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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Fw:healing stories and human rights

Expand Messages
  • Karel Hanhart
    ... feeding of the 4000 had the Gentiles in view. ... of the feeding of the 4000 in Matt, and why. ... My sincere apologies, Leonard. You are quite right.
    Message 1 of 3 , Feb 29, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      > In a message dated 2/27/2004 3:25:58 PM Eastern Standard Time,
      k.hanhart@... writes:
      >
      > << Leonard Maluflen challenged me off-list to explain why I believed the
      feeding of the 4000 had the Gentiles in view.>>

      Leonard:
      > I never did. Rather, on-list, I challenged you to explain what you thought
      of the feeding of the 4000 in Matt, and why.
      >

      My sincere apologies, Leonard. You are quite right. You did not send the
      message off list. It is an awkward error on my part after reading your note
      of Fb 25 at 12,59. I somehow in haste took this direct challenge to be an
      off list
      remark. So I set out to approach in outline the problem why Luke's travel
      account, deviating from the Markan order, begins precisely with Mark's
      feeding of the five thousand, which he already told in Lk 4,16-30 and thus
      why he omitted the story of the feeding of the four thousand altogether.

      I wrote:
      This Lukan effort offers, I believe, a reasonable explanation why he
      deviated from Mark's order, precisely at the point where "Jesus journeying
      inside and outside of Galilee" begins (Mark 6,1 - 9,,50 - W.G.Kuemmel,
      Introduction p. 61).
      My point is that Luke knew quite well that the feeding of the four thousand
      in Mark and in Matthew referred to the mission to the nations of the world.
      Luke omitted this second multiplication story, because he had planned to
      write the Acts of the Apostles, in which he would describe Paul's missionary
      journeys to the Gentiles.

      Let me continue, however, with the question at hand. I began to write:

      In an earlier contribution I had forwarded my reasons based on Hebrew
      numerology, as already put forward by Nineham and van Goudoever and others.
      In biblical numerology the number 4 represents the four points of the
      compass, hence stands for the world ec. etc. The feeding takes place in the
      Decapolis. The number 7 in 7 baskets refers to the seven nations surrounding
      Israel (cf. Deut 7,l; Acts 13,19).

      "Leonard's answer
      > I am aware of all these reasons, and more, usually given in Markan
      commentaries.

      Karel's comment:

      Leonard's answer to Carlson surprised me. For like myself Carlson also
      called attention to Biblical numerology: And in reply Leonard wrote:
      > "This is interesting. I hadn't noticed before how the numbers 12 and 7 are
      emphasized in Mk 8:19-20 in a way that > they are not in the parallel text
      of Matthew...

      Carlson had written:
      Given the numeric details that are emphasized (the first had 12 baskets
      left over, and the second had 7), which are explicitly invoked in Jesus's
      questions to the disciples, I feel that some kind of symbolism is going on,
      and Mark develops that symbolism deftly along the lines of a table
      fellowship that is inclusive of both Jews (12) and Gentiles (7), cf. esp.
      the passage with the Syro-Phoenician woman.

      To summarize: At the first feeding five loaves refer to the five Books of
      Moses and the 12 baskets to the twelve tribes of Israel. I had referred to
      the numerical significance of the numbers 4 (the world) and the 7 baskets
      (the Gentile nations) in Mark 8 par. Consequently, the first feeding had the
      people of Israel in view and the second feeding the nations of the world.
      Luke omitted the latter, because he planned to deal with the mission to the
      nations in his Acts.

      The strength of Leonard's position is, of course, Mt 10,6: But go rather to
      the lost sheep of the house of Israel (cf.15,24). Thus the feedings of the
      4000 could not possible refer to the Gentiles. However, this riddle forms
      one of the reasons that this text IMHO must have been part of the (now
      lost) pre-70 gospel, a gospel that breathed the spirit of 'Maranatha'. Mark
      radically revised it with a post-70 corrected passion story now designed to
      account for the delay of the parousia. Mark had taken the consequence of
      Paul's musterion of Rom 11,25 (cf Mk 4,10-12). The last two passion
      predictions he composed for his new theme to prepare the readers that the
      "handing over" to "the nations" MUST take place (Mk 10,33.34) with the
      negative implication of suffering (cross, temple destruction) and the
      positive fruitfuil aspect of victory for the Son (new exile so that the
      Gospel be preached to all nations).
      In spite of the saying Mt 10,6 (hence part of the pre-70 gospel) Matthew
      accepted the new Markan version with the new theodicy as reflected in the
      post-70 passion story. He also accepted the Markan addition of the feeding
      of the 4000. However, he showed a kind of ambivalence, probably for the sake
      of more conservative readers among his wider audience. Only in the great
      commission, hence as the risen Master, Jesus gives his disciples the
      explicit command to make disciples of all nations (28,19).

      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 2/29/2004 2:23:02 PM Central Standard Time, ... I had a problem with the above, reading it last night, but chalked it up to a tired brain.
      Message 2 of 3 , Mar 1, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 2/29/2004 2:23:02 PM Central Standard Time, k.hanhart@... writes:

        So I set out to approach in outline the problem why Luke's travel
        account, deviating from the Markan order, begins precisely with Mark's
        feeding of the five thousand, which he already told in Lk 4,16-30 and thus
        why he omitted the story of the feeding of the four thousand altogether.


        I had a problem with the above, reading it last night, but chalked it up to a tired brain. But it doesn't make much more sense to me this morning. Could you explain a bit what you are trying to say here? Thanks!

        Leonard Maluf
        Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
        Weston, MA
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.