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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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.