Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

gmark - Re: gmark digest: February 23, 2001

gmark AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Kata Markon

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Karel Hanhart <K.Hanhart AT net.HCC.nl>
  • To: Kata Markon <gmark AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: gmark digest: February 23, 2001
  • Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 21:56:09 +0100


With regard to the messages below, I would like to respond as follows:
1. When discussing the kiss of Iscariot one enters upon ground 'where angels
fear to
tread'. For as we all know the church throughout the ages has used the
treacherous kiss of
Judas as characterstic of the Jewish people. The passage thus contributed to
an anti-judaic
vein in the body of the church's tradition with terrible consequences.
As I stated on 2/22/01 Judas is "a fictional creation" (so also Kilmon). But
I disagree
with Jack when he has Mark himself "represent anti-Jewish sentiment to
appease Roman
sensibilities". Mark's ire is turned toward the high priests (plural), with
those who
supported them in their rejection and persecution of Jesus and later of the
early
Messianic community in Jerusalem (e.g. Acts12,1 when Matthias was high
priest). Iscariot
represents the men who oppose God in the Psalms: lying men of men of deceit -
they also
play a role in Qumran with reference to the priesthood..
Identifying high priests, elders and scribes in general to be Jesus'
opponents is a
rather sweeping statement. But some historic facts must have been at the root
of this
accusation. My research led me to the conclusion that high priests from the
leading 'house
of Annas', especially Caiaphas and Matthias, were the guilty ones,
responsibole for the
death of Jesus and wanting to make a bloody end to the Messianic movement.
Judas
incorporates their deeds. As "one of the twelve" he carries out their plot
against Jesus.
He is a fictive character in the drama of the "delivery of the Human One
into the hands of
the Gentiles" (10,33f), as he was appointed to do (3,19). His kiss
summarizes what these
"men of the lie" had concocted in their arrogant assumption that as high
priests they were
serving JHWH.
Seen in this light, Mark's protest can hardly be called anti-judaic.
Many of his
compatriots may well have had similar feelings. It was a intra-mural
conflict. We are here
only at the beginning of a process when the synagogue under Pharisaic
leadership and the
ecclesia under apostolic leadership began to go their own separate ways.
In Mark we are still dealing with a first reaction to the destruction of
the Temple by
the Romans which left a deep trauma in the soul of all Judeans.
In my view, before interpreting the kiss of Iscariot, one must answer the
question of
the genre of Mark. Is it a biography of a theios aner? Or is it a Passover
Haggadah, read
in the congregation during the Pesach and the Feast of Weeks along side the
traditional
passages from the Torah and the prophets. To me it represents the
contemporary application
of the the Passover experience the early christians had: the
death/exasltation of Messiah
Jesus and the second Exile that had just begun.
Mark is weaving both the historic crucifixion and Fall of Jerusalem in his
Haggadah. And
the 'kiss' of Iscariot forms the critical turning point between the words and
deeds of an
active Jesus and his silent suffering on behalf of his people.
If indeed we are dealing with an haggadah we should abandon the idea that
in Gethsemane
we are dealing with a biographical description of Jesus'arrest. One should
then trace
Mark's thoughts with the help of midrash. In my response to Alward's specific
question re.
the greeting and the kiss (22 Febr) I proposed LXX 2 Sam 20, 9 (Joab meeting
Amasa with a
kiss, while stabbing him to death). For in midrash one first looks for one or
two words
literally cited from a passage in Tenach - here (a)"ekratesen" and
"kataphilesai" (LXX II
Sam 20.9) and (b) "katephilesen(!)" and "ekratesan" (Mk 14,46). Especially
the emphatic
'kat' in 'katephilesen' provides a strong argument pro. Moreover,
as Alward rightly points out, Ahitofel does not "kiss" and thus does not
provide a direct
parallel. Yet, with Ted Weeden and Alward I believe that the Markan
Gethsemane episode
hould be placed in the wider context of the story of David's final years in
II Sam 15-17
(Jesus Seminar). In fact Mark saw a resemblance with the end of the Samuel
cycle re. David
and the last days of Jesus as the son of David. The parallel with David
ascending the
"Mount of Olives" LXX 2 Sam 15,30 and Jesus' going to the "Mount of Olives"
provides the
right setting of the crisis in Gethsemane.The intrigues around David and
Amasa and Joab (-
is the latter friend or enemy? -) matches the intrigues of the high priests
with Judas, one
of the twelve.
Incidentally, in both cases (David's trials and Jesus' suffering) the
temple looms
large in the background. (cf 2 Sam 15,29 and Jesus' irony in Mk 14,48 "Have
you come out
with swords...as if I were a 'revolutionary - lestes'"? - "Day after day I
was with you in
the 'temple' teaching." It is one of many examples in which Jesus' death is
told against
the backdrop of the temple's destruction, still fresh in the mind of the
readers. It comes
to the fore again in the stories of Judas' suicide. In Mt 27 7.8 the priests
bought the
"potter's field", now called ."the field of blood". And in the version of
Acts 1,18 the

author refers in his midrash to Psalm 69, 25 "may their camp be a desolation"
, a reference
to the desolation of Zion. The "lying enemies" in Ps 69,25 [oyebai sheqer]
remind us of the
epithet of Judas, namely, "iscariot = Gr for Hb iesh and sheqer = man of the
lie".

Karel Hanhart .

Kata Markon digest wrote:

> GMARK Digest for Friday, February 23, 2001.
>
> 1. Re: Judas and Jesus
> 2. Re: Judas and Jesus
> 3. Re: gmark digest: February 22, 2001
> 4. Re: Judas and Jesus
> 5. Re: Jesus and Judas
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: Judas and Jesus
> From: HStaiti AT aol.com
> Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 06:41:35 EST
> X-Message-Number: 1
>
> In a message dated 2/22/01 4:51:41 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> JFAlward AT aol.com
> writes:
>
> > Joe
>
> Joe
> Instead of attempting to place the betrayal in Gethsemane in a historical
> context, and thereby interpret the passage, I suggest a consideration of the
> narrative structure itself as the primary means of interpreting Mark
> 14.43-50.
> i.e., There are three plans at work here
> 1. Judas and the armed crowd have a plan
> 2. The disciples have no plan
> 3. Jesus recognizes God's plan from scripture
>
> Peace to you,
> Harry Staiti
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> www.EvangelAssemblyOfGod.org (NEW DESIGN! Feb 17)
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: Judas and Jesus
> From: "Ted Weeden" <weedent AT atw.earthreach.com>
> Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:47:45 -0600
> X-Message-Number: 2
>
> Joe Alward wrote on Thursday, February 22, 2001 3:48 PM:
> Subject: [gmark] Judas and Jesus
>
> > If anyone knows of a betrayal with a kiss in first century literature that
> a
> > Mark might have had access to, and a reason to use here, that might solve
> our
> > problem.
> >
> > The middle passage below is the one that doesn't seem to belong:
> >
> > Then Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve, went to the chief priests to
> betray
> > Jesus to them. They were delighted to hear this and promised to give him
> > money. So he watched for an opportunity to hand him over. (Mark
> > 14:10-11)..."The hour has come. Look, the Son of Man is betrayed into the
> > hands of sinners. Rise! Let us go! Here comes my betrayer!" Just as he
> was
> > speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, appeared. With him was a crowd armed
> with
> > swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests, the teachers of the law,
> and
> > the elders. (Mark 14:41-43)
> >
> > Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: "The one I kiss is the
> man;
> > arrest him and lead him away under guard." Going at once to Jesus, Judas
> > said, "Rabbi!" and kissed him. (Mark 14:44-45)
>
> My response:
>
> In a post some time ago on Xtalk, I argued that Mark drew upon II Sam. 15-17
> for creating his Gethsamene story. Since then I have been slowly working on
> an essay to show Johannine dependency on Mark for John's passion narrative
> and other Markan texts. In working out this dependency I first draw
> attention in the essay to Mark's dependency on other sources in his passion
> narrative, in particularly II Samuel 15-17 for material and motifs for his
> Gethsamene episode. In response to your question, Joe, I share the
> following snippet from that part of my essay dealing with Mark's creation of
> his Gethsamene story:
>
> I turn now to the striking parallels between the Markan Gethsamene story and
> the story about David in II Sam. 15-17. I do so by calling attention to the
> argument for parallels as presented in a cameo in Robert Funk and the Jesus
> Seminar's _Acts of Jesus_150f. According to the story in II Samuel 15,
> David upon learning of his son Absalom's conspiracy against him (15:1-7,
> 12b-13), flees from Jerusalem (15:14) across the Wadi Kidron (15:23), and
> ascends the Mt.of Olives weeping with his head covered (15:30). Jesus
> takes the same route from Jerusalem following the last supper announcement
> to his disciples of the conspiracy against him (14:17-21), a conspiracy
> which Mark has already alerted his hearers is underway (14:1, 10-11). David
> climbs the heights of the Mt. Olives in what appears to be an attitude of
> prayer. Funk/Jesus Seminar cameo essay describes David's demeanor in this
> way, "As David climbs the Mount of Olives to the place where God is
> worshiped, his head is covered and he is barefoot; he weeps because of the
> tragedy that looms before him (2 Sam 15:30). When Hushai, a loyal friend,
> comes to David, his clothes are torn and he has dirt on his head (2 Sam.
> 15:32). These are signs of prayer and repentance" (see cameo). In similar
> fashion Mark dramatizes Jesus climbing the Mt. of Olives. Apprehensive and
> distraught about the tragedy that certainly faces him, Jesus goes there,
> deeply grieving, "even to death," to offer an anguished and soulful prayer
> for God's intervention (14:33-35). Like David, before him, Jesus is
> presented by Mark as engaging in a soul-searching struggle with respect to
> the will of God. In II Sam. 5:25f., David acknowledges to the Levites,
> Abiathar and Zadok, that he does not know whether or not he will be in God's
> favor with respect to his future in face of the impending battle between his
> forces and the forces of his conspiratorial son.
>
> I find the parallel between Jesus' sole-searching prayer and David's
> anguished resignation to Zadok to be stunning. David says to Zadok: "If I
> find favor in the eyes of the Lord, he will bring me back and let me see
> both it [the ark] and his habitation; but if he says, 'I have no pleasure in
> you,' behold, here I am *let him do to me what seems good to him.*" The part
> of the speech which I have set off by asterisks is so close to Jesus'
> words-albeit set in the first person, singular rather than the third person,
> singular-"not what I will but what thou wilt," that I can hardly see how the
> similarity is accidental. Mark, in my judgment, patterned part of Jesus'
> prayer after David's statement of resignation to the divine will (so also
> the Funk/Jesus Seminar cameo).. .
>
> But Mark has also drawn upon other material to frame both the psychological
> disposition of Jesus and also the content of the prayer. The Markan Jesus'
> psychological state of being distressed and apprehensive in the face of
> personal peril in the garden (14:33) is similar to that often expressed by
> the psalmists in their prayers to God (cf., Pss. 13; 22; 31; 42: 43:2, 5;
> 55:2-6). The similarity is hardly accidental and thus, I posit, that the
> echoes of the psalmists' plaintive
> cries were in Mark's mind when he dramatized Jesus' psychological state as
> Jesus prepared to engage God in his own plaintive prayer. Brown observes
> (_Death of the Messiah_, I:153) with respect to Ps. 55:5-6 (LXX) that
> although the vocabulary is not the same, nevertheless the Markan Jesus'
> situation is analogous to the Psalmist's when he prayed, "My heart was
> disturbed within me; and the horror of death fell upon me; fear and
> trembling came upon me, and terror [LXX: darkness] covered me" (translation:
> Brown's). Brown (I:154) also sees an echo in Mk. 14:34 of Ps. 42:5-6 [LXX:
> 41:6-7], an echo I shall return to in discussing John's incorporation of
> Mk.14:34, 36 in Jn. 12:27-28. [See Brown's suggestion (I:154)that both Mark
> and John drew from II Sam 15. So likewise there was a common tradition
> which used the psalm and each drew from different parts of the tradition.]
>
> To pursue the parallels between the Gethsemane story and the II Samuel story
> of David further, Ahithophel, one of David's counselors, betrays David by
> joining Absalom in a conspiracy against David (II Sam. 15:12, 13). As the
> Funk/Jesus Seminar cameo essay puts it, "Ahithophel was to David as Judas
> was to David' (p. 150). Like Judas with respect to Jesus, Ahithopel
> intends to lead his forces against David at night, "while he is weak and
> discouraged" (17:1f.). Of course Ahithopel's plans to attack David never
> materialize for Absalom, while initially attracted to Ahithopel's plans, in
> the end rejects Ahithopel' counsel and plans (17:4-14). The similarity
> between Judas coming with forces to arrest Jesus at night, when Jesus is
> soulfully distraught, and Ahithopel's plans to mount troops and attack David
> at night, when David is discouraged, cannot be accidental. Mark's mind was
> clearly upon the betrayer of II Sam. 17:1-2 when he scripted his Gethsamene
> story of Judas' betrayal.
>
> It cannot be accidental either that Mark chose a betrayal kiss as the sign
> Judas gave the arresting party to identify Jesus. As the Funk/Jesus Seminar
> notes Absalom, who was the first in this II Samuel saga to betray his father
> David, "launched his revolt by exchanging a kiss with David (2 Sam. 14:33)."
> Moreover, II Sam. 15:5f. states that Absalom, who engineered the conspiracy
> against his father David, "stole the hearts of the men of Israel" from his
> father (15:6), by this cunning practice: "whenever a man came near him to do
> obeisance to him, he would put out his hand, and take hold of him and *kiss
> him.*" (15:5). It is clear to me that Mark's idea to have Jesus betrayed by
> a kiss came from Absalom's betrayal kisses.
>
> There are yet other parallels between II Samuel 15-17 and Mark's Gethsamene
> betrayal story. And I shall return to them shortly....
>
> Ted Weeden
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: gmark digest: February 22, 2001
> From: Karel Hanhart <K.Hanhart AT net.HCC.nl>
> Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:31:07 +0100
> X-Message-Number: 3
>
> >
> >
> > Subject: Judas and Jesus
> > From: JFAlward AT aol.com
> > Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:48:02 EST
> > X-Message-Number: 2
> >
> > Is anyone aware of a plausible solution for the problem of Judas's
> > "signal"
> > to the arresting crowd? The only explanation that makes sense to me is
> > that
> > a later Mark added 44-45 for reasons unknown. Without those verses, the
> > betrayal and arrest passage flows more smoothly and makes complete sense;
> > with it, however, we are unable to understand why the chief priests, who
> > knew
> > Jesus, needed someone to identify him.
> >
> > If anyone knows of a betrayal with a kiss in first century literature
> > that a
> > Mark might have had access to, and a reason to use here, that might solve
> > our
> > problem.
> >
>
> Not in first century literature. But elsewhere (Open Tomb p.449) I proposed
> to
> interpret the incident as a midrash on LXX 2 Sam 20,9, where Joab met Amasa
> with a kiss
> and a greeting, "Is it well with you, my brother? For precisely the next
> verse (v.10)
> is quoted in the account of Judas' suicide in Acts 1,18, " Joab struck him
> [with the
> sword] in the belly so that his entrails poured out on the ground." In
> other words the
> blow with which Judas ( representing the high priest) wanted to kill Jesus,
> turned upon
> himself. With S. Sandmel I believe Judas is fictive. Judas incorporates in
> my view a
> series of highpriests (in Mark always in the plural) and in his person he
> is acting out
> their misdeeds which in turn delivered the death stroke on themselves and
> the temple
> (70 CE)
>
> K. Hanhart.
>
> >
> > The middle passage below is the one that doesn't seem to belong:
> >
> > Then Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve, went to the chief priests to
> > betray
> > Jesus to them. They were delighted to hear this and promised to give him
> > money. So he watched for an opportunity to hand him over. (Mark
> > 14:10-11)..."The hour has come. Look, the Son of Man is betrayed into the
> > hands of sinners. Rise! Let us go! Here comes my betrayer!" Just as he
> > was
> > speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, appeared. With him was a crowd armed
> > with
> > swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests, the teachers of the law,
> > and
> > the elders. (Mark 14:41-43)
> >
> > Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them: "The one I kiss is the
> > man;
> > arrest him and lead him away under guard." Going at once to Jesus, Judas
> > said, "Rabbi!" and kissed him. (Mark 14:44-45)
> >
> > The men seized Jesus and arrested him. Then one of those standing near
> > drew
> > his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.
> > "Am
> > I leading a rebellion," said Jesus, "that you have come out with swords
> > and
> > clubs to capture me? Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple
> > courts, and you did not arrest me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled."
> > Then everyone deserted him and fled. (Mark 14:46-50)
> >
> >
> > Joe Alward
> > http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
> >
> > ---
> >
> > END OF DIGEST
> >
> > ---
> > You are currently subscribed to gmark as: K.Hanhart AT net.HCC.nl
> > To unsubscribe send a blank email to $subst('Email.Unsub')
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: Judas and Jesus
> From: "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon AT historian.net>
> Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:00:59 -0800
> X-Message-Number: 4
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <HStaiti AT aol.com>
> To: "Kata Markon" <gmark AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
> Sent: Friday, February 23, 2001 3:41 AM
> Subject: [gmark] Re: Judas and Jesus
>
> > In a message dated 2/22/01 4:51:41 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> JFAlward AT aol.com
> > writes:
> >
> > > Joe
> >
> > Joe
> > Instead of attempting to place the betrayal in Gethsemane in a historical
> > context, and thereby interpret the passage, I suggest a consideration of
> the
> > narrative structure itself as the primary means of interpreting Mark
> 14.43-50.
> > i.e., There are three plans at work here
> > 1. Judas and the armed crowd have a plan
> > 2. The disciples have no plan
> > 3. Jesus recognizes God's plan from scripture
>
> or...4. Judas is a fictional creation representing early Christian
> anti-Jewish sentiment
> to appease Roman sensibilities.
>
> Jack
> -----
> ______________________________________________
>
> taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon
>
> Jack Kilmon
> North Hollywood, Ca.
> jkilmon AT historian.net
>
> http://www.historian.net
>
> sharing a meal for free.
> http://www.thehungersite.com/
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: Jesus and Judas
> From: JFAlward AT aol.com
> Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 14:16:53 EST
> X-Message-Number: 5
>
> In a message dated 2/23/01 10:36:38 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> Mike_Parsons AT baylor.edu writes:

>
> << Reply to: Re: Walking on Water
> i've been trying to send this reply to kata Markan discussion but it keep
> bouncing back.
> could it be so simple that it is the temple police (or some such guard)
> sent
> by the priests and not the priests themselves who arrest Jesus, and that
> this 'crowd' did not necessarily know Jesus (or couldn't be trusted to pick
> up out of a crowd). Thus, Judas makes the deal with the priests but it is
> carried out by otherwise unidentified persons (one is called a 'servant' of
> the priest). or am i missing something else?
>
> what do you thi >>
> =========
> Yes. I think you're missing the fact that immediately after the high
> priest's servant's ear is cut off we have Jesus apparently addressing the
> high priest. (Mark 14:47) It appears that at least one priest was there
> with his servant just as Jesus was seized, and furthermore it appears that
> that same priest was in the temple courtyard, with Jesus every day while he
> was teaching. (Mark 14:49)
>
> I'll forward your post to Kata Markan; I hope you don't mind.
>
> Regards,
>
> Joe Alward
>
> ---
>
> END OF DIGEST
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to gmark as: K.Hanhart AT net.HCC.nl
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to $subst('Email.Unsub')




  • Re: gmark digest: February 23, 2001, Karel Hanhart, 02/27/2001

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page