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

[Synoptic-L] Transfiguration and Ascension

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.