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

[Synoptic-L] [XTalk] Thesis:Addendum-Markan Burial Stories, 6:29 and 15:46

Expand Messages
  • Karel Hanhart
    Ted Weeden wrote In my recent essays in which I have begun to articulate my thesis that Mark used the Cross Gospel as a source for composing 15:42-16:8, I
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 2, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Ted Weeden wrote

      In my recent essays in which I have begun to articulate my thesis that
      Mark used
      the Cross Gospel as a source for composing 15:42-16:8, I have presented
      a case
      for interpreting KAI EQHKEN AUTON EN MNHMEIWi ... KAI PROSEKULISEN
      LIQON
      EPI THN QURAN TOU MNHMEIOU ("and he laid him in a tomb. . . and
      rolled a
      stone against the entrance to the tomb") in Mk. 15:46 literally. By
      literally
      I mean Joseph of Arimathea *alone* placed Jesus' body in a tomb and
      rolled the
      stone against the entrance to the tomb. I have argued in making this
      case that
      the story of Joseph of Arimathea burying Jesus needs to be interpreted
      according
      to the norms which Mark has established for his narrative world and not
      interpreted by reading into Mark's narrative world inferences drawn from
      the
      real world and its norms.

      My response:

      Ted,

      This time I agree that Mark deliberately framed the story of John's
      burial to call attention to the burial of Jesus in 6,29. He cited key
      words: etheken auto (!) (scil. to ptoma) en mnemeioi. This is indeed
      the way Mark refers to passages elsewhere, from his own writing or from
      Scriptures. I wonder why you don't recognize the citations from LXX Isa
      22,16 and Gen 29,2.3 . For both "the burial tomb hewn from the rock" and
      the "heavy" "stone" "rolled away" are literally from those two passages?
      Why the one and not the other? Mark is using the same technique for his
      citations.
      One should note the agreements Marks wishes to infer but also the
      difference. Such as: Joseph, who came from Rama [Ramnathaim], was "a
      noted member of the council" and thus an enemy of Jesus. It is an enemy
      who buried Jesus' 'corpse' (ptoma- indeed he 'alone'), but in the first
      case they were John's friends. Other differences are precisely the words
      cited from Isaiah and Genesis "a tomb hewn from the rock" and "the stone
      rolled away". Moreover, the memorial tomb of Jesus has a "door" which
      the stone sealed off.
      In a previous post I have explained Mark's midrash on Isa 22,16, 33,16
      and Gn 29,2.3 in some detail. The upshot was that Joseph comes into
      action precisely at the onset of the sabbath of Nisan 16 (the day begins
      Friday at around p.m.). ACCORDING TO THE NEW PHARISAIC CALENDAR. On it
      NISAN 16 IS THE FIRST DAY OF THE HARVEST. THE CHRISTIANS AND SAMARITANS
      ON THE OTHER HAND STUCK TO THE OLD PRIESTLY CALENDAR OF "THE FIRST
      SUNDAY AFTER PESACH" (CF LEV 23,11.15 Hebr. MIMACHAROT HA-SHABBAT). On
      that Sunday the women find the memorial tomb opened.
      The Pharisaic calendar was introduced before 70, when the temple still
      stood and probably under Herod Agrippa (40-44 CE), who also organized a
      bloody persecution of the Jerusalem christian community (Acts 12)!
      Mark 3,6 is a forward flash of that event: The pharisees conspired with
      the Herodians "to kill Jesus". To my understanding it was Herod who
      conveniently used the Pharisaic reckoning for his own political
      purposes. He prevented the apostles from proclaiming Jesus risen from
      the dead "on the third day" (= Sunday, "the first day of the Shabuot").
      Accoding to Acts 2 the apostles did this on Sunday, the last day of the
      harvest as well to the gathered pilgrims on the temple square. In fact,
      Herod's actioon - if I am right - amounted to something like an
      excommunication. He not only precvented Peter from preaching he intended
      to kill him and by official changing the calendar he publicly made clear
      the followers of jesus were persons "non grata".
      The exegesis of Isa 22, 15-25 shows that the symbolism of the memorial
      tomb or monument refers to the templebuilding. The prophet finds Sebna,
      a temple official there and denounces him. He tells him that he will be
      defrocked and sent into exile. If indeed, the memorial tomb stands for
      the doomed temple then in Mark 15 Joseph tried to bury Jesus and silence
      his voice forever. .....but in vain. The next day the women received a
      vision of the future just like the women in Isa 32,9ff. They see in this
      vision the destruction of the temple (Gr anablepsasai}. They flee in
      horror. But in the tomb they also see this "young man in white" telling
      them that Jesus is "not there" - "See, the Place! (only his corpse was
      buried in Zion, the Holy Place).
      He is risen and goes before you into the Galil of the nations.: Indeed,
      Joseph's action was in vain. Jesus' living word will be heard, for he,
      the "head" is risen from the dead and the ecclesia is his living body.
      The stone rolled away symbolically is a parallel to the curtain rent in
      two in the crucifixion story.
      One item of agreement between the two Burial stories is the person of
      Herod. John was decapitated by one Herod, another Herod used the
      Pharisaic calendar and turned it against the ecclesia.

      So we agree and disagree. But through dialogue we may discover deeper
      layers of meaning and thus hopefully we reach the layer of Mark's
      original message. Every exegete knows that surely there must have been
      an original meaning.

      your Karel


      However

      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.