danceswithwombats said
Any thoughts on the significance of the witness to the resurrection in gMark? – the young man in dazzling white?A “son of man” (angel)? A transfiguration of the elusive follower in gethsemane? -(who ended up naked as if a reversal of Adam)?
************
Why would the author expect the apocalypse to happen in Gallillee? – a remnant of Judas the Gallilean being the historical kernel for the plot?
The youth in the tomb has no angelic qualities assigned to him in Mark that I recall. I believe those are qualities assigned to him by readers who conflate the tomb narratives in the several gospels. So, for example, I don’t think Mark’s text refers to a “dazzling” white robe but simply a white one.
Marvin Meyer saw in the tomb youth part of a subplot in a longer version of Mark than survives in the canon. That subplot involved the rich individual in Mark 10 whom Jesus loves but who won’t give up his wealth to follow him, the youth in Secret Mark that Jesus raises from the dead, the youth in Mark 14 who runs away naked from Jesus’ arrest, and the youth in the tomb in Mark 16.
If one accepts that John 21 is a modified version of Mark’s missing ending, that subplot would also likely have included the Beloved Disciple’s appearance in it when some version of it rested in Mark. (Meyer does not argue for that.)
But I’m sure this is all a bridge too far for most folks.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Notice here the mockery of the deciples by having a “duh look” on their faces not knowing that someone with faith has special powers to drain power from christ?
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Notice how woman with power of faith does not run away but comes forward?
Robert said
CEJ said
danceswithwombats said
Any thoughts on the significance of the witness to the resurrection in gMark? – the young man in dazzling white?
A “son of man” (angel)? A transfiguration of the elusive follower in gethsemane? -(who ended up naked as if a reversal of Adam)?
The youth in the tomb has no angelic qualities assigned to him in Mark that I recall. I believe those are qualities assigned to him by readers who conflate the tomb narratives in the several gospels. So, for example, I don’t think Mark’s text refers to a “dazzling” white robe but simply a white one. …
I think the clothed young man who abandons even his linen covering and runs away naked is symbolic of all of the disciples who at this point abandon Jesus and flee at his arrest, as has been just prophesied by Jesus. Mark may have intended a contrast between this symbolic figure and the clothed young man at the tomb, who announces the reunion of the disciples with Jesus, as also prophesied at the same time by Jesus. Notice how the prophesied desertion and reunion are tightly woven together in Mk 14,27-28:
14,26 When they had sung the hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives. 27 And Jesus said to them, “You will all become deserters; for it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered,’ 28 but after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee.” 29 Peter said to him, “Even though all become deserters, I will not.” 30 Jesus said to him, “Truly I tell you, this day, this very night, before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.” 31 But he said vehemently, “Even though I must die with you, I will not deny you.” And all of them said the same. …
49 … But let the scriptures be fulfilled.” 50 All of them deserted him and fled. 51 A certain young man (νεανίσκος) was following him, wearing nothing but a linen cloth (περιβεβλημένος σινδόνα). They caught hold of him, 52 but he left the linen cloth and ran off naked. …
16,5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man, dressed in a white robe (νεανίσκον … περιβεβλημένον στολὴν λευκήν) … 6 “he has been raised … 7 go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you.”
Thanks, Robert. But he need not be symbolic of only one thing.
In his story, if one ties him to the youth in Mark 16, one may see the symbolism of baptism, too. In antiquity, I’m told, dressing scantily then disrobing for a Christian baptism and redressing in a robe afterword apparently was common.
One oddity here, though, if one tries to tie the appearances of these individuals together, is that the rich individual in Mark 10 is not identified as a young man (νεανίσκος) but merely as someone. Yet, for some unknown reason, Matthew’s author does ID him as young in ch. 19.
Did Matthew’s author know something we don’t? Or was he merely making a logical leap?
Also something of interest is that the youth in Mk. 14 seems to be the only one other than Jesus that the authorities try to nab. But John 12:9-11 tells us the authorities also wanted Lazarus because he was evidence of Jesus’ most astounding miracle. And that takes us to Secret Mark’s young man, who seems to be a proto-Lazarus of sorts and, if linked to the youth in Mk. 14, explains the authorities’ interest in him there*. That suggests there is some sort of shared tradition going on.
Odd that, eh?
* I believe Miles Fowler’s “Identification of the Bethany Youth” first alerted me to that.
Robert said
Evan, do you think that the same person who supposedly added these apocalyptic interpolations to an originally non-apocalyptic proto-gospel was also the same person who removed the original ending of the proto-gospel and added it to John’s gospel?
Do you also think the gospel of John (minus Chapter 21) was written prior to your proto-gospel of Mark? Or merely prior to our current apocalyptic gospel of Mark?
And how do you square this early non-apocalyptic form of Christianity apparent from two non-apocalyptic proto-gospels with the earlier apocalyptic writings of Paul?
Robert,
No, the insertion of the apocalyptic material into Mark and the truncation of its ending appear to be separate editing events at different times motivated by quite different concerns. There is no reason to assume they were done by the same editor.
Re the “gospel of John…” I think we do ourselves a disservice by imagining the Gospel of John was an integrated composition by a “fourth evangelist” or “final redactor.” It is more accurate to view John as consisting of an original primitive document that was extensively annotated, expanded, and corrected over a period of 50 years or more by at least several redactors. It clearly never went through a final edit for coherence by anyone who had editorial control of the final product. This “composition in stages” over time, and the lack of coherent editing, is why we have two completely different portraits of Jesus in John — the calm, serene man from heaven, and the aggressive, confrontational self-promoter. And it is the latter Jesus that is in the primitive layer of the text.
There is a common assumption that ch. 21 must have been the final addition to an otherwise complete John 1-20. I think this is false. The material in ch 21 is quite primitive compared to the advanced visions in, say, the prologue or chs 14-17, which seem to be added much later. So I think ch. 21 was added to a primitive edition of John early in its evolution. It seems most likely that the truncation of Mark at 16:8 and the addition of ch. 21 to a primitive edition of John were associated literary events. There is an aggressive hostility between Mark and the narrative portions of John that becomes quite apparent once the basic storyline in John 21 is appended to Mark 16:8. The transfer of the ending effectively masks this hostility, so I suspect this may have been the motive for the transfer.
Probably enough unconventional comment for one post!
Robert said
…. Since Matthew deletes Mark’s story about the young man who flees naked, he obviously is not trying to connect these two characters.
That’s a non-answer answer, Robert.
The question is not whether Matthew’s author wanted to tie these individuals together but why did he identify the rich person in Mk. 10 as young when Mark’s author, so far as we know, did not.
Matthew’s treatment of this character may argue for us making that connection even if that’s the last thing he wanted his readers to do.
Robert said
The do much worse. While Jesus is proclaiming himself to be the Christ, the Son of the Blessed, who will be seated at the right hand of Power, coming on the clouds of heaven, Peter at that very moment denying that he even knows Jesus. Jesus is being mocked and told to prophesy, while his prophecy of Peter’s denial is being fulfilled at that very moment. The Markan intercalation of these stories illustrates that they are taking place at the same time.
There’s a whole school of interpretation that understands Mark as critical of the first disciples and perhaps the larger Jerusalem churches of Jewish Christianity perhaps in favor of a more Pauline focus. Without making that the crux interpretum of the whole gospel, why are you afraid of the idea that Mark might be critical of the disciples?
I’d make a distinction between showing someone’s human failures and being critical of someone. Any failures on the part of the disciples are intended to heighten the greatest of Jesus.
Their failure to understand his mission is intended to show Jesus really was bringing new ideas from heaven.
Their falling away intended to show an abandoned Jesus who still fulfills his mission to humanity.
But Mark is never critical in the sense of he would, or they should, have done better.
Mark’s entire gospel is focused on Jesus. No one else matters.
You’re assuming the very thing you’re trying to prove. How do you know the young man is not speaking of an expectation of the Parousia in Galilee in the time of Mark’s gospel? Other than merely assuming it?
Because of the language used. Jesus is going ahead of them into Galilee. He will be in Galilee before them.
Not “go to Galilee and wait for the coming of the Lord”.
Paul would never have said, “Jesus went ahead of me into Damascus and there I saw him”
Isn’t that exactly how Luke understood this?
Acts 9 Paul is on the road to damascus, a light from heaven surrounded him and a voice spoke to him. No-one else could see the lord.
Exactly unlike the language in Mark of Jesus going ahead of the disciples into galilee.
Robert said
It’s still my answer, CEJ. Maybe it does not seem like an answer to you because we have different premises. For example, I don’t think Matthew was an independent eye-witness of this event first recounted by Mark. I’m not saying that you necessarily are working from that premise. Why do you think Matthew’s treatment of the rich young man might argue for our connecting him to the young man who flees away naked in Mark’s gospel?
Oh lord. Of course Matthew’s author is not an “eye-witness”. For Christ’s sake, he’s copying from Mark and changing it up when it suits him.
So why does he refer to the rich guy in Mark 10 as a young man when Mark’s author does not?
Robert said
We have, but none of the scholars you’ve mentioned say that the additions found in Secret Mark were part of the original gospel. Just that they were added and later removed.
Nor do they say canonical Mark was the original, eh?
My position is SM precedes canonical Mark and left its fingerprints in canon.
Robert said
CEJ said
Nor do they say canonical Mark was the original, eh?
My position is SM precedes canonical Mark and left its fingerprints in canon.
Those few scholars, no, but I generally do not go in for complicated theories that claim to be able to discern multiple earlier stages of a document in detail. It’s enough for me that it is a fairly obvious addition. Getting back to the topic of this thread, Mk 16,9-20 is also an obvious addition that also left its fingerprints in the canonical version of Mark.
Its not complicated. Secret Mark, according to some of the brightest bulbs out there, is a predecessor to canonical Mark.
See. That was pretty simple, eh?
As to Mk. 16:9-20, I’m not sure that passage left its fingerprints anywhere other than at the end of Mark in modern translations.
Even then it’s a pretty shoddy effort:
Metzger wrote
The vocabulary and style of verses 9-20 are non-Markan [examples omitted]. The connection between ver[se] 8 and verses 9-20 is so awkward that it is difficult to believe that the evangelist [Mark] intended the section to be a continuation of the Gospel. Thus, the subject of ver[se] 8 is the women, whereas Jesus is the presumed subject in ver[se] 9; in ver[se] 9 Mary Magdalene is identified even though she has been mentioned only a few lines before (15.47 and 16.1); the other women of verses 1-8 are now forgotten; the use [and the position of certain Greek words] are appropriate at the beginning of a comprehensive narrative, but they are ill-suited in a continuation of verses 1-8. In short, all these features indicate that the section was added by someone who knew a form of Mark that ended abruptly with verse 8 and who wished to supply a more appropriate conclusion. In view of the inconcinnities between verses 1-8 and 9-20, it is … likely that the section was excerpted from another document, dating perhaps from the first half of the second century.— A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Hendrickson Publishers, Incorporated, 2005), p. 104-5.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)