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

Expand Messages
• ... 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 1 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!?
http://news.yahoo.com

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
• 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 2 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
• ... 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 3 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
> 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@...
• ... 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 4 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@...
• ... 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 5 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@...
• 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 6 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
• 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 7 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
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'
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.
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
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!?
http://news.yahoo.com

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
• 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 8 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

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
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
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
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@...
• 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 9 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

• 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 10 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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karel Hanhart [mailto:K.Hanhart@...]
> Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2002 11:45 AM
> 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@...
• 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 11 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!?
http://news.yahoo.com

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
• 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 12 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

• 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 13 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!?
http://news.yahoo.com

Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
• ... 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 14 of 28 , Sep 30, 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:
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@...
• ... 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 15 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@...
• 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 16 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 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 17 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@...
• In a message dated 10/6/02 7:47:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time, K.Hanhart@net.HCC.nl writes: Karel s response:
Message 18 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: 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 19 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.
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
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
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@...
• 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 20 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.

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
• ... 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 21 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
'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).

>> 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

>> 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
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.
>