Quis 8 is a week from today, and here it is below:
For the Matthew passage below assigned to your party, analyze the passage from a Three Worlds perspective, and answer:
1)Pharisees: ch 21 Temple Tantrum: Why was Jesus angry?
2)Sadducees : What did Jesus mean by Matthew 21: 21-22? Be sure to comment on what he meant by "fig tree" and "this mountain'?
3)Essenes: 24:36-51: Who is "taken" and who is 'left" here? ..(In this Scripture, not comparing with others)?
4)Zealots: 25: 31-46 Who are "my brothers and sisters""?
-
 |
| INCLUSIO: MARK 1:10, MARK 9:7, MARK 15;38 |
We have seen the thematic "with you" inclusio in Matthew. Here's one for Mark. Makes you wonder what we might find in Luke and John.
THE HEAVENLY VEIL TORN: MARK'S COSMIC "INCLUSIO"
by David Ulansey [Originally published in Journal of Biblical Literature 110:1 (Spring 1991) pp. 123-25]:
In the past few years, several different scholars have argued that there was a connection in the mind of the author of the Gospel of Mark between the tearing of the heavens at the baptism of Jesus (Mk 1:10) and the tearing of the temple veilat the death of Jesus (Mk 15:38). [1] The purpose of the present article will be to call attention to a piece of evidence which none of these scholars mentions, but which provides dramatic confirmation of the hypothesis that the tearing of the heavens and the tearing of the temple veil were linked in Mark's imagination. [2]
To begin with, we should note that the two occurrences of the motif of tearing in Mark do not occur at random points in the narrative, but on the contrary are located at two pivotal moments in the story-- moments which, moreover, provide an ideal counterpoint for each other: namely, the precise beginning (the baptism) and theprecise end (the death) of the
earthly career of Jesus. This significant placement of the two instances of the motif of tearing suggests that we are dealing here with a symbolic "inclusio": that is, the narrative device common in biblical texts in which a detail is repeated at the beginning and the end of a narrative unit in order to "bracket off" the unit and give it a sense of closure and structural integrity.
Indeed, in his 1987 article, "The Rending of the Veil: A Markan Pentecost," S. Motyer points out that there is actually a whole cluster of motifs which occur in Mark at both the baptism (1:9-11) and at the death of Jesus (15:36-39). In addition to the fact that at both of these moments something is torn, Motyer notes that: (1) at both moments a voice is heard declaring Jesus to be the Son of God (at the baptism it is the voice of God, while at the death it is the voice of the centurion); (2) at both moments something is said to descend (at the baptism it is the spirit-dove, while at the death it is the tear in the temple veil, which Mark explicitly describes as moving downward), (3) at both moments the figure of Elijah is symbolically present (at the baptism Elijah is present in the form of John the Baptist, while at Jesus' death the onlookers think that Jesus is calling out to Elijah); (4) the spirit (pneuma) which descends on Jesus at his baptism is recalled at his death by Mark's repeated use of the verb ekpneo (expire), a cognate of pneuma. [3]
According to Motyer, the repetition by Mark of this cluster of motifs at both the baptism and the death of Jesus constitutes a symbolic inclusio which brackets the entire gospel, linking together the precise beginning and the precise end of the earthly career of Jesus. Seen in this context, the presence at both moments of the motif of something being torn is unlikely to be coincidental. However, at this point an important question arises: if there was indeed a connection for Mark between the tearing of the heavens and the tearing of the temple veil, which veil was it that he had in mind? For the fact is, of course, that there were two famous veils associated with the Jerusalem temple.
It has been debated for centuries which veil it was that Mark was referring to: was it the outer veil, which hung in front of the doors at the entrance to the temple, or the inner veil which separated the Holy of Holies from the rest of the temple? [4] Many interpreters have assumed that it was the inner veil, and have understood the tearing of the veil to have been Mark's way of symbolizing the idea that the death of Jesus destroyed the barrier which separated God from humanity. Recently, however, favor seems to have shifted to the view that it was the outer veil, the strongest argument for which is that Mark seems to have intended the awestruck response of the centurion to the manner of Jesus' death (Mk 15:39) to have been inspired by his seeing the miraculous event of the tearing of the veil, but he could only have seen this event if it was the outer veil that tore, since the inner veil was hidden from view inside the temple. [5]
In his 1987 article "The Death of Jesus in Mark and the Miracle from the Cross," Howard Jackson argues that the question of which veil it was that Mark was referring to can be easily answered if we acknowledge that there was a link in Mark's imagination between the tearing of the heavens at the baptism of Jesus and the tearing of the temple veil at his death. For, says Jackson, if there was a parallel in Mark's mind between the tearing of the heavens and the tearing of the temple veil, then Mark must also have intended there to be a parallel between Jesus at the baptism and the centurion at the crucifixion: just as Jesus witnessed the tearing of the heavens, so the centurion witnessed the tearing of the temple veil. But, as we have already noted, the centurion could only have witnessed the tearing of the veil if it was the outer veil, since the inner veil was hidden from view. Thus it must have been the outer veil that Mark had in mind. [6]
Jackson's argument is suggestive although certainly not conclusive. However, there exists a piece of evidence which Jackson does not mention in his discussion which, I believe, provides decisive proof that Mark had in mind the outer veil of the temple, and which also provides rather spectacular confirmation of the existence in Mark's imagination of a link between the tearing of the heavens and the tearing of the temple veil.
The evidence to which I refer consists of a passage in Josephus's Jewish War in which he describes the outer veil of the Jerusalem temple as it had appeared since the time of Herod. According to Josephus, this outer veil was a gigantic curtain 80 feet high. It was, he says, a
To begin with, we should note that the two occurrences of the motif of tearing in Mark do not occur at random points in the narrative, but on the contrary are located at two pivotal moments in the story-- moments which, moreover, provide an ideal counterpoint for each other: namely, the precise beginning (the baptism) and theprecise end (the death) of the
earthly career of Jesus. This significant placement of the two instances of the motif of tearing suggests that we are dealing here with a symbolic "inclusio": that is, the narrative device common in biblical texts in which a detail is repeated at the beginning and the end of a narrative unit in order to "bracket off" the unit and give it a sense of closure and structural integrity.Indeed, in his 1987 article, "The Rending of the Veil: A Markan Pentecost," S. Motyer points out that there is actually a whole cluster of motifs which occur in Mark at both the baptism (1:9-11) and at the death of Jesus (15:36-39). In addition to the fact that at both of these moments something is torn, Motyer notes that: (1) at both moments a voice is heard declaring Jesus to be the Son of God (at the baptism it is the voice of God, while at the death it is the voice of the centurion); (2) at both moments something is said to descend (at the baptism it is the spirit-dove, while at the death it is the tear in the temple veil, which Mark explicitly describes as moving downward), (3) at both moments the figure of Elijah is symbolically present (at the baptism Elijah is present in the form of John the Baptist, while at Jesus' death the onlookers think that Jesus is calling out to Elijah); (4) the spirit (pneuma) which descends on Jesus at his baptism is recalled at his death by Mark's repeated use of the verb ekpneo (expire), a cognate of pneuma. [3]
According to Motyer, the repetition by Mark of this cluster of motifs at both the baptism and the death of Jesus constitutes a symbolic inclusio which brackets the entire gospel, linking together the precise beginning and the precise end of the earthly career of Jesus. Seen in this context, the presence at both moments of the motif of something being torn is unlikely to be coincidental. However, at this point an important question arises: if there was indeed a connection for Mark between the tearing of the heavens and the tearing of the temple veil, which veil was it that he had in mind? For the fact is, of course, that there were two famous veils associated with the Jerusalem temple.
It has been debated for centuries which veil it was that Mark was referring to: was it the outer veil, which hung in front of the doors at the entrance to the temple, or the inner veil which separated the Holy of Holies from the rest of the temple? [4] Many interpreters have assumed that it was the inner veil, and have understood the tearing of the veil to have been Mark's way of symbolizing the idea that the death of Jesus destroyed the barrier which separated God from humanity. Recently, however, favor seems to have shifted to the view that it was the outer veil, the strongest argument for which is that Mark seems to have intended the awestruck response of the centurion to the manner of Jesus' death (Mk 15:39) to have been inspired by his seeing the miraculous event of the tearing of the veil, but he could only have seen this event if it was the outer veil that tore, since the inner veil was hidden from view inside the temple. [5]
In his 1987 article "The Death of Jesus in Mark and the Miracle from the Cross," Howard Jackson argues that the question of which veil it was that Mark was referring to can be easily answered if we acknowledge that there was a link in Mark's imagination between the tearing of the heavens at the baptism of Jesus and the tearing of the temple veil at his death. For, says Jackson, if there was a parallel in Mark's mind between the tearing of the heavens and the tearing of the temple veil, then Mark must also have intended there to be a parallel between Jesus at the baptism and the centurion at the crucifixion: just as Jesus witnessed the tearing of the heavens, so the centurion witnessed the tearing of the temple veil. But, as we have already noted, the centurion could only have witnessed the tearing of the veil if it was the outer veil, since the inner veil was hidden from view. Thus it must have been the outer veil that Mark had in mind. [6]
Jackson's argument is suggestive although certainly not conclusive. However, there exists a piece of evidence which Jackson does not mention in his discussion which, I believe, provides decisive proof that Mark had in mind the outer veil of the temple, and which also provides rather spectacular confirmation of the existence in Mark's imagination of a link between the tearing of the heavens and the tearing of the temple veil.
The evidence to which I refer consists of a passage in Josephus's Jewish War in which he describes the outer veil of the Jerusalem temple as it had appeared since the time of Herod. According to Josephus, this outer veil was a gigantic curtain 80 feet high. It was, he says, a
Babylonian tapestry, with embroidery of blue and fine linen, of scarlet also and purple, wrought with marvelous skill.Nor was this mixture of materials without its mystic meaning: it typified the universe....
Then Josephus tells us what was pictured on this curtain:
In other words, the outer veil of the Jerusalem temple was actually one huge image of the starry sky! Thus, upon encountering Mark's statement that "the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom," any of his readers who had ever seen the temple or heard it described would instantly have seen in their mind's eye an image of the heavens being torn, and would immediately have been reminded of Mark's earlier description of the heavens being torn at the baptism. This can hardly be coincidence: the symbolic parallel is so striking that Mark must have consciously intended it.Portrayed on this tapestry was a panorama of the entire heavens.... [7] [emphasis mine]
We may therefore conclude (1) that Mark did indeed have in mind the outer veil, and (2) that Mark did indeed imagine a link between the tearing of the heavens and the tearing of the temple veil-- since we can now see that in fact in both cases the heavens were torn-- and that he intentionally inserted the motif of the "tearing of the heavenly veil" at both the precise beginning and at the precise end of the earthly career of Jesus, in order to create a powerful and intriguing symbolic inclusio.
------------------------------------------------
We have called it "Presence of the Future." What do Hauer and Young call it (page 246, will be on final exam)
------------
Mr, Bill usually says
"\OH NOOOOOO.."
We'll use the phrase:
NOOO
to suggest that no matter what BIBLE BASHERS may say, the gospels
N.O.O.O.=Not Out Of Order
We looked at the four versions of the Temple tantrum. Matt, Mark and Luke place it at the end of Jesus' ministry. John places it at the very end.
We looked at
Matthew's Beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 6)
vs.
Luke's Beatudes and "Becursitudes in the Sermon on the Plain. (Lk 6)
Matthew doesn't seem to include the woes/curses. Or does he? See Matt, 23.
What do you remember from class about how we deal with these differences?
This helps us grasp an intruiguing feature of a gospel (whether Matthew or the others): historical order.
We have made the case that each gospel writer/evangelist had their unique "targeted theological purpose" (TTP ).
And we have noticed that different gospel writers place the same event at different times or places
("historical world"):
- The "temple tantrum": did it happen late in Jesus' ministry (Matt, Mark, Luke, or very early (John)? (NOTE: rermember you have an assignment on the Temple Tantrum die April 8)
- Is it the "Sermon on the Mount" (Matthew) or "The Sermon on the Plain" (Luke)?
One way to get around these differences is to suggest there 
were in fact two different "temple tantrums" or "sermons"..But is that what's up? Does a view of the inspiration and accuracy of Scripture require that?
were in fact two different "temple tantrums" or "sermons"..But is that what's up? Does a view of the inspiration and accuracy of Scripture require that?Then you have word or linguistic "(literary world") differences:
-What did Jesus say at the "temple tantrum" (compare the differences)
-Which "Lord's Prayer" (Matt or Luke)?Did Jesus say "blessed are the poor" (Luke) or ""blessed are the poor in spirit" (Matthew)?
Some people take these as errors, or proof that the Bible is untrustworthy (See
ApparentChronological Contradictions in the Gospels | and Gospel Errors in Timing ) | ||
BUT..I think reading this below from Joel Green ( "How to Read the Gospels and Acts")may help, please read and wrestle with what you read (you'll be asked about this on the final exam). Click each page to magnify, then click again:
What do you think? Does this change or violate your view of Scripture? of accuracy?
---
...and this diagram adapted from Allen Guenther, former teacher at our seminary..it's kind of a dial, suggesting how important following a literal chronolgy was to biblical writers:
Those of us who believe in divine inspiration at heart want to push the "reliability" of the gospel documents over the top..ELEVEN on a scale from one to to ten. But maybe the way we do that it by recognizing the historical/literary world of the day didn't look at biography/chronology the same way, and that is not lying or inaccurate..but just the way God chose the Bible to be inspired. Eleven out of ten on the inspiration level. (: See this classic clip from "Spinal Tap":
--
What else did we learn?
Remember how some "witnesses" remembered a prostitue encounter?
Remember someone who smoked a whole pack of cigarettes?
ETC.
What did we learn about ORAL TRADIITION?
Read Hauer and Young pp, 240-243
One amazing coincidence: On a trip to talk about how gospels are NOOO (Not Out Of Order), we went to a place where there happend to be a sign ("a sign from God?" that said "Out Of Order"
One other thing from field trip: those who were there on the trip can only try to explain it fully to those who weren't. The basic ideas may come across, but in the end:
"Well, you really had to be there." Those who were literally there now have to do the best they can to explain and interpret.........kind of like writers of the Bible.
What is the real difference between those who experineced the trip and those who just heard about it?
The main difference was that I used lots of WORDS on the trip, I just told stories....but I also used backdrops, images, parables, WORD-PICTURES....words become flesh..... That combination as larger than the sum of the parts, and embeds the experience in your memory. Which is why when I ask on the final exam (as I will), "Talk about anything you remember from the class field trip," no one has a problem answering that question.
No comments:
Post a Comment