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

[Synoptic-L] Re: [XTalk] Was the Young Man a Therapeutae?

Expand Messages
  • Karel Hanhart
    ... Frank, An interesting post! I will reflect on it. It is interesting because I am inclined to believe Alexandria was the provenance of canonical Mark.
    Message 1 of 11 , Feb 23, 2002
      FMMCCOY wrote:

      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: "Bob Schacht" <r_schacht@...>
      > To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
      > Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2002 3:40 PM
      > Subject: Re: [XTalk] Fallacies
      >
      > > At 02:42 PM 2/17/2002 -0600, FMMCCOY wrote:
      > >
      > > >----- Original Message -----
      > > >From: <sammer@...>
      > > >To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
      > > >Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 8:40 AM
      > > >Subject: Re: [XTalk] The 'Empty' Tomb
      > > >...
      > > >(Jan)
      > > > > These are among the weakest links in your argument, due to the logical
      > > > > fallacy indicated (this fallacy is easily illustrated in set theory).
      > > >
      > (Frank)
      > > >Where is the logical fallacy? As the Essenes belonged to the class of
      > > >people who sometimes wore white garb, and as the young man was wearing
      > white
      > > >garb (and, so, might have been a person who sometimes wore white garb),
      > this
      > > >raises the possibility that the young man had been an Essene. As the
      > > >Therapeutae belonged to the class of people who sometimes wore white
      > garb,
      > > >and as the young man was wearing white garb (and, so, might have been a
      > > >person who sometimes wore white garb), this raises the possibility that
      > the
      > > >young man had been a Therapeutae.

      > Bob:
      > There's more evidence to support the hypothesis that the young man had been
      > a Therapeutae than just his wearing of a white garment.
      >

      > Karel Hanhart, in recent posts, has suggested that Mark's narrative
      > of the "empty" tomb is a midrash on the LXX versions of Gen. 29:2-3, Isa.
      > 22:16, and Isa. 33:16.
      >
      > I am far from being convinced of this proposition, but I do think it
      > probable that Mark does allude to these three passages in the "empty" tomb
      > narrative.
      >
      > Why, though, would he allude to Isa 33:16? It reads, "He shall dwell in a
      > high cave of strong rock; bread shall be given him, and his water shall be
      > sure."

      Frank,
      An interesting post! I will reflect on it. It is interesting because I am inclined
      to believe Alexandria was the provenance of canonical Mark. Before I will react to
      your proposal, let me give the reason why I investigated LXX Isa 33,16 at all. I
      wondered long ago why C. Montefiore referred to this passage alongside the other
      two, you mentioned, in his commentary on Mark (1927!). I researched the passages
      in their context and wrote down their implications for the exegesis of Mark
      16,1-8 a book of 600 pp, plus notes (sorry). (a) Isa 33 offers a vision by women
      (!), mentioned in LXX 32,9. In LXX Isa 32 they are "rich women" and "daughters of
      hope". The Septuagint deviates from the Hebrew here. Now in Isaiah women often
      stand for the 'daughters of Zion'. (b) the verb "to rise" , anistamai, is
      important, of course, as you note below. (c) There is also a sharp distinction
      between the righteous and the unrighteous in LXX Isa 33,15, the latter reaping the
      harvest of their infidelity. The contrast is a pattern in Mark throughout.
      Arimathea, (a member of the council that condemned Jesus), is one of the
      unrighteous. (d) In the midrash of Mark 15,42 - 16,8 the word petra (Rock) is a
      prominent feature. I have argued that in his midrash Mark uses a wordplay petra -
      Petros (16,7). Peter is placed most prominently in 16,7, being named last in the
      Gospel apart from the eleven (comp the Matthean comment on Mark's passage in Mt
      16,16-18: "on this rock I will build my ecclesia"). If my conclusions are right,
      the new approach of Mark 15,42 - 16,8 would finally offer a pathway through the
      impasse re. the relation between Mark 8, 27 - 30 and Mt 16,16 - 23. (e) you shall
      see [Gr opsesthe] a king with glory and your eyes shall see a far off land, would
      fit in well with Mark 16,7 "there you will see him" (namely, in the Galil
      ha-goyim). (f) In LXX 33,15b the unrighteous "take bribes", and "stop their ears
      for a bloody sentence" - this would match the action of Judas and the high
      priest. In other words in composing his Passover Haggadah, Mark was inspired by
      prophecies in Isaiah that referred to the destruction of the first temple.
      These are the most important parallels. Now I found the relevance of LXX Isa 33,16
      confirmed in the Epistle of Barnabas. Barnabas is quoting LXX Isa 33,16 almost in
      its entirety, "[You!] shall dwell in a lofty cavern of a strong rock...his water
      shall not fail...ye shall see a king with glory...and your soul shall mediate on
      terror" (Ep Barn 11,5). It forms part of a catena of seemingly obscure citations
      from Scripture which, read in the light of Mark's midrash, become quite clear. The
      water refers to the water of baptism - this water will not to be found on the
      arid rock (of Zion), which lies deserted (the terror is the object of meditation),
      but it will be available for people dwelling in "a lofty cavern high in the rock.
      Here they see a king (Messiah Jesus) in glory. Comp "on this rock I will build my
      ecclesia" in Matthew.

      > The reason, I suggest, is to clue in his intended readers that the young man
      > in "the high cave of strong rock (i.e., the rock-hewn tomb)" was a
      > Therapeutae: for the Sacred Banquet of the Therapeutae consisted of bread
      > and water.
      >
      > Again, Mark states in16:5, "And, having entered into the tomb, they
      > (i.e., the women) saw a young man sitting on the right, having been clothed
      > in a white robe." Here, we have the imagery of a young man seated to the
      > right of the women while dressed in a white garment.
      >
      > In this regard, it not only is the case that all the Therapeutae wore white
      > garments during the Sacred Banquet, but that the men reclined to the
      > right of the women. Thus, regarding this Sacred Banquet, Philo (Cont. 69)
      > states, "The order of reclining is so apportioned that the men sit by
      > themselves on the right and the women by themselves on the left."

      I should look into this more closely. Thus far I interpreted the white stola to be
      the baptismal garment which new converts wore after their baptism in any ecclesia.
      I wonder also what you make of the same "young man" fleeing naked from the garden
      of Gethsemane in the light of your interpretation?. There must be a relation
      between the naked youth and the one in the white garment.
      However, your pondering the Therapeutae in Philo, demonstrates again how
      important the identification of this group is.

      > If. as suggested, Mark not only alludes to Isa. 33:16 in his narrative of
      > the "empty" tomb, but takes the young man to be the subject of this verse,
      > it is significant that it is said in the next verse, Isa. 33:17, "You shall
      > see a king with glory, your eyes shall behold a land (gen) from afar."
      >
      > The obvious implication: In this case, Mark understood that the young man
      > beheld the risen Jesus in his glory as a King and saw from afar the land
      > (gen) of Jesus as this King.
      >
      > In this regard, in Mark 9:2-7, three disciples of Jesus see (1) Jesus and
      > his garb transfigured as he talks to Moses and Elijah and (2) a cloud--from
      > which God declares Jesus to be His Son.
      >
      > Indeed, in terms of Philonic thought, the cloud can be taken to be Wisdom as
      > the abode of God. So, in Exodus (Book II, 23), Philo states, "This is said
      > in reference to the dissolution and rapture of the most perfect and
      > prophetic mind, for which it is fitting and lawful to enter the dark cloud
      > ad to dwell in the forecourt of the palace of the Father." This dark cloud,
      > as it is the palace of God and has a forecourt, is the Wisdom, as heaven,
      > where resides God. So, in Cong (115), Philo declares, "Wisdom is the court
      > and palace of the All-ruler, the sole Monarch, the Sovereign Lord."
      >
      > So, Bob, I leave you with this thought: Perhaps Mark knew of an account,
      > according to which the young man beheld the risen Jesus in his glory
      > speaking to Elijah and Moses and also beheld the "cloud" of Wisdom as the
      > heavenly palace of God and abode of virtue-loving souls. Mark then
      > constructed his transfiguration narrative on this account, thereby enabling
      > the three disciples to get a "sneak preview" of what the young man later
      > beheld while at the tomb. Further, in his narrative of the empty tomb, he
      > alluded to Gen 33:16 (and, thereby, to Gen. 33:17 as well) so as to clue in
      > his intended readers that the young man was the one who saw not the sneak
      > preview but the real thing, i.e., a two-fold vision of (1) the risen Jesus
      > in his glory as a King, speaking to Elijah and Moses, and of (2) Wisdom as
      > the ""cloud" which is the "land" where resides God and virtue-loving souls.

      Your reference to Philo's comment on Gen 33,16.17, made with regard to the scene
      on the Mt of Transfiguration is a further inducement to investigate Philonic
      influence on Mark.

      Regards

      Karel Hanhart


      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Karel Hanhart
      ... Frank, I appear to have problems with retaining a message on my screen when I shift to the reply mode. So I ll respond to your last post by heart. 1.
      Message 2 of 11 , Mar 7, 2002
        :

        > FMMCCOY wrote:
        >
        > > ----- Original Message -----
        > > From: "Bob Schacht" <r_schacht@...>
        > > To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
        > > Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2002 3:40 PM
        > > Subject: Re: [XTalk] Fallacies
        > >
        > > > At 02:42 PM 2/17/2002 -0600, FMMCCOY wrote:
        > > >
        > > > >----- Original Message -----
        > > > >From: <sammer@...>
        > > > >To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
        > > > >Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 8:40 AM
        > > > >Subject: Re: [XTalk] The 'Empty' Tomb
        > > > >...
        >
        > > (Frank)
        > > > >Where is the logical fallacy? As the Essenes belonged to the class of
        > > > >people who sometimes wore white garb, and as the young man was wearing
        > > white
        > > > >garb (and, so, might have been a person who sometimes wore white garb),
        > > this
        > > > >raises the possibility that the young man had been an Essene. As the
        > > > >Therapeutae belonged to the class of people who sometimes wore white
        > > garb,
        > > > >and as the young man was wearing white garb (and, so, might have been a
        > > > >person who sometimes wore white garb), this raises the possibility that
        > > the
        > > > >young man had been a Therapeutae.

        Frank,

        I appear to have problems with retaining a message on my screen when I shift to the
        'reply' mode.
        So I'll respond to your last post by heart.
        1. There may well be a link between Essenes and Thereputae. It is an area that needs
        to be investigated further.
        2. I noted your observation that these Theraputae didn't only wear white garbs and
        spent time in gardens; they didnot drink wine at all.
        My question is, why would Mark have this youth (Gr. neaniskos) in his white stola
        pronouce the most important phrase in the entire gospel, 16,7 - a heavenly message -
        while Mark reports that Jesus and the Twelve drank from the cup of wine?
        A second question is: Why would soldiers try to grab this Therapeut and what was he
        doing there? He apparently followed Jesus as a thirteenth disciple, for in Greek we
        read sun-akolouthei (14,50) .
        As Mark describes the scene this youth was wrapped in linen cloth like a sheet; for
        as soon as a soldier got hold of him he turned out to be naked. Periballo {in the
        passiv} may mean 'to be clothed with', all right, but in this (symbolic) context the
        emphasis is on his being naked. In Scripture the biblical connotation of 'nakedness'
        is that of divine judgment in most cases. For a number of reasons I believe the youth
        symbolically stands for the controversial 'thirteenth disciple' , 'untimely born',
        who before his conversion first sided with the high priest (like Judas), persecuting
        the ecclesia and risking divine wrath, whose Latin name Paulus means "little, of no
        account", hence neaniskos, a diminuitive Of all possible solutions I indeed believe
        Mark is referring here to Paul. This thirteenth apostle had written in 2 Cor 5,3 - a
        most important verse - dealing with his personal hope in the face of death - of the
        possibilty of "being found naked" before the "judgment seat of Christ" ( 2 Cor 5,10),
        but he also expresses his confidence and hope in the face of death, because in baptism
        he was 'clothed with Christ' and received life in the Spirit. Here you have 'naked'
        and 'clothed in white' side by side as in Mark.
        Paul fits here, because as an anonymous 'thirteenth disciple' he was only symbolically
        present in Getsemane. In other words, he was retrojected into the story to bring out
        his important future role as the thirteenth apostle of Jesus. Mark (and Mark alone)
        has him act here in Gethsemane and in the memorial tomb, because the author attaches
        great importance to Paul's (controversial) teachings and writings which had reached
        him in Rome.
        In short, why the struggle in Gethsemane?, was Jesus in your view also a
        Therapeut? why this flight from Getsemane? Why did he risk divine wrath? Why was he
        afterwards clothed in a white stola, which I take to be a baptismal garb?


        Your Karel


        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Maluflen@aol.com
        In a message dated 3/7/2002 10:55:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, ... Karel: this is a fascinating theory. Is it your own? Have you published anything on it? I
        Message 3 of 11 , Mar 7, 2002
          In a message dated 3/7/2002 10:55:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, K.Hanhart@... writes:


          <<As Mark describes the scene this youth  was wrapped in linen cloth like a sheet; for as soon as a soldier got hold of him he turned out to be naked. Periballo {in the passiv} may mean 'to be clothed with', all right, but in this (symbolic) context the emphasis is on his being naked. In Scripture the biblical connotation of 'nakedness' is that of divine judgment in most cases. For a number of reasons I believe the youth symbolically stands for the controversial  'thirteenth disciple' , 'untimely born', who before his conversion first sided with the high priest (like Judas), persecuting the ecclesia and risking divine wrath, whose Latin name Paulus means "little, of no account", hence neaniskos, a diminuitive  Of all possible solutions I indeed believe Mark is referring here to Paul. This thirteenth apostle had written in 2 Cor 5,3 - a most important verse - dealing with his personal hope in the face of death - of the possibilty of "being found naked"  before the "judgment seat of Christ" ( 2 Cor 5,10), but he also expresses his confidence and hope in the face of death, because in baptism he was  'clothed with Christ'  and received life in the Spirit. Here you have 'naked' and 'clothed in white' side by side as in Mark.
          Paul fits here, because as an anonymous 'thirteenth disciple' he was only symbolically present in Getsemane. In other words, he was retrojected into the story to bring out his important future role as the thirteenth apostle of Jesus.  Mark (and Mark alone) has him act here in Gethsemane and in the memorial tomb, because the author attaches great importance to Paul's (controversial) teachings and writings which had reached him in Rome.>>
             

          Karel: this is a fascinating theory. Is it your own? Have you published anything on it? I certainly need to think about it for a while before having full confidence in its validity, but I like your ability to think "outside the box". Have you read my article on an allusive Paul in Lk 9:46-48? I argue somewhat analogously to your argument above that the "child" in this pericope is intended by Luke to represent Paul and the new group of missionaries outside the group of the twelve and "greater than they".

          Leonard Maluf
        • Karel Hanhart
          Dear Leonard, Since you are asking me, see my The Open Tomb. A New Approach, Liturgical Press, Collegeville MN USA,m 1995, pp 341 - 393. I would like to hear
          Message 4 of 11 , Mar 7, 2002
            Dear Leonard,

            Since you are asking me,

            see my The Open Tomb. A New Approach, Liturgical Press, Collegeville MN
            USA,m 1995, pp 341 - 393.

            I would like to hear your response, once you have read it.

            your Karel

            Maluflen@... wrote:

            > In a message dated 3/7/2002 10:55:25 AM Eastern Standard Time,
            > K.Hanhart@... writes:
            >
            >
            >
            >> <<As Mark describes the scene this youth was wrapped in linen cloth
            >> like a sheet; for as soon as a soldier got hold of him he turned out
            >> to be naked. Periballo {in the passiv} may mean 'to be clothed
            >> with', all right, but in this (symbolic) context the emphasis is on
            >> his being naked. In Scripture the biblical connotation of
            >> 'nakedness' is that of divine judgment in most cases. For a number
            >> of reasons I believe the youth symbolically stands for the
            >> controversial 'thirteenth disciple' , 'untimely born', who before
            >> his conversion first sided with the high priest (like Judas),
            >> persecuting the ecclesia and risking divine wrath, whose Latin name
            >> Paulus means "little, of no account", hence neaniskos, a
            >> diminuitive Of all possible solutions I indeed believe Mark is
            >> referring here to Paul. This thirteenth apostle had written in 2 Cor
            >> 5,3 - a most important verse - dealing with his personal hope in the
            >> face of death - of the possibilty of "being found naked" before the
            >> "judgment seat of Christ" ( 2 Cor 5,10), but he also expresses his
            >> confidence and hope in the face of death, because in baptism he was
            >> 'clothed with Christ' and received life in the Spirit. Here you
            >> have 'naked' and 'clothed in white' side by side as in Mark.
            >> Paul fits here, because as an anonymous 'thirteenth disciple' he was
            >> only symbolically present in Getsemane. In other words, he was
            >> retrojected into the story to bring out his important future role as
            >> the thirteenth apostle of Jesus. Mark (and Mark alone) has him act
            >> here in Gethsemane and in the memorial tomb, because the author
            >> attaches great importance to Paul's (controversial) teachings and
            >> writings which had reached him in Rome.>>
            >>
            >
            >
            > Karel: this is a fascinating theory. Is it your own? Have you
            > published anything on it? I certainly need to think about it for a
            > while before having full confidence in its validity, but I like your
            > ability to think "outside the box". Have you read my article on an
            > allusive Paul in Lk 9:46-48? I argue somewhat analogously to your
            > argument above that the "child" in this pericope is intended by Luke
            > to represent Paul and the new group of missionaries outside the group
            > of the twelve and "greater than they".
            >
            > Leonard Maluf



            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • Karel Hanhart
            ... Yes, Leonard, I also wondered whether Lk 9,46-48 might be an allusion to Paul. It is worthy to be pursued. In my own thinking I have outlined a slightly
            Message 5 of 11 , Mar 8, 2002
              Maluflen@... wrote:

              >
              > Karel: this is a fascinating theory. Is it your own? Have you
              > published anything on it? I certainly need to think about it for a
              > while before having full confidence in its validity, but I like your
              > ability to think "outside the box". Have you read my article on an
              > allusive Paul in Lk 9:46-48? I argue somewhat analogously to your
              > argument above that the "child" in this pericope is intended by Luke
              > to represent Paul and the new group of missionaries outside the group
              > of the twelve and "greater than they".

              Yes, Leonard, I also wondered whether Lk 9,46-48 might be an allusion to
              Paul. It is worthy to be pursued. In my own thinking I have outlined a
              slightly different scenario. Lk 9,46-48
              may have been part of proto-Mark, the document that Mark revised in the
              aftermath of the trauma of 70. I see no good reason why the action of
              putting a little child in the midst in the context of "who is the
              greatest" would not have been an action by Jesus himself - one of those
              windows through which we gain insight into his person and teaching.
              However, the diminutive paidion and the "welcome" extended to him "in
              Jesus' name" may have been Luke's own allusion to the role of Paul in
              the early ecclesia, a parallel to the neaniskos in Mark. As you may
              know, I argue from the position canonical Mark is a post-70 revision of
              proto-Mark (perhaps including a form of Q). If so John, who echoes much
              Lukan material, retrojected this same paidion (Paul) in his gospel in
              his rendition of the feeding of the 5000. He emphasizes the diminutive:
              paidarion (6,9). In that case Paul would have fitted in John's view of
              the ecclesia. Have you also included John 6,9 in your line of thought?

              your
              Karel



              >
              >
              > Leonard Maluf



              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            • Maluflen@aol.com
              In a message dated 3/8/2002 3:00:56 AM Eastern Standard Time, ... No, I hadn t thought of that at all. Interesting. In the Lk 9:46-48 passage, the important
              Message 6 of 11 , Mar 8, 2002
                In a message dated 3/8/2002 3:00:56 AM Eastern Standard Time, K.Hanhart@... writes:


                ).  If so John, who echoes much
                Lukan material, retrojected this same paidion (Paul) in his gospel in
                his rendition of the feeding of the 5000. He emphasizes the diminutive:
                paidarion (6,9). In that case Paul would have fitted in John's view of
                the ecclesia. Have you also included John 6,9 in your line of thought?


                No, I hadn't thought of that at all. Interesting. In the Lk 9:46-48 passage, the important thing is to read correctly the question Luke says was being entertained within the minds of the (twelve) disciples: "who might be greater than they?", instead of: "who among them might be the greatest" (as in Lk 22). If our theories are correct, then Matt is the only non-Pauline gospel of the four. And of course some would even go further and describe it as anti-Pauline, in light of 5:19. If this text is indeed an allusion to Paul, then all four gospels may allude to Paul in one way or another.

                Leonard Maluf
              • Karel Hanhart
                ... Leonard, Amen. I agree with your conclusion. I wouldn t call Matthew anti-Pauline. I rather think her was writing for a wider public, some of whom would
                Message 7 of 11 , Mar 8, 2002
                  Maluflen@... wrote:

                  > In a message dated 3/8/2002 3:00:56 AM Eastern Standard Time,
                  > K.Hanhart@... writes:
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >> ). If so John, who echoes much
                  >> Lukan material, retrojected this same paidion (Paul) in his gospel
                  >> in
                  >> his rendition of the feeding of the 5000. He emphasizes the
                  >> diminutive:
                  >> paidarion (6,9). In that case Paul would have fitted in John's view
                  >> of
                  >> the ecclesia. Have you also included John 6,9 in your line of
                  >> thought?
                  >
                  > No, I hadn't thought of that at all. Interesting. In the Lk 9:46-48
                  > passage, the important thing is to read correctly the question Luke
                  > says was being entertained within the minds of the (twelve) disciples:
                  > "who might be greater than they?", instead of: "who among them might
                  > be the greatest" (as in Lk 22). If our theories are correct, then Matt
                  > is the only non-Pauline gospel of the four. And of course some would
                  > even go further and describe it as anti-Pauline, in light of 5:19. If
                  > this text is indeed an allusion to Paul, then all four gospels may
                  > allude to Paul in one way or another.
                  >
                  > Leonard Maluf

                  Leonard,
                  Amen. I agree with your conclusion. I wouldn't call Matthew
                  anti-Pauline. I rather think her was writing for a wider public, some of
                  whom would not accept the high credit Mark gave to Paul.
                  So Matthew decided not to include the 'neaniskos' in his passion story.


                  Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                  List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                • dgentil@sears.com
                  Karel, If you have time, could you summarize your reasons for thinking there was a proto-Mark? I also tend to think there was a proto-Mark. However, the last
                  Message 8 of 11 , Mar 8, 2002
                    Karel,

                    If you have time, could you summarize your reasons for thinking there
                    was a proto-Mark?
                    I also tend to think there was a proto-Mark. However, the last statistical
                    study seemed to limit how much it
                    could differ from cannon Mark. It seems Matthew and Luke must have engaged
                    in a fair amount
                    of omission, for example. Also, if Luke knew and used Matthew some other
                    arguments seem
                    less effective. I'm left with a handful of features that suggest a
                    proto-Mark, but nothing fully convincing.

                    Two ideas I'm considering are that cannon Mark might have only a few
                    omissions, addition and some minor
                    minor rearrangements compared to proto-Mark, or that Mark may be the first
                    Greek language gospel,
                    but that there may have been a gospel in another language, that was
                    available to at least Mark and Luke.

                    Dave Gentile
                    Riverside, Illinois
                    M.S. Physics
                    Ph.D. Management Science






                    As you may
                    know, I argue from the position canonical Mark is a post-70 revision of
                    proto-Mark (perhaps including a form of Q).

                    your
                    Karel




                    Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                    List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                  • Emmanuel Fritsch
                    ... If you read french, you may have a look on reasons for Boismard thinking there was a proto-Mark : http://archeboc.free.fr/lect/notice_promarc.html or
                    Message 9 of 11 , Mar 8, 2002
                      > If you have time, could you summarize your reasons for thinking there
                      > was a proto-Mark?

                      If you read french, you may have a look on reasons for Boismard thinking
                      there was a proto-Mark : http://archeboc.free.fr/lect/notice_promarc.html

                      or directly the book :
                      "L'Évangile de Marc - sa Préhistoire", M.E. Boismard, Gabalda 1994.

                      a+
                      manu

                      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                    • Karel Hanhart
                      ... Dave, I have little time indeed. As to your musings of a possible proto-Mark in a different language, I would suggest you first try out a few examples
                      Message 10 of 11 , Mar 11, 2002
                        dgentil@... wrote:

                        > Karel,
                        >
                        > If you have time, could you summarize your reasons for thinking there
                        > was a proto-Mark?
                        > I also tend to think there was a proto-Mark. However, the last statistical
                        > study seemed to limit how much it
                        > could differ from cannon Mark. It seems Matthew and Luke must have engaged
                        > in a fair amount
                        > of omission, for example. Also, if Luke knew and used Matthew some other
                        > arguments seem
                        > less effective. I'm left with a handful of features that suggest a
                        > proto-Mark, but nothing fully convincing.
                        >
                        > Two ideas I'm considering are that cannon Mark might have only a few
                        > omissions, addition and some minor
                        > minor rearrangements compared to proto-Mark, or that Mark may be the first
                        > Greek language gospel,
                        > but that there may have been a gospel in another language, that was
                        > available to at least Mark and Luke.
                        >
                        > Dave Gentile
                        > Riverside, Illinois
                        > M.S. Physics
                        > Ph.D. Management Science
                        >
                        > As you may
                        > know, I argue from the position canonical Mark is a post-70 revision of
                        > proto-Mark (perhaps including a form of Q).
                        >
                        > your
                        > Karel
                        >
                        > Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                        > List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

                        Dave,

                        I have little time indeed. As to your musings of a possible proto-Mark in a
                        different language, I would suggest you first try out a few examples that would
                        demonstrate this possibility. But I doubt it would work. It would contradict
                        the fact that throughout the Gospel Mark makes allusions to and ( in a sizable
                        number of passages) actually cites the Greek Septuagint. This manner of
                        "searching the Scriptures" in order to interpret the present would not be
                        possible if proto-Mark were a document in a different language. The readers
                        wouldn't have been able to make head or tail of it. I cannot do full justice to
                        your first question in a brief post. But here goes:
                        1. That Mark was written after the destruction of the temple is clear from his
                        last midrash in 15,42 - 16,8 on LXX Isa 22,16; 13,16 and Gn 29,2.3. Relatively
                        few scholars, debating the dating of canoncal Mark are taking in the great
                        impact of the fall of Jerusalem on the Judean population in the motherland and
                        throughout the diaspora. It was far worse and with a longer lasting effect than
                        - say - the fall of Budapest under the Russian tanks in our times. If there
                        ever was a need for a revision of a document whose author believed the kingdom
                        of God was at hand, that was the one.
                        2. In commentaries it is generally admitted (a) that a "mystery" or "secret"
                        (called by Wilhelm Wrede the Messianic Secret) is conveyed in canonical Mark
                        and (b) that this "secret" was revealed to the women and (c) that this
                        "mystery" was first announced in 4, 10-12. It stands to reason that at least
                        part of this "secret" had something to do with this turn of events.
                        3. Many believe that 4,10-12 has been inserted in the seed/harvest chapter.
                        Some say it was inserted by a later copyist, but that is unlikely. Because
                        features of this 'secret' are found throughout Mark. So it appears Mark himself
                        was dealing with a pre-70 document in which he was inserting these verses in
                        it. Since the passage is concerned with the "mystery of the kingdom/kingship of
                        God"
                        the mystery may well include the delay of the coming of that kingdom at the
                        End of time
                        4. Commentators have noted the hand of a so-called "redactor" with the
                        introduction of the "twelve" apostoloi next to Mark's mentioning the mathetai.
                        There is a good article by Ernest Best in ZNW 69 (1978), "Mark's use of the
                        Twelve" in which he is defending that 'the Twelve' belonged to original Mark.
                        He doubts that the appointment of the twelve were added by a later 'redactor'.
                        However, fact of the matter is that the hand of a redactor is found in the
                        clumsy addition of the dodeka (Twelve) in 4,10 "those around him with the
                        twelve": the sudden mention of "the twelve" when discussing the future, while
                        normally Mark mentions disciples with a broader meaning. Especially the
                        emphatic epithet of Judas "one of the twelve" in chapter 14, his crucial kiss
                        in Getsemane and the large place Judas' deed receives in the section of the
                        Last Supper, makes it clear to me that Mark was working with a proto-Mark in
                        which there was no Judas Iscariot and no mention of the Twelve but a story
                        about Jesus and his disciples among whom people like Simon, James and John
                        played a role. There are good reasons that proto-Mark too contained a passion
                        story. In fact, I concluded for other reasons that Christian Judeans in the
                        ecclesia had used this pre-70 document for their liturgy of Pesach and the
                        "first day" (of Shabuot).
                        5. Stories such as the fate of John the Baptist can be lifted out of the
                        context without great problems. Mark retained it, I believe, for both the
                        Baptist and Jesus are the protagonists of his drama and he refers specifically
                        to John horrible death at the juncture of 1,14.
                        6. In a former post I already interpreted another midrash at the beginning of
                        Mark. Quoting Malachi 3 (in a passage on judgment on the temple priest) Mark
                        doesn't mention the name of the book. It seems to have been inserted by the
                        author of Mark II in order to alert the readers, used to proto-Mark: 'Here
                        follows the same story of Jesus' preaching, his Passion, Death and Resurrection
                        but told now that the temple has been destroyed'. In other words, a post-70
                        revision.
                        This is far too short. Sometimes I wonder if a fast means of communication
                        like the internet is suitable for our work. Exegetes ought to do their work
                        slowly and carefully analysing each passage within the composition as a whole.
                        It is diffcult to summarize earlier work..
                        Still, I hope that you have gained a little insight into my thinking.

                        your,

                        Karel




                        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                      • David Gentile
                        ... communication ... work ... whole. ... Thank you for this. It was useful. I have a couple of points to look at more closely. I have one more quick question.
                        Message 11 of 11 , Mar 12, 2002
                          > This is far too short. Sometimes I wonder if a fast means of
                          communication
                          > like the internet is suitable for our work. Exegetes ought to do their
                          work
                          > slowly and carefully analyzing each passage within the composition as a
                          whole.
                          > It is difficult to summarize earlier work..
                          > Still, I hope that you have gained a little insight into my thinking.
                          >
                          > your,
                          >
                          > Karel

                          Thank you for this. It was useful. I have a couple of points to look at more
                          closely. I have one more quick question. In your opinion was proto-Mark
                          likely used by Matthew and/or Luke or just by Mark?

                          About the internet - I think the internet can compliment more traditional
                          communication. I've read authors who speculate that paradigm shifts are the
                          result of a sort of "critical mass". The analogy is made to slime molds.
                          These single cell creatures group together when conditions get tough, and
                          can move together to a different location, then disband under good
                          conditions. The only difference is the strength of the trail each cell
                          leaves behind for other cells to follow.
                          Once the trails are strong enough, spontaneous clustering occurs. This is
                          just a long way of saying that the most brilliant research in the world is
                          useless, if no one, or only a handful of people are aware of it. Groups are
                          almost always better at problem solving than even the most specialized
                          individual. Obviously this format can not cover material at the depth of a
                          PhD thesis, or a book. But it can still communicate important points, and if
                          necessary other sources can be referenced.

                          Thanks again,

                          Dave Gentile
                          Riverside, Illinois
                          M.S. Physics
                          Ph.D. Management Science candidate


                          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.