Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: The Four-gospel-collection
- 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 factI am using the term Passover Haggadah rather broadly. I agree that the
> > 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.
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
- 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 dont think that Peters 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. Peters 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*.
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
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.
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.
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.
Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto
The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian