godspell said – ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Explain to me how a story that has an angel coming down to roll aside the stone in front of (very improbable) tomb guards, as well as the women, could be the earliest version? All the more since Paul says Jesus appeared to hundreds of different people, and mentions no specifics at all.
You did in fact say that Matthew’s version is the first because it’s the most complete. Wrong. It’s the most complete because it’s Matthew trying to fix the earlier story told by Mark, which I don’t think is the earliest version either.
All the later movies based on the original King Kong are more complete than the original, which never tells us why there’s just one giant gorilla on an island of dinosaurs (is there a Queen Kong?) Later movies (Peter Jackson’s overblown epic in particular) try to explain it, fill in the gaps, but the original just tells a very basic story, doesn’t try to explain anything (and the sequel still doesn’t tell us if there’s a Queen Kong, even though there’s a Kid Kong–maybe he was divinely conceived?) Because the earliest version of a story is almost always shorter, more basic, less inclined to explain, to justify, to answer questions that nobody is going to ask until after you’ve told the story. This is a universal pattern–once people have heard a story, they ask questions, they nitpick, they look for plot holes, and later storytellers tinker with it. Not always successfully.
Matthew is trying to answer all these questions, and fix what he sees as problems in Mark, which is why he can’t possibly be telling the earliest surviving version of the story. The very earliest we don’t have, and probably never will. But Mark’s story must be the earliest we have, because Mark leaves us all these unanswered questions–that Matthew and Luke and possibly John are trying to answer. Or just evade.
(If it were a few centuries from now, and this was a post-apocalyptic film discussion forum, you’d now be telling me that obviously the Peter Jackson film came first, because obviously….)
Where did I say Matthew’s version is first because it’s the most complete? You’re correct that completeness of a story indicates secondary work.
My argument about Mark 16 is that if the story of women finding the empty tomb, and being the source of all later belief in it, is the original story then Mark, like Luke and John and Paul, should be seen as having edited his account of it. Matthew would be the only one with the original in tact which suggests he has the earliest gospel.
Matthew’s version with the earthquake is part of his account of how the terrified centurion came to declare Jesus to be the son of god. Whether this occurs at the crucifixion or resurrection is ambiguous in Matthew but Mark, editing Matthew, clears up the ambiguity by telling us its the centurion (standing right in front of him) at the crucifixion Mark 15:39.
In Matthew its a angel (messenger) who announces the resurrection. In Mark its a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side; Jesus having previously told the Sanhedrin “you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One”. In Mark, not only are the women too afraid to tell anyone, they have failed to recognize the risen Jesus.
So in this tomb–where’s the mighty one? And where’s the Sanhedrin? Oh sorry, am I being over-literal? Guess it’s catching. Mark tends not to make this mistake. That is not Jesus there in the tomb. He’s on the right because he’s standing in for Jesus.
Your argument is that only Matthew has the unaltered version (isn’t that the same thing?) You have no proof of this, and clearly there were earlier stories very different from Matthew’s. It’s what you want to believe, because for you the study of the gospels only has one purpose–to prove Matthew came first. But the harder you try, the more obvious it becomes that isn’t true.
Mark likes ambiguity (and is probably writing for a smaller audience, familiar with the material, who can easily fill in the gaps themselves, just as audiences of Greek Tragedy knew the stories going in, and were just looking for interesting variations).
‘Matthew’ loathes ambiguity. He can’t leave Mark’s story the way it is. He’s got to fix it. It raises too many questions. Questions he will answer, leaving no plotholes, no gaps to fill in. He’s writing the ‘stupid son’ passion story. Because he wants to reach more people than Mark did.
So what Mark left vague and implicit, Matthew makes painfully (almost laughably) explicit. He assumes Mark means they saw an angel. (Would Mark’s Jesus really lie to the women by referring to himself in the third person, and saying he’s no longer there? It’s not enough you call the Apostle Matthew a liar? Jesus was a liar too?)
So he has both the women and two guards see an angel come down from heaven (I imagine many a passion play lowered some terrified thespian on wires from the ‘heavens’) and roll the stone aside. He has Jesus appear to the women along with the angel, just to make damn sure everybody gets it. The story makes little sense the way Matthew tells it–lots of redundancy. But for Matthew, redundancy is preferable to ambiguity.
Matthew’s story is clearly much more embellished (therefore complete) than Mark’s. And you’ve admitted the more complete story comes later.
Game. Set. Match.
Take the last word, and this thread can die on the vine. I’m not making the mistake Robert does, of assuming one can ever persuade a monomaniac. You will keep pushing this crap until your dying day. And Mark will still have written first. Nothing you can do about that.
But just one question, for you and anyone else reading this:
Of all the stories about the tomb, which one comes closest to sounding like something that might really have happened in reality? Which one sounds closest to the original story the actual women might have told, once they’d recovered from the shock of that horrible time in their lives?
You don’t believe an angel came down and rolled the stone aside. You don’t believe Jesus appeared to the women or anyone else. You know Paul must have heard a lot of conflicting stories, and thus sagely refused to commit to any one of them.
You’re trying to force it. And the stone refuses to budge.
“In Mark its a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side; Jesus having previously told the Sanhedrin “you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One”. In Mark, not only are the women too afraid to tell anyone, they have failed to recognize the risen Jesus.”
so the argument is that mark is later because jesus lied to the women and the women run away and saying nothing.
It is more likely mark is original because matthew and the later writers clearly have a need for the women to report, they do not think that the young man in tomb is going to go out and report that he really was unrecognised jesus.
you seem to be reinforcing markan priority
godspell
Completeness of a story generally suggests a secondary writer but not proof of it. The priority of the gospels can’t be determined by a single observation. The pericopes Mark and Matthew have in common are generally more complete or detailed in Mark; ambiguity more common in Matthew.
“Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”
Mark “I am”
Matthew “You have said so”.
Or regarding unwashed hands:
Mark 7:18-19 “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)”
Matthew 15:17 “Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body?”
Who’s the more explicit here? Which writer is making an editorial comment on the others work?
Mark’s Jesus regularly refers to himself in the third person “the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.” Luke’s risen Jesus also refers to himself in the third person “Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?”
But the question is not what is most likely to be historical – Luke removes the Jesus walking on water miracle but he hasn’t written first – the question is what is the original version and which authors show signs of editing it.
If the women being the first to claim an empty tomb, and all subsequent christian belief being based on this, is the original version, the Mark (Short version and long ending) Luke John and Paul show signs of editing it. Matthew would be the only one with the unaltered version.
Iskander Robertson said
“In Mark its a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side; Jesus having previously told the Sanhedrin “you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One”. In Mark, not only are the women too afraid to tell anyone, they have failed to recognize the risen Jesus.”
so the argument is that mark is later because jesus lied to the women and the women run away and saying nothing.
It is more likely mark is original because matthew and the later writers clearly have a need for the women to report, they do not think that the young man in tomb is going to go out and report that he really was unrecognised jesus.
you seem to be reinforcing markan priority
the argument is that people not recognising the risen Jesus is common to the later gospels, Luke and John. As is the disciple’s belief in the empty tomb being based on reports by Peter/John not based on the women.
Mark unlike Matthew shows signs of having these features in his gospel.
There are gospel stories (Luke and John, not Matthew) where the risen Jesus disguises himself, then reveals himself.
But he doesn’t ever claim not to be Jesus. He just withholds his true identity for a short time, then unmasks.
I get Bren’s argument now, but it’s a bad one. He’s saying the story of Jesus concealing his true identity is common to all the gospels but Matthew’s, so Matthew must be first. (You must understand for Bren, there is no point in analyzing the gospels for any purpose other than to prove Matthew came first. Monomania in a nutshell.)
But it’s quite clear from context that Mark was always understood as referring to an angel (who is on the right side because he is to Jesus as Jesus is to God). He makes it quite clear Jesus isn’t there anymore, and there is of course no reason for him to conceal his true self from them.
Matthew, Luke, and John all found Mark’s account too spare, and confusing, so they all found ways to dress it up.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Most of what we learn from the differences in the four gospels has to do with their authors–how each prefers to tell the story, how each takes the available material and does something different with it, each trying to make different points, express different ideas about who Jesus was and what he meant.
Mark does, as Bart has said many times, have a theme of people not understanding Jesus–of failing to realize he is Messiah–but at no time in his gospel do people ever fail to recognize Jesus. And at no time does Jesus ever lie to anyone.
Mark’s account of the resurrection is by far the most basic and unadorned–because it’s the earliest surviving account.
Iskander Robertson said
i still need clarification:matthew:
the angel who comes down and floors the guards is recognised as jesus by the women?
mark:
the man in the tomb is jesus and the women fail to recognise jesus?
The angle in Matthew is not Jesus – this angle rolls the stone away.
Notice Mark, unlike the others, says Jesus the Nazarene as crucified. Jesus the Nazarene is gone and they are looking at Jesus the risen Christ clothed in white and sitting on right side.
Notice also that Luke and John both introduce Peter going to the tomb after the women. We see something very suggestive in Mark that he intended to make this change too.
Where Matthew has “Then go quickly and tell his disciples … ” Mark instead has “But go, tell his disciples and Peter …”.
Why the need to specify Peter, is he not one of the disciples, unless the writer intends to have Peter play a roll in the story here.
So we have three indicators of later additions; the women not being the source of christian belief; disciples not recognising the risen Jesus; Peter visiting the tomb after the women; all of which are suggested in Mark and not Matthew.
godspell said
There are gospel stories (Luke and John, not Matthew) where the risen Jesus disguises himself, then reveals himself.But he doesn’t ever claim not to be Jesus. He just withholds his true identity for a short time, then unmasks.
I get Bren’s argument now, but it’s a bad one. He’s saying the story of Jesus concealing his true identity is common to all the gospels but Matthew’s, so Matthew must be first. (You must understand for Bren, there is no point in analyzing the gospels for any purpose other than to prove Matthew came first. Monomania in a nutshell.)
But it’s quite clear from context that Mark was always understood as referring to an angel (who is on the right side because he is to Jesus as Jesus is to God). He makes it quite clear Jesus isn’t there anymore, and there is of course no reason for him to conceal his true self from them.
Matthew, Luke, and John all found Mark’s account too spare, and confusing, so they all found ways to dress it up.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Most of what we learn from the differences in the four gospels has to do with their authors–how each prefers to tell the story, how each takes the available material and does something different with it, each trying to make different points, express different ideas about who Jesus was and what he meant.
Mark does, as Bart has said many times, have a theme of people not understanding Jesus–of failing to realize he is Messiah–but at no time in his gospel do people ever fail to recognize Jesus. And at no time does Jesus ever lie to anyone.
Mark’s account of the resurrection is by far the most basic and unadorned–because it’s the earliest surviving account.
One can never say Matthew must be first. One can only give observations which suggest Matthew was first.
Mark’s women being too afraid to tell anyone, the man being clothed in white and sitting on the right side, Peter being introduced in Mark’s narrative, are all suggestive of Mark writing after Matthew.
An early gospel will feel the need to convince its readers of the miraculous nature of the empty tomb (an angel rolling away the empty tomb). Later gospels where the audience are already convinced of the resurrection are free to write a more historical account (Mark, Luke and John all have the stone rolled away before the women arrive).
An early gospel will feel the need to convince its readers of the miraculous nature of the empty tomb (an angel rolling away the empty tomb).
the women according to matthew witness the angel rolling away the stone
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
why did mark feel the need to remove the angel doing the miraculous in front of the women ?
** you do not have permission to see this link **
why did mark feel the need to remove the angel doing the miraculous in front of the women ?
Because he thinks its fictional. Mark Luke and John believe in the resurrection but not an angel coming down and removing the stone.
Robert said
If Luke thought Matthew’s angel was fictional, why did he double their number? See Lk 24,23 (αγγελων), which for the rest of us may merely be Luke’s doubling of Mark’s young man dressed in white (16,5), understood as an angel, dressed in dazzling attire (24,4).
They dont have the miraculous physical impact of matthew. The angel physically rolling the stone away and witnesses by the riman guards is gone in the 3 later gospels. In these three they angels/men function as heralds unseen by anyone but the women.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)