FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-01-2004, 07:30 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: California
Posts: 748
Default Any theories as to who the naked man in Mark is?

Any good theories out there about who that naked young man is in Mark 14:51-52? Is he related to the other young man in a robe in 16:5? Why doesn't Mark call him "an angel" as the others do? What writer would refer to him as a "young man" if he knew he was really an angel?

I've heard the theory that the "man" might well be Mark himself, a means of explaining why he is the first one to tell the story of Jesus of Nazareth (he portrays the women as not telling anyone about Jesus' resurrection).

Is there any plausibility to this theory?
Roland is offline  
Old 09-01-2004, 07:41 PM   #2
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 464
Default

http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/wasjesusgay.html
Intelligitimate is offline  
Old 09-01-2004, 07:52 PM   #3
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland
Any good theories out there about who that naked young man is in Mark 14:51-52?
It's the "fulfillment" of Amos 2:16 (mixed with Mic 2:8).


spin
spin is offline  
Old 09-01-2004, 07:56 PM   #4
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
Default

That was his bosum buddy John whom he later introduced as Mary's son.
Chili is offline  
Old 09-01-2004, 09:07 PM   #5
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
Default

Many. I just got Gundry's commentary from Amazon, I'll let you know later.
Vorkosigan is offline  
Old 09-01-2004, 10:22 PM   #6
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: East U.S.A.
Posts: 883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland
Any good theories out there about who that naked young man is in Mark 14:51-52? Is he related to the other young man in a robe in 16:5? Why doesn't Mark call him "an angel" as the others do? What writer would refer to him as a "young man" if he knew he was really an angel?

I've heard the theory that the "man" might well be Mark himself, a means of explaining why he is the first one to tell the story of Jesus of Nazareth (he portrays the women as not telling anyone about Jesus' resurrection).

Is there any plausibility to this theory?

Verse 50 says "And they all forsook him and fled." Therefore, I don't believe it could have been Mark.

The man you're referring to was not naked at first (he was covered with a linen cloth), but he lost the cloth when he fled (later, after the others had already fled). See Section IX under Mar 14:43-52 on the following page: Blue Letter Bible Mark 14:43 ff
inquisitive01 is offline  
Old 09-02-2004, 05:10 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: California
Posts: 748
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by inquisitive01
Verse 50 says "And they all forsook him and fled." Therefore, I don't believe it could have been Mark.

The man you're referring to was not naked at first (he was covered with a linen cloth), but he lost the cloth when he fled (later, after the others had already fled). See Section IX under Mar 14:43-52 on the following page: http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_d...0920-5427.html
I find it interesting that the first man loses the cloth and that the second man is described as wearing a robe. It just seems to me as if the author is trying to make the reader see a connection between these two enigmatic "young men." The fleeing seems irrevlevant to me, since the "second" young man is clearly "in the know" with Jesus by the time we see him in the tomb.

If "Mark" had indeed created this fiction of Jesus of Nazareth, he needed an explanation as to why HE would know the story but no one else had ever heard of it. This seems to be the perfect solution. He knew all along and told the women to spread the word. They obviously didn't so that now, after all this time, he's relating the tale in his gospel. Thus, he made himself a character in his own story to help explain why it is emerging now and not at the time it happened.

This theory may be wild, but it helps explain a number of troubling aspects of Mark's text (the seemingly incomplete ending, the two mysterious men, the fact that he doesn't call the second man "an angel" etc.).
Roland is offline  
Old 09-02-2004, 05:23 AM   #8
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin
It's the "fulfillment" of Amos 2:16 (mixed with Mic 2:8).
I do wish people would flick through a bible every now and then.

Amos 2:16,
and he that is courageous among the mighty shall flee away naked in that day, says Yahweh

This is just another "fulfilled" prophecy.


spin
spin is offline  
Old 09-02-2004, 05:36 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: California
Posts: 748
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin
I do wish people would flick through a bible every now and then.

Amos 2:16,
and he that is courageous among the mighty shall flee away naked in that day, says Yahweh

This is just another "fulfilled" prophecy.


spin
How is he "courageous" when he's running away? That is one bizarre quote.
Roland is offline  
Old 09-02-2004, 05:55 AM   #10
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland
How is he "courageous" when he's running away? That is one bizarre quote.
Ummm, before this running away he was considered courageous. It's, uh, not too difficult, along the lines of "even the bravest would poo their nappies in that situation".


spin
spin is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:50 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.