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

[Synoptic-L] Re: [XTalk] The Twelve

Expand Messages
  • Karel Hanhart
    ... Response by Karel Hanhart: In previous exchanges we also discussed the problems of the twelve and of Judas Iscariot . However, thus far - in this
    Message 1 of 28 , Sep 13, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      > Stephen Carlson wrote:
      >
      > >Problems have already been pointed out in this. I would further point
      > >out that 1 Cor. 15 establishes that the institution of the twelve is >prior
      > >to Paul.
      >

      William Arnal wrote:

      > Yes, it does. My inclination would be to pass off the twelve as a Markan
      > invention in toto, but Paul's reference makes this absolutely impossible.
      >
      > >Your argument from silence would have more weight if it can be shown >that
      > >Paul was interested in the role of pre-crucifixion disciples and has
      > >discussed them many times. But Paul didn't, and so there is nothing
      > >to infer from Paul's "silence."
      >
      > This is actually not an argument from silence at all. The issue is not so
      > much that Paul fails to refer to the twelve as disciples of Jesus, as that
      > he refers to them in a way that APPEARS incompatible with this
      > idenitifcation, at least in terms of a straightforward reading. The
      > identification of the twelve as apparently distinct from Peter, and as
      > apparently exclusive of Judas (which opens yet another can of worms), is the
      > main problem. One can, of course, explain this away, but a straightforward
      > reading, as I say, suggests that "the twelve" are a grouping distinct from
      > both Peter and Judas, and therefore they cannot be identified with "the
      > twelve" of the gospels. Of course, one can't push this argument too far --
      > just because the specifics of the gospel presentation of the twelve dont'
      > appear to match what Paul implies, doesn't mean there WERE no twelve in
      > Jesus' time (no more than, say, the disparity among Jesus' "last words"
      > would indicate that Jesus wasn't crucified!). But it does cast the gospel
      > portrayals into some doubt.
      >
      > >Basically, it boils down to Luke who presented a Judas of James instead
      > >of Mark's Thaddeus. Since Luke used Mark, we know his source, and his
      > >source (Mark) included the twelve. How you can infer anything about
      > >whether or not it was Jesus instituted the twelve from this is beyond >me.

      Response by Karel Hanhart:

      In previous exchanges we also discussed the problems of "the twelve" and of
      "Judas Iscariot". However, thus far - in this present chain of thoughts - the
      following resolution of the problem hasn't entered the discussion. I discussed
      this at length on pp 422-462 of my "Open Tomb".
      I mention it here because the combination of Mark's list of "the twelve" and
      the all important roles of Judas 'Iscariot' (- 'man of the Lie; Hebr sjeqer'-) and
      of Simon Peter (- the head of the twelve-) in the plot of Mark's dramatic
      presentation, are important building blocks in the
      new house of meaning of his climactic open-tomb-story.
      a) I have sided with those who believe both Andrew (representing the incoming
      Gentiles) and Judas (the opponent of JHWH) are both fictive personages needed for
      the plot of Mark's passion drama.
      In Mk 3,13 we read that Jesus first climbs on 'the mopuntain' and then
      calls to him "those whom he wanted"..."whom he also called apostles", "to be 'with
      him'. The latter is probably derived from Paul's expression "sun christooi" (Mark
      is influenced by Paul's ecclesiology). They are "sent out to proclaim the message
      and to have authority to cast out demons"
      (a) Assuming that Mark radically edited a previous document, his new post-70
      Passover Haggadah (re. the story of Israel's Messiah and his people. The theme of
      this haggadah is most clearly described in Mk 10,33f.:the "handing over of the
      huios tou anthropou to "the high priests" (plur) and "to the nations".
      b) Mark needed these two fictive apostles because - in the wake of the
      catastrophes of Jerusalem's fall and the destruction of the temple - he decided to
      rewrite a pre-70 passover document that was used in the ecclesia and is sometimes
      called Q plus a passion story. This thoroughgoing redaction by Mark is our
      canonical Gospel. Mark maintains its message of Messianic hope in spite of the
      trauma of the cross of Jesus, Israel's Messiah. But by inserting new material he
      expressed his faith that God will be able to turn not only the evil of the cross
      but also the evil of Rome's barbaric acts in 70 into good. Mark's plot (10,33f) is
      in essence a theodicy: "the Gospel must first be preached to all nations" and
      afterwards the End will come (Mk 13,10). This hope, kept alive in spite of a
      delayed parousia, was based on the 'appearances' of the living Christ, raised from
      the dead. The huios tou anthropou, - the Human One, or last Adam -, will be
      'handed over to the nations' and 'after three days rise again'. Thus in 10,33f
      Mark expressed his new vision of the future and worked this out in a new plot for
      the passion story. Alas, we no longer have a pre-70 passion story ('pace'
      Crossan!).
      c) Judas represents the opponent of JHWH in Scripture. This opponent figures in
      the Psalms (e.g. 69,5 and 109,2); in Jer 11,9 (and throughout Jeremiah, the
      prophet of the destrcution of the first temple!) and in QHab 1,13. In the Qumran
      commentary on Habakuk the 'man of the lie' is co-worker with the 'wicked priest'
      in opposition to the Teacher of Righteousness. The epithet, 'man of the lie', is
      derived, of course, from the Decalogue (Ex 23,7; Dt19,18).
      In Mark Judas, the man of the LIE, is the symbolic accomplice of a number of
      high priests who historically were hostile to the Jesus' movement, beginning with
      Caiaphas and continuing with Matthias (high priest appointed by Herod Agrippa I,
      appr 41 CE). In Mark's story Judas is conspiring with the high priests (plur)
      before he acts (14,10f.). These hostile high priests were all of the important
      high priestly house of Annas (Hb Hanan). Now, Iscariot is the only one
      emphatically called "one of the twelve" in 14,10,20,43. Yet, in spite of his
      prominent place in the Gospel, his only deed is the symbolic Judas' kiss given
      after his conspiracy with the high priests (plur; comp also 14,17-21). The kiss is
      the all important moment in the drama; it meant the turning of Jesus' active
      ministry into his passion.
      d) In Mark Jesus' "inner circle" consists of three disciples Simon, James and
      John. Andrew does not figure as an indispensable member of this "inner circle"
      during Jesus' ministry, except in chapter 13 (re. events in the future, 13,3) and
      in the formation of the 'house of Peter, James and John' (2,29). This 'house of
      Peter' (it is a Markan invention) symbolizes the 'mother ecclesia in Galilee'
      prefiguring the various future ecclesia's in the diaspora. So Mark inserts Andrew
      at the outset of Jesus' ministry in the Galilee (comp also 16,7). For he
      represents IMHO the future Gentile members of the ecclesia and in divine planning
      Andrew belongs in the ecclesia from the start. After all Mark wrote in Greek and
      his message was read in an ecclesia where baptized Jews and Gentiles worshiped
      side by side.
      d) However, in creating two fictive apostles for his new post-70 passion story,
      Andrew and Judas, Mark appears to have tempered with with an original list of 12
      historical apostles, referred to in 1 Cor 15,5. This theory seems, therefore, an
      unorthodox approach (-if not unlawful from an exegetical viewpoint-), were it not
      that there are conspicuous variances in the three lists of the twelve apostles we
      have in Mt, Mk and Lk. Luke has two persons called Judas (Lk 6,16, absent in Acts
      1,13; the suicide! ).
      Luke apparently tried to seek a compromise, based on his sources, between the
      original historical list of twelve he found in his sources and Mark's 'tempered'
      list. Historically, the original group of twelve were formed IMHO in the wake of
      the crucifixion, when various Judean factions from within the land and from the
      diaspora joined with Jesus' disciples, thus forming the beginnings of
      christianity. Luke reports on this major event in Acts 2 in hagadic fashion. As I
      suspect, out of this larger group of converts (3000, Acts 2,41) twelve 'apostles'
      were chosen to lead the movement headed by 'James, Peter and John' called
      'pillars'. In other words, the 'historical' Jesus did not select 12 disciples
      during his lifetime to represent a 'new Israel'. The twelve, chosen soon after the
      crucifixion, were honored as "witnesses" of the risen Messiah and as such were
      called 'apostles'. (Comp. Paul's claim to be an apostle not "by men").
      I have tried to reconstruct the assumed original pre-Markan list of the twelve
      without a fictive Judas Iscariot and a symbolical Andrew, but including the three
      'pillars' on pg 445 as follows:
      James (Jesus' brother), Simon (Cephas), John (of Jerusalem, an Essene), James
      Zebedee, John Zebedee, Thomas, Matthew, James (Alphaeus), Thaddaeus, Simon (the
      Cananaean); Judas, (brother of James).

      I would very much appreciate your reactions to this proposal,

      Karel
      .












      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Maluflen@aol.com
      In a message dated 9/13/2002 1:24:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ... To my knowledge, these names never occur together in any Synoptic text, where the men are
      Message 2 of 28 , Sep 13, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 9/13/2002 1:24:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time, K.Hanhart@... writes:


        d) In Mark Jesus' "inner circle" consists of three disciples Simon, James and
        John.


        To my knowledge, these names never occur together in any Synoptic text, where the men are always referred to as "Peter, James and John" when mentioned as an exclusive group. Your interpretation of Andrew seems speculative to me, and above all it seems to be influenced by a late Johannine symbolism. It is, however, intriguing to think that Mark may have initiated this symbolic use of Andrew, as representative of Gentile followers of Jesus, which would then have been further developed in GJohn. If this theory has any merit, however, it fits much better with the Two-Gospel hypothesis than with any other Synoptic source theory. On this hypothesis, the presence (insertion) of Andrew in Mk 1:29 and 13:3, with no Synoptic parallel, is readily explained. Otherwise, one must account for the simultaneous editing out of the name by both Matthew and Luke, in both of their independent parallel texts.

        Leonard Maluf
      • Matson, Mark (Academic)
        Leonard: Or, alternatively, the common absence of Andrew from the Luke and Matthew parallels to Mk 1:29 and 13:3 could be caused by Matthew s decision to
        Message 3 of 28 , Sep 13, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Leonard:
           
          Or, alternatively, the common absence of Andrew from the Luke and Matthew parallels to Mk 1:29 and 13:3 could be caused by Matthew's decision to excise them, and Luke's decision to follow Matthew on this deletion.  So Farrer would equally explain this, alongside the two gospel hypothesis.  But you're right, the two source hypothesis does seem to have a problem here.
           
          I am also intriqued by your comment about the linkage to GJohn with respect to the Andrew story.  Is it not more likely (contra K. Hanhart) that the GJohn reference to Andrew shows its secure location in the oral traditions, pre-Mark?  This of course would derive from an independent John -- which I think is more supportable than a John which is dependent on Mark. 
           
          mark
           

          Mark A. Matson
          Academic Dean, Milligan College
          http://www.milligan.edu/Administrative/MMatson/personal.htm

           
          Leonard Maluf wrote:
           
          To my knowledge, these names never occur together in any Synoptic text, where the men are always referred to as "Peter, James and John" when mentioned as an exclusive group. Your interpretation of Andrew seems speculative to me, and above all it seems to be influenced by a late Johannine symbolism. It is, however, intriguing to think that Mark may have initiated this symbolic use of Andrew, as representative of Gentile followers of Jesus, which would then have been further developed in GJohn. If this theory has any merit, however, it fits much better with the Two-Gospel hypothesis than with any other Synoptic source theory. On this hypothesis, the presence (insertion) of Andrew in Mk 1:29 and 13:3, with no Synoptic parallel, is readily explained. Otherwise, one must account for the simultaneous editing out of the name by both Matthew and Luke, in both of their independent parallel texts.

          Mark A. Matson
          Academic Dean, Milligan College
          http://www.milligan.edu/Administrative/MMatson/personal.htm

           

          ---
          Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
          Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
          Version: 6.0.385 / Virus Database: 217 - Release Date: 9/4/2002

        • John Lupia
          Synoptic-L@bham.ac.uk   Dear Colleagues: I had hopes to advance the position for neutrality rather than individual preferential views slanted to a particular
          Message 4 of 28 , Sep 13, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Synoptic-L@...



            Dear Colleagues:

            I had hopes to advance the position for neutrality
            rather than individual preferential views slanted to a
            particular theory. The benefits of this will allow us
            to see the data unskewed by biases of assumptions
            posited in any one or more Synoptic theory. Although
            most of you may accept Markan priority everyone would
            benefit from thinking about and discussing the
            Synoptic material impartially. If points of view are
            to be discussed then it is only fair from a scientific
            perspective to simultaneously show the other three
            Gospels equally in light of being first. The
            discussion shown below is a fine example of what I
            mean.

            If Markan priority is assumed then Andrew was given
            emphasis in Mark 13:3 where later evangelists
            diminished it by revisions, regardless of how they
            occured. Alternately, if either Luke, John or Matthew
            were first then Mark later on emphasized Andrew's role
            in the eschatological discourse in Mark 13:3. In the
            cases of both Matthew & Luke this emphasis in a later
            Mark is a clear contrast. However, if John were first
            then a later Mark would only become a slight
            progression or development. The order of the Gospels
            has a direct impact on the significance and
            interpretation of the data. Even if one took the
            stance of Markan priority in a published paper or book
            looking at and discussing all possibilities enhances
            the outcome and meaning of the data.

            In addition to these statements about the four
            different points of view discussions, they could also
            include hypothetical sequences of Gospel ordering.
            Gospel ordering has 24 possible combinations:

            MK>MT>LK>JN
            MK>MT.JN>LK
            MK>JN>MT>LK
            MK>JN>LK>MT
            MK>LK>JN>MT
            MK>LK>MT>JN
            MT>LK>MK>JN
            MT>LK>JN>MK
            MT>JN>LK>MK
            MT>JN>MK>LK
            MT>MK>JN>LK
            MT>MK>LK>JN
            JN>LK>MK>MT
            JN>LK>MT>MK
            JN>MT>LK>MK
            JN>MT>MK>LK
            JN>MK>MT>LK
            JN>MK>LK>MT
            LK>JN>MT>MK
            LK>JN>MK>MT
            LK>MT>JN>MK
            LK>MT>MK>JN
            LK>MK>MT>JN
            LK>MK>JN>MT

            Keep in mind that whatever position you currently hold
            on Gospel ordering it has only a 1 in 24 chance of
            being correct. Keep also in mind that the odds (odds
            of 19 to 1) are better at dice when attempting to role
            any one combination from a pair of dice. That is why
            it is better to own the casino than to be its paying
            patron-player. Although leaning toward one of the 24
            possibilities is a natural cognitive process at given
            point in time throughout one's life of studying and
            thinking about the Synoptic Problem, emotional
            attachment to one view should be an adequate indicator
            that we have somehow gotten ourselves off track
            blinding us to other equally valid possibilities.



            POSTS GIVEN EARLIER TODAY:


            Leonard:

            Or, alternatively, the common absence of Andrew from
            the Luke and Matthew parallels to Mk 1:29 and 13:3
            could be caused by Matthew's decision to excise them,
            and Luke's decision to follow Matthew on this
            deletion.� So Farrer would equally explain this,
            alongside the two gospel hypothesis.� But you're
            right, the two source hypothesis does seem to have a
            problem here.

            I am also intriqued by your comment about the linkage
            to GJohn with respect to the Andrew story.� Is it not
            more likely (contra K. Hanhart) that the GJohn
            reference to Andrew shows its secure location in the
            oral traditions, pre-Mark?� This of course would
            derive from an independent John -- which I think is
            more supportable than a John which is dependent on
            Mark.�

            mark


            Mark A. Matson
            Academic Dean, Milligan College
            http://www.milligan.edu/Administrative/MMatson/personal.htm




            =====
            John N. Lupia, III
            501 North Avenue B-1
            Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 USA
            Phone: (908) 994-9720
            Email: jlupia2@...
            Editor, Roman Catholic News
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News

            __________________________________________________
            Do you Yahoo!?
            Yahoo! News - Today's headlines
            http://news.yahoo.com

            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • Richard Anderson
            What is the significant of Andrew? The Gospel of John has Andrew proclaim that We have found the Messiah [John 1:41]. I would suggest we need to understand
            Message 5 of 28 , Sep 13, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              What is the significant of Andrew? The Gospel of John has Andrew proclaim that "We have found the Messiah" [John 1:41]. I would suggest we need to understand what is objectionable about this proclamation to understand why any editing was done with respect to Andrew. John disputes the primacy of Simon Peter and wants his readers to know that it was Andrew who first made the proclamation, not Simon Peter.
               
              This does not solve the synoptic problem but perhaps explains editorial decisions.
               
              [Does the Gospel of Thomas mention Andrew?]
               
              Richard H. Anderson
               
            • LeeEdgarTyler@aol.com
              In a message dated 9/13/2002 6:21:01 PM Central Daylight Time, ... John, This is true if and only if the probability of each position being correct is
              Message 6 of 28 , Sep 13, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 9/13/2002 6:21:01 PM Central Daylight Time, jlupia2@... writes:


                Keep in mind that whatever position you currently hold
                on Gospel ordering it has only a 1 in 24 chance of
                being correct.


                John,  This is true "if and only if" the probability of each position being correct is *exactly* equal to the probability of every other position being correct.  I don't think we have any way to establish precisely what probability each position has, but we certainly cannot assume that all these probabilities are exactly equal.

                best,

                Ed Tyler

                http://hometown.aol.com/leeedgartyler/myhomepage/index.html
              • Maluflen@aol.com
                In a message dated 9/13/2002 9:32:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ... You describe here what had to have happened, on the Farrer Hypothesis, but give no reason as
                Message 7 of 28 , Sep 13, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  In a message dated 9/13/2002 9:32:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time, MAMatson@... writes:


                  Leonard:


                  Or, alternatively, the common absence of Andrew from the Luke and Matthew parallels to Mk 1:29 and 13:3 could be caused by Matthew's decision to excise them, and Luke's decision to follow Matthew on this deletion.  So Farrer would equally explain this, alongside the two gospel hypothesis.  But you're right, the two source hypothesis does seem to have a problem here.


                  You describe here what had to have happened, on the Farrer Hypothesis, but give no reason as to why Luke would have decided to follow Matthew's deletion, on two separate occasions, or, for that matter, why Matthew would have made the excisions in the first place. The Two Gospel Hypothesis remains, therefore, the best explanation of the phenomenon of Andrew's presence in two unique Markan texts, on the hypothesis that Karel's thesis regarding Mark's symbolic use of Andrew has merit. As for the Gospel of John's dependence on Mark, I don't think this question can be resolved on this list. I hold the view, shared by many, that John had full knowledge of all three Synoptics, but I realize that the type of evidence on which this judgment is based will never convince all. I would say, however, that I find very interesting Frans Neirynck's position here (which is the same as mine, if I am not mistaken). The same type of evidence and reasoning that leads one to the conclusion that John knew the Synoptics ought to lead one also to the conclusion that Luke knew and used Matthew -- a conclusion which he, unlike you, doesn't accept. The analogy is not perfect, of course, but close enough.

                  Leonard Maluf
                • John Lupia
                  ... This is absolutely false. There is no if and only if to the mathematical statement on Gospel ordering where the correct order is 1 in 24. the
                  Message 8 of 28 , Sep 14, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > jlupia writes:
                    > > Keep in mind that whatever position you currently
                    > hold on Gospel ordering it has only a 1 in 24
                    >chance of being correct.


                    LeeEdgarTyler wrote:
                    > John, This is true "if and only if"


                    This is absolutely false. There is no "if and only
                    if" to the mathematical statement on Gospel ordering
                    where the correct order is 1 in 24.



                    the probability
                    > of each position being
                    > correct is *exactly* equal to the probability of
                    > every other position being
                    > correct.


                    This is babble.


                    I don't think we have any way to establish
                    > precisely what
                    > probability each position has,


                    Try 1 in 24

                    but we certainly
                    > cannot assume that all these
                    > probabilities are exactly equal.
                    >

                    They are.


                    You have introduced your emotional views into a
                    mathematical statment and the result is error.

                    You can create a separate file for each of the 24
                    possible scenarios of Gospel ordering including your
                    notes on why *you think*, *you believe*, *you feel*
                    that this particular one *may not be* the correct
                    answer. **Unless*** (or as you prefer "if and only
                    if") you have *concrete factual evidence* to rule out
                    a possibility you will always have 24 of equal value.
                    If you do not believe me please write to:

                    igelfand@...


                    Best regards,
                    John




                    =====
                    John N. Lupia, III
                    501 North Avenue B-1
                    Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 USA
                    Phone: (908) 994-9720
                    Email: jlupia2@...
                    Editor, Roman Catholic News
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News

                    __________________________________________________
                    Do you Yahoo!?
                    Yahoo! News - Today's headlines
                    http://news.yahoo.com

                    Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                    List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                  • LeeEdgarTyler@aol.com
                    In a message dated 9/14/2002 7:32:57 AM Central Daylight Time, ... John, you ve once again proven that you lack the emotional stability to encounter *any*
                    Message 9 of 28 , Sep 14, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      In a message dated 9/14/2002 7:32:57 AM Central Daylight Time, jlupia2@... writes:



                      > jlupia writes: 
                      > > Keep in mind that whatever position you currently
                      > hold  on Gospel ordering it has only a 1 in 24
                      >chance of being correct.


                      LeeEdgarTyler wrote:
                      > John,  This is true "if and only if"


                      This is absolutely false.  There is no "if and only
                      if" to the mathematical statement on Gospel ordering
                      where the correct order is 1 in 24.



                      the probability
                      > of each position being
                      > correct is *exactly* equal to the probability of
                      > every other position being
                      > correct. 


                      This is babble.


                      I don't think we have any way to establish
                      > precisely what
                      > probability each position has,


                      Try 1 in 24

                      but we certainly
                      > cannot assume that all these
                      > probabilities are exactly equal.
                      >

                      They are.


                      You have introduced your emotional views into a
                      mathematical statment and the result is error.

                      You can create a separate file for each of the 24
                      possible scenarios of Gospel ordering including your
                      notes on why *you think*, *you believe*, *you feel*
                      that this particular one *may not be* the correct
                      answer.  **Unless*** (or as you prefer "if and only
                      if") you have *concrete factual evidence* to rule out
                      a possibility you will always have 24 of equal value.
                      If you do not believe me please write to:

                      igelfand@...


                      Best regards,
                      John





                      John, you've once again proven that you lack the emotional stability to encounter *any* opposition to *any* view without resorting to personal insult.  Doesn't your conduct on these lists shame you just a little bit?  Alas, apparently not.

                      At any rate: You merely *assume* that all these possible combinations are of equal probability and have done nothing at all to substantiate this assumption.  And it has nothing at all to do with emotion.  It is of course true that we cannot establish what the probabilities are.      THAT IS THE VERY REASON THAT YOU HAVE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE PROBABILITIES ARE ALL PRECISELY EQUAL.  And you have to establish that if you're going to make your claim.

                      This point is quite elementary.  It's also self-evident, so rather than continue a discussion with a person of your immaturity, I'll leave it to the rest of the list to judge just how obvious it is.

                      I do not need to check your reference because I know mathematics quite well, myself.  Since 1981 I have been a member of Omicron Delta Epsilon, the foremost international honor society in the field of economics.  I have forgotten more about statistical analysis of this sort than you have ever learned (since I went into the humanities for my second Masters Degree).  You simply do not understand the mathematics involved here.

                      Ed Tyler

                      http://hometown.aol.com/leeedgartyler/myhomepage/index.html
                    • Karel Hanhart
                      ... Richard As I see it, the author of John has Andrew proclaim to his companion we have found the Messiah because Andrew (a Greek name, par excellence)
                      Message 10 of 28 , Sep 14, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Richard Anderson wrote:

                        > What is the significant of Andrew? The Gospel of John has Andrew
                        > proclaim that "We have found the Messiah" [John 1:41]. I would suggest
                        > we need to understand what is objectionable about this proclamation to
                        > understand why any editing was done with respect to Andrew. John
                        > disputes the primacy of Simon Peter and wants his readers to know that
                        > it was Andrew who first made the proclamation, not Simon Peter.

                        Richard

                        As I see it, the author of John has Andrew proclaim to his companion "we
                        have found the Messiah"
                        because Andrew (a Greek name, par excellence) represents the Gentile
                        world. Contrary to Matthew and Luke, this author does not begin his
                        Gospel in Judea itself; he bgeins with a universal perspective, "All
                        things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came
                        into being." (John 1,3). It is not before 1,14, that "and the word
                        became flesh" was written. This order - from the universal to the
                        specific - is the reason for placing Andrew first. Of course, in story
                        time the figure of Andrew is presented as a follower of the Baptist,
                        which might lead to the conclusion he was a Judean. But author John is
                        known for his use of symbolism. Gentiles need to follow the Baptist
                        first, before recognizing the Word.

                        cordially

                        Karel



                        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                      • Karel Hanhart
                        ... That the author of John was dependent on Mark ( pistikos ) and Luke and probably also on Matthew is defended by many. One must presuppose a very early
                        Message 11 of 28 , Sep 14, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          > it not more likely (contra K. Hanhart) that the GJohn reference to
                          > Andrew shows its secure location in the oral traditions, pre-Mark?
                          > This of course would derive from an independent John -- which I think
                          > is more supportable than a John which is dependent on Mark.

                          That the author of John was dependent on Mark ("pistikos") and Luke and
                          probably also on Matthew is defended by many. One must presuppose a
                          very early Gospel of John

                          cordially
                          Karel


                          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                        • Karel Hanhart
                          ... Leonard, In 1,29 - an arresting construction - we read he entered the house of SIMON and Andrew, with James and John . Why does Mark use Simon here
                          Message 12 of 28 , Sep 14, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Maluflen@... wrote:

                            > In a message dated 9/13/2002 1:24:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
                            > K.Hanhart@... writes:
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >> d) In Mark Jesus' "inner circle" consists of three disciples Simon,
                            >> James and
                            >> John.
                            >
                            > To my knowledge, these names never occur together in any Synoptic
                            > text, where the men are always referred to as "Peter, James and John"
                            > when mentioned as an exclusive group.

                            Leonard,
                            In 1,29 - an arresting construction - we read " he entered the house of
                            SIMON and Andrew, with James and John". Why does Mark use "Simon" here
                            and not "Peter". I believe Mark was the first one who consistently
                            translated Simon's nickname Cephas as 'Petros' from the list of 12 on
                            (3,16), because in his open tomb story he wanted to contrast the
                            "monument" carved from the Rock (Gr petra) with "tell it to Peter" (Gr
                            petros). Paul has always "Cephas", except Gal 2,8ff,

                            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 9/14/2002 8:48:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ... I understand; for you, most Synoptic data seem ultimately related to that carved rock tomb,
                            Message 13 of 28 , Sep 15, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              In a message dated 9/14/2002 8:48:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time, K.Hanhart@... writes:


                              Leonard,
                              In  1,29 - an arresting construction - we read " he entered the house of
                              SIMON and Andrew, with James and John".  Why does Mark use "Simon" here
                              and not "Peter". I believe Mark was the first one who consistently
                              translated Simon's nickname Cephas as 'Petros' from the list of 12 on
                              (3,16), because in his open tomb story he wanted to contrast the
                              "monument" carved from the Rock (Gr petra) with "tell it to Peter" (Gr
                              petros). Paul has always "Cephas", except Gal 2,8ff,



                              I understand; for you, most Synoptic data seem ultimately related to that carved rock tomb, which Mark alludes to, only seemingly in passing, in chapter 13. My explanation for the parallel synoptic phenomena here is slightly less circuitous. Matthew simply refers to Simon as Peter (8:14), since he has already informed the reader that Simon goes by that name (4:18). Luke comes next and changes the chronology of the account. He uses the name Simon instead (4:38), because he has not told us as yet that Jesus gave Simon the name Peter (cf. 6:13 and cf. the anticipated solemn reference to "Simon Peter" in 5:8, where, as I showed in a paper read at the CBA meeting this summer, Luke is anticipating themes from various Petrine passages in Matt, among them Matt 16:16ff). Mark, writing last, and with both Matt and Lk before him, logically selects Luke's way of referring to Peter in this story, namely as Simon (1:29.30). I say this is logical, because, like Luke, Mark has not yet told the reader that Jesus gave Simon the name Peter (cf. Mk 3:16). It is to be noted that Luke himself (as narrator) never (either in Lk or in Acts) refers to Peter as Simon once Jesus has given him the name Peter in 6:14. It makes good sense, therefore, to make Luke the originator of the Simon reference, prior to this event, in the story of Jesus healing of Peter's mother-in-law (4:38).

                              Leonard Maluf
                            • John Lupia
                              Dear Leonard: Congrats on your talk this past summer. Sorry I missed it. Both Mt & Lk have 14 narratives that include Simon or Peter as he is variously named.
                              Message 14 of 28 , Sep 16, 2002
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Dear Leonard:

                                Congrats on your talk this past summer. Sorry I
                                missed it.

                                Both Mt & Lk have 14 narratives that include Simon or
                                Peter as he is variously named. The telling part is
                                that Lk has 10 passages calling him Simon compared to
                                Mt who only uses that name half as much, i.e., 5
                                times. Lk calls him Peter 17 times whereas Mt 22
                                times. Although far from convincing in itself it does
                                suggest Lk being older than Matthew. Curiously, Lk
                                22:31; 24:34 revert back to calling him Simon. Whereas
                                Mt 8:14 shows fatigue in calling him Peter after
                                calling him Simon in Mt 4:18 and prior to Mt 10:2 that
                                explains he was called both names. This fatigue in Mt
                                supports the statistical evidence suggesting Lk as
                                prior to Mt.

                                LUKE = 14 accounts with 10 passages about Simon; 17 on
                                Peter. This includes Lk 6:14 counted twice, once for
                                each category.

                                Lk 4:38 relates the events at Simon's home with his
                                mother-in-law.
                                Lk 5:3-10 (Lk 5:3,4,5,8,10, 10) is the account on
                                Simon's boat and the miraculous catch of fish.
                                Lk 6:14 list of apostles: Simon , whom he named Peter,
                                and his brother Andrew
                                Lk 8:45 Peter in cure of the woman with a hemorrhage.
                                Lk 8:51Peter in the raising of Jairus' daughter.
                                Lk 9:20 Peter in Jesus' question: "Who do the crowds
                                say that I am?"
                                Lk 9:28-33 (Lk 9:28, 32,33) Transfiguration. Peter
                                Lk 12:41 Peter in the parable of preparedness for the
                                second coming.
                                Lk 18:28 Peter says that he and the apostles left
                                everything to follow Jesus..
                                Lk 22:8 Peter sent to prepare Last Supper.
                                Lk 22:31 Jesus warns Simon
                                Lk 24:34 after the resurrection Jesus appeared to
                                Simon.
                                Lk 22:54,55, 58, 60, 61, 61 Peter at Caiaphas'
                                courtyard and the thrice denials.
                                Lk 24:12 Peter at the tomb

                                MATTHEW = 14 accounts with 5 passages on Simon and 22
                                on Peter. This includes Mt 10:2; 16:16 counted twice,
                                once for each category.

                                Mt 4:18 Simon & his brother Andrew
                                Mt 8:14 Peter's house and mother-in-law.
                                Mt 10:2 Simon called Peter
                                Mt 14:28,29 Peter walks on water.
                                Mt 15:15 Peter asks for explanation of the parable of
                                washing of the hands.
                                Mt 16:16 Simon Peter testifies Jesus is the Messiah,
                                the Son of God.
                                Mt 16:17 Simon son of John (Petrine Primacy).
                                Mt 16:18 Peter is rock on which Jesus builds his
                                Church.
                                Mt 16:22 Peter expresses his opposition to Jesus'
                                prediction about his death.
                                Mt 16:23 Jesus says to Peter "Get behind me Satan".
                                Mt 17:1, 4 Peter at Transfiguration.
                                Mt 17:24 Peter asked if Jesus pays Temple tax.
                                Mt 17:25 Simon is asked by Jesus what he thinks about
                                the tax tribute.
                                Mt 18:21 Peter asks how many times must he forgive his
                                brother.
                                Mt 19:27 Peter says that he and the apostles left
                                everything to follow Jesus.
                                Mt 26: 33, 35, Last Supper prediction of Peter's
                                thrice denials.
                                Mt 26:37,40 Gethsemane, Peter sleeping.
                                Mt 26:58, 69, 73,75 Peter's thrice denials at
                                Caiaphas' courtyard.

                                Best regards,
                                John


                                =====
                                John N. Lupia, III
                                501 North Avenue B-1
                                Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 USA
                                Phone: (908) 994-9720
                                Email: jlupia2@...
                                Editor, Roman Catholic News
                                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News

                                __________________________________________________
                                Do you Yahoo!?
                                Yahoo! News - Today's headlines
                                http://news.yahoo.com

                                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                              • John N. Lupia
                                Apologies for making a separate post here. I was not finished collating the data when I first responded. Too many emails were found this morning which needed
                                Message 15 of 28 , Sep 16, 2002
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Apologies for making a separate post here. I was not finished
                                  collating the data when I first responded. Too many emails were
                                  found this morning which needed answering as well.

                                  In the 51 Gospel narrative (includes overlaps of parallels.
                                  Apologies for not sorting them out):

                                  Simon [21 times] (avg = 5.25) = Lk 10 (+ 4.75) ; Jn 0 (-5.25) ; Mt 5
                                  (-.25); Mk 6 (+.75)

                                  It appears highly suggestive that Lk is oldest based on the
                                  preference for the Greek version of the Heb. & Aram. Shimon.
                                  Whereas, John abandons it by itself to appeal to Petrine primacy
                                  by the new hybrid name Simon-Peter.

                                  Simon-Peter [19 times] (avg. = 4.75) = Lk 0 (-4.75) ; Jn 18 (+
                                  13.25); Mt 1 (-3.75); Mk 0 (-4.75)

                                  It seems highly suggestive that the hybrid name Simon-Peter is
                                  the invention of John borrowed by Mt, which suggests also that
                                  both follow after Luke.

                                  Peter [73 times] (avg. = 18.25) = Lk 17 (-1.25); Jn 22 (+3.75); Mt
                                  15 (-3.25); Mk 19 [20] (+.75 [1.75])

                                  All Gospels use the name Peter in a fairly even distribution.

                                  LUKE = 14 accounts with 10 passages about Simon; 17 on
                                  Peter. This includes Lk 6:14 counted twice, once for each
                                  category.

                                  Lk 4:38 relates the events at Simon's home with his
                                  mother-in-law.
                                  Lk 5:3-10 (Lk 5:3,4,5,8,10, 10) is the account on Simon's boat
                                  and the miraculous catch of fish.
                                  Lk 6:14 list of apostles: Simon , whom he named Peter, and his
                                  brother Andrew
                                  Lk 8:45 Peter in cure of the woman with a hemorrhage.
                                  Lk 8:51Peter in the raising of Jairus' daughter.
                                  Lk 9:20 Peter in Jesus' question: "Who do the crowds say that I
                                  am?"
                                  Lk 9:28-33 (Lk 9:28, 32,33) Transfiguration. Peter
                                  Lk 12:41 Peter in the parable of preparedness for the second
                                  coming.
                                  Lk 18:28 Peter says that he and the apostles left everything to
                                  follow Jesus..
                                  Lk 22:8 Peter sent to prepare Last Supper.
                                  Lk 22:31 Jesus warns Simon
                                  Lk 24:34 after the resurrection Jesus appeared to Simon.
                                  Lk 22:54,55, 58, 60, 61, 61 Peter at Caiaphas' courtyard and the
                                  thrice denials.
                                  Lk 24:12 Peter at the tomb

                                  MATTHEW = 14 accounts with 5 passages on Simon and 22 on
                                  Peter. This includes Mt 10:2; 16:16 counted twice, once for each
                                  category.

                                  Mt 4:18 Simon & his brother Andrew
                                  Mt 8:14 Peter's house and mother-in-law.
                                  Mt 10:2 Simon called Peter
                                  Mt 14:28,29 Peter walks on water.
                                  Mt 15:15 Peter asks for explanation of the parable of washing of
                                  the hands.
                                  Mt 16:16 Simon Peter testifies Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of
                                  God.
                                  Mt 16:17 Simon son of John (Petrine Primacy).
                                  Mt 16:18 Peter is rock on which Jesus builds his Church.
                                  Mt 16:22 Peter expresses his opposition to Jesus' prediction
                                  about his death.
                                  Mt 16:23 Jesus says to Peter "Get behind me Satan".
                                  Mt 17:1, 4 Peter at Transfiguration.
                                  Mt 17:24 Peter asked if Jesus pays Temple tax.
                                  Mt 17:25 Simon is asked by Jesus what he thinks about the tax
                                  tribute.
                                  Mt 18:21 Peter asks how many times must he forgive his brother.
                                  Mt 19:27 Peter says that he and the apostles left everything to
                                  follow Jesus.
                                  Mt 26: 33, 35, Last Supper prediction of Peter's thrice denials.
                                  Mt 26:37,40 Gethsemane, Peter sleeping.
                                  Mt 26:58, 69, 73,75 Peter's thrice denials at Caiaphas' courtyard.

                                  JOHN = 8 accounts with 18 passages about Simon-Peter; 15
                                  with Peter; 0 with only Simon.

                                  Jn 1:40,41,42 Andrew, Simon-Peter's brother
                                  Jn 1:44 Peter from Bethsaida (Philip & Andrew)
                                  Jn 6:8 Andrew, Simon-Peter's brother.
                                  Jn 6:68 Simon-Peter's response after the crowds departed
                                  hearing Jesus' discourse on the Eucharist.
                                  Jn 13:6,9,24,36 Simon-Peter at the Last Supper.
                                  Jn 13:8,37 Peter at the Last Supper.
                                  Jn 18:10 Simon-Peter had a sword.
                                  Jn 18:11,26 Peter at Gethsemane.
                                  Jn 18:15,25 Simon-Peter at Caiaphas' courtyard.
                                  Jn 18:16,17,18,27 Peter at Caiaphas' courtyard.
                                  Jn 20:2,6 Simon-Peter at the tomb.
                                  Jn 20:3,4 Peter at the tomb.
                                  Jn 21:2,3,7,11,15,16,17 Simon-Peter at the Sea of Tiberius.
                                  Jn 21:7,17,20,21 Peter at the Sea of Tiberius.


                                  MARK = 15 accounts with 6 passages about Simon; 19-20 on
                                  Peter. Mk 13:6; 14;37 counted twice once for each category.

                                  Mk 1:16 the call. Simon & his brother Andrew
                                  Mk 1:29, 30 home of Simon- & Andrew
                                  Mk 1:36 Jesus prays in a desolate place found by Simon & his
                                  disciples.
                                  Mk 3:16 Simon who is named Peter
                                  Mk 5:37 Peter is taken to the daughter of the Temple leader's
                                  house.
                                  Mk 8:29 Peter answers the query "Who do you say I am?"
                                  Mk 8:32,33 Peter
                                  Mk 9:2, 5 Peter at the Transfiguration.
                                  Mk 10:28 Peter says, "We have left everything to follow you."
                                  Mk 11:21 Peter
                                  Mk 13:3 Peter
                                  Mk 14:29 Peter's protest at Last Supper.
                                  Mk 14:33 Peter at Gethsemane.
                                  Mk 14:37 Gethsemane: Simon is addressed as Peter.
                                  Mk 14:54,66,67,70,72 Peter at Caiaphas' courtyard.
                                  Mk 16:7 (8) Peter mentioned in post resurrection in Mark's
                                  ending.





                                  Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                  List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                • Maluflen@aol.com
                                  In a message dated 9/16/2002 9:11:14 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ... Your exhaustive list shows at most 5 passages in which Peter is called Simon in Luke. Why do
                                  Message 16 of 28 , Sep 16, 2002
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    In a message dated 9/16/2002 9:11:14 AM Pacific Daylight Time, jlupia2@... writes:


                                    Both Mt & Lk have 14 narratives that include Simon or
                                    Peter as he is variously named.  The telling part is
                                    that Lk has 10 passages calling him Simon


                                    Your exhaustive list shows at most 5 passages in which Peter is called Simon in Luke. Why do you say "10 passages" here?

                                    compared to
                                    Mt who only uses that name half as much, i.e., 5
                                    times.  Lk calls him Peter 17 times whereas Mt 22
                                    times.  Although far from convincing in itself it does
                                    suggest Lk being older than Matthew.  Curiously, Lk
                                    22:31; 24:34 revert back to calling him Simon.


                                    These both occur in quoted words. As I said in my original post, Luke himself, as narrator, never refers to Peter as Simon after he tells us in chapter 6 that Jesus gave him the name Peter. And when he refers to him by a single name prior to this time, he uses Simon.

                                    Whereas
                                    Mt 8:14 shows fatigue in calling him Peter after
                                    calling him Simon in Mt 4:18 and prior to Mt 10:2 that
                                    explains he was called both names.  This fatigue in Mt
                                    supports the statistical evidence suggesting Lk as
                                    prior to Mt.


                                    I wish you would stop using "fatigue" in this way. I am sure the author of the article whose vocabulary you are borrowing cringes every time you use the term in a way totally foreign to its original use in the article in question and in a sense that is hardly perspicuous in itself. As for the data of references to Peter in Matt, it is important to note that Matthew never refers to Peter as Simon alone, without either adding "Peter" or a codicil: "the one who is called Peter". Only in the cited words of Jesus is Peter called "Simon" (alone) in Matthew's Gospel. There is no way on the basis of these data to make even a remote argument in favor either of Matthean or of Lukan priority. To try to make an argument on the basis of the sheer statistics of the appearance of the two names in the two Gospels, without any reference to context, is methodologically problematic in the extreme.

                                    Leonard Maluf

                                  • Matson, Mark (Academic)
                                    Karel: I don t think an early John need only be presupposed . A number of scholars have made significant arguments that lead to a conclusion of an early,or
                                    Message 17 of 28 , Sep 17, 2002
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Karel:
                                      I don't think an early John need only be "presupposed". A number of scholars have made significant arguments that lead to a conclusion of an early,or at least an independent, John. I could cite many of those (and I would be among them). We could engage in a long discussion of that -- though I doubt this is the place. You might still disagree. But perhaps, at the very least you might consider D. Moody Smith's nice article on the independence of John that is the last chapter in his revised edition of John Among the Gospels.

                                      Mark A. Matson
                                      Academic Dean, Milligan College
                                      http://www.milligan.edu/Administrative/MMatson/personal.htm


                                      > -----Original Message-----
                                      > From: Karel Hanhart [mailto:K.Hanhart@...]
                                      > Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2002 11:45 AM
                                      > To: Matson, Mark (Academic)
                                      > Cc: Synoptic-L@...
                                      > Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: [XTalk] The Twelve
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > > it not more likely (contra K. Hanhart) that the GJohn reference to
                                      > > Andrew shows its secure location in the oral traditions, pre-Mark?
                                      > > This of course would derive from an independent John --
                                      > which I think
                                      > > is more supportable than a John which is dependent on Mark.
                                      >
                                      > That the author of John was dependent on Mark ("pistikos")
                                      > and Luke and
                                      > probably also on Matthew is defended by many. One must presuppose a
                                      > very early Gospel of John
                                      >
                                      > cordially
                                      > Karel
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > ---
                                      > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
                                      > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
                                      > Version: 6.0.385 / Virus Database: 217 - Release Date: 9/4/2002
                                      >
                                      >

                                      ---
                                      Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
                                      Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
                                      Version: 6.0.385 / Virus Database: 217 - Release Date: 9/4/2002


                                      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                    • John Lupia
                                      Leonard Maluf wrote: Your exhaustive list shows at most 5 passages in which Peter is called Simon in Luke. Why do you say 10 passages here? I erred in the
                                      Message 18 of 28 , Sep 17, 2002
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Leonard Maluf wrote:
                                        Your exhaustive list shows at most 5 passages in which
                                        Peter is called Simon in Luke. Why do you say "10
                                        passages" here?

                                        I erred in the count. It is not 10 it is 11 (see
                                        below).
                                        Simon occurs 6 times in Lk 5:3-10, not only once.
                                        Lk 5:3-10 (Lk 5:3,4,5,8,10, 10) is the account on
                                        Simon's boat and the miraculous catch of fish; and
                                        Simon occurs twice in Lk 22:31, not once, as I made a
                                        slip.


                                        Leonard Maluf wrote:
                                        These both occur in quoted words. As I said in my
                                        original post, Luke himself, as narrator, never refers
                                        to Peter as Simon after he tells us in chapter 6 that
                                        Jesus gave him the name Peter. And when he refers to
                                        him by a single name prior to this time, he uses
                                        Simon.

                                        The fact is the name Simon is there (Lk 22:31; 24:34
                                        ). My error was counting Simon once in Lk 22:31 when
                                        it should have been twice; making Lk's use of the name
                                        Simon stand at 11 rather than 10.

                                        The reason why I find it curious is because Simon's
                                        name had been changed to Peter. So, why is he being
                                        called Simon after we are told he is called Peter? If
                                        Jesus calls him Peter then he must have Alzheimer's or
                                        amnesia because Lk 22:31 has Jesus say "Simon, Simon".
                                        In Lk 24:34 it is the eleven and their companions who
                                        have Alzheimer's or amnesia. These two cases are a
                                        form of "inconsistency" or "inconcinnity" in Luke not
                                        quite on par with being classified as "fatigue".
                                        However, it may reflect the Sitz im Leben Kirche, that
                                        the name Simon was continually used by Jesus and also
                                        by the disciples during the time Lk was written, and
                                        that Peter, his acknowledged new name was not yet
                                        sufficiently ingrained to completely supplant it.


                                        Leonard Maluf wrote:
                                        I wish you would stop using "fatigue" in this way. I
                                        am sure the author of the article whose vocabulary you
                                        are borrowing cringes every time you use the term in a
                                        way totally foreign to its original use in the article
                                        in question and in a sense that is hardly perspicuous
                                        in itself.

                                        O.K. My choice of words in this instance falls
                                        short. Inconcinnity or inconsistency may be better.

                                        Leonard Maluf wrote:
                                        As for the data of references to Peter in Matt, it is
                                        important to note that Matthew never refers to Peter
                                        as Simon alone, without either adding "Peter" or a
                                        codicil: "the one who is called Peter". Only in the
                                        cited words of Jesus is Peter called "Simon" (alone)
                                        in Matthew's Gospel.

                                        Then how do you explain Mt 16:17; 17:25? Looks
                                        similar to the Alzheimer's or amnesiac Jesus found in
                                        Lk 22:31. The same possible explanation of the not
                                        yet supplanted name Peter for Simon could be the case.
                                        It could also mean that one of these authors Lk or Mt
                                        was borrowing from the other or another source. Mt
                                        16:17 could be borrowed from Jn 1:42 or else the
                                        reverse is possibly true. Mt 17:25 is unique. Lk
                                        22:31;24:34 are unique. Any thoughts?

                                        Leonard Maluf wrote:
                                        There is no way on the basis of these data to make
                                        even a remote argument in favor either of Matthean or
                                        of Lukan priority. To try to make an argument on the
                                        basis of the sheer statistics of the appearance of the
                                        two names in the two Gospels, without any reference to
                                        context, is methodologically problematic in the
                                        extreme.


                                        Agreed. I am curious why you even made this
                                        statement? I did not offer any argument. I merely
                                        collected the data and ran a simple analysis on name
                                        use counting the number of times each occurred. I do
                                        see the data offering suggestions. Suggestive is
                                        never conclusive, nor a bona fide argument. However,
                                        statistical data that is suggestive can be used to
                                        support an argument, though hardly an offer of proof.
                                        I noticed Lk had 11 uses of Simon that outweighed Mt
                                        (now more than) 2 to 1. Mk has it 6 times, once more
                                        than Mt. Of the 22 times Simon occurs in the 4
                                        Gospels half are in Lk. In the Gospels and Acts Simon
                                        occurs 35 times; Lk-Acts having 24 (68.57%). This
                                        appears suggestive that Lk adhered closer to the Heb.
                                        & Aram. name Shimon and is older than the other
                                        accounts. This single isolated observation cannot
                                        stand as any evidence for priority. However, if the
                                        analysis of all the data consistently shows this, then
                                        the priority of Lk would not be out of the question.

                                        Best regards,
                                        John


                                        =====
                                        John N. Lupia, III
                                        501 North Avenue B-1
                                        Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 USA
                                        Phone: (908) 994-9720
                                        Email: jlupia2@...
                                        Editor, Roman Catholic News
                                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News

                                        __________________________________________________
                                        Do you Yahoo!?
                                        Yahoo! News - Today's headlines
                                        http://news.yahoo.com

                                        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                      • Maluflen@aol.com
                                        In a message dated 9/17/2002 10:09:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ... No, you erred by speaking of 10 (or 11) passages. Simon is found in only 5 passages of
                                        Message 19 of 28 , Sep 17, 2002
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          In a message dated 9/17/2002 10:09:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time, jlupia2@... writes:


                                          Leonard Maluf wrote:
                                          Your exhaustive list shows at most 5 passages in which
                                          Peter is called Simon in Luke. Why do you say "10
                                          passages" here?

                                          I erred in the count.  It is not 10 it is 11 (see
                                          below).


                                          No, you erred by speaking of 10 (or 11) passages. Simon is found in only 5 passages of Luke, according to your own listing of passages. If you meant the number of times the name Simon is used for Peter in Luke, you should have said that.

                                          It is perfectly legitimate to inquire, as you do later in this post, why it is that in both Matt and Luke the Evangelists continue to have Jesus address Peter as Simon, even after the Evangelists have told us that Jesus gave him the name Peter. But the first thing you have to do is to notice and to state that data accurately, which your original post did not. As for your own response to this question, I don't think much at all of your "amnesia" explanation. It is much more likely that verisimilitude is at work here in both Gospels: namely, that "Simon" was always the way Jesus and others would actually have addressed Peter during the lifetime of the historical Jesus, and that the conferral of the name Peter is not to be understood so much as history as it is prophecy (possibly ex eventu): relating as it does to Peter's future role in the church.

                                          Leonard Maluf


                                        • John Lupia
                                          Leonard Maluf wrote: As for your own response to this question, I don t think much at all of your amnesia explanation. Leonard, this was a deliberate
                                          Message 20 of 28 , Sep 18, 2002
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Leonard Maluf wrote:
                                            As for your own response to this question, I don't
                                            think much at all of your "amnesia" explanation.

                                            Leonard, this was a deliberate sardonic
                                            characterization, offered as humorous. I guess it
                                            went over like a lead balloon. Certainly, Jesus nor
                                            the disciples had amnesia nor were they suffering from
                                            Alzheimers as authors or speakers. I was simply
                                            accentuating or annuciating the problem of the seeming
                                            contradictory texts from a narratological perspective.

                                            Leonard Maluf wrote:
                                            It is much more likely that verisimilitude is at work
                                            here in both Gospels: namely, that "Simon" was always
                                            the way Jesus and others would actually have addressed
                                            Peter during the lifetime of the historical Jesus, and
                                            that the conferral of the name Peter is not to be
                                            understood so much as history as it is prophecy
                                            (possibly ex eventu): relating as it does to Peter's
                                            future role in the church.

                                            I disagree when you say "is not to be understood so
                                            much as history as it is prophecy" since a Vaticinum
                                            ex et post eventu, would be based on history and your
                                            statement challenges and undermines the historicity of
                                            the event given in Mt creating a circular
                                            argumentative problem: "If it is historically
                                            instantiated in St. Peter and his Church hierarchic
                                            role and function which you call a prophesy, then on
                                            what is it based if not on a historical conferring of
                                            papal authority for the future Church by Jesus
                                            himself?". The same question would be asked as was "On
                                            whose authority was John's baptism based? On man's or
                                            God's?" These are extremely delicate issues
                                            especially in light of the fact that most researchers
                                            consist of non Catholics. Addressing the questions of
                                            Petrine primacy *is* central to the Synoptic Problem
                                            and how researchers go about it. Dungan's thesis
                                            reflects this, when he attempts to show that this
                                            underpinning question and the diverse confessional
                                            positions of researchers will produce the results
                                            found in the survey of Synoptic Problem literature.

                                            The need to have a legitimate open forum that is
                                            respectful and polite to discuss these issues is
                                            direly needed. Hopefully Synoptic-L is this
                                            intellectually rich forum. My personal past
                                            experience shows that very heated tensions spark
                                            immediately, and whatever is said is usually taken the
                                            wrong way and construed as polemic and flaming. If we
                                            are all to grow and advance the research of the
                                            Synoptic Problem as mature men and women then we need
                                            to get beyong this impasse. This in my opinion is
                                            *the* impasse of Synoptic Problem research today.
                                            There certainly must be some ecumenical solution.

                                            With warm regards,
                                            John



                                            With warm regards,
                                            John

                                            =====
                                            John N. Lupia, III
                                            501 North Avenue B-1
                                            Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 USA
                                            Phone: (908) 994-9720
                                            Email: jlupia2@...
                                            Editor, Roman Catholic News
                                            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News

                                            __________________________________________________
                                            Do you Yahoo!?
                                            Yahoo! News - Today's headlines
                                            http://news.yahoo.com

                                            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                          • Karel Hanhart
                                            ... Mark: I am perfectly aware of the arguments in favor of John s independence and discussed these with Moody Smith in seminars at various meetings. I side,
                                            Message 21 of 28 , Sep 30, 2002
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              "Matson, Mark (Academic)" wrote:

                                              > Karel:
                                              > I don't think an early John need only be "presupposed". A number of scholars have made significant arguments that lead to a conclusion of an early,or at least an independent, John. I could cite many of those (and I would be among them). We could engage in a long discussion of that -- though I doubt this is the place. You might still disagree. But perhaps, at the very least you might consider D. Moody Smith's nice article on the independence of John that is the last chapter in his revised edition of John Among the Gospels.

                                              Mark:
                                              I am perfectly aware of the arguments in favor of John's independence
                                              and discussed these with Moody Smith in seminars at various meetings.
                                              I side, however, with those at one of the Louvain Bible Conferences in
                                              the eighties on that very
                                              question that John knew at least Mark, Luke and even Matthew.
                                              In fact, I have never read of someone opposing the possibility that
                                              'Nathanael' (God has given) is the Hebrew rendition of Matthew (! - In
                                              Aramaic "gift of JHWH"). In other words the author acknowledges the
                                              existence of the Gospel of Matthew and described some of its typical
                                              Matthean emphases in 1,45f. I defended this interpretation long ago in
                                              the Festschrift for Sevenster, Brill, 1970. It was first suggested by
                                              W. Bauer, Das Johannes Evangelium, Handbuch zum N.T. VI, 1933 (Exkurs
                                              after 1,51). Only one critic (not a
                                              minor one) dismisses this idea cavalierly, namely, Werner G. Kuemmel in
                                              the revised edition of his Introduction. But then Kuemmel wasn't strong
                                              on the Judean background of the Gospels.

                                              cordial greetings,

                                              Karel H.

                                              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                            • Karel Hanhart
                                              ... Whence the dismissive terms in which you represent my approach to the resurrection story in 15,46)? (I trust your reference to chapter 13 is a typing
                                              Message 22 of 28 , Oct 5, 2002
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Maluflen@... wrote:

                                                > In a message dated 9/14/2002 8:48:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
                                                > K.Hanhart@... writes:
                                                >
                                                >> Leonard, In 1,29 - an arresting construction - we read " he entered
                                                >> the house of
                                                >> SIMON and Andrew, with James and John". Why does Mark use "Simon"
                                                >> here
                                                >> and not "Peter". I believe Mark was the first one who consistently
                                                >> translated Simon's nickname Cephas as 'Petros' from the list of 12
                                                >> on
                                                >> (3,16), because in his open tomb story he wanted to contrast the
                                                >> "monument" carved from the Rock (Gr petra) with "tell it to Peter"
                                                >> (Gr
                                                >> petros). Paul has always "Cephas", except Gal 2,8ff,
                                                >
                                                > I understand; for you, most Synoptic data seem ultimately related to
                                                > that carved rock tomb, which Mark alludes to, only seemingly in
                                                > passing, in chapter 13.

                                                Whence the dismissive terms in which you represent my approach to the
                                                resurrection story in 15,46)? (I trust your reference to "chapter 13"
                                                is a typing mistake). It is Mark, not me, who gave the tomb this
                                                prominent place. He certainly was not writing about the carved rock tomb
                                                "in passing", as you put it. He testified to his faith in the risen
                                                Messiah in critical times, just after the total destruction of the
                                                temple and the offer cult. The 'open tomb' is not a minor matter in the
                                                Gospel.
                                                I would much appreciate, therefore, your own exegesis of this astounding
                                                ending of Mark. I might understand your irony if you were prepared to
                                                offer a reasonable alternative to a literal EMPTY TOMB interpretation,
                                                which William L. Craig has offered in NTS 30.2 and in NTS 34.1. My
                                                analysis of the usage of Simon in 1,29 an 3,16 and his consistent use of
                                                'Peter' thereafter is but one link in the chain. I am suggesting that
                                                Mark deliberately changed the current nickname Cephas for the Greek
                                                "Peter", because he wanted to emphasize the antithesis between the 'ex
                                                petras' in 15,46 and tell it to Peter (toi petroi) in 16,7. In the
                                                famous verse, "on this rock I will build my ecclesia" (Matthew 16,19)
                                                Matthew, I believe, provided the confirmation for my exegesis of Mark's
                                                open tomb story.
                                                Thus far the commentaries have failed to provide any alternative for
                                                the literal interpretation of the open tomb story. In my approach I have
                                                met all Craig's arguments one by one favoring a historical discovery of
                                                an empty tomb, and I offered an alternative for each verse. In it Mark
                                                was conveying a message of hope to his adult readers, a message based
                                                on a midrash on LXX Isa 22,16 (the tomb is a metaphor of the first
                                                TEMPLE about to be destroyed) and on LXX Gn 28, 2.3 (re. a 'very large
                                                stone' to be rolled away). Arimethea may demand the "body of Jesus", but
                                                he received only a corpse (15,45). Mark infers that the living Messiah
                                                is going before into the Galil of the nations, where the ecclesia will
                                                be the living 'body of Christ" and Peter its primus inter pares (cf Mt
                                                16,18).
                                                Hence my challenge, Leonard, to offer your own interpretation of
                                                Mark's tomb story, unless you dismiss it as simply an unhistorical myth,
                                                or take it as a literally a discovery of an empty tomb. For both are
                                                quite unsatisfactory, don't you agree?

                                                cordially

                                                Karel

                                                >


                                                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                              • Maluflen@aol.com
                                                In a message dated 10/5/2002 5:48:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ... It was a typing mistake -- of the kind that are often awarded by the fates to one who has
                                                Message 23 of 28 , Oct 5, 2002
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  In a message dated 10/5/2002 5:48:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time, K.Hanhart@... writes:


                                                  In  1,29 - an arresting construction - we read " he entered the house of
                                                  SIMON and Andrew, with James and John".  Why does Mark use "Simon"
                                                  here and not "Peter". I believe Mark was the first one who consistently
                                                  translated Simon's nickname Cephas as 'Petros' from the list of 12
                                                  on (3,16), because in his open tomb story he wanted to contrast the
                                                  "monument" carved from the Rock (Gr petra) with "tell it to Peter"
                                                  (Gr petros). Paul has always "Cephas", except Gal 2,8ff,


                                                  Leonard:
                                                  I understand; for you most Synoptic data seem ultimately related to that carved rock tomb, which Mark alludes to, only seemingly in passing, in chapter 13.


                                                  Karel:

                                                  Whence the dismissive terms in which you represent my approach to the
                                                  resurrection  story in 15,46)? (I trust your reference to "chapter 13"
                                                  is a typing mistake).


                                                  It was a typing mistake -- of the kind that are often awarded by the fates to one who has been culpably flippant.


                                                  It is Mark, not me, who gave the tomb this prominent place. He certainly was not writing about the carved rock tomb "in passing", as you put it. He testified to his faith in the risen Messiah in critical times, just after the total destruction of the
                                                  temple and the offer cult. The 'open tomb' is not a minor matter in the
                                                  Gospel.
                                                  I would much appreciate, therefore, your own exegesis of this astounding
                                                  ending of Mark.  I might understand your irony if you were prepared to
                                                  offer a reasonable alternative to a literal EMPTY TOMB interpretation,
                                                  which William L. Craig has offered  in NTS 30.2 and in NTS 34.1.  My
                                                  analysis of the usage of Simon in 1,29 an 3,16 and his consistent use of
                                                  'Peter' thereafter is but one link in the chain. I am suggesting that
                                                  Mark deliberately changed the current nickname Cephas for the Greek
                                                  "Peter", because he wanted to emphasize the antithesis between the 'ex
                                                  petras' in 15,46 and tell it to Peter (toi petroi) in 16,7.


                                                  Karel, I think by now you know my position on this text. I have always been open to your interpretation of this passage as a midrash on Is 22:16, even though the idea at first sight seems only slightly less fantastic than your hypothesis of John the Evangelist as the first defender of the Farrer Hypothesis in 1:43-51. My only further comment has been that it seems much more likely to me that this midrash was performed by Matthew (and pieces of it later picked up by Mark) than the other way round. I have not researched this in depth, but it does not surprise me to note that Matthew's text is in fact closer to Is 22:16 LXX than is Mark's. The Isaian text has EN PETRAi and the aorist form of the verb LATOMEW, in agreement with Matthew and against Mark.

                                                   

                                                  In the famous verse, "on this rock I will build my ecclesia" (Matthew 16,19)
                                                  Matthew, I believe, provided the confirmation for my exegesis of Mark's
                                                  open tomb story.


                                                  No; this provides further confirmation of Matthew's interest in this Isaian text, and therefore of the likelihood that the midrash on the tomb of Jesus, if such there be, is Matthew's and not Mark's work. Mark was very probably as innocent of the reference as have been all other commentators of Matthew down the ages -- till Karel Hanhart in the 20th century.

                                                      Thus far the commentaries have failed to provide any alternative for
                                                  the literal interpretation of the open tomb story. In my approach I have
                                                  met all Craig's arguments one by one favoring a historical discovery of
                                                  an empty tomb, and I offered an alternative for each verse. In it Mark
                                                  was conveying  a message of hope to his adult readers, a message based
                                                  on a midrash on LXX Isa 22,16 (the tomb is a metaphor of the first
                                                  TEMPLE about to be destroyed) and on LXX Gn 28, 2.3 (re. a 'very large
                                                  stone' to be rolled away). Arimethea may demand the "body of Jesus", but
                                                  he received only a corpse (15,45). Mark infers that the living Messiah
                                                  is going before into the Galil of the nations, where the ecclesia will
                                                  be the living 'body of Christ" and Peter its primus inter pares (cf Mt
                                                  16,18).
                                                      Hence my challenge, Leonard, to offer your own interpretation of

                                                  Mark's tomb story, unless you dismiss it as simply an unhistorical myth,
                                                  or take it as a literally a discovery of an empty tomb.  For both are
                                                  quite unsatisfactory, don't you agree?


                                                  I'm not sure why a literal discovery of an empty tomb would be unsatisfactory, and I think it is still possible to assume that the various Evangelists would have introduced an overlay of theological meaning to their telling of this story. I think Mark's own interest in the tomb story can be detected primarily on the basis of the secondary additions he has made to the story beyond what is found in Matt and Lk (such as the amazement on the part of Pilate that Jesus was already dead, and the fact that Joseph "bought" the linen cloth in which to wrap Jesus, etc.). These are not midrashic, but dramatic features.

                                                  Leonard Maluf


                                                • Karel Hanhart
                                                  ... Karel s response: No, I don t know your position on this text . I challenged you to offer an exegesis of Mark s open tomb story or of Matthew s open tomb
                                                  Message 24 of 28 , Oct 6, 2002
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Maluflen@... wrote:

                                                    > In a message dated 10/5/2002 5:48:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
                                                    > K.Hanhart@... writes:
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >> In 1,29 - an arresting construction - we read " he entered the
                                                    >> house of
                                                    >> SIMON and Andrew, with James and John". Why does Mark use "Simon"
                                                    >> here and not "Peter". I believe Mark was the first one who
                                                    >> consistently
                                                    >> translated Simon's nickname Cephas as 'Petros' from the list of 12
                                                    >> on (3,16), because in his open tomb story he wanted to contrast the
                                                    >> "monument" carved from the Rock (Gr petra) with "tell it to Peter"
                                                    >> (Gr petros). Paul has always "Cephas", except Gal 2,8ff,
                                                    >
                                                    > Leonard:
                                                    >
                                                    >> I understand; for you most Synoptic data seem ultimately related to
                                                    >> that carved rock tomb, which Mark alludes to, only seemingly in
                                                    >> passing, in chapter 13.
                                                    >
                                                    > Karel:
                                                    >
                                                    >> Whence the dismissive terms in which you represent my approach to
                                                    >> the
                                                    >> resurrection story in 15,46)?
                                                    >
                                                    >> It is Mark, not me, who gave the tomb this prominent place. He
                                                    >> certainly was not writing about the carved rock tomb "in passing",
                                                    >> as you put it. He testified to his faith in the risen Messiah in
                                                    >> critical times, just after the total destruction of the temple and
                                                    >> the offer cult. The 'open tomb' is not a minor matter in the
                                                    >> Gospel.
                                                    >> I would much appreciate, therefore, your own exegesis of this
                                                    >> astounding
                                                    >> ending of Mark. I might understand your irony if you were prepared
                                                    >> to
                                                    >> offer a reasonable alternative to a literal EMPTY TOMB
                                                    >> interpretation,
                                                    >> which William L. Craig has offered in NTS 30.2 and in NTS 34.1. My
                                                    >>
                                                    >> analysis of the usage of Simon in 1,29 an 3,16 and his consistent
                                                    >> use of
                                                    >> 'Peter' thereafter is but one link in the chain. I am suggesting
                                                    >> that
                                                    >> Mark deliberately changed the current nickname Cephas for the Greek
                                                    >> "Peter", because he wanted to emphasize the antithesis between the
                                                    >> 'ex
                                                    >> petras' in 15,46 and tell it to Peter (toi petroi) in 16,7.
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > Karel, I think by now you know my position on this text. I have always
                                                    > been open to your interpretation of this passage as a midrash on Is
                                                    > 22:16, even though the idea at first sight seems only slightly less
                                                    > fantastic than your hypothesis of John the Evangelist as the first
                                                    > defender of the Farrer Hypothesis in 1:43-51.

                                                    Karel's response:

                                                    No, I don't know your "position on this text". I challenged you to offer
                                                    an exegesis of Mark's open tomb story or of Matthew's open tomb story
                                                    for that matter.
                                                    Thus far, I gather you have fairly and persistently defended the
                                                    Griesbach alternative to Markan
                                                    priority. And I disagreed.

                                                    Karel wrote also:

                                                    >> In the famous verse, "on this rock I will build my ecclesia"
                                                    >> (Matthew 16,19)
                                                    >> Matthew, I believe, provided the confirmation for my exegesis of
                                                    >> Mark's
                                                    >> open tomb story.
                                                    >

                                                    Leonard wrote:
                                                    . Mark was very probably as innocent of the reference as have been all
                                                    other commentators of Matthew down the ages -- till Karel Hanhart in the
                                                    20th century.

                                                    <snip>

                                                    Karel:
                                                    Again I ask you whence this dismissive irony? I am quite aware of the
                                                    novelty of my proposals.
                                                    The reason for a lifelong research was simply that I didn't find
                                                    Bultmann's approach
                                                    (- the tomb story is a first century myth - ) a satisfactory one. I am
                                                    not alone in that.
                                                    But rejecting Bultmann is not enough. Thus an attempt to unravel Mark's
                                                    ending,
                                                    now read in a first century Judean context is of necessity also a novel
                                                    enterprise just
                                                    as much as Bultmann's solution was.

                                                    Leonard:

                                                    > I'm not sure why a literal discovery of an empty tomb would be
                                                    > unsatisfactory

                                                    Karel :
                                                    Here you give me an inkling of what your exegesis might look like.
                                                    Of course, believing Mark wanted his readers to know that on
                                                    Sunday morning the women found Jesus' grave to be empty, is a
                                                    legitimate position, held by generations before us. I don't wish
                                                    to ridicule that position. Many wonderful persons have believed
                                                    this; others still believe it. I am simply reporting that a different
                                                    interpretation of Mark's faith and hope is more acceptable
                                                    in a historical and literary sense.

                                                    cordially,

                                                    Karel


                                                    Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                                    List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                                  • Maluflen@aol.com
                                                    In a message dated 10/6/02 7:47:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time, K.Hanhart@net.HCC.nl writes: Karel s response:
                                                    Message 25 of 28 , Oct 6, 2002
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      In a message dated 10/6/02 7:47:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
                                                      K.Hanhart@... writes:


                                                      Karel's response:

                                                      << No, I don't know your "position on this text". I challenged you to offer
                                                      an exegesis of Mark's open tomb story or of Matthew's open tomb story
                                                      for that matter.>>

                                                      I don't think it is necessary for me to give a full exegesis of these texts
                                                      in order to make the point that I agree with you that the originator of this
                                                      story (and I would add, as opposed to the one who essentially copied it) may
                                                      well have been engaging in a midrash on Is 22:16. In the general direction of
                                                      your argument, I think you have the advantage over Bultmann here to be sure.
                                                      We disagree on the identity of the originator of the story, but I don't have
                                                      the impression that you have ever seriously entertained, even for the sake of
                                                      argument, the possibility that this was Matthew rather than Mark. I gave you
                                                      some evidence in support of this view, to which you chose not to respond
                                                      (Matthew's text is actually closer to Is 22:16 LXX than is Mark's). I have
                                                      invited you in the past (but this is all I can do) to do something really far
                                                      out, namely, to let go of the Markan hypothesis just long enough to see what
                                                      would happen on the hypothesis that Matthew rather than Mark was the scribe
                                                      who initiated this midrash. I realize that Peter is not mentioned in
                                                      Matthew's resurrection account, and so part of your argument with reference
                                                      to the text of Mark would not work with Matthew. But would it be possible,
                                                      e.g., to make an even more effective and direct connection between the burial
                                                      text and Matt 16:13-20 -- which, after all, is also based in part on the same
                                                      Isaian text? The Markan reference to Peter in 16:7 could then be recognized
                                                      for what I think it actually is, namely, a typical Markan expansion, based on
                                                      Pauline tradition (1 Cor 15:5), but without any particular significance
                                                      attaching to Mark's use of 'Peter' instead of 'Kephas'. How, by the way, do
                                                      you expain the absence of a reference to Peter in the parallel passages of
                                                      Matthew and Luke?

                                                      Leonard Maluf



                                                      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                                      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                                    • Karel Hanhart
                                                      ... Karel: Leonard, You evidently haven t read my book - it is 600 pp ! -, in which among other themes I treat the four open tomb stories we have. In it I ve
                                                      Message 26 of 28 , Oct 11, 2002
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        Maluflen@... wrote:

                                                        > In a message dated 10/6/02 7:47:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
                                                        > K.Hanhart@... writes:
                                                        >
                                                        > Karel's response:
                                                        >
                                                        > << No, I don't know your "position on this text". I challenged you to offer
                                                        > an exegesis of Mark's open tomb story or of Matthew's open tomb story
                                                        > for that matter.>>
                                                        >
                                                        > I don't think it is necessary for me to give a full exegesis of these texts
                                                        > in order to make the point that I agree with you that the originator of this
                                                        > story (and I would add, as opposed to the one who essentially copied it) may
                                                        > well have been engaging in a midrash on Is 22:16. In the general direction of
                                                        > your argument, I think you have the advantage over Bultmann here to be sure.
                                                        > We disagree on the identity of the originator of the story

                                                        Karel:
                                                        Leonard, You evidently haven't read my book - it is 600 pp ! -, in which among
                                                        other themes I treat the four open tomb stories we have. In it I've searched for
                                                        the historical context that triggered the first narrative and to trace through
                                                        an exegesis of all four why the four Gospels vary in detail. In my opinion
                                                        your argument in the previous post is seriously flawed. On the one hand you
                                                        agree that the "originator" of this story may well have been engaging in a
                                                        midrash on Isa 22,16. On the other hand, you wrote "I'm not sure why a literal
                                                        discovery of an empty tomb would be unsatisfactory." Therefore, you
                                                        hypothesize (a) an "originator" writing a midrash on an Isaiah passage
                                                        that deals with the conquest of Jerusalem. Analysis of the Isaiah passage
                                                        led men like Rashi to conclude that the word "tomb" in Isa 22
                                                        is used metaphorically for the temple. This is in contradiction to
                                                        (b) your literal discovery of the empty tomb of Jesus. There is no tertium
                                                        here. The word tomb is used metaphorically or we are indeed
                                                        dealing with Jesus' literal grave.
                                                        I prefer to start with the Gospel text itself in stead of proposing
                                                        an "originator" who hypothetically knew that Jesus' grave was
                                                        found empty. Starting with the texts we have, I noted that in none
                                                        of the Gospels it is suggested that SOME of the miracles should
                                                        be taken in a literal historical sense and OTHERS in a metaphorical
                                                        sense. All miracles happen as a matter of course whether it be the
                                                        silencing of the storm, the multiplication of bread or the contra-natural
                                                        removal of a tombstone. The exegete is thus faced with the alternative:
                                                        the Gospel writers (a) either want their readers to take all of them
                                                        in a literal sense or (b) in a metaphorical sense. For they nowhere
                                                        indicate that certain stories should be read in the (a) category and
                                                        others in the (b).
                                                        Believing a historically empty tomb is a legitimate position,
                                                        held by generations before us. I don't wish to ridicule that position.
                                                        Many wonderful persons have believed this; others still believe it.
                                                        I am simply reporting that a different interpretation of Mark's faith
                                                        and hope is more acceptable in a historical and literary sense.
                                                        Mark and Matthew deliberately quote scripture in order to make
                                                        sure their readers will understand their stories in the light of that
                                                        Scripture. Take the key verse of Jesus' confession before Caiaphas
                                                        which led to his death. The confession "I am" (Mk 14,62; namely,
                                                        the Messiah) must be read according to Mark in the context of the
                                                        divine promise made in the vision of the 'Son of Man' in Da 7
                                                        - 'coming with the clouds of heaven' and of Psalm 110,1 -'sitting
                                                        at the right hand'.
                                                        I take it that we both do not opt for the fundamentalist's position.
                                                        Mark's readers were perfectly aware that Mark wasn't in Caiaphas'
                                                        courtroom noting what Jesus said. He is rather formulating the faith
                                                        of the ecclesia some forty years after Jesus' crucifixion.
                                                        You charge me of not having seriously considered that Matthew wrote
                                                        before Mark. I did so at length. Just briefly. It is true that Matthew's
                                                        citation is slightly closer to LXX Isa 22,16 than Mark's version
                                                        (en petrai contra ek petras) . But Matthew is over all more precise
                                                        in his citing of scripture, than Mark. He simply is correcting Mark here.
                                                        However, as I have shown in my exegesis, the longer text of
                                                        Matthew (27,57-66; 28,1-20) can be interpreted as a reaction by
                                                        Matthew to Mark's story. Moreover, the opponents of Matthew's
                                                        ecclesia (in the synagogue across the street - so to speak - ) also
                                                        reacted to Mark's new post-70 story interpreting the meaning of
                                                        the destruction of the temple in the light of his faith in Jesus'
                                                        resurrection. The process was, I think, that Matthew's community
                                                        received Mark's new post-70 ending of his Gospel and the opponents
                                                        also learned of this "open tomb" story through hearsay.
                                                        Matthew clearly responds in ironic fashion to charges by the opponents
                                                        who mockingly said that the disciples had stolen the body (27,64).
                                                        Moreover, in that same passage Matthew uses the Markan (!)
                                                        unique phrase "after three days" (Mk 8,31;9,31; 10, 34) in stead of
                                                        his own "on the third day" in the parallel predictions, thus showing
                                                        that he knows the Markan passion predictions perfectly well.
                                                        Matthew's emphatic 'opse' = "late", namely, on the sabbath,
                                                        Nisan 16 in 27,1 (so rightly Goulder) can be well explained
                                                        after one has read Mark first. For Mark has the women see
                                                        that the stone has ALREADY been removed early in the morning
                                                        "on the first day of the Feast of Weeks (which is the day of the "first fruits").

                                                        But Matthew has an angel personally remove that stone earlier in time
                                                        at the very moment the Sabbath of Nisan 16 turns into the Sunday
                                                        of Nisan 17, namely, "late on the sabbath" when the stars begin to shine.
                                                        On biblical calendar a new day begins in the evening and not 12.00 pm.
                                                        In Matthew Roman soldiers fall dead while women are merely watching.
                                                        This also reacting in faith to Roman might after 70. Goulder has shown
                                                        that Matthew's embellishment can be explained after he had read Mark's
                                                        version first. In other words the faith in Jesus' resurrection and
                                                        its contradiction in the synagogue was a matter of bitter dispute especially
                                                        after the destruction of the temple. Mark and Matthew (in that order) reflect
                                                        that debate and instruct their readers accordingly..
                                                        It is a fact of present history that in the synagogue the SABBATH is
                                                        revered according to scripture to this very day and in it Nisan 16
                                                        is taken to be the first of the fifty days of Pentecost. In the church,
                                                        however, the faith in the risen Christ slowly developed in the
                                                        substitution of the sabbath for the SUNDAY. This is not yet the case
                                                        in the Gospels. In the Synoptics the open tomb story is timed on
                                                        SUNDAY, Nisan 17, according to Lv 23,15! Thus the sad outcome
                                                        of the Judean-Roman war formed one of the causes why the ways
                                                        of the synagogue and the ecclesia parted.
                                                        I already indicated that one can explain Mt 16,16-18 (NB "my ecclesia"!)
                                                        as the confirmation of Mark's open tomb story, while it has been always
                                                        difficult to explain Mk's version of Peter's confession (8,27-30) in the case
                                                        Mark wrote LATER than Matthew.
                                                        All four Gospel writers struggle with the meaning of the temple's
                                                        destruction heralding the new exile and all try to relate that incisive
                                                        political event to their belief of Jesus as the paschal lamb.
                                                        IMHO Mark is the first author of the open tomb story and he wrote
                                                        it after 70. He accuses a certain Joseph (coming from Rama) of trying
                                                        in vain to bury "the body" of Jesus on the very day the Pharisees
                                                        celebrate the feast of the "first fruits", In the Mishna emphatically
                                                        Nisan 16. Joseph obviously doesn't succeed in this vain attempt
                                                        - Pilate had derisively handed him only a corpse (15,44). But
                                                        on the "first day" of the "first fruits" on the Christian festival
                                                        calendar (cf Lv 23,15), the women heard the message that
                                                        Jesus had already risen and was going ahead of his own
                                                        into the Galil of the nations. For Mark believed with Paul that
                                                        the ecclesia in exile was living BODY of Christ!

                                                        Leonard:

                                                        > I don't have the impression that you have ever seriously entertained, even for
                                                        > the sake of
                                                        > argument, the possibility that this was Matthew rather than Mark. I gave you
                                                        > some evidence in support of this view, to which you chose not to respond
                                                        > (Matthew's text is actually closer to Is 22:16 LXX than is Mark's). I have
                                                        > invited you in the past (but this is all I can do) to do something really far
                                                        > out, namely, to let go of the Markan hypothesis just long enough to see what
                                                        > would happen on the hypothesis that Matthew rather than Mark was the scribe
                                                        > who initiated this midrash.

                                                        Karel:
                                                        As you see, from the above, I did try in my book to follow your "far out" route
                                                        but got nowhere. I am aware that the Griesbach theory is seriously researched
                                                        but following the Matthew - Mark order, the open tomb story makes no sense.

                                                        > Leonard:

                                                        > I realize that Peter is not mentioned in Matthew's resurrection account, and so
                                                        > part of your argument with reference to the text of Mark would not work with
                                                        > Matthew. But would it be possible, e.g., to make an even more effective and
                                                        > direct connection between the burial
                                                        > text and Matt 16:13-20 -- which, after all, is also based in part on the same
                                                        > Isaian text?

                                                        Karel:
                                                        In an earlier post I placed Mark's metaphorical burial/resurrection story next to
                                                        Matthew
                                                        16,16-18 showing that in this important passage Matthew was confirming and
                                                        adopting the meaning of Mark's open tomb story. It is the start of the formation
                                                        of the canon. Later Luke in his Gospel- Acts will try to explain to non-Judeans
                                                        what the haggadic midrashim of Mk and
                                                        Matthew meant. Matthew recognized Mark's story for what it was: a midrash on LXX
                                                        Isa 22, 16; 33,16 and LXX Gn 28, 2.3 (re. a 'very large stone' to be rolled
                                                        away). That is the reason why he also referred to the "key" in Isa 22,22 and
                                                        stated that the (persecuted) ecclesia of
                                                        Simon Peter in Rome held the "keys" to interpret Scripture.
                                                        The time has passed that Jesus' resurrection was automatically but ineptly
                                                        linked to a supposedly counter-natural, magical removal of a stone rolled before
                                                        the "door'
                                                        of Jesus' grave. This conception was the result of a long process of estrangement
                                                        from the Hebrew tradition. The opening of tombs was long recognized as a metaphor
                                                        of divine redemptive action, by the time Mark wrote his post-70 midrash.

                                                        cordially
                                                        Karel


                                                        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                                        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                                                      • Maluflen@aol.com
                                                        In a message dated 10/11/2002 2:30:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ... Karel, you are right that I have not (yet) read your 600 page book on the subject, and I
                                                        Message 27 of 28 , Oct 11, 2002
                                                        • 0 Attachment
                                                          In a message dated 10/11/2002 2:30:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time, K.Hanhart@... writes:


                                                          Leonard,  You evidently haven't read my book - it is 600 pp ! -, in which among
                                                          other themes I treat the four open tomb stories we have. In it I've searched for
                                                          the historical context  that triggered the first narrative and to trace through
                                                          an exegesis of all four why the four Gospels vary in detail. In my opinion
                                                          your argument in the previous post is seriously flawed. On the one hand you
                                                          agree that the "originator"  of this story may well have been engaging in a
                                                          midrash on Isa 22,16. On the other hand, you wrote "I'm not sure why a literal
                                                          discovery of an empty tomb would be unsatisfactory."  Therefore, you
                                                          hypothesize (a) an "originator" writing a midrash on an Isaiah passage
                                                          that deals with the conquest of Jerusalem. Analysis of the Isaiah passage
                                                          led men like Rashi to conclude that the word "tomb" in Isa 22
                                                          is used metaphorically for the temple. This is in contradiction to
                                                          (b) your literal discovery of the empty tomb  of Jesus. There is no tertium
                                                          here. The word tomb is used metaphorically or we are indeed
                                                          dealing with Jesus' literal grave.



                                                          Karel, you are right that I have not (yet) read your 600 page book on the subject, and I thank you for taking the time to give us such a good summary of its contents. By doing so, you have certainly given me the incentive to read the book because your thesis is quite brilliant and interesting. I must say, though, that I still find parts of your argument hard to accept. For example, I am still not sure why your understanding of a midrash here need absolutely exclude the discovery of an empty tomb on Easter morning. Can texts not be multivalent in this way? With both an historical reference, and then an overlay of biblical reflection and midrash? I see your point, but am not fully convinced yet that it requires abandoning any hint of historical remembrance of the woman at the tomb on Easter morning.


                                                              I prefer to start with the Gospel text  itself in stead of proposing
                                                          an "originator" who hypothetically knew that Jesus' grave was
                                                          found empty. Starting with the texts we have, I noted that in none
                                                          of the Gospels it is suggested  that SOME of the miracles should
                                                          be taken in a literal historical sense and OTHERS in a metaphorical
                                                          sense.  All miracles happen as a matter of course whether it be the
                                                          silencing of the storm, the multiplication of bread or the contra-natural
                                                          removal of a tombstone. The exegete is thus faced with the alternative:
                                                          the Gospel writers (a) either want their readers to take all of them
                                                          in a literal sense or (b) in a metaphorical sense. For they nowhere
                                                          indicate that certain stories should be read in the (a) category and
                                                          others in the (b).


                                                          Are you saying then that all the miracles in the Gospel tradition should be understood in a purely metaphorical sense? Again, I suppose I would have to agree with you if I were convinced that your dichotomy between literal vs. metaphorical was valid. I am not yet at that point.

                                                              Believing  a historically empty tomb is a legitimate position,
                                                          held by generations before us. I don't wish to ridicule that position.
                                                          Many wonderful persons have believed this; others still believe it.
                                                          I am simply reporting that a different interpretation of Mark's faith
                                                          and hope is more acceptable in a historical and literary sense.
                                                              Mark and Matthew deliberately quote scripture in order to make
                                                          sure their readers will understand their stories in the light of that
                                                          Scripture.


                                                          My problem with the theory of two trained scribes as Evangelists is that I think it is more likely, a priori, that only one of the two was a trained scribe and that is why the other had to engage in so much copying. Now I don't see sophisticated use of the OT in Mark that does not have a parallel in Matt, and I do see sophisticated scribal use of OT in Matthew where there is no Markan parallel. The strict logical conclusion from this evidence is that Matthew is the scribe.


                                                          Take the key verse of Jesus' confession before Caiaphas
                                                          which led to his death. The confession "I am" (Mk 14,62; namely,
                                                          the Messiah) must be read according to Mark in the context of the
                                                          divine promise made in the vision of the 'Son of Man' in Da 7
                                                          - 'coming with the clouds of heaven' and of Psalm 110,1 -'sitting
                                                          at the right hand'.


                                                          I agree that these two texts are involved here in these parallel texts, but how is Mark's "I am", in particular, based on these two scriptures, which after all are the basis of the Matthean text as well? And if the words "I am" do clearly reflect these texts, why does Matthew change this, in your view?


                                                              I take it that we both do not opt for the fundamentalist's position.
                                                          Mark's readers were perfectly aware that Mark wasn't in Caiaphas'
                                                          courtroom  noting what Jesus said. He is rather formulating the faith
                                                          of the ecclesia some forty years after Jesus' crucifixion.


                                                          In general I would agree with this, but I guess I will have to read your book before I will be convinced that the Gospel texts we have absolutely require the lapse of forty years or so from the time of Jesus' death. I am not convinced of this yet, although I suppose it is possible.

                                                              You charge me of not having seriously considered that Matthew wrote
                                                          before Mark. I did so at length. Just briefly. It is true that Matthew's
                                                          citation is slightly closer to LXX Isa 22,16 than Mark's version
                                                          (en petrai contra ek petras) . But Matthew is over all more precise
                                                          in his citing of scripture, than Mark.
                                                          He simply is correcting Mark here.

                                                              However, as I have shown in my exegesis, the longer text of
                                                          Matthew (27,57-66; 28,1-20) can be interpreted as a reaction by
                                                          Matthew to Mark's story.


                                                          This would be interesting to read. But I suspect you are right in saying that Matthew's text CAN be interpreted as a reaction by Matthew to Mark's story. This is in general the shape of the argument of most Markan priorists. I know you also think that Mark's text CANNOT be derived from Matthew's. This is what is not clear to me yet. The next paragraphs in your post are also interesting, but much of the evidence you see as pointing to Markan priority seems patient of a reverse interpretation as well.

                                                          [...]


                                                          In an earlier post I placed Mark's metaphorical burial/resurrection story next to
                                                          Matthew 16,16-18 showing that in this important passage Matthew was confirming and adopting the meaning of Mark's open tomb story. It is the start of the formation
                                                          of the canon. Later Luke in his Gospel- Acts will try to explain to non-Judeans
                                                          what the haggadic midrashim of Mk and Matthew meant. Matthew recognized Mark's story for what it was: a midrash on LXX Isa 22, 16; 33,16 and LXX Gn 28, 2.3 (re. a 'very large stone' to be rolled away).


                                                          This description of Mark's work sounds so out of character for the author of Mark that I derive out of reading his text. And it is clearly in character for Matthew to be doing this kind of fairly abstruse midrash. He has been doing it from the very beginning of his Gospel. If he used the OT texts so creatively, with such scribal sophistication, in the opening two chapters of his gospel, why would Matthew then suddenly descend to basically copying Mark's scribal work in much of the body of the gospel? This is quite out of character with the way scribes work, I think.


                                                          That is the reason why he also referred to the "key" in Isa 22,22 and stated that the (persecuted) ecclesia of Simon Peter in Rome held the "keys" to interpret Scripture.
                                                              The time has passed that Jesus' resurrection was automatically but ineptly
                                                          linked to a supposedly counter-natural, magical removal  of a stone rolled before
                                                          the "door' of Jesus' grave. This conception was the result of a long process of estrangement from the Hebrew tradition. The opening of tombs was long recognized as a metaphor of divine redemptive action, by the time Mark wrote his post-70 midrash.



                                                          These are pertinent remarks, especially in commenting on Matthew's text. I would understand Mark's Gospel as already belonging to "the long process of estrangement from the Hebrew tradition", and perhaps as one who himself understood the (already traditional, Matthean) tomb story in a literal sense. It is clear to me that you vehemently oppose this position, but you have not yet persuaded me to revise my own historical reconstruction of the genesis and order of the Gospels, which I still think makes better sense of the data as a whole.

                                                          Leonard Maluf
                                                        • Karel Hanhart
                                                          ... Leonard, In christian tradition the concept of Jesus resurrection has nearly always implied the change of a physical body (or corpse) into a spiritual
                                                          Message 28 of 28 , Oct 12, 2002
                                                          • 0 Attachment
                                                            Maluflen@... wrote:

                                                            > In a message dated 10/11/2002 2:30:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
                                                            > K.Hanhart@... writes:
                                                            >
                                                            >
                                                            >
                                                            >> Leonard, You evidently haven't read my book - it is 600 pp ! -, in
                                                            >> which among
                                                            >> other themes I treat the four open tomb stories we have. In it I've
                                                            >> searched for
                                                            >> the historical context that triggered the first narrative and to
                                                            >> trace through
                                                            >> an exegesis of all four why the four Gospels vary in detail. In my
                                                            >> opinion
                                                            >> your argument in the previous post is seriously flawed. On the one
                                                            >> hand you
                                                            >> agree that the "originator" of this story may well have been
                                                            >> engaging in a
                                                            >> midrash on Isa 22,16. On the other hand, you wrote "I'm not sure why
                                                            >> a literal
                                                            >> discovery of an empty tomb would be unsatisfactory." Therefore, you
                                                            >>
                                                            >> hypothesize (a) an "originator" writing a midrash on an Isaiah
                                                            >> passage
                                                            >> that deals with the conquest of Jerusalem. Analysis of the Isaiah
                                                            >> passage
                                                            >> led men like Rashi to conclude that the word "tomb" in Isa 22
                                                            >> is used metaphorically for the temple. This is in contradiction to
                                                            >> (b) your literal discovery of the empty tomb of Jesus. There is no
                                                            >> tertium
                                                            >> here. The word tomb is used metaphorically or we are indeed
                                                            >> dealing with Jesus' literal grave.
                                                            >
                                                            > Karel, you are right that I have not (yet) read your 600 page book on
                                                            > the subject, and I thank you for taking the time to give us such a
                                                            > good summary of its contents. By doing so, you have certainly given me
                                                            > the incentive to read the book because your thesis is quite brilliant
                                                            > and interesting. I must say, though, that I still find parts of your
                                                            > argument hard to accept. For example, I am still not sure why your
                                                            > understanding of a midrash here need absolutely exclude the discovery
                                                            > of an empty tomb on Easter morning. Can texts not be multivalent in
                                                            > this way? With both an historical reference, and then an overlay of
                                                            > biblical reflection and midrash? I see your point, but am not fully
                                                            > convinced yet that it requires abandoning any hint of historical
                                                            > remembrance of the woman at the tomb on Easter morning.
                                                            >

                                                            Leonard,
                                                            In christian tradition the concept of Jesus' resurrection has nearly
                                                            always implied the change of
                                                            a physical body (or corpse) into a spiritual body and thus the ability
                                                            of arising to a new mode of existence. The notion of a 'spiritual body'
                                                            is usually borrowed from 1 Cor 15,44.46. For Paul was contrasting the
                                                            known form of existence and a life far surpassing human understanding (2
                                                            Cor 5.1-10). But Paul only uses the verb to 'be changed' with reference
                                                            to the living, not the dead. "we, the living shall be changed and the
                                                            dead shall be raised incorruptible". He is answering people who cannot
                                                            'imagine' a general resurrection in the end. It is difficult to
                                                            determine in how far Paul was using contemporary rabbinic theology - the
                                                            general resurrection was part of their eschatology - or simply meeting
                                                            a concern of readers and hearers who were used to a Platonic way of
                                                            thinking. But nowhere Paul mentions an empty tomb when testifying to
                                                            Jesus' resurrection. In fact, he simply can describe his own death as
                                                            a 'departure' and 'raising the anchor' (Philp 1,23) and at the same time
                                                            of hoping to attain "the resurrection of the dead" (Phil 3,11). He
                                                            stresses, it seems, the 'wholly other aspect' of the life to come
                                                            without worrying about how that can be. To him it is important to press
                                                            on toward the goal (Philp 3,14).

                                                            >> I prefer to start with the Gospel text itself in stead of
                                                            >> proposing
                                                            >> an "originator" who hypothetically knew that Jesus' grave was
                                                            >> found empty. Starting with the texts we have, I noted that in none
                                                            >> of the Gospels it is suggested that SOME of the miracles should
                                                            >> be taken in a literal historical sense and OTHERS in a metaphorical
                                                            >> sense. All miracles happen as a matter of course whether it be the
                                                            >> silencing of the storm, the multiplication of bread or the
                                                            >> contra-natural
                                                            >> removal of a tombstone. The exegete is thus faced with the
                                                            >> alternative:
                                                            >> the Gospel writers (a) either want their readers to take all of them
                                                            >>
                                                            >> in a literal sense or (b) in a metaphorical sense. For they nowhere
                                                            >> indicate that certain stories should be read in the (a) category and
                                                            >>
                                                            >> others in the (b).
                                                            >
                                                            > Are you saying then that all the miracles in the Gospel tradition
                                                            > should be understood in a purely metaphorical sense?

                                                            yes

                                                            > Again, I suppose I would have to agree with you if I were convinced
                                                            > that your dichotomy between literal vs. metaphorical was valid. I am
                                                            > not yet at that point.
                                                            >
                                                            >> Believing a historically empty tomb is a legitimate position,
                                                            >> held by generations before us. I don't wish to ridicule that
                                                            >> position.
                                                            >> Many wonderful persons have believed this; others still believe it.
                                                            >> I am simply reporting that a different interpretation of Mark's
                                                            >> faith
                                                            >> and hope is more acceptable in a historical and literary sense.
                                                            >> Mark and Matthew deliberately quote scripture in order to make
                                                            >> sure their readers will understand their stories in the light of
                                                            >> that
                                                            >> Scripture.
                                                            >
                                                            > My problem with the theory of two trained scribes as Evangelists is
                                                            > that I think it is more likely, a priori, that only one of the two was
                                                            > a trained scribe and that is why the other had to engage in so much
                                                            > copying. Now I don't see sophisticated use of the OT in Mark that does
                                                            > not have a parallel in Matt, and I do see sophisticated scribal use of
                                                            > OT in Matthew where there is no Markan parallel. The strict logical
                                                            > conclusion from this evidence is that Matthew is the scribe.

                                                            Mark's task, (- the rewriting of a pre-70 document, possibly his own - )
                                                            was quite different from that of Matthew. His special aim was to
                                                            incorporate the awesome turn of events of 70 into the pre-70 passion
                                                            story. He wasn't about to write a complete Gospel, but he wanted a
                                                            passion week in which the destruction of the temple (including the end
                                                            of animal sacrifice), the delay of the parousia and the new exile were
                                                            now included. He related the crucifixion of the messiah and his
                                                            messianic
                                                            woes with the passion of his people. The Romans, wars and rumors of
                                                            wars, Gentile nations and a centurion play a prominent role in his new
                                                            script. The remainder of this second edition of "Urmarkus" had, of
                                                            course, to be brought into line with the message of his new 'passion
                                                            week'
                                                            (11-16,8) as well as his three-fold passion prediction. His redaction
                                                            left various traces in the remaining part. Especially in the first
                                                            chapter (the prologue to his drama) he sketches in brief 2-line
                                                            statements (f.i. re. the role of Baptist) the outlines of what was
                                                            already written with certain specific alterations. The citation of
                                                            Isaiah 40 now is preceded by means of a midrash by Exod 23,20; Mal 3,1
                                                            (!) concerning the precursor and the refiners fire and the purification
                                                            of the Levites. It appears that with these brief sketches he is
                                                            reminding his readers of the pre-70 Gospel they already know and used.
                                                            In Matthew and Luke a fuller account is written,f.i. of the Baptist and
                                                            his disciples (= Q). The latter probably had a much more prominent place
                                                            in this pre-70 Gospel. But the Baptist, personifying the contemporary
                                                            Elijah still recur in canonical Mark throughout, up to 15,36 (!),yet his
                                                            role is less emphasized.

                                                            >> Take the key verse of Jesus' confession before Caiaphas
                                                            >> which led to his death. The confession "I am" (Mk 14,62; namely,
                                                            >> the Messiah) must be read according to Mark in the context of the
                                                            >> divine promise made in the vision of the 'Son of Man' in Da 7
                                                            >> - 'coming with the clouds of heaven' and of Psalm 110,1 -'sitting
                                                            >> at the right hand'.
                                                            >
                                                            > I agree that these two texts are involved here in these parallel
                                                            > texts, but how is Mark's "I am", in particular, based on these two
                                                            > scriptures, which after all are the basis of the Matthean text as
                                                            > well? And if the words "I am" do clearly reflect these texts, why does
                                                            > Matthew change this, in your view?

                                                            There are a number of options. Did Mt want to avoid his readers to think
                                                            Mark was referring to the divine name: I AM? Did he want to stress that
                                                            the Jesus didn't himself say he was the Messiah, because historically he
                                                            hadn't done so? "Historical Jesus" research may one day provide an
                                                            answer/

                                                            >> I take it that we both do not opt for the fundamentalist's
                                                            >> position.
                                                            >> Mark's readers were perfectly aware that Mark wasn't in Caiaphas'
                                                            >> courtroom noting what Jesus said. He is rather formulating the
                                                            >> faith
                                                            >> of the ecclesia some forty years after Jesus' crucifixion.
                                                            >
                                                            > In general I would agree with this, but I guess I will have to read
                                                            > your book before I will be convinced that the Gospel texts we have
                                                            > absolutely require the lapse of forty years or so from the time of
                                                            > Jesus' death. I am not convinced of this yet, although I suppose it is
                                                            > possible.

                                                            I too hesitated for a long time on the date Mark. I always believed Mark
                                                            was the John Mark we know from Scripture. In the end the combination of
                                                            Mark's midrash on Isa 22 and Gen 29 forced me, as it were, to opt for a
                                                            post-70 revision.

                                                            >> However, as I have shown in my exegesis, the longer text of
                                                            >> Matthew (27,57-66; 28,1-20) can be interpreted as a reaction by
                                                            >> Matthew to Mark's story.
                                                            >
                                                            > This would be interesting to read. But I suspect you are right in
                                                            > saying that Matthew's text CAN be interpreted as a reaction by Matthew
                                                            > to Mark's story. This is in general the shape of the argument of most
                                                            > Markan priorists. I know you also think that Mark's text CANNOT be
                                                            > derived from Matthew's. This is what is not clear to me yet. In an
                                                            > earlier post I placed Mark's metaphorical burial/resurrection story
                                                            > next to.

                                                            I wouldn't write 'cannot' in capital letters, myself. Any exegesis of
                                                            Mark is dependent of its presuppositions. That's why research on Mark
                                                            has reached an impasse. We must start with 'probabilities' re. the
                                                            identity of Mark, the place he wrote from and his audience. Nietsche -
                                                            it is told- first adored Wagner, witness his 'birth of a tragedy'. Yet
                                                            in
                                                            later years Nietsche came into his own, and doing so and because of it
                                                            he turned against Wagner. So exegetes of the Gospel usually start
                                                            studying it with great interest, curiosity or even out of love. But in
                                                            the course of the research they investigate a certain aspect of the
                                                            Gospels, - say the date of John, they publish their conclusions (in a
                                                            thesis e.g.), then develop the thesis and end up defending that position
                                                            as long as they can. All of us do this. It is very hard to turn away
                                                            from one's own convictions on which one has spendt so much time and
                                                            effort and openly admit it. Unfortunately, this state of affairs has
                                                            greatly contributed to the impasse.

                                                            >> Matthew 16,16-18 showing that in this important passage Matthew was
                                                            >> confirming and adopting the meaning of Mark's open tomb story. It is
                                                            >> the start of the formation
                                                            >> of the canon. Later Luke in his Gospel- Acts will try to explain to
                                                            >> non-Judeans
                                                            >> what the haggadic midrashim of Mk and Matthew meant. Matthew
                                                            >> recognized Mark's story for what it was: a midrash on LXX Isa 22,
                                                            >> 16; 33,16 and LXX Gn 28, 2.3 (re. a 'very large stone' to be rolled
                                                            >> away).
                                                            >
                                                            > This description of Mark's work sounds so out of character for the
                                                            > author of Mark that I derive out of reading his text.

                                                            > Mark was very careful in constructing his midrashim, f.i. his opening
                                                            > midrash, the transfiguration scene and the final midrash. But other
                                                            > aspects of his Gospel leaves much to be desired, for instance, the order
                                                            and quality of his writing. His Greek is what I sometimes call
                                                            immigrant Greek (the Aramaisms shine through), he retained from the
                                                            pre-70 Gospel the entire story of
                                                            > the death of the Baptist but abbreviated other stories by means of short
                                                            > summaries etc. This fits the idea of his re-editing this pre-70 Gospel, somewhat in haste (- the long sought Q? - Urmarkus? -) for a purpose. It is a short first
                                                            > reaction to 70 aimed for the annual reading and baptism ceremony of
                                                            > new members during Passover/Shabuot. It was a first attempt and as
                                                            > such it baffles modern readers while his own readers were perfectly
                                                            > aware of what he was trying to do. Matthew and Luke developed his
                                                            > story in a much more coherent fashion, but they accepted the main line
                                                            > of his testimony.
                                                            >
                                                            >> That is the reason why he also referred to the "key" in Isa 22,22
                                                            >> and stated that the (persecuted) ecclesia of Simon Peter in Rome
                                                            >> held the "keys" to interpret Scripture.

                                                            >> The time has passed that Jesus' resurrection was automatically
                                                            >> but ineptly
                                                            >> linked to a supposedly counter-natural, magical removal of a stone
                                                            >> rolled before
                                                            >> the "door' of Jesus' grave. This conception was the result of a long
                                                            >> process of estrangement from the Hebrew tradition. The opening of
                                                            >> tombs was long recognized as a metaphor of divine redemptive action,
                                                            >> by the time Mark wrote his post-70 midrash.
                                                            >

                                                            Thanks for your thoughtful comments.

                                                            cordially,
                                                            Karl

                                                            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.