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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: The Four-gospel-collection

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.