jesus
                  on the Temple Square (Mk 12) and of the questions put by the wise son
                  (chakham) asking about the Law, the wicked one (rasha') who asks to
                  jeer, the simple one (tam) "asking for plain guidance" and the son who
                  doesnot know how to ask questions" (she'eno yodhe'a lish'ol). Of special
                  interest is the fact that at the Seder the person, presiding at the
                  meal, poses the question himself in place of this last son "who doesnot
                  know...". In the same way Jesus himself poses the last question on the
                  Temple square in stead of his interlocutors. Hence Daube's suggestion
                  that an early passover haggadah (40 CE?) was used in christian circles,
                  which Mark knew and radically revised. This earlier version of Mk 12 is
                  not a late Markan composition. There is no'euthus' here and the verb "to
                  dare" (12,34b) is lacking in Matthew. This "no one dared to ask" is
                  strange immediately after Jesus' commendation of 'the honest man' who
                  put the third question. But originally, it would have nicely introduced
                  the fact that the fourth one "didnot know how to ask...".
                  There are, of course, other arguments for assuming that Mark's Vorlage
                  was a passover haggadah for the early christian ecclesia. But Daube's
                  research contributed to (a) defining the 'genre' of Mark as a, early
                  christian Passover Haggadah and (b) assuming a radical post-70 revision
                  by Mark of a pre-70 manuscript thereof. Many scholars accept that
                  canonical Mark shows clear signs of an editor's hand. The Vorlage is now
                  lost, alas. The reason simply be that it no longer could function in a
                  post-70 context: the parousia was delayed.

                  with regards Karel Hanhart
                • K. Hanhart
                  ... John, The date of Pesach for the crucifixion is so widely attested in the Gospels and Epistles (as early as I Cor 5,7) that it approaches to be historical
                  Message 8 of 21 , Feb 15, 2000
                  • 0 Attachment
                    John C. Poirier wrote Lomasky:
                    >
                    > Your argument that Jesus was crucified during the week of Sukkoth,
                    > rather than Pesach, is interesting. I have never thought about the
                    > detail of the “upper room” in that way.
                    >
                    > Of course, the view that the Triumphal Entry happened during Sukkoth is
                    > not new.
                    > First, recent studies have emphasized that Sukkoth was primarily a
                    > celebration of the Temple. (See esp. Hakan Ulfgard, *The Story of
                    > Sukkot*.) This brings an added dimension to Jesus’ comments directed
                    > against the Temple.
                    >
                    > Secondly, I don’t think that Peter’s outburst at the Transfiguration has
                    > been properly interpreted... Peter's reference to booths is a chronological
                    > indicator: the forthcoming journey to Jerusalem had the celebration of
                    > Sukkoth as its (immediate) purpose. The Transfiguration is the last
                    > thing that happened in Galilee before Jesus and the disciples made for
                    > Jerusalem. Peter’s comment, “Lord, let us make three booths here,” was a lastditch effort to dissuade Jesus from going to Jerusalem, *where he was going to celebrate Sukkoth*.

                    John,
                    The date of Pesach for the crucifixion is so widely attested in the
                    Gospels and Epistles (as early as I Cor 5,7) that it approaches to be
                    historical fact. The idea that the Upper Room suggests a booth for
                    Sukkoth (innovative as this might be) should make room, I think, for the
                    classical view that it referred to a meeting place of early christians
                    in Jerusalem. But I believe with you that the original setting of the
                    Triumphal Entry was that of Sukkoth.

                    This leads again to my thesis that Mark revised a pre-70 Passover
                    Haggadah which ended with a 'transfiguration' of Jesus together with
                    Moses and Elija. In that case the reference to 'booths' would be a
                    fitting ending of that assumed pre-70 passover haggadah: the vision of a
                    future in which the transitory life in the desert is left behind (cmp. 2
                    Pt 1,17f.). Canonical Mark, as I read it, is a radically revised
                    haggadah. The traumatic events in 70, traumatic for all 'Judeans'
                    including Christians, made a a rethinking and rewriting of the haggadah
                    mandatory: the parousia was delayed. While the pre-70 haggadah had ended
                    with something like a 'transfiguration', Mark now placed this ending in
                    the very centre of his Gospel (9,2-7) and wrote a new epilog: 15:42-
                    16:8), a midrash on LXX Is 22, 16; LXX Is 33,16, the (monumental) "tomb
                    hewn from the rock" (Mk 15, 46) being a metaphor for the temple to be
                    destroyed. I wrote on this in a previous contribution. One must have
                    strong arguments for denying to reference to Isaiah here.
                    Re: the transfiguration in the centre of canonical Mark: (a) In 8,39 we
                    have an early reference to the Parousia in which Jesus is distinguished
                    from the 'huios tou anthropou' of the endtime. (b) 9,1 is a prediction
                    of the events of 70 - NOT foretelling that the 'coming of the Kingdom
                    with power' refers to the fall of Jerusalem as if God punished his
                    people for the crucifixion (the classical interpretation), but that God
                    would be able to turn even the horrible injustices by the Romans -
                    crucifixion and destroying the temple of God- to a good end: the Gospel
                    must first be preached to all nations (13,10). (c) The transfiguration
                    takes place "after six days", while the resurrection of the 'huios tou
                    anthropou', - a collectivum -, would take place "after three days"
                    (8,31); many agree that the 'three' and 'six days' in Mark are related.
                    (d) The post-70 context of grief and loss, - the delay of the parousia
                    -, necessitated a new understanding of the meaning of the resurrection.
                    Hence the order to be silent in 9,9 and the dispute "what this rising
                    from the dead could mean" (9,10). In apocalyptic speech "after six days"
                    would mean 'at the end of a worldweek, i.e. a final new era; while
                    "after three days" would be a cryptic reference to the catastropohe of
                    70 and the assurance that with the 'dunamis tou theou' the people would
                    rise again.
                    Re: the gospel as haggadah. Next to David Daube's arguments I would
                    recall those of Bowman: Mark opens his Gospel by arranging the journey
                    of Jesus (Gr Iesous} through the Land with that of his namesake Joshua
                    (LXX Iesous}: (1) The people set out..to cross the Jordan (Josh 3,14ff)
                    - The Baptist preached in the desert and baptized in the Jordan;
                    (2) Joshua chose twelve men (4,1) - Jesus appointed 12 apostles (Mk
                    3,13); (3) Joshua had the people circumcised (5,3) - Jesus was baptized
                    in the Jordan; (4) Joshua is confronted by an angel (friend or foe?,
                    5,13-15) - Jesus is confronted by the devil (1,13.24); (5) Joshua
                    entered the Land after the period of a generation (= 40 years) because
                    the people had first failed the 'test' in the desert - Jesus is tested
                    for forty days in the desert and passes the test. The parallels are
                    hardly conincidental. However, in (2) above, the order is not parallel.
                    Jesus chooses the twelve long after his baptism. It is one of a number
                    of reasons, why I believe that post-70 Mark revised a pre-70 passover
                    haggadah. We are dealing with Pesach and Shabuot, not with Sukkoth.

                    Greetings, Karel
                  • Yuri Kuchinsky
                    On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, K. Hanhart wrote: ... Karel, I agree with you that the earliest version of Mk ended with the Ascension scene very similar to the
                    Message 9 of 21 , Feb 16, 2000
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, K. Hanhart wrote:

                      ...

                      > This leads again to my thesis that Mark revised a pre-70
                      > Passover Haggadah which ended with a 'transfiguration' of Jesus
                      > together with Moses and Elija.

                      Karel,

                      I agree with you that the earliest version of Mk ended with the Ascension
                      scene very similar to the Transfiguration scene. The Apocalypse of Peter
                      seems to preserve such a sequence best.

                      > In that case the reference to 'booths'
                      > would be a fitting ending of that assumed pre-70 passover haggadah:
                      > the vision of a future in which the transitory life in the desert is
                      > left behind (cmp. 2 Pt 1,17f.).

                      But it's not necessary to include the booths scene in the earliest
                      tradition IMHO. Booths could have been added later.

                      > Canonical Mark, as I read it, is a radically revised haggadah. The
                      > traumatic events in 70, traumatic for all 'Judeans' including
                      > Christians, made a a rethinking and rewriting of the haggadah
                      > mandatory: the parousia was delayed. While the pre-70 haggadah had
                      > ended with something like a 'transfiguration', Mark now placed this
                      > ending in the very centre of his Gospel (9,2-7) and wrote a new
                      > epilog: 15:42- 16:8), a midrash on LXX Is 22, 16; LXX Is 33,16, the
                      > (monumental) "tomb hewn from the rock" (Mk 15, 46) being a metaphor
                      > for the temple to be destroyed. I wrote on this in a previous
                      > contribution. One must have strong arguments for denying to reference
                      > to Isaiah here.

                      You may be right that the rewriting of proto-Mk was influenced by the
                      Jewish defeat in 70. But I don't see direct causality here.

                      It seems like the Tomb Burial was a major innovation/addition in the
                      tradition. Why it was added can be debated, but it seems pretty clear to
                      me that the Tomb Burial was not a feature of the earliest tradition. Once
                      it was added, it replaced the magnificent Ascension right after the death
                      on the Cross. But still this scene was preserved as Transfiguration.

                      So I think the addition of the Tomb Burial was the main reason for the
                      revision of (proto) Mk, when it became close to what we see it now.

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