Re: [Synoptic-L] Please help this person remove themself...
- Yes, sorry about that; I received twenty or thirty messages from
him/her (in addition to 460 others) on returning from an Easter break
today. Let me take the opportunity to remind everyone how to
subscribe and unsubscribe from the list.
(1) To subscribe to the list, simply send the message:
(2) To unsubscribe from the list, simply send the message:
(3) If you would prefer to view messages only on the web (but would
still like to post), let me know at Synoptic-L-Owner@...
(4) If you would prefer to view messages in dailiy digest format (but
would still like to post), let me know at Synoptic-L-
On 2 Apr 2002 at 14:58, Horace Jeffery Hodges wrote:
> I think that everyone probably received the email from
> Mr. (Ms.?) redskins@.... It seems to have
> gone to the entire list. I also hope that s/he gets
> successfully removed.
> Jeffery Hodges
> --- "R. Steven Notley" <Notley@...> wrote:
> > To whom it may concern (Mark?)
> > I don't know how this works, but could whoever is
> > responsible please
> > help this person remove themself from the
> > Synoptic-L. I received a
> > "Remove" request, which I tried to re-direct and
> > this was the response I
> > received:
> > >>>Pure rhetoric in it's lowst form!!!
> > >>On Mon, 01 Apr 2002 19:08:23 -0500 "R. Steven
> > Notley"
> > <Notley@...> wrote:
> > >>Excuse me, whoever you are. I think you need to
> > direct your "Remove
> > from Synoptic-L" to
> > >>someone else.
> > >>Regards,
> > >>Steven Notley
> > redskins@... wrote:
> > > Remove Synoptic-L. Please, Please, Please!!!
> > >
> > > redskins@...
> > > begin:vcard
> > n:Notley;R. Steven
> > tel;fax:212-625-1018
> > tel;home:845-753-6831
> > tel;work:212-625-0500
> > x-mozilla-html:FALSE
> > org:Nyack College NYC;Biblical Studies
> > version:2.1
> > email;internet:Notley@...
> > title:Professor
> > adr;quoted-printable:;;361 Broadway=0D=0A;New
> > York;New York;10013-3904;USA
> > x-mozilla-cpt:;1
> > fn:R. Steven Notley
> > end:vcard
> Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
> Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
> 447-791 Kyunggido Osan-City
> Yangsandong 411
> South Korea
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
> Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
> List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 4381
Birmingham B15 2TT UK
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
Thanks for your note asking for the reference to the purity issues relating to the Jordan. It is found in Mishna Parah 8:10-11thus tannaitic and early rabbinic. It is part of a longer discussion about what types of waters are acceptable for a "mikveh." As Sanders has demonstrated (Judaism: Practice and Belief 63BCE-66CE) concerns for ritual purity and waters for immersion are quite early. The Mishnah reads:
"The waters of the Jordan and the Yarmuk are invalid because they are mixed waters [i.e. they receive tributaries of questionable origin]. They are deemed "mixed waters" whereof the one is valid and the other is invalid and they mingle together...."
By contrast it continues: "The well of Ahab and (the waters from) the cave of Panias are valid." In other words waters flowing in the Jordan north of the Sea of Galilee are considered "valid" for ritual immersion, waters flowing south from the point of joining with the Yarmuk (just to the south of the Sea of Galilee) are invalid.
Having said all of this I need to qualify the whole issue a bit and remind folks that in Luke's account Jesus is not specified to be baptized "in the Jordan." Instead we hear only that John is in "the regions of the Jordan" (Luke 3:3). It is Mark who specifies that John is baptizing "in the Jordan" (1:5: EN TW IORDANH POTAMW).
It is interesting that you mention Na'aman. I have wondered whether Mark's portrayal of Jesus' baptism has not been influenced (geographically) by the singular mention of BAPTIZEIN with the sense of "immersion" in the OT: 2 Kings 5:14: "So he (Na'aman) went down and dipped himself seven times in the Jordan (EN TW IORDANW)."
Matthew, again in that "middle role" (i.e. conflation) echoes Luke's geographical description (Lk 3:3/Mt 3:5: "region of the Jordan" PERIXWROS TOU IORDANOU) and Mark's EN TW IORDANH POTAMW (Matt 3:6).
Not only is Luke's geographical description more realistic, likewise is his presentation of John's "role" in Jesus' baptism. It is Mark who says that Jesus was baptized "by John" (HUPO IWANNOU). Of course, one may excuse Mark's description and say that what he really meant was that Jesus merely submitted to the authority of John's baptism and he did not mean to suggest that John either put Jesus under the water or poured water over his head (whichever Christian tradition one wants to put forward).
In Jewish terms either of these physical portrayals are disallowed. Jewish immersion is just thatimmersion (3 times). Moreover, one is forbidden to be touched while in the waterthus eliminating John's role in actually putting Jesus under the water. The earliest known "picture" of Jesus' baptism is from 2/3 century catacombs in Rome. There John is seen on the bank extending a hand to Jesus who is come out of the water. That portrayal of their respective locations fits Jewish roles/requirements in ritual immersion.
As I stated one can avoid the obvious in Mark's description by suggesting he is only speaking metaphorically. Nevertheless, the portrayal of Jesus being baptized (HUPO IWANNOU) is lacking altogether in Luke. What is likewise seldom noticed is that while Matthew earlier follows Mark's portrayal that Jesus came..."to John to be baptized by him (Matt 3:13: HUP' AUTOU), when the actual act of Jesus' immersion is given in Matthew he lacks Mark's detailed mention of John's role. Instead, it is more akin to Luke's description where no mention is made of John.
All this is to say that both the geographical and ritual description in Luke's account are more "realistic" in light of what we know of Jewish practice and understanding in the first century. Mark presents details that seem to lack an understanding of those issues. Matthew (as I have suggested occurs frequently) reflects both Luke's precision and Mark's blurring of the picture.
BTW, one thing I just noticed in regard to language and geography: Matthew and Mark's designation "Jordan River" is oddin linguistic terms. Note that in the OT there is never a need to qualify "Jordan" with "River." It is unnecessary, superfluous. Luke retains the simple (Hebraic) designation. I would suggest that Mark's "Jordan River" (NB: its sytnactical order is patently Greek) is evidence of Mark's own hand. What is particularly fascinating is that Matthew knows and follows this Markan geographical oddity.
Nyack College NYC