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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.