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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 11 , Mar 7, 2002
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 11 , Mar 8, 2002
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 11 , Mar 8, 2002
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 11 , Mar 8, 2002
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 11 , Mar 8, 2002
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 11 , Mar 8, 2002
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                > 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 7 of 11 , Mar 11, 2002
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  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 8 of 11 , Mar 12, 2002
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > 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.