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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: The Portrait of Peter in Mk and Mt

Expand Messages
  • Stephen C. Carlson
    ... Thanks. I think one trouble for tradition-based approaches to the Synoptic Problem is that a strong of Mark to Peter conflicts with Mark s use of Matthew.
    Message 1 of 15 , Jan 13, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      At 06:06 AM 1/11/01 EST, Maluflen@... wrote:
      >I just wanted to mention, Stephen, that I found fascinating your extended
      >post on this topic dated Jan 1, 2001. I had never read the Papias testimony
      >in the "minimalist" way you suggest, but it makes altogether good sense to do
      >so. And I found very convincing your demonstration of how the tradition about
      >Mark and Peter developed later on. As a corollary of this discussion, from a
      >Griesbach perspective, I would note that the earliest tradition on the
      >writing of Mark (Papias), interpreted in accordance with your understanding,
      >conflicts less stridently with the demands of the 2 GH than do the later
      >embellishments and interpretations of this tradition.

      Thanks. I think one trouble for tradition-based approaches to the
      Synoptic Problem is that a strong of Mark to Peter conflicts with
      Mark's use of Matthew. Interestingly, the 2SH may be viewed as a
      solution to this bind, by taking Matthew=Q, of which Mark could be
      independent and hence more plausibly dependent on Peter. Of course,
      few supporters of the 2SH now connect Mark to Peter or Q to Matthew.

      Stephen Carlson
      --
      Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
      Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
      "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Karel Hanhart
      ... Mt 16,16-18 The passage is important for the synoptic quest. For it offers a prime argument in support of Markan priority, if indeed Mark 15,46 is, - as C
      Message 2 of 15 , Jan 19, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
         

        Mark Goodacre wrote:

        I'd like to thank Stephen for his interesting comments on the portrait of Peter in
        Mark and Matthew and would like to add one thought of my own.

        I suspect that one of the reasons we tend to see the picture of Peter in
        Matthew as so much more positive than it actually is is the over-emphasis on
        redaction-criticism standard in most New Testament scholarship.  If we allow
        ourselves to leaven our source- / redaction-criticism a little with some insights
        from narrative-criticism (one of my hobby-horses, as some may know), we may
        end up with a more nuanced picture......Moreover, narrative-criticism encourages us not only to look at the goal of an individual section of text, avoiding undue obsession with source and redaction, but it also encourages us to look more broadly at the development of the overall  narrative in the Gospel.  What is so interesting about Matthew 16.17-19 is thatthe commendation to Peter appears to be democratised later on, in Chapter 18. Before getting rebuked by Jesus, Peter was told "Whatever you (sing) bind on earth will be bound in heaven . . .".  But now, post-rebuke, the reader finds that this special charge has been extended to all the disciples, "Whatever you (pl.) bind on earth will be bound in heaven" (18.18). I have to admit that I had not thought about this until Stephen brought up this interesting topic.  At first, I didn't think there was much in it, but on reflection I wonder if he is indeed putting his finger on something that over-obsession with redaction-criticism, in spite of its general usefulness as a tool, can all too easily obscure.

        Mt 16,16-18 The passage is important for the synoptic quest. For it offers a prime argument in support of Markan priority,  if indeed Mark 15,46 is, - as C Montefiore and Loisy suggested -, is a midrash on LXX Isa 22,16; 33,16 and if indeed Mark was deeply influenced by Paul (Joel Marcus).
         Before demonstrateing this under C. I want to summarize some comments on the passage itself.
        1. The "keys of the kingdom" and "binding" and "loosing" refer to the same pericope in Isa 22, 15-25 (Isa 22,22).
        2. The word "ekklesia" is used only In Mt 16,18 and 18,17  in the synoptics; and as such the passage appears to be more a later insertion in an existing text than  part of the original composition. I agree with Goodacre, however, that we should not rely too much on source/redaction criticism alone. We should also not  weaken the impact of 18,6 by defining 18,17 as a democratization of 16,18, as Maluflen also insists.
        3, I would agree (with some reservations)  with the conclusion by Raymond Brown cum suis in "Peter in the New Testament" that Mark gives in 16,7 "implicit testimony to the tradition that.Peter had real importance for the church" (p.72) over against those who think Mk 16,7 refers to a parousia in Galilee Weeden). Mark is not anti-Petrine.
         . .
           B. I have worked out the ramifications of Montefiore's suggestion. In order to avoid parallellomania (S.Sandmel) assigning some gospel passage as a midrash to a partular text(s) in the Hebrew Bible, one should submit his/her exegesis to the rigorous test: "Did other synoptic authors show signs of having understood this new exegesis in the same way?"  To refresh one's memory::
        1 Mk 15,46. Gr. "en mnemoneioi ho en lelatomemenmon ek petras" refers to Isa 22,16. In both passages the monumental tomb is a euphemism for the temple to be destroyed. This is quite probable in the LXX version, but also true for the Hb Isa 22,16 as Rasji indicates re. the Jerusalem Talmud .
            (I find it astonishing that various Bible editions ACKNOWLEDGE that Mark in  4,12; ,18;   9,48;11,10; 13,14; 13,19; 13,24; 14,18; 14,62 (!!); 15,24; 15,29; 15,33; 15,36 (some 13 x) is referring to a passage in Tenach without naming the biblical author but that Mark would NOT have done so in 15,46. Here Mark uses THREEwords in a similar war and the expression occurs only once in Tenach!.)
        2. In the narrative world the women receive - some 40 hours after Jesus expired - a vision of the future (Gr anablepsas, cf 6,41). The 40 HOURS in the narrative world between Jesus' death (15,33) and the vision (16,1.4) in this epilogue refer to the appr 40 YEARS after the crucifixion in the real world re. the complete destruction of the temple, including the Holy of Holies. Thus the angel says "Behold the PLACE " =  Behold the Maqom = the holy Place.
        The women therefore would see the monumental tomb during the ravaging of Jerusalem in their vision - they are frightened  - they flee - they tell no one..
        3. In Mk 15,43  Joseph (who "came from Ramah", the town where Rachel wept for her children). is depicted as a person hostile to the christian ecclesia and to Jesus. He was a member of the council that condemned Jesus (Schreiber). He broke the law, buying on a Sabbath.
        4. In all translations the coarse wordplay "some-ptoma" (Mk 15,43.45) has been softened by the
        words "Jesus' body" and "Jesus' dead body". The reason for this euphemism is obvious; we are dealing with the heart of the church's faith. However, the coarseness is essential for understanding the midrash.  As I see it, one should paraphrase as  follows: Joseph (that despicable person) had the guts to ask for Jesus "body", but :Pilate, a cruel Roman,  gave him only the corpse.
        5. It is the corpse that the women in vain sought to anoint. For Jesus himself will prove to have disappeared - he as the "head of his body" already sits "at the right hand of the Power" (14,62) and he is leading his own (the ecclesia as his body - Peter mentioned separately-) into the Galil ha-goym.
        Joseph wanted to imprison the "body" behind the door (of the Holy) and sealing the deed with a large stone. But his was a divinely frustrated burial.
        C. I believe in 16,16-18 Mt shows every sign of having understood the epilogue in this sense .
                MARK 15,42-16,8                                            MATTHEW 16,17-20
        1. A play on the words  petras -Petros              A play on the words petrai-Petros
            ( 15,46 - 6,7)                                                    (16,18)
        2. Mnemeion = monumental tomb = Temple      Oikodomeso - his ecclesia on the Rockman
            under threat to be destroyed (15,46)
        3. A post-70 midrash on LXX Isa 22,16               A post-70 midrash establishinh Peter Peter
            about a temple official (highpriest?) being           as foundation rock for the (judean) ecclesia
           stripped of his function and 'whirled' into             in exile (16,18).
           a wide land. Another taking his place.
        4. Joseph paralleled with Shebna losing his             Peter paralleled with Eljakim: Peter receiving
            accroputements (presumably also the                  the keys of the Rule of Heaven to 'bind or
            office of the key of David to 'open and                loose' (16,19)
            'shut' (15,45)
        5. Joseph breaking the Sabbath on the eve              Whatever Peter 'looses' on earth will be
            of an illicit first day of the harvest, Nisan               loosed in heaven.
            16 (15,42.46), and vainly attempting to                (Prior to 70 the calendar festival the Boethusian
             "bury" Jesus, rolling a stone before the                  date for the first day of the harvest was altered
            monument, sealing off the entrance (thura)             from a Sunday to Nisan 16, as 'the first day')
        6. Jesus 'going ahead) of Peter into Galilee                 Peter receiving at Caesarea (!) Philippi in
            (the Galilee of the nations) where he would           Gentile territory, a revelation from heaven
            appear (opsesthe) to Peter and the others.           (apekalupsen) concerning the sonship of Jesus
        7. The promise of an appearance, namely, of             Jesus nuilding up his ecclesia.
            his risen body.
        8. A brazen Arimathea demanding the "body"            Them'gates of hell' (code name for pagan
            of Jesus, but receiving the "corpse" from the           Rome not prevailing ( 'gates' = city Joel
            Roman governor after he had learned from            Marcus) against the 'ecclesia'
            centurion that he had died ;long ago (palai)

        Conclusion. Matthew knew Mark. He inserted the 'keys' of Peter into Mark's story. In my view he
        understood Mark's Gospel, allegedly written under the authority of Peter. With this insertion he
        approved of Mark's rendition, including Peter's failings. But Matthew was more hesitant about Mark's bold assertions in a more Pauline sense (e.g. Mark 7, cf Mt 5 - 7, the Sermon on the Mount, thus correcting Mark.  At  any rate I believe Matthew was commenting on Mark's epilogue, thus meeting the rigiorous test mentioned above. Another passage is e.g. in John: "he spoke of the TEMPLE of his body" (2,21).

        Karel Hanhart     K.Hanhart@....

      • Karel Hanhart
        ... My apologies to Synoptic-L. In my previous scrambled message the parallels to Mark 15, 42 - 16,8 and Matthew 16,17-19 did not appear in a readable manner.
        Message 3 of 15 , Jan 20, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Mark Goodacre wrote:

          > I'd like to thank Stephen for his interesting comments on the portrait of Peter in
          > Mark and Matthew and would like to add one thought of my own.
          >
          > I suspect that one of the reasons we tend to see the picture of Peter in
          > Matthew as so much more positive than it actually is is the over-emphasis on
          > redaction-criticism standard in most New Testament scholarship. If we allow
          > ourselves to leaven our source- / redaction-criticism a little with some insights
          > from narrative-criticism (one of my hobby-horses, as some may know), we may
          > end up with a more nuanced picture.
          >

          My apologies to Synoptic-L. In my previous scrambled message the parallels to Mark 15, 42
          - 16,8 and Matthew 16,17-19 did not appear in a readable manner. Below I will not show the
          parallels side by side in two parallel columns but one below the other.

          Mt 16,17-19 is highly important for the synoptic quest. For it offers a prime
          argument in support of Markan priority, if indeed Mark 15,46 is, - as C Montefiore and
          Loisy suggested -, a midrash on LXX Isa 22,16; 33,16 and if indeed Mark was deeply
          influenced by Paul (Joel Marcus).
          Before demonstrating this under C. I want to summarize some comments on the passage
          itself.
          1. The "keys of the kingdom" and "binding" and "loosing" also refer to the same pericope
          in Isa
          22, 15-25 (Isa 22,22).
          2. The word "ekklesia" is used only in Mt 16,18 and 18,17 in the synoptics; and as such
          the passage appears to be more of a later insertion in an existing text than part of the
          original composition. I agree with Goodacre, however, that we should not rely too much on
          source/redaction criticism alone. We should also not weaken the impact of 18,6 by
          defining 18,17 as 'a democratization' of 16,18, as Maluflen rightly insists.
          3, I would agree (with some reservations) with the conclusion by Raymond Brown cum suis
          in "Peter in the New Testament" that Mark gives in 16,7 "implicit testimony to the
          tradition that.Peter had real importance for the church" (p.72) over against those who
          think Mk 16,7 refers to a parousia in Galilee (Weeden). Mark is not anti-Petrine.
          . .
          B. I have worked out the ramifications of Montefiore's suggestion. In order to avoid
          parallellomania - for instance, when designating a gospel message as midrash to a
          particular text(s) of Scripture (S. Sandmel) - one should submit his/her exegesis to the
          rigorous test: "Did
          other synoptic authors show signs of having understood that passage in the sense of this
          new midrashic exegesis? I believe Matthew 16,17-19 was composed with this understanding
          of
          Mark's ending.
          To refresh one's memory::
          1 Mk 15,46. Gr. "en mnemoneioi ho en lelatomemenmon ek petras" refers to Isa 22,16. In
          both passages the monumental tomb is a euphemism for the temple to be destroyed. This is
          quite probable in the LXX version, but also true for the Hb Isa 22,16 as Rasji indicates
          in a note
          on the Jerusalem Talmud .
          (I find it astonishing that various Bible editions ACKNOWLEDGE that Mark in 4,12;
          8,18; 9,48;11,10; 13,14; 13,19; 13,24; 14,18; 14,62 (!!); 15,24; 15,29; 15,33; 15,36
          (some 13 x) is referring to a passage in Tenach without naming the biblical author but
          that in these same editions NO reference is made to Isa 22,16 in a note on Mk15,46. But
          Mark
          cites THREE words that occur also in LXX Isa 22,16 and the expression about the
          'monumental tomb' occurs here in Tenach!.
          2. In the narrative world the women receive - some 40 hours after Jesus expired - a vision

          of the future (Gr anablepsasai, cf 6,41). The 40 HOURS in the narrative world between
          Jesus'
          death (15,33) and the vision (16,1.4) in this epilogue refer to the appr 40 YEARS after
          the crucifixion in the real world re. the complete destruction of the temple, including
          the Holy of Holies. Thus the angel says "Behold the PLACE " = Behold the Maqom = the holy

          Place. The women therefore would see in their vision the destruction of the Temple during
          the ravaging of Jerusalem. They are frightened - they flee - they tell no one..
          3. In Mk 15,43 Joseph (who "came from Ramah", the town where Rachel wept for her
          children). is depicted as a person hostile to the christian ecclesia and to Jesus. He was
          a member of the council that condemned Jesus (Schreiber). He broke the law, buying on a
          Sabbath.
          4. In all translations the coarse wordplay "soma-ptoma" (Mk 15,43.45) has been softened by

          the words "Jesus' body" and "Jesus' dead body". The reason for this euphemism is obvious.
          We
          are dealing with the attempted burial and resurrection of Jesus, the heart of the church's
          faith. However, the coarseness is essential for understanding the midrash. As I see it,
          one should paraphrase as follows: Joseph: "that despicable person had the guts to ask for
          Jesus "body", but :Pilate, a cruel Roman, gave him only the corpse.
          5. It is the corpse that the women in vain sought to anoint. For Jesus himself will prove
          to have disappeared - he as the "head of his body" already sits "at the right hand of the
          Power" (14,62) and he is leading his own (the ecclesia as his body into the Galil ha-goym.
          Peter is here mentioned separately, the last named person in the Gospel. Joseph wanted to
          imprison the "body" behind the door (of the Holy) and sealing the deed with a large stone.
          But his was a divinely frustrated burial.

          C. In Mt 16,16-18, Matthew shows every sign of having understood Mark's epilogue in this
          sense. This becomes clear if we compare eight key features in the two passages.

          MARK 15,42-16,8
          1. A play on the words petras -Petros ( 15,46 - 6,7)
          2. Mnemeion = monumental tomb = Temple under threat to be destroyed (15,46)
          3. A post-70 midrash on LXX Isa 22,16 about a temple official (highpriest?) being
          stripped of his function and 'whirled' into a wide land. Another official taking his
          place.
          4. Joseph paralleled with Shebna losing his accroutements (presumably also the
          'binding or loosing" function of the key of David to 'open and 'shut' (15,45)
          5. Joseph breaking the Sabbath on the eve of an illicit first day of the harvest,
          Nisan .
          16 in a vain attempt to "bury" Jesus. For Jesus already sits at the "right hand of
          power"
          and on the first day of Shabuot, (the Pentecostal harvest according to Lv 23,11.15)
          the women will receive their vision and the angelic message that he is going before
          his own into the Galil of the Gentiles. Arimathea therefore was attempting to "bury"
          Jesus
          in vain as if by rolling a stone before the monument (=Temple) and thus sealing off
          the entrance (thura) (to the Holies) as if he could prevent the events on
          the true First Day of the
          Messianic harvest. Jesus was the "aparche", the "first fruits" of those who fell asleep.
          ( this item 5 is obscure for those who have not studied the calendar dispute re. the
          first day
          of the fifty days of the Pentecostal harvest ( Easter Sunday). This first day of the
          festival calendar
          according to the "Boethusians" always falls on a Sunday (Lv 23,11.15). This dating was
          altered
          some time prior to 70 CE to the fixed date of Nisan 16. The Pharisees adopted this new
          date and it
          still is the official first day of the harvest in the synagogue, at the beginning of the
          so-called 'counting
          of the omer'. In the year Jesus died Nisan 16 fell on the sabbath between the
          crucifixion and the Sunday of the vision of the women}
          6. Jesus 'going ahead of Peter and the disciples into Galilee (the Galilee of the nations)

          where Jesus would appear (opsesthe) to Peter and the others.
          7. The promise of seeing the risen one, namely, the ecclesia, as the risen body of Jesus.

          8. A brazen Arimathea demanding the "body" of Jesus, but receiving the "corpse" from the
          Roman governor after he had learned from the centurion that he had died ;long ago
          (palai)

          MATTHEW 16,17-19
          1. A play on the words petrai-Petros (16,18)
          2. Oikodomeso - Jesus will build (!) his ecclesia on the Rockman
          3. A post-70 midrash establishing Peter as the foundation rock for the (judean)
          ecclesia. in exile (16,18).
          .4. Peter paralleled with Eljakim of Isa 22 - with Peter receiving the keys of the Rule
          of Heaven to
          'bind or loose' (Mt 16,19)
          5. Whatever Peter 'looses' on earth 'will be loosed in heaven'. It refers to the
          authority to expound
          the Scriptures, including the disputed exegesis of the dating of the 'first day' in
          Lv 23,11.15
          6. Peter receiving at Caesarea (!) Philippi in Gentile territory, a revelation from
          heaven
          (apekalupsen) concerning the sonship of Jesus.
          7. Jesus building up his ecclesia, as his 'risen body'.
          8. The 'gates of hell' is a code name for pagan Rome. 'The gates' of a city are in
          Scripture a pars pro toto for the city itself (Joel Marcus). Thus pagan Rome will not
          prevail against the 'ecclesia'

          My conclusion was that the famous passage of Peter and "the keys" may well prove to be an
          important argument in favor of understanding Mark 42-16,8 in terms of a midrash on Isa
          22,15-25. in light of the destruction of the Temple. Hence: Matthew knew Mark. He inserted
          the 'keys' of Peter into Mark's story. In my view he adopted Mark's Gospel, allegedly
          written under the authority of Peter . With this insertion he approved of Peter's
          prominent position in Mark's epilogue, and repeated Peter's failings in 16,23. But Matthew
          also corrected Mark He was more hesitant about Mark's bold assertions re. the Law in a
          Pauline sense (e.g. in Mark 7, cf Mt 5 - 7, the Sermon on the Mount). At any rate,
          Matthew was commenting on Mark's epilogue, thus meeting the rigiorous test mentioned
          above. Another passage supporting this new approach to Mark's ending is John 2,21: "he
          spoke of the TEMPLE of his body". John combined the notion of resurrection, body of Christ
          with the Temple,
          just as Mark and Matthew implied.

          Karel Hanhart K.Hanhart@....




          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Brian E. Wilson
          Karel Hanhart writes -- ... Karel, It seems to me that you assume (with Montefiore and Loisy) that Mk 15.46 is a midrash on LXX Isa 22.16; 33.16. That is to
          Message 4 of 15 , Jan 23, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            Karel Hanhart writes --
            >
            >Mt 16,17-19 is highly important for the synoptic quest. For it offers a
            >prime argument in support of Markan priority, if indeed Mark 15,46 is,
            >- as C Montefiore and Loisy suggested -, a midrash on LXX Isa 22,16;
            >33,16
            >
            Karel,
            It seems to me that you assume (with Montefiore and Loisy) that
            Mk 15.46 is a midrash on LXX Isa 22.16; 33.16. That is to say, you
            assume that the writer of the gospel of Mark at Mk 15.46 created a
            midrash on the LXX material stated.

            In this case, the parallel material in Mt 27.39-40, which is in
            significantly similar wording, cannot have been a midrash created by the
            writer of the gospel of Matthew on the basis of the same LXX material.
            For the material in Mt 27.39-60 has many similarities of wording with
            the parallel Mk 15.46, and it is very unlikely that the two writers
            should independently have chosen to create a midrash on the same LXX
            material in such similar wording.

            It follows that if Mark originated the material found in Mk 15.46 by
            himself creating a midrash at this point, then the gospel of Mark must
            be the documentary ancestor of the gospel of Matthew. For only so can
            the existence of the similarly-worded parallel in Matthew be explained.

            In other words, your assumption that the writer of the gospel of Mark
            created a midrash on LXX material at Mk 15.46, together with the
            similarity of wording between Mk 15.46 and Mt 27.39-40, implies Markan
            priority.

            The conclusion to your long and involved argument that Mark is prior to
            Matthew is therefore entailed in the assumption with which you started.
            The long argument is superfluous.

            The question which arises, of course, is whether you can justify your
            initial assumption that the writer of the gospel of Mark himself created
            a midrash from LXX material to produce Mk 15.46. Why should not the
            wording of Mk 15.46 have been taken by Mark from his source material?
            Could this source material have been the gospel of Matthew, even?

            I think it is impossible to argue validly for the priority of Mark on
            the basis of supposing there is midrash in the gospel of Mark. Even if
            there is such midrash in Mark, it may well have been originated by
            someone other than the writer of the gospel of Mark himself.

            Best wishes,
            BRIAN WILSON

            E-mail; brian@... HOMEPAGE www.twonh.demon.co.uk

            Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
            > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
            > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
            _

            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • Maluflen@aol.com
            In a message dated 1/23/2001 3:50:49 AM Eastern Standard Time, brian@TwoNH.demon.co.uk writes:
            Message 5 of 15 , Jan 23, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 1/23/2001 3:50:49 AM Eastern Standard Time,
              brian@... writes:

              << Why should not the
              wording of Mk 15.46 have been taken by Mark from his source material?
              Could this source material have been the gospel of Matthew, even?>>

              Matt 16:18ff suggest that it very well could have been. It is most likely
              that Matthew, who showed a midrashic interest in Is 22 LXX already in this
              earlier chapter would likewise have been the one who invented, rather than
              merely copied, the midrash on this same text in the burial scene. On the
              other hand, it is not at all unlikely that Mark, like most subsequent readers
              of Matt, was not sufficiently sophisticated to catch the allusion to the
              Isaiah text in the burial scene midrash, and simply copied it, as though it
              were a straightforward narrative, into his Gospel. Matthew is the "scribe
              trained for the kingdom of heaven," not Mark. (I realize, Brian, that you are
              more interested in a tertium quid position here, but I have written this
              particularly for the edification of Karel.)

              Leonard Maluf




              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            • Karel Hanhart
              ... Agreed. ... Mark s epilogue (15,42 - 16,8 clearly is his own tightly knit composition as R. Pesch has convincingly shown. But Pesch didnot choose a Jewish
              Message 6 of 15 , Jan 23, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                "Brian E. Wilson" wrote:

                > Karel Hanhart writes --
                > >
                > >Mt 16,17-19 is highly important for the synoptic quest. For it offers a
                > >prime argument in support of Markan priority, if indeed Mark 15,46 is,
                > >- as C Montefiore and Loisy suggested -, a midrash on LXX Isa 22,16;
                > >33,16
                > >
                > Karel,
                > It seems to me that you assume (with Montefiore and Loisy) that
                > Mk 15.46 is a midrash on LXX Isa 22.16; 33.16. That is to say, you
                > assume that the writer of the gospel of Mark at Mk 15.46 created a
                > midrash on the LXX material stated.
                >
                > In this case, the parallel material in Mt 27.39-40, which is in
                > significantly similar wording, cannot have been a midrash created by the
                > writer of the gospel of Matthew on the basis of the same LXX material.
                > For the material in Mt 27.39-60 has many similarities of wording with
                > the parallel Mk 15.46, and it is very unlikely that the two writers
                > should independently have chosen to create a midrash on the same LXX
                > material in such similar wording.
                >
                > It follows that if Mark originated the material found in Mk 15.46 by
                > himself creating a midrash at this point, then the gospel of Mark must
                > be the documentary ancestor of the gospel of Matthew. For only so can
                > the existence of the similarly-worded parallel in Matthew be explained.
                >
                > In other words, your assumption that the writer of the gospel of Mark
                > created a midrash on LXX material at Mk 15.46, together with the
                > similarity of wording between Mk 15.46 and Mt 27.39-40, implies Markan
                > priority.

                Agreed.

                > The conclusion to your long and involved argument that Mark is prior to
                > Matthew is therefore entailed in the assumption with which you
                > started....
                > The question which arises, of course, is whether you can justify your
                > initial assumption that the writer of the gospel of Mark himself created
                > a midrash from LXX material to produce Mk 15.46. Why should not the
                > wording of Mk 15.46 have been taken by Mark from his source material?

                Mark's epilogue (15,42 - 16,8 clearly is his own tightly knit composition as
                R. Pesch has convincingly shown. But Pesch didnot choose a Jewish approach
                to unravel the riddle of Mark.
                I believe John Mark was used to midrash and so was Matthew, both were first
                century Jews. As I have argued all along Mark revised an earlier passover
                haggadah written shortly after the destruction of the temple. In this case
                his "source material" ccouldnot very well been other than LXX Isa 22,16
                where the euphemism for the doomed temple occurs: a monumental grave hewn
                from the rock..
                A 'christian' source couldnot have existed very well for it would have to be
                dated before 70, when the temple still stood.

                kind regards,

                Karel Hanhart K.Hanhart@...


                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
              • Brian E. Wilson
                Karel Hanhart writes -- ... Karel, How can anyone show that any section of the gospel of Mark was originated by the writer of the gospel of Mark? It is surely
                Message 7 of 15 , Jan 24, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  Karel Hanhart writes --
                  >
                  >Mark's epilogue (15,42 - 16,8) clearly is his own tightly knit
                  >composition as R. Pesch has convincingly shown.
                  >
                  Karel,
                  How can anyone show that any section of the gospel of Mark was
                  originated by the writer of the gospel of Mark? It is surely possible
                  that what looks like such a section original to the writer of the gospel
                  of Mark may have been taken by him from his source material.

                  Even if Mk 15.24-16.8 is the tightly knit composition of one author,
                  that author was not necessarily the writer of the gospel of Mark.

                  It seems that Pesch's finding is not much help if we are trying to solve
                  the synoptic problem.

                  Best wishes,
                  BRIAN WILSON

                  E-mail; brian@... HOMEPAGE www.twonh.demon.co.uk

                  Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
                  > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
                  > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
                  _

                  Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                  List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                • Mark Goodacre
                  I haven t got a copy of this book yet, but I was just looking at an RBL review of it by David Gowler and it seems to have an interesting essay pertinent to our
                  Message 8 of 15 , Jan 24, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I haven't got a copy of this book yet, but I was just looking at an RBL review of
                    it by David Gowler and it seems to have an interesting essay pertinent to our
                    recent discussion on the characterisation of Peter in Matthew, not least the
                    issue of the role played by narrative-criticism in our analysis:

                    Kari Syreeni, “Peter as Character and Symbol in the Gospel of Matthew,”
                    in David Rhoads and Kari Syreeni, _Characterisation in the Gospels:
                    Reconceiving Narrative Criticism_ (JSNTSup, 184; Sheffield: Sheffield
                    Academic Press, 1999), pp. 106-152

                    Gowler's review is at:
                    http://www.bookreviews.org/Reviews/1841270040.html
                    He speaks highly of Syreeni's contribution and says:

                    > Syreeni argues that Peter is a many-sided character in Matthew, but
                    > that he also is a dubious symbol: “a figure of authority and
                    > legitimization, a pan-Christian paradigm of discipleship, yet also a
                    > partisan figure, a scandal to the expanding church of Christ” (pp.
                    > 148, 152).

                    I'm going to chase up this article and book. Has anyone else had a chance to
                    look at it?

                    Mark


                    --------------------------------------
                    Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                    Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
                    University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
                    Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom

                    http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                    Homepage
                    http://www.ntgateway.com
                    The New Testament Gateway

                    Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                    List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                  • Brian E. Wilson
                    Mark Goodacre writes -- ... Dear Mark, Yes. I have been looking at this. Syreeni writes lucidly, and is a joy to read. For me, the issue at stake is whether
                    Message 9 of 15 , Jan 25, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Mark Goodacre writes --
                      >
                      >I haven't got a copy of this book yet, but I was just looking at an RBL
                      >review of it by David Gowler and it seems to have an interesting essay
                      >pertinent to our recent discussion on the characterisation of Peter in
                      >Matthew, not least the issue of the role played by narrative-criticism
                      >in our analysis:
                      >
                      >Kari Syreeni, "Peter as Character and Symbol in the Gospel of Matthew"
                      >in David Roads and Kari Syreeni, _ Characterisation in the Gospels:
                      >Reconceiving Narrative Criticism_ (JSNTSup, 184; Sheffield: Sheffield
                      >Academic Press, 1999), pp. 106-152
                      >
                      >Has anyone else had a chance to look at it?
                      >
                      Dear Mark,
                      Yes. I have been looking at this. Syreeni writes lucidly, and
                      is a joy to read.

                      For me, the "issue" at stake is whether narrative-criticism can be used
                      to help solve the synoptic problem. (I think this is at least part of
                      what you refer to as "the issue of the role played by narrative-
                      criticism in our analysis".) Syreeni actually considers this question
                      briefly. His blunt answer is that no, narrative-criticism cannot be used
                      to help solve the synoptic problem --

                      "Even the most rigorous analysis of the ways Peter is characterized in
                      Matthew's Gospel will not provide ready answers to questions concerning
                      Matthew's use and evaluation of previous traditions." (page 107)

                      Note that in this answer Syreeni is imnplicitly assuming the theory of
                      Markan Priority. Elsewhere he makes this assumption explicit --

                      "The text world of Matthew's Gospel has *intertextual* relations with
                      its predecessor, Mark's Gospel. The same holds true for symbolic and
                      real worlds respectively." (page 114)

                      " ... Matthew reproduces and develops the 'paper-ideology' of the Markan
                      character in order to make a better story ... Peter is made to represent
                      Matthew's own ideology through the use and development of the Markan
                      character." (page 118)

                      In his non-theological language, Syreeni notes the difficulty of
                      distinguishing between what we might refer to as "tradition" and
                      "redaction" in the theology of the writer of the Gospel of Matthew (for
                      "ideology" we may read "theology", for "authorial ideology" we may read
                      "the theology of the writer of the Gospel of Matthew", and for "text-
                      word ingredients" we may read "documentary source material")) --

                      "Not all ideological elements plainly indicate authorial ideology. Some
                      elements may be in literary use as text-word ingredients; other elements
                      may convey the authorial stance by way of contradiction or modification;
                      still other elements may reveal a genuine but optional use of a scheme;
                      and ultimately some elements reflect the author's firm ideology."

                      My view of the article is that Syreeni uses narrative-criticism to work
                      out the implications of having previously accepted the idea that Mark
                      was prior to Matthew. He is clear in his mind that you cannot use
                      narrative-criticism to try and determine whether Mark is prior to
                      Matthew. To me, therefore, the article is not going to be much use in
                      helping us solve the synoptic problem. Rather, it assumes that the
                      synoptic problem has already been solved in terms of the gospel of
                      Matthew being a documentary descendant of the gospel of Mark.

                      Best wishes,
                      BRIAN WILSON

                      E-mail; brian@... HOMEPAGE www.twonh.demon.co.uk

                      Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
                      > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
                      > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
                      _

                      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.