db 149: our passage here is quite close in form to



A
TYPE OF
TANNAITIC MIDRASH IN
WHICH A VERSE IS CITED,
AND THE FIRST
COMMENT
IS EITHER
REVISED OR
REJECTED.

TRUTH
BE TOLD,
IN TANNAITIC LITERATURE
MUCH MORE OFTEN THE FIRST,
BUT THERE ARE EXAMPLES OF THE LATTER PATTERN AS WELL
IN WHICH THE SUGGESTED
INTERPRETATION
IS REJECTED!

TO MY MIND,
SAYING "as it has been written" OF THE SON OF MAN THAT HE WILL SUFFER
IS AN ENTIRELY PLAUSIBLE SCRIPTURAL INFERENCE. MARCUS (JOEL, in Way of the Lord) IS STILL A BIT MIS-
LED BY HIS CONFUSION OF TWO
SEPARATE MIDRASHIC
FORMS:

1)
two verses that contradict each other & must be reconciled, and

2)
a verse that contra-
dicts the implication of an interpretive move that then can be refuted
(as in the passages from the Mekhilta that JM correctly cites). It is only owing to this conflation
that JM can claim that "a hermeneutical rule for the treatment of a biblical text is here applied to a Christian midrash."
It is, moreover, the midrash of the scribes
that is refuted here by Jesus.

It is a virtue of JM's reading, as amended here,
that it obviates the need
to ascribe ineptitude
to Mark.

The point
nonetheless stands
that Mark's text is a
LECTIO DIFICILIOR
here!

Wat
Mor dus
vooral intrigeert is
hoe je al die verschillende teksten (via/via)
van verschillende oorsprong, tijden & plaatsen tòch (ondanks alles)
min of meer in overeenstemming zou kunnen brengen met 'onze eigen tijd van hier & nu': duizenden jaren historie,
honderden plaatsen & al die ontelbare mensen die iets ervaren,
bespreken, opschrijven, vertalen & 'behandelen' -
hoe leg je daar
onderling verband
tussen
...?
03 mrt 2013 - bewerkt op 04 mrt 2013 - meld ongepast verhaal
Weet je zeker dat je dit verhaal wilt rapporteren? Ja | Nee
Profielfoto van Asih
Asih, man, 80 jaar
   
Log in om een reactie te plaatsen.   vorige volgende