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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 28 , Sep 17, 2002
      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 2 of 28 , Sep 17, 2002
        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 3 of 28 , Sep 17, 2002
          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 4 of 28 , Sep 18, 2002
            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 5 of 28 , Sep 30, 2002
              "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 6 of 28 , Oct 5, 2002
                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 7 of 28 , Oct 5, 2002
                  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 8 of 28 , Oct 6, 2002
                    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 9 of 28 , Oct 6, 2002
                      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 10 of 28 , Oct 11, 2002
                        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 11 of 28 , Oct 11, 2002
                          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 12 of 28 , Oct 12, 2002
                            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.