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
> 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
> Torah in the first Galilean subsection and the Passover Lamb in the
> 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.
> 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.
> 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@...