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

[Synoptic-L] weideraufnahme

Expand Messages
  • John N. Lupia
    Re: wiederaufnahme Wiederaufnahme, is a resumption (von Tätigkeit), or re-establishment (von Beziehungen auch), or a readoption (von Gedanken), or a reversion
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 29, 2001
      Re: wiederaufnahme

      Wiederaufnahme, is a resumption (von Tätigkeit), or
      re-establishment (von Beziehungen auch), or a readoption (von
      Gedanken), or a reversion (von Thema).

      The French "reprise" is very rich in meaning: retaking, taking
      back, recapture, resumption, renewal, revival, improvement,
      darning, mending; giving the word varied nuances and shades
      of meaning. A retaking, taking back, recapture, renewal, revival,
      is a resumption of the narrative thread after a digression. The
      sense of "improvement" refers to the added sense the
      digression gives the narrative. Whereas, darning or mending
      gives the sense of weaving the text together, which, by the way, is
      the original meaning of the Latin textum, and textor is a weaver.

      Both the German and the French give the term the sense of a text
      in which a narrative is interrupted by a digression to which it
      returns. The digression in your example was an explicatory
      commentary. If this digression is the original of the narrative
      itself, given in order to explain to a non-Jewsih audience what
      the "washing of the hands" signified culturally, so that they could
      understand the passage, then it would be a technique of style.
      This is the opinion I favor since it bears consistency with Mark's
      Gospel written to a non-Jewish audience, for which this
      digression evidences the author's awareness of his content for
      his audience.

      The example you gave Mark 7,1-4 is a small section of the
      overall unit 6,31-7,23 showing Jesus' opposition to the code of
      unwritten law. In this pericope Jesus gives an Erklärung, or
      déclaration, a pronouncement.

      There are those who will interpret this digression to be an
      interpolation, as Emmanuel Fritsch has done. Although I do not
      subscribe to that school of theoretical interpretation in this case,
      I can appreciate its being a logical possibility, without adopting it.
      If I were to take this view, which I will not, then I would also
      suggest removing all of the other explicatory digressions to
      arrive at I what I would then suppose to be the original or close to
      the original Gospel. Then I would have to suppose that it was
      originally written in either Aramaic or Hebrew for Jews since the
      explicatory digressions would not have been needed. For if the
      digressions were added on later by another hand it would
      apodictically signify that the original was for a Jewish audience
      that had no need for an explanation of their own culture. Now
      Mark as a Gospel written for a Jewish audience and later
      adapted and translated into Greek for non-Jews may be a novel
      idea. I am not familiar with any researcher who has already
      spelled this out. I have a copy of Robert L. Lindsey's Mark
      translated into Hebrew, but Lindsey saw Mark written after Luke.
      As for the wiederaufnahme in Mark 7,1-4 it is consistent with
      redaction criticism wherein Mark is the editor exercising control
      in his reworking of the traditions he inherited. In this case, the
      digression would remain as such and not be interpreted as an
      interpolation, and consequently would have a non-Jewish
      audience. This premise alone dethrones Markan priority since
      the first written Gospel would have been written to Jews. In order
      to maintain Markan priority Ur Mark was the name given to the
      written tradition Mark inherited. For some Ur Mark was broad
      enough to contain Q which Mark edited from. For others Ur Mark
      is core material found in the final edition of Mark, and Q. The first
      meaning makes more sense. This Ur Mark, in my opinion, is a
      vague and nebulous concept that I believe is Luke, John and
      Matthew. In this view Mark's editorial skills were used to take the
      older material of the three pre-existing Gospels and update them
      in later theological understanding targetted to a Roman
      audience.

      Cordially in Christ,
      John
      <><



      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.