Robert said
No, you’re missing the point entirely. There’s no reason to assume that Mark saw things the same way as Matthew so looking to Matthew, who later changed Mark’s ending significantly, is not a guide. Look to Mark to interpret Mark.
There is reason to assume it – he shares so much else in common with Matthew/Luke. If we know absolutely nothing about what Mark thought of the resurrection (other than he thought it happened), the assumption should be he thought of it in the same way as Matthew/Luke. However we can go further than that because the language he uses is far more suggestive of a bodily resurrection. Mark’s Jesus rises out of dead, his body no longer in the tomb and goes ahead of the disciples into Galilee where they will see him.
Mark does not have an esoteric understanding of every word he uses, so while its always best to use Mark to interpret Mark, it is still legitimate to use other greek writers for the meaning of his words. Especially if those other writers are fellow christians , writing about the same event using almost the exact same words.
It merely means that they will see him in Galilee;
It means he will be in Galilee before them
To create an artificial ending that is tied to back to the beginning. The readers of the Iliad know that Achilles died soon after but it is not recounted because it is not part of Homer’s well constructed plot from the beginning. It is the anger of Achilles that ends, and thus ends the story of Achilles’ anger. Read the beginning of the Illiad and this is clear, especially in the Greek. The plot starts with Achilles anger, it is moved forward with the anger of Achilles, and it ends when Achilles relinquishes his anger and restores the body of Hector back to King Priam, thus allowing it to be buried. Homer does not recount the foreshadowed death of Achilles that occurs soon after this. He does not recount the end of the Trojan war, doesn’t even mention the Trojan horse here. He has one unified idea that starts the story, moves it forward to its completion and this story is over when that idea is complete. Even though many other things happened afterwards.
Ok, but Homer’s story is about the anger of Achilles and when that ends the story ends.
Mark’s story is not about a Jesus that no one understands. It’s about Jesus coming to die for the sins of the world, and how his hand picked disciples will be apostles for his gospel which will be spread to all nations before the coming of the end-times.
How does a group of women running from the empty tomb too afraid to tell anyone end that story?
jakejones said
“Because like Luke and John, Mark doesn’t want the evidence for the empty tomb to rest solely on a group of women.”
so why didnt he say “except peter” ?
Because he was about to and because he is not a particularly good writer
In Mark 8:14-16
“The disciples had forgotten to bring bread, except for one loaf they had with them in the boat … they discussed this with one another and said, “It is because we have no bread.”
Mark can speak of having not having bread even though they do have bread, just as he can speak of saying nothing to no-one even though they eventually tell Peter.
“Presumably because Mark is constructing a narrative where Peter will also visit the tomb”
where is your evidence? According to mark, peter is not a risk taker and put his life on the line.
The evidence is the awkward and weird line “go tell his disciples and Peter” coupled with the fact that two other christian writers of the time add Peter as a witness to the empty tomb.
Mark’s Peter is just as much a non-risk taker as Luke’s and John’s so we can’t conclude he wouldn’t have him visit the tomb.
14:72 is interesting. You would expect peter remember the prophecy about going to galilee , but instead peter remembers how jesus prophesied peters failure.
Because none of the disciples realize what being the messiah really entails until after the resurrection. They don’t believe he will rise again and visit Galilee. They need to be told after the resurrection.
“Mark can speak of having not having bread even though they do have bread, just as he can speak of saying nothing to no-one even though they eventually tell Peter.”
huh? mark tells you they have bread, mark does not tell you that peter got the message delivered to him.
Your “even though they eventually tell” is your assumption with no evidence.
you are changing the text. Thats blasphemy.
“Mark’s Peter is just as much a non-risk taker as Luke’s and John’s so we can’t conclude he wouldn’t have him visit the tomb.” mark tells you in writing that peter apostacises when he is in danger and then when safe he recognises that he isnt a risk taker. “We will all die with you,” said peter.
“Because none of the disciples realize what being the messiah really entails until after the resurrection. They don’t believe he will rise again and visit Galilee”
‘Until after the ressurection” but mark is writing 40 years after the so called ressurection. why have peter remember his failures but not the “good news” ?
Robert said
You’re arguing against a position that you still do not understand. Try reading my posts again to see if your reading comprehension improves. Nowhere have I argued that Mark (or Paul) did not believe in a bodily resurrection
Post 3 “There’s no indication that Mark thought of a bodily resurrection with Jesus walking around, eating with his disciples, teaching them for forty days before ascending into heaven. The resurrection was his ascent (somewhat akin to Enoch or Elijah*) and he is returning soon.”
You understand Mark’s resurrection as a bodily assumption into heaven? Is that right?
How can you understand προαγει υμας εις την γαλιλαιαν being compatible with that? What do you think Mark is saying there?
jakejones said
“Mark can speak of having not having bread even though they do have bread, just as he can speak of saying nothing to no-one even though they eventually tell Peter.”huh? mark tells you they have bread, mark does not tell you that peter got the message delivered to him.
Your “even though they eventually tell” is your assumption with no evidence.
Mark is comfortable making the statements “they did not have bread” along with “they had one loaf”. So we are safe to assume he’d be comfortable making the statement “they told no one” along with the statement “they told Peter”.
It’s not without evidence. He changes Matthew in a way which follows the same pattern of Luke and John’s changes.
mark tells you in writing that peter apostacises when he is in danger and then when safe he recognises that he isnt a risk taker.
The same thing happens in Luke and John but Peter still goes to the tomb in their gospels. So we can’t conclude that Mark wouldn’t have Peter visit the tomb.
‘Until after the ressurection” but mark is writing 40 years after the so called ressurection. why have peter remember his failures but not the “good news” ?
He’s writing thirty years after the resurrection. The disciples aren’t supposed to be perfect, they become strong in the faith only after the resurrection.
Robert said
That’s exactly right. There’s no indication in Mark’s text that he thought of a bodily resurrection with Jesus walking around, eating with his disciples, teaching them for forty days before ascending into heaven. We don’t know what Mark thought; we only know what is in his text.
Do you mean no evidence for any of those or for all of those?
There’s no evidence that Mark thought the risen Jesus was walking around? When he says Jesus was going ahead of them into Galilee? That’s not an indication that Mark mean physically going ahead? If we’re only allowed to use Mark to interpret Mark then every other occasion Mark uses that word its used in the physical sense. Eg Mark 10:32 “They were on the road, going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking ahead of them“.
Directly into heaven? Maybe. That’s certainly an interesting thought. But maybe not. Mark doesn’t say anything about this. Deal with it.
Deal with what? I don’t think Mark though he went directly to heaven. I think Mark thought he went into Galilee after the resurrection. Mark certainly thought he eventually went into heaven, otherwise he couldn’t return on the clouds of heaven.
He may be saying that Jesus is leading them into Galilee, perhaps spiritually. Or maybe he will merely appear to them in Galilee in some kind of vision or even a bodily manifestation of some kind. Maybe he’s already ascended into heaven and he can appear wherever and whenever he likes, as he did to Paul. He doesn’t say. I kind of doubt that he thinks Jesus is actually physically running ahead of his disciples who had a two-day head start so that he could catch up to them, pass them by, and miraculously win a foot race back to Galilee. Is that what you think?
προάγει can’t be understood in the sense of “leading spiritually” if the disciples think he’s dead. Someone has to tell them he’s resurrected. “Guiding spiritually” maybe but not “leading” in the sense of προάγει
Mark 14:27 tells us “the sheep will be scattered”. Someone needs to tell them he’s resurrected so they’ll all go to the place he told them (as per Matthew).
While they’re scattered the risen Jesus goes ahead of them to Galilee. They don’t have a two day head start.
Robert said
But maybe you’re forgetting what is different about Mark’s ending. In Mt 28,8, Luke 24,9-11.22-23, and John but 20,2 the women report back to the disciples about the empty tomb. But in Mark they don’t say anything to anybody. See the difference?
Yes but I’m claiming that the gospel writer who began his gospel with “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God” didn’t intend to end it with “they said nothing to no one, they were afraid for … “
And that this gospel writer shows indications of making the same edits to Matthew’s account as Luke and John would do.
Mark is comfortable making the statements “they did not have bread” along with “they had one loaf”. So we are safe to assume he’d be comfortable making the statement “they told no one” along with the statement “they told Peter”.
It’s not without evidence. He changes Matthew in a way which follows the same pattern of Luke and John’s changes.
but when he make use of “ei me” he tells his readers “except one loaf”
remember this :
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
mark says explicitly “except one loaf”
marks portrayal of the disciples is even worse here. 1. they have very bad memory, but he has no problem telling his readers that they did bring one loaf.
he never told his readers that peter received the message.
what do you mean mark changes matthew?
in matthews story witnesses are required for everything. for example, matthew requires that women come to the tomb, see the angel fly down, role away the stone, and then get an invitation to come into the tomb, then they go and report to others what they had witnessed.
you have none of this in the gospel of mark. mark has the women come to a tomb where the stone is already rolled away and then the women run away , unlike the woman with the blood problem who was full of faith.
neither john or luke follow this pattern.
The same thing happens in Luke and John but Peter still goes to the tomb in their gospels. So we can’t conclude that Mark wouldn’t have Peter visit the tomb.
how can we use luke and john as evidence for how the authour of mark understands jesus’ immediate followers? luke and john try their best to control damage done and assume peter will be reconciled even before peters failures are coming into actualisation.
He’s writing thirty years after the resurrection. The disciples aren’t supposed to be perfect, they become strong in the faith only after the resurrection.
so you telling me that thirty years after mark was just interested about what a liar and coward peter was? that makes no sense at all. mark explicitly says that when peter is safe and out of danger , he cries. mark has peter remember that he, all words, no action. thats the LAST thing peter remembers in the gospel of mark.
14 Now the disciples[** you do not have permission to see this link **] had forgotten to bring any bread; and they had only one loaf (arton) with them in the boat. 15 16 They said to one another, “It is because we have no bread(artous).”
loaves = artous
loaf = arton
i dont see what you are trying to say. they thought that loaves were required, not a loaf.
i dont see what the problem is
So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid
Apologetic reading:
So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone…EXCEPT peter, for they were afraid
markan style does not accept this blasphemous abuse of the text.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)