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

Fw: [Synoptic-L] A Gentile feeding in Matt?

Expand Messages
  • Karel Hanhart
    Again with apologies: My speller suggested - in place of the name Van Iersel - to write Van Israel . It was an unfortunate error which I corrected in
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 2, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Again with apologies: My speller suggested - in place of the name 'Van
      Iersel' - to write 'Van Israel'. It was an unfortunate error which I
      corrected in the present version of my contribution. KH

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Karel Hanhart" <k.hanhart@...>
      To: <Maluflen@...>; "Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson@...>;
      Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 11:31 PM
      Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] A Gentile feeding in Matt?

      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: <Maluflen@...>
      > To: <scarlson@...>; <Synoptic-L@...>
      > Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 10:46 PM
      > Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] A Gentile feeding in Matt?
      > > In a message dated 2/27/2004 2:24:12 AM Eastern Standard Time,
      > scarlson@... writes:
      > >
      > > << If you're correct that Matthew's second feeding story is
      > > not intending Gentile recipients, then why is it in there at all?>>
      > From Maluflen's response
      > .... This response to your question may not be the only one, or even the
      > best, but it is at least concordant, I think, with the interpretation of
      > double feeding given by Jesus in the Gospel of Matt itself, in 16:9-10:
      > disciples are rebuked for not "getting" the pattern of Jesus' behavior,
      > for therefore doubting that he could provide them with food on the boat,
      > anywhere else, for that matter.
      > Karel wrote to continue the discussion:
      > In Mark 8, 21, Jesus appears to be exasperated, when asking: "do you still
      > not understand?" This abrupt and, if taken literally, unreasonable rebuke
      > "don't you get it at all?' undoubtedly belongs to the so-called passages
      > the Messianic secret. The late prof Bas van Iersel of the Catholic
      > University of Nijmegen, brings this home in his excellent synchronical
      > :"Reading Mark" (Liturgical Press, Collegeville, 1988, a true guide to
      > complexities of Mark!).
      > Van Iersel writes concerning this 'unreasonable' rebuke:
      > " (After the feeding of the 5000) one would expect greater signs to cause
      > greater understanding ..., but this is definitely not so. On the contrary.
      > Already, in the first story, Jesus is asking how it is possible that they
      > still have no faith (4:40). It is, moreover, extremely ironical that the
      > disciples, having already witnessed one miraculous feeding, should ask on
      > similar occasion where one can get bread for so many people (8:4!) Nor is
      > this quite all. The fact that they get in the boat again after the second
      > feeding without taking bread with them, sustains that irony, as does their
      > misinterpreting Jesus' remark about the leaven of the Pharisees and of
      > (8:15-17)." Van Iersel rightly emphasizes that Mark in 8, 17-18 clearly
      > refers to the musterion of Mark 4,10.11.
      > [In brackets: Regarding the Galilea subdivision
      (seed-bread-harvest-success) and
      > the Judea subdivision division of Mark's Gospel (Pesach -
      crucifixion -Passover Lamb),
      > van Iersel emphasizes the implications of Bread and Wine as focused in the
      > while I prefer a broader interpretation and apply the "bread" to the
      teaching of
      > Torah in the first Galilean subsection and the Passover Lamb in the
      second Judean
      > subsection of Mark].

      > This "unreasonable" rebuke, - clearly not an authentic saying, but part of
      > Mark's compositional style -. reflects the "secret"or "musterion" in
      > Mark's composition with a twofold emphasis: (a) Paul's pre-70 notion of
      > musterion in Rm 11,25, a Pauline application of the riddlesome prophecy of
      > Isaiah 6,9f and (b). Mark's post 70 radicalization of Rom 11,25. God was
      > able to turn even the tragedy of 70 to good: the hardness of heart of a
      > of Israel served the "incoming of the Gentiles" and the salvation of
      > Israel. Mark wants to convince his readers that the Gentiles were in
      > principle included in Jesus' mission from the start, although in pre-70
      > this was a bone of contention among Christian Judeans, as the letter to
      > Galatians. demonstrates.
      > Post-70 Matthew adopted Mark's dual feeding as well as the mission to the
      > nations, - cf. the great commission in Mt 28- but he also retained the
      > saying of Mt 10,6 cf. 15,24.
      > Addendum:
      > Elsewhere I published in Dutch in "De Waagschaal" a proposal that the
      > original version of the Apostle's Creed was a "booklist" of books
      > and read" in the worship service of the ecclesia. In the original Greek
      > version of that list various terms of the Apostle's Creed were in Greek
      > literally keywords by which a particular Gospel or Epistle could be
      > recognized. In the christological section of the Creed the order: John -
      > Luke - Matthew and Mark can be identified. The closer one comes to the
      > of the confession the older the Gospel. So (1) "only begotten son" -
      > 'monogenes' - John; (2) conceived by the Holy Spirit - sullempsei - pneuma
      > hagion - Luke; (3) "born of the virgin" - 'parthenos en gastri' - Matthew;
      > (4) 'suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried' -
      > passion story. 'On the third day...'would refer to the creed in 1
      > Corinthians 15 etc.
      > Might this be an external piece of evidence to Farrer's thesis concerning
      > the order of the gospels?
      > Now a keyword in the Creed should be subject to at least three conditions
      > reflect a canonical book or epistle: (a) there must be a literal agreement
      > of a keyword(s) in the manner in which keywords of Scripture are cited in
      > midrash (b) the words must be typical of the Gospel or Epistle in question
      > (c) the words should not occur in another book of the canon.
      > Unfortunately, we only have the Latin version of the Creed, while the
      > original booklist must have been written in Greek
      > The Greek version of b. Marcellus of Ancyra dates from 340 CE. So one
      > be sure.
      > Interestingly, the first article: 'God, the Father, almighty, maker of
      > heaven and earth' appears to reflect Didache 10,3. I found that the words
      > 'Almighty', 'Father' and 'Creator' do not appear together in the canon (
      > f.i. Revel 21,2), but they do in the particular passage of the Didache.
      > cordially
      > Karel Hanhart
      > Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      > List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

      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.