Nomad

I am going to give this one more go, and if it gets us no where, then so be it.

Mark 16:5-7
5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.
6 "Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him.
7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, `He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.'"

Let's do this one sentence at a time.

In verse 5 the women are inside the tomb. From our knowledge of ancient tombs in and around Jerusalem, by far the most reasonable assumption is that it is not very large, and that the women could see all of it simply from being inside.

From verse 6 the man tells the women that the man they are looking for, Jesus, is not there, and that they can see for themselves by looking. Again, given that the tomb would have been small, and one room, this is a reasonable expectation. If you and I were in the same room, and I told you that your wife was not there, look for yourself, you would know that she was not there. This is obvious, and my assumption is perfectly reasonable.

In verse 7 the subject of Jesus has not changed, and the young man now tells them that he (Jesus) has gone up to Galilee. The connection of Jesus and body was clearly made in verse 6, and we have NO reason to expect that this has changed.

Now, if you have a rational discussion from someone that shows how we should read these verses and NOT think that Jesus and his missing body are connected in the words of the man at the tomb, please show me where. I have no idea how such an argument can be made (beyond what you have done, which is mere stubborn assertion).

If you will not provide your arguments, then we are done here. If you will offer them, then we can examine them, and see which is more plausible and possible.

Nomad

Papaver

Doesn't the original version of Mark end with verse 6 ?

The long version of Mark does not even exist in our oldest extant (and somewhat complete) codexes, dating from the 4th century (The Roman, Syrian and Alexandrian codexes)

aikido7

As any careful, common-sense reader of the Easter narratives soon finds out, the differing accounts CANNOT be harmonized into any coherence beyond the strange hermenuetics of popular Christian
piety. Based on this fact, the gospel stories about the resurrection and ascension are not historical events but must be seen as religious myths. And I use myth in the sense that anthropologists use the term--"the closest thing humans can come to approaching absolute truth." To me, the resurrection/ascension did not in fact "happen,' but it is nevertheless "true."

And nowhere in the New Testament accounts do we find evidence that Jesus came back to life, that he left the grave after he was crucified--nor that faith IN Jesus is based on an empty tomb. Remember, nearly a half-century would pass before an empty tomb is even mentioned (Mark) and nearly two decades after that time (Luke and Matthew) is there any claim that his followers had seen and touched his risen body. There is no attempt to date the resurrection to Easter, nor any attempt to claim that anyone saw Jesus rise from the dead and leave his grave. In fact, there is no textual evidence to claim that the resurrection took place AT the tomb.

Nomad

Hello Papaver

Nice to meet you, and thank you for your response.

First, I am not certain of the number of scholars who date Mark pre-70 and post-70, so I will try to avoid generalizations on this. A good number of scholars do date it early however, typically 65-70. As for Grant, curiously, after his own arguments, he then settles for the safer dating of post-70AD. I found this to be one of several inconsistencies in his book (although I enjoyed it a lot, and learned a great deal from him as well).

All quite true.

Agreed again.

I agree, but I am sure you know that many do not agree with you here. Many scholars see a lot of tension and contradiction between the Gospels and Paul's epistles.

There is a big problem with this statement. First, it is an obvious fact that Judaism did survived the disasters of 70AD and 135AD, just as it survived the catastrophes of 587BC. Thus, we cannot say that the Hebrew Scriptures became meaningless, even to the Jews, let alone Christians.

But for Christians in particular, they already had left the Temple theology of post exile Judaism, long before 70AD. Paul clealy tells us that Jesus is the new Temple and that it has replaced the one in Jerusalem (see Ephesians 2:21). In fact, he individualizes the Temple as being within each believer (as they are now one with Christ, see 1 Corinthians 3:17; 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16).

On this basis, the existence of the Temple in Jerusalem becomes beside the point for Christians. The Olivet Discourse can then be viewed as merely an affirmation that Temple Judaism will be cast down and destroyed, and the specifics of WHEN this event happens is less important than that it WILL happen. After all, reading Paul, it has already happened with the death and resurrection of Jesus. He even tells us that the present Jerusalem, WITH the Temple still standing, is in slavery, and that the new Jerusalem (that is above) is the one that is free (IOW, the Jerusalem that is Christ).

I agree, but as I have shown above, Paul was telling us the same thing back in the 50's. So placing Mark as post-70 because of his agreement with Paul is merely begging the question. In my view, both men can be saying the same thing at the same moment in history, although Mark probably did write after Paul (c. 60-65AD).

Agreed again, but as early Christians (as reflected in the writings of Paul) believed Jerusalem and the Temple Judaism of the post exile period was now over (and replaced by that of the new temple of Jesus Christ and their own bodies), I see no reason for excluding Mark from this period of time.

On the contrary, the Olivet Discourse makes perfect sense, even before the destruction of the Temple itself takes place. Scholars accept that Isaiah and Jeremiah and Ezekiel could and did predict the destruction of Jerusalem before it actually happened (see Isaiah 2:17-21; 3:1-8, 25-26; 8:6-10; 9:8-12, Jeremiah 6:1-6; 11:11-12, 16:2-4; Ezekiel 7:23-26). This is only a sampling of the prophecies, but as we can see, the belief in final judgement on the city of Jerusalem because of their unbelief is one well known in Jewish history and Scripture. In the view of these prophets the Temple was destroyed because of the rebelliousness of the people of Judah. There is no reason to view the "prophecy" of the destruction of the Temple in the Synoptics any differently. They would have been drawing on a rich heritage from the pre-Exile Prophets.

BTW, I agree that we need not accept that the specific words of the Olivet Discourse MUST come from Jesus Himself. I happen to believe that they do, but even by the mid-50's to 60's the Christians could very well have seen the rumblings of rebellion growing stronger and stronger in Jerusalem. It would not have taken much prescience to know how the Romans would respond to such a rebellion. The history and effectiveness of Roman power would have told them what would happen. If anything, the fact that the predictions exaggerated the extent of the destruction of 70AD speaks against it being written after the fact of that destruction.

In fact, if we examine the actual destruction of Jerusalem as found in Hebrew Scriptures, we have a ready made model for what is described in the Olivet Discourse. Compare, for example, Luke with Jeremiah:

Jeremiah 19:7 "`In this place I will ruin the plans of Judah and Jerusalem. I will make them fall by the sword before their enemies, at the hands of those who seek their lives, and I will give their carcasses as food to the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth.

Jeremiah 50:17 "Israel is a scattered flock that lions have chased away. The first to devour him was the king of Assyria; the last to crush his bones was Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon." (Note, both Assyria and Babylon are Gentile nations, making the destruction of Jerusalem by these nations especially bitter for the Chosen People, the Israelites).

Luke 21:24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

Further models of how Jerusalem would be destroyed are found in the Old Testament:

2 Chronicles 36:19-20a They set fire to God's temple and broke down the wall of Jerusalem; they burned all the palaces and destroyed everything of value there. He carried into exile to Babylon the remnant, who escaped from the sword,

Luke 21:20-24a "When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations.

In fact, it could be argued that the Christians (and possibly the Jews themselves) saw the destruction of Jerusalem as fulfillment of one of God's warnings from the Torah, where the Israelites are told that if they do not obey God's laws:

Deuteronomy 28:49-52 The LORD will bring a nation against you from far away, from the ends of the earth, like an eagle swooping down, a nation whose language you will not understand, a fierce-looking nation without respect for the old or pity for the young. They will devour the young of your livestock and the crops of your land until you are destroyed. They will leave you no grain, new wine or oil, nor any calves of your herds or lambs of your flocks until you are ruined. They will lay siege to all the cities throughout your land until the high fortified walls in which you trust fall down. They will besiege all the cities throughout the land the LORD your God is giving you.

At most, by 66AD when Christians (and Pharisees) finally abandoned the city of Jerusalem to the Zealots, they must have known that the city and the Temple was finally going to be destroyed. For both of these groups, each would have had to explain why this was going to happen, and both would look to the Old Testament to find that reason, and to give it some meaning. As far back as Paul we can see reasons why Christians would think that Jerusalem was doomed: they had rejected Jesus as the Messiah, and thus brought judgement on themselves. Most importantly, Paul is comparing that state of unbelief to what happened at the time of Isaiah and the Prophets.

Romans 10:16-19 But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our message?" Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did: "Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world." Again I ask: Did Israel not understand? First, Moses says, "I will make you envious by those who are not a nation; I will make you angry by a nation that has no understanding."

And Paul continues:

Romans 11:19-23, 28-29 You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable.

Thus the stage is set in the minds of Christians, that God will punish Israel so that they may be brought back to righteousness, grafted onto the tree of life, and saved. And this message is found in Paul's letters as far back as the 50's!

This is why I have rejected the necessity of putting the Olivet Discourse in the post-70AD period. In the mind of Christians, if not of Jesus Himself, the stage was set for Jerusalem's fall, at least by the time of Paul, if not earlier. As with the Hebrew Scriptures, this fall would be because of unbelief, a lack of faith.

Nomad

Nomad

No, it ends at verse 8. Verses 9-20 are commonly accepted as later additions.

Nomad

Vorkosigan

Now, if you have a rational discussion from someone that shows how we should read these verses and NOT think that Jesus and his missing body are connected in the words of the man at the tomb, please show me where. I have no idea how such an argument can be made (beyond what you have done, which is mere stubborn assertion).

If you will not provide your arguments, then we are done here. If you will offer them, then we can examine them, and see which is more plausible and possible.

Nomad

Nomad, I'm not saying that your interpretation is wrong. I'm simply saying that it is one of several. I totally agree with you; Jesus' body is not in the Tomb (I've already said that, so I have no idea why you wasted all that verbiage to tell me). But in Mark, we are not told where it is. Thus, Mark is open to either interpretation, of a spiritual or a physical resurrection. Both Docetic and anti-Docetic interpretations are supported.

Show me a positive statement in Mark that says where Jesus' body is, or that Jesus has been physically raised. There isn't one, or you would have simply quoted it.

I can't help it if you are trapped in your anti-docetic presuppositions, but others did not have them, and found Mark congenial to their purposes.

After you are done explaining this to me, perhaps you can explain the one proper way to interpret the whiteness of the whale in Moby Dick, and the one right way to play the finale of Beethoven's Third, and the one right way to view Brueghal's The Suicide of Saul.

Michael

not a theist

If Mark had meant that Jesus had a spiritual resurrection and not a physical one, and that his body had been "disintegrated" while his spirit went on to Galilee, how would you have expected him to formulate it in thiat case? Let's assume (for this hypothetical scenario) that he might have thought the final disposition of the body to have been unimportant (other than the fact that it was gone) and the relevant issue to be the spritual resurrection of Jesus.
What I'm looking for is just a brief way in which he might have expressed himself which would have been different from the way in which he in fact did express himself. We can then have a rival hypothesis in the form of "If Mark wished to only say that Jesus' sprit had gone on to Galilee, he would have said something like '_____________'."

[ October 06, 2001: Message edited by: not a theist ]

Vorkosigan

The problem is that we don't know what Mark meant. We only know what he wrote. You can't read back into Mark the anti-Docetic assumptions of the last couple of thousand years of Church doctrine.

Your question cuts both ways. If he had meant that Jesus had a physical resurrection, why didn't he give us a positive statement like Luke and Matthew? If he meant it was only spiritual, why didn't he say so? But he doesn't positively state where Jesus' body is, so we can't say either.

If you were a gnostic or a Docetist and your slant on Mark was something out of the Acts of John, where Jesus appears as a human, but is not actually one, how would you interpret the ending of Mark? Obviously, you would conclude that Jesus is appearing in Galilee in spirit; indeed, Jesus has a spirit from the beginning. The "correct" answer for Mark depends not on what Mark says (or doesn't say) but on what presuppositions you bring to the table. In Nomad's case, he is committed to defending Church doctrine and dismissing all other Christian intepretations as nonsense. In my case, I can see where several interpretations might be possible.

NotaTheist, your idea that the bodily resurrection is the "default" position reflects the inertia of 2,000 of anti-docetic Church propaganda. The default position is the words of the text, which contain no outright dismissal of the Docetist position, and no positive statement of where Jesus' body is.

I'm not saying either interpretation is right or wrong -- that is a theological question akin to asking which hand Frodo held it with when he peed. I'm simply saying that Mark leaves it open to the imagination of the reader. Who knows? Perhaps Mark did that deliberately. Perhaps he got tired of writing. Perhaps he thought he was being clear. I don't see how we can ever know, though.

Michael

Photocrat

Why would anyone assume it magically dissappeared? I don't see any grounds in the text for adding that? Even Thomas has "and in flesh He appeared to them" in it & it's thought to have gone under Gnostic redaction...

Vorkosigan

Why would anyone assume anything about a miracle? Is there some rule that says Resurrections must be physical? Do you know of any rules for miracles? If you can't tell me positively where Jesus' body is -- and there is no positive statement -- then you're not in a position to refute a spiritual resurrection in Mark.

Michael