Fenris_Wulf

Hi Ted, the question of just when gMark was written would have a great deal to do with the expectations you are referring to. If it was written in the mid second century as a story explaining why messianism had failed then showing, based on scripture, that the common expectations were wrong would still allow this to be fiction. The Messiah had come, but was not recognised by the people, and Jerusalem was destroyed due to their persecution of him. This Anti-Messiah could be based on a real claimant, a composite of claimants, or created out of whole cloth.

Also, if Mark was using an Adoptionist approach as it would seem from the beginning of his story, there would be no reason to describe the childhood of Jesus, but only the period when he was the vessel for the spirit. This is further indicated in the short ending of gMark. Once the spirit left Jesus, the story was over.

TedM

Does the claim of his rising change the idea that he was a vessel for the spirit only until his death? I'm not quite seeing how that fits in:

2-J

This may be offtopic, but I find these remarks interesting - I agree that parts of Mark seem very Adoptionist, but while you say "Once the spirit left Jesus, the story was over", Mark still does have the empty tomb and the instruction (from angels?) to seek Jesus in Galilee and they will find him there? Doesn't that go against the Adoptionist reading of Mark?

dog-on

Maybe this young man was the spirit of the original pre-possessed Jesus, whom they had never met, so did not know him.

Fenris_Wulf

Not really. In the later literature, the disciples didn't recognise the Christ. This would be coherant with adoptionism if the spirit of the Christ used another vessel to appear.

Fenris_Wulf

The only one of these which do not fit with an adoptionist fiction is the last one where it is said that Jesus was not there rather than the Christ was not there. The rest are part of a building of expectation and showing that the people did not understand even when they were told (in the scriptures) that he would rise. Even this is only slightly problematic due to the idea that Mark wanted the reader to know that he was risen.

On another note, you made mention earlier that it would take a charismatic person for the disciples to have visions of a risen Jesus. This is manifestly incorrect. I talk to a lot of religionists and spiritualist types and many of them have "seen" the spirit of a loved one after their death. They describe the experience as being completely vivid and realistic and are convinced that they have been contacted from beyond the grave. So given a beloved teacher, the idea that one or more of his followers would have had such a vision which told them that his work was being continued is not unexpected. Once this story passes into the main body of followers, they are primed to have similar visions themselves.

bacht

Right, between

"Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased." ch 1

and

"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ch 15

show_no_mercy

Also in chpt 1, it's the spirit that drives Jesus into the wilderness as though he was possessed. And then when he comes back from the wilderness he starts to encounter unclean spirits - the opposite of holy spirits.

Fenris_Wulf

Quite so. Everything else is just closing up holes in the main plot line.

bacht

Yup, for forty days, like Israel in the Sinai for 40 years, must be a coincidence...