Stephen said
Paul’s thinking is thoroughly apocalyptic and he never waivered in his expectation of an imminent parousia. See 1 Corinthians 7:29 and Romans 13:11-12 for examples. Paul’s letters are occasional. The possibility that deceased believers had missed the resurrection was the issue at hand in his letter to the Thessalonians. But Paul’s apocalypticism manifested itself in more just an expectation of an imminent parousia. His thinking about “sin” in Romans is apocalyptic and makes no sense outside that context. One compelling reason to doubt the authenticity of the letters to the Ephesians and Colossians is that the authors support the very “realized eschatology” that Paul himself attacks in his letters to the Corinthians. In fact you could make a good case that the Pauline forgeries were produced at least in part to address the problem of the delay in the parousia. You wouldn’t have to explain why the parousia was delayed unless your audience had the idea that it was imminent.
There are indeed a few occasional references that suggest Paul’s expectation of an imminent end. The puzzle is that, if this was a central expectation in Paul’s mind, why does it not manifest itself more prominently in his writings? One can read chapter upon chapter in Paul’s epistles and detect no preoccupation or concern, or even awareness, of an imminent apocalypse. Why is that? In my view, the impression that Paul is “thoroughly apocalyptic” does not match the evidence.
Robert said
Bren, you still seem to be assuming that this language must be seen as necessarily pedestrian, but that is not necessarily the case. Yes, προάγω can simply mean to go ahead of, but it often has the sense of to take charge and to lead others. Matthew even uses it of the heavenly star that leads the magi to the infant Jesus.
Yes but “προάγω you into galilee” means going before you into galilee.
He will be in galilee before them.
The Magi followed the star. It was moving and they went after it. Jesus was going from the place of resurrection into galilee. Where the disciples would see him. Its the same words Matthew uses. A rational needs to be given to think Mark meant it in a different sense to Matthew.
The word used for Peter and the disciples ‘seeing’ Jesus in Galilee is used in a future form that is only found three times in Mark (13,26 14,62 16,7):
I came to my interpretation of 14,62 by first associating it with 13,26. What did Jesus mean when he alluded to Daniel in speaking about his coming as the enthroned Son of Man with the clouds of heaven? It likely had the same meaning as the in 13,26 when speaking of the Parousia also alluding to the language of Daniel. The only other use of this verb in this future form may also have this same sense of seeing the heavenly Son of Man. Do you see?*
Yes he probably means “see” in the same sense as 13:26 and 14:62.
But its the same word Matthew uses, and the question is does Mark “see” the resurrection in a different sense to Matthew/Luke. You can’t make a case that Mark sees the resurrection differently to Matthew if he’s using the same words as him.
Robert said
For the overwhelming majority of exegetes who’ve tested the data for over a hundred years and established an incredibly strong consensus, we do not need to look to Matthew to understand Mark’s use of his language. I ask you not to distract this thread with your arguments for the rejected Griesbach hypothesis. Stick to discussing Mark’s ending.
It has nothing to do with Griesbach – the original question was whether Mark sees the resurrection in a different way to Matthew/Luke. One more similar to Paul.
If he’s using almost the exact same words as Matthew it becomes very difficult to demonstrate that.
Mark’s use of “see” in no way negates a bodily resurrection, just as Matthew’s doesn’t.
His use of “προάγω you int Galilee” is inconsistent with the accounts of Paul’s visions in his letters and acts.
Everything points to Mark seeing the resurrection in exactly the same way as Matthew.
Robert said
Who’s to say that Mark is speaking of the resurrection as Matthew, Luke or John would do so later? Do you only think this is necessarily the case because you believe that Mark was creating an abbreviated version of the gospels of Matthew and Luke? But let’s suppose that If Mark is perhaps thinking of Jesus appearing to Peter and the disciples in Galilee. His clever ending nonetheless places the reader in the shoes of the disciples. While the disciples would be seeing the resurrected Jesus soon, the reader is nonetheless expecting the heavenly Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven.
Mark could achieve this “clever” ending by having the man simply tell the women that Jesus will be appearing to the diciples in Galilee. Without any request for the women to tell the disciples this.
I think this topic deserves its own thread. If you and Stephen like, I can move your posts relating to Paul’s apocalypticism to a new thread and we can discuss it there.
Robert, a nice idea but as Evan has said Paul is not his main focus and my viewpoint is pretty standard textbook stuff so I’m not sure it would be very fruitful. Frankly at times I get bored with Paul but I never get bored with Mark!
I want to hear more about John 21.
Evan are you saying that the chapter 21 we have now was the actual “lost” ending of Mark or has it been worked over by the hypothetical (perhaps imaginary) Johannine redactor? As it stands it seems much more Johannine in style than Markan.
What do you think of recent attempts to detect a knowledge of Mark (and possibly the other synoptics) by John? Couldn’t this explain John 21 as a response to the unusual ending of Mark at 16:8 by the Johannine community or the redactor or whoever?
Both Ehrman and Marcus (and surely others) have pointed out that there are textual reasons to suppose that the copies of Mark that Matthew and Luke had available most likely ended at 16:8. This means that any ending that was lost would have been lost fairly early. Nobody but fundamentalists (as far as I’m aware) thinks that the longer ending to Mark is original. So how did John 21 get from Mark to John? Help me with the chain of transmission here.
My background is literary rather than biblical and I think on literary grounds alone you can make a good case that 16:8 was probably the original ending but I’m always interested in other viewpoints.
kai oudeni ouden eipan
why doubling ? is it for emphasis? “they really didnt tell anyone, i mean anyone”
QUOTE:
2:26 how he entered the house of God, in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but (εἰ μὴ) the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?”
5:37 And he allowed no one to follow him except (εἰ μὴ) Peter and James and John the brother of James.
6:4 And Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor, except (εἰ μὴ) in his hometown and among his relatives and in his own household.
6:5 And he could do no mighty work there, except (εἰ μὴ) that he laid his hands on a few sick people and healed them.
6:8 He charged them to take nothing for their journey except (εἰ μὴ) a staff—no bread, no bag, no money in their belts—
9:8 And suddenly, looking around, they no longer saw anyone with them but (εἰ μὴ) Jesus only.
9:9 And as they were coming down the mountain, he charged them to tell no one what they had seen, until (εἰ μὴ ὅταν) the Son of Man had risen from the dead.
9:29 And he said to them, “This kind cannot be driven out by anything but (εἰ μὴ) prayer.
10:18 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except (εἰ μὴ) God alone.
11:13 And seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see if he could find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but (εἰ μὴ) leaves,
13:32 But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but (εἰ μὴ) only the Father.
If mark wanted to have the message conveyed, wouldn’t he have followed his patern of writing highlighted above?
Robert said
brenmcg said
It has nothing to do with Griesbach – the original question was whether Mark sees the resurrection in a different way to Matthew/Luke. One more similar to Paul.
Nonsense. Maybe that’s the only way for you to formulate the question because you can’t get past your Griesbach obsession. But it’s completely backwards. One hast to come to terms with Mark on the basis of Mark and to some extent Paul, because Paul’s writings are the only earlier evidence we have of what some Christians were thinking.
Was this not the original question? your comment 20 : “You’re assuming that Mark’s view of the resurrection is the same as that of Matthew, Luke, or John. That’s certainly possible, but there’s no indication in Mark’s text that this is so. Who’s to say that Mark’s view was not more akin to that of Paul?“
His use of “προάγω you int Galilee” is inconsistent with the accounts of Paul’s visions in his letters and acts.
It’s only inconsistent with the way you want to read things. Please try to have more of an open-minded approach to discussions here.
How can “going ahead of you into Galilee” be made consistent with Paul’s claims of visions of Jesus from heaven? or with Jesus being seen coming on the clouds of heaven? The words mean he’ll be in Galilee before they arrive there.
Mark could achieve this “clever” ending by having the man simply tell the women that Jesus will be appearing to the diciples in Galilee. Without any request for the women to tell the disciples this.
But he didn’t. Already that should tell you something. The Aristotlelian ending only happens because the women don’t say anything. That’s the ending because in this artistic way of telling the story, nothing more can happen after that. Everything led up to it through prophecy and fulfillment but in this text, this plot, this story as written, that’s the ending. The intelligent reader knows this isn’t all that ever happened in history but must still confront the text as written.
After the women flee from the tomb and tell no one, nothing more can happen? What do mean “nothing more can happen after that”? How is the reader supposed to know if Joseph of Arimathea is not also scheduled to arrive any minute now? Why can’t he meet the man in white as well? A million more things can happen after that.
We know the man in white said Jesus will meet the disciples in Galilee, we know that Jesus will meet the disciples in Galilee, so why bother telling us the women didn’t tell anyone? Who cares if the women didn’t tell anyone if the disciples met Jesus anyway.
I think you need to be a little more open to the possibility that “the women fled from the tomb and said nothing to no one because they were afraid” is not the intended ending of Mark’s gospel. That Mark is not a genius Aristotelian storyteller, with a far too artistically sophisticated ending for Matthew/Luke and all their contemporaries to appreciate.
jakejones said
kai oudeni ouden eipan
If mark wanted to have the message conveyed, wouldn’t he have followed his patern of writing highlighted above?
Because like Luke and John, Mark doesn’t want the evidence for the empty tomb to rest solely on a group of women.
Luke and John add Peter and then the beloved disciple as witnesses to the empty tomb in their narratives.
Mark adds “Peter” to Matthew’s “go tell his disciples”, Mark has “go tell his disciples and Peter”. Presumably because Mark is constructing a narrative where Peter will also visit the tomb. The women tell nothing to no one is presumably the beginning of a narrative where only Peter gets told. ie All the evidence of the empty tomb rests on Peter’s testimony not Mary Magdalene’s, everyone heard from Peter not Mary.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert