gstafleu

I have often wondered about the resurrection as presented in Mark. In the following, I want to look at the event as presented by Mark, without reading anything else (Paul, the other Gospels) into the story.

The resurrection scene in Mark is sparse, to say the least. Here is the whole thing:

The only evidence we have for the fact that Jesus has risen is the say-so of the man in white. There is another bit of evidence that comes a little earlier, in Mark 14:28, where Jesus says "But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee." But this is more the statement of an intention then evidence of an accomplished fact.

This is unusual for Mark. Normally, when Jesus is involved in something of importance, Mark paints the scene quite clearly: he provides "video tape" of the event, so to speak. In the baptism scene (1:9-11), it is clearly stated that a spirit in the form of a dove descends on Jesus, and a voice is heard from heaven. When Jesus drives out a spirit, e.g. 1:25-26, we don't have to go by anyone's say-so, the event is clearly described: `"Be quiet!" said Jesus sternly. "Come out of him!" The evil spirit shook the man violently and came out of him with a shriek.' Similarly the feeding of the various multitudes is directly described and witnessed by the disciples and the multitudes. The walking on water is clearly described and witnessed by the disciples. In the end, the death scene (15:33-40) is equally clear and well-witnessed. But not the resurrection: here we just have the say-so of the man in white. No description of the event is offered, no direct witnessing of the event is presented.

It is also unusual when compared to the other gospels. In Matthew 28:9-10 Jesus appears to the women, and in 16-20 he appears to the disciples and gives then the Great Commission. Luke 24 is also quite explicit, including the longish scene of the meeting on the road to Emmaus, the meeting with the disciples in Jerusalem where they get to touch Jesus and Jesus eats some fish, an finally to top it all off the ascension near Bethany. John is probably the most explicit, Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene, the Disciples, Thomas, then goes on to catch some fish and reinstate Peter. But Mark? Mark just presents some hear-say. Something which apparently caused a perplexed but enterprising scribe to add verses 16:9-20 to the story.

If we go a bit farther afield (and some will no doubt accuse me here of an unnecessary excursion), and compare Mark's "resurrection" with similar events in other stories, we find a similar situation: in these stories the resurrection (or return from the dead/underworld) is clearly described. When Inanna descends into the underworld, no doubt is left about the fact that she is resurrected from a dead corpse nailed to the wall into somebody who walks around in Sumeria (line 273-281 ff). In Homer's Hymn to Demeter, it is equally clear that Persephone returns to the land of the living (line 360 ff).

So the lack of detail in Mark's resurrection is unusual, both within Mark, compared to the other gospels, and compared to non-biblical stories. I'm not sure what conclusion we can draw for this with regards to Mark's story, other than that the question still stands: Does Mark's Jesus resurrect? And that may be the conclusion that Mark intended all along.

Gerard Stafleu

driver8

Thanks for this post.

In your opinion, who asked the question "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?"? Well, it doesn't matter who. Now, look at the last line: "They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid." If that were true, how would we have record of any of the preceding quotes? Who was the witness to this event? How does the writer know that the women "were alarmed?" Who is the "young man dressed in a white robe," and why does he appear to be waiting to deliver this message?

These all appear to be literary devices. This is a novel, not the re-telling of an actual event.

You stated it well enough yourself:

Read any/all of the Jesus quotes in Mark and tell me who heard them and how they were all gathered together. Perhaps it was the seemingly ubiquitous "scribes." They were commonly present, at least in the urban scenes. Where is their confirmatory writing? I think you describe it well when you say Mark "painted" the scenes. There's no other reasonable explanation for all these supposed qoutes, taken from all over time and space. In all cases, the quotes and the action are directed towards the reader.

Here's an example from Mark 6 that maybe you can explain to me:

So, how does the writer know 1) where Jesus went and why, 2) what he saw, given that he was alone, and 3) what his intention was. Why would Jesus have the intention of passing them by undetected, anyway? If that was his intention, how could he have failed? If Jesus could walk on water, surely he could have simply given them favorable winds. How many of these passages does one have to read before it becomes obvious that they cannot have been real events actually witnessed and recorded? Again, this is literature.

You say:
The greater the detail present the greater the likelihood that detail is fiction. We can be fairly confident that Inanna's story, though detailed, is fiction. What we might conclude is that Mark's story is not fully realized, and the other gospels have added their own fictions to the novel in an attempt to improve upon the story.

gstafleu

I basically agree with everything you've said up to this point. Mark is "fiction," and asking how he knew what Jesus was saying to himself (as in that scene from Mark 6 you quote) when there were no witnesses to record the fact is like asking how Shakespeare knew what Hamlet was soliloquizing. But... is Mark's story "not fully realized"? That is the point I question. I think Mark's story is fully realized, and he meant to leave the reader in doubt as to whether Jesus was resurrected.

Gerard Stafleu

Steven Avery

The Ockham conclusion is the one supported by overwhelming
textual and patristic evidence (as well as internal, including
points like you make in the OP).

Mark ended after verse 20 and included the full resurrection
account we see in verses 9-20.

A conference on this topic was held in NC last weekend.
James Snapp has written up a few reports, such as this
last one in a series, from TC-Alternate.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TC-Alt...t/message/1322
Conference on Mark 16:9-20 at SEBTS - More Thoughts

James Snapp has a fascinating website, down at the moment,
thoughtfully and excellently mirrored by Ben Smith.

http://www.textexcavation.com/snapp/MarkOne.html
The Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Ben C Smith

Thank you.

I have always enjoyed reading Jim on the issue of Mark 16.9-20. Mind you, I disagree completely. But it is far better to read the pro arguments for oneself than to just take the con arguments on blind faith or on an argument from authority.

For any who wish to learn more about the textual witnesses to Mark 16.9-20, if you email him nicely he might send you an essay on the topic, some 115 pages long in the version that I have.

Ben.

gstafleu

So I take it you think 16:8 is the end as Mark wrote it? If so, care to share your thoughts on the question of whether Jesus was resurrected according to Mark?

Gerard Stafleu

Ben C Smith

No, I tend to think that an original ending after 16.8 was lost very early. I also tend to think that the original ending actually looked something like John 21.

B. H. Streeter makes a case for this in The Four Gospels, and more recently Evan Powell has made a case for it in The Unfinished Gospel (or via: amazon.co.uk). I refer you to those books rather than draw out the complete case for it here and now.

Nothing is certain, however, and I do consider it possible that 16.8 was the original ending, in which case yes, I do still think Mark intended the reader to understand that Jesus was risen. Jesus himself thrice predicts his own resurrection in the gospel, and I can scarcely imagine Mark saying, implying, or even allowing that Jesus was wrong.

Possibly the most concrete example of what I am talking about is the intercalation of the Petrine denials with the audience before the high priest. Here, just as Jesus is being taunted to prophesy by the vulgar soldiery, his previous prophecy about Peter thrice (!) denying him is coming true. I think the author is vouching for the accuracy of the advent prophecy before the high priest, which intentionally picks up on and echoes Olivet, by showing that his other prophecies have come true. This predictive accuracy would simply have to apply to the three passion predictions, too.

Ben.

Malachi151

See my discussion here:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar..._history.htm#2

The problem with dealing with GMark is that most people assume that it is something that it is not.

Most people assume that GMark is written by someone trying to record the life and works of Jesus for the posterity of his believers and the early Christian church, but this isn't what GMark is at all.

GMark is a fictional story about failure, it is a tragedy. Most specifically, the failure is of the Jews and his disciples in the story.

Jesus rejects his family, he rebukes his disciples, his disciples leave him when he is arrested, his key disciple denies him, his "Father" has forsaken him, no one attends his resurrection, all is lost..... Judea is destroyed.

The ending of GMark makes perfect sense if you take the story for what it really is, and stop trying to turn it into a foundational religious document, which it was never intended to be.

GMark is like Gone with the Wind kind of. GMark is like a fictional story written by a Northerner after the Civil War about the white people of the South, set about 50 years before the outbreak of the Civil War, and which the ending of the story eludes to the coming destruction that we all know is coming. The end of the story sets the dark clouds for the rising storm.

The end of GMark is supposed to show us the storm on the horizon, it is supposed to leave us with a sense of trepidation, trepidation knowing what will soon follow, the destruction of Judea.

GMark is also like The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, and Jesus is like Jim, the black boy that accompanies Huck. Jim is despised in the story and everyone that they come across is a racist bastards, but they are all shown to be the real fools, and Jim is the intelligent and capable one. The story portrays Southern White society as backwards and ignorant, and Jim as an unrecognized hero.

That's what GMark is like, though in a more direct way, but it is similar in that it is a commentary on the condition of the Judean society before the war, showing why it was that they brought destruction upon themselves.

gstafleu

Assuming 16:8 as the original ending, why would it be impossible for mark to let Jesus be wrong? Agreed, the fulfillment of the petrine prophecies at the same time are an interesting point, but in addition to showing that Jesus Is Always Right this could also be used that he was only sometimes right, which would create a confusing situation, mirrored perhaps in the confusion of the women after the announcement of the man in white. Is there anything in the text that compels the conclusion that Jesus Must Always Be Right?

Gerard Stafleu

Ben C Smith

If the Petrine fulfillment shows that Jesus was at least sometimes right, which predictions in the gospel show that Jesus was at least sometimes wrong?

Ben.