Bernard Muller

to la70119,
I really do not care where the crucifixion took place (probably outside the wall in a very public place, likely close to a major city gate). Yes he could have been hastily buried, or just dumped or burnt. The important thing would be not by followers, but by some cleaning crew. I do not think it had to be just before Sabbath, which was probably invented by the author of the empty tomb. I also think he was arrested the same day of the "disturbance", in the evening, outside Jerusalem where he and companions would spend the night. And executed the next day, without trial, barely a quick condemnation. Roman justice was very expeditive and harsh for anyone suspected to be a rebel. And yes the empty tomb passage was a very early interpolation because "Luke", "Matthew" and "John" had it in their copy of Mark's gospel.

la70119

http://www.katapi.org.uk/Maps/Jerusalem30.htm

According to the above, Akeldama (Field of Blood) seems reasonably close.

• It is next to one access road to the southwest gate, and readily visible and accessible from the main south gate.
• It is ideally situate so that easterly, westerly and northerly winds would carry smells away from the city.
• The topographical patterns are such that all uncleaness of the dead that ends up on the ground with or without burial, is carried away from the city by runoff water.

Just my $0.02.

Then it no doubt was invented by the author! But I was going by an assumed historicity of the account for argumant's sake. No non-apologetic source has anything of this fantastical nonsense of these multiple illegal trials occuring overnight and in the early morning hours ending with the absolute farce presided over by a very out-of-character Pilate. Even the forger of the TF didn't dare to go beyond Pilate essentially summarily condemning Jesus to a cross when the Jewish leadership made a suggestion...

My hunch is that very short ending gMark never saw the light of day, that whatever "apostle" who reviewed this felt very consternated :constern02: at an ending that left Jesus quite literally hanging and insisted the writer tack something on.

maryhelena

Sometimes a hunch might well lead the way forward....

Remember that in the Slavonic Josephus wonder-doer story that the wonder-doer is left hanging.....

The account of some followers saying that 'he is living though he was dead' (words to that effect) comes a few pages later. And the big one - the temple veil/curtain being torn; some saying he is risen; some saying his body was stolen; comes many pages later. Over 200 pages later in the synoptic comparison book:

Josephus’ Jewish War and Its Slavonic Version: A Synoptic Comparison (or via: amazon.co.uk) H. Leeming (editor) K. Leeming (editor)

(google book view available)

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/gno/gjb/gjb-3.htm

Which all goes to show that the JC story is a developing story...

la70119

maryhelena,

We all know the story of Jesus was a developing story.

And the thing about Slavonic josephus, is that it supports the accounts of Justin Martyr's I Apology 35 and The Gospel of Peter.

Like Slavonic Josephus, both of them have the Jews crucifying Jesus; actually physically crucifying him instead of making Pilate and the Romans do it.

Diogenes the Cynic

Which is historically so implausible as to be virtually impossible.

la70119

Which proves the Christians were making it up as they went along.

maryhelena

Sure, but what Slavonic Josephus adds is that Pilate took money from the Jews, teachers of the Law. Pilate was part of the scenario - it's later stories about his washing his hands and all the blame put upon the Jews. There are two parties here - both guilty. Pilate, in the gospel story, and running with the historical JC assumption for a moment - is, technically, legally, as guilty as the Jews. Permission was given for the killing of JC. Later updates of the story drop the Pilate money transfer - and place primary blame on the conspirators - the Jews.


Who killed the gospel JC - Pilate or the Jews?

Who killed Antigonus? Marc Antony or the Herodian Jew, Herod the Great?

(substitute Herodian Jew when reading about Jews in the gospels - and things can look very different.....)

la70119

maryhelena,

And they probably were Herodian Jews. After all, the House of the Holyplace that the Jews sacrificed in was Herod's Temple. It was also a ROMAN TEMPLE and it even had ROMAN EAGLES over its gate.

Solo

If the Malachi 3:1 reference in Mk 1:2 is artfully overwritten by that of Isaiah, the big question is what is Mark up to. In my humble opinion, Mark uses Malachi 3:1 in setting up two baptisms, the one by John at the start of the gospel and the one by the mesenger in the tomb at the end.

Compare: Mk 16:6 μὴ ἐκθαμβεῖσθε Ἰησοῦν ζητεῖτε τὸν Ναζαρηνὸν τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον ἠγέρθη οὐκ ἔστιν ὧδε ἴδε ὁ τόπος ὅπου ἔθηκαν αὐτόν

(Do not be amazed; you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him.)

with Malachi 3:1: ...καὶ ἐξαίφνης ἥξει εἰς τὸν ναὸν ἑαυτοῦ κύριος ὃν ὑμεῖς ζητεῖτε καὶ ὁ ἄγγελος τῆς διαθήκης ὃν ὑμεῖς θέλετε ἰδοὺ ἔρχεται λέγει κύριος παντοκράτωρ

(....and the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple ; the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, says the LORD of hosts. )

The women "searching for Jesus" is directly informed by the juxtaposed "searching for the Lord", and the missing "body" vs "temple" is a play on words set up by Mk 14:58 (We heard him say, 'I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.'").

The scene in the tomb is the intended "end" of Mark. It is the baptism into the "death of Christ" (Rom 6:3-4) which Mark allegorizes here.

So yes, Vork is right: the tomb is prefigured by the authorial plan of the gospel.

Best,
Jiri

JoeWallack

JW:
Regarding the question of whether the 16:8 ending of "Mark" is evidence of a lost ending I think my previous post, demonstrating numerous examples of ancient sentences ending with the same word and two examples from the Jewish Bible of the same two word order, is sufficient defense against the ending being evidence for a lost ending. But can we go beyond this conclusion and on the offensive?

The ReMarkable parable to Genesis 45:3, which fits so well as to theme, suggests we can and combined with the author's known usage of specific wording from the Jewish Bible to fit themes, already places "Mark's" ending in the asset category as evidence for 16:8 as the intended ending.

Wallace points out that there's more. The ending also parallels "Mark's" usage at 9:32:

http://biblos.com/mark/9-32.htm

Strong's	Transliteration	Greek	English	Morphology
3588 [e]	hoi	οἱ	–	Art-NMP
1161 [e]	de	δὲ	and	Conj
50 [e]	ēgnooun	ἠγνόουν	they understood not	V-IIA-3P
3588 [e]	to	τὸ	the	Art-ANS
4487 [e]	rhēma	ῥῆμα	saying,	N-ANS
2532 [e]	kai	καὶ	and	Conj
5399 [e]	ephobounto	ἐφοβοῦντο	were afraid	V-IIM/P-3P
846 [e]	auton	αὐτὸν	him	PPro-AM3S
1905 [e]	eperōtēsai	ἐπερωτῆσαι	to ask.	V-ANA

9:32 and 16:8 are the only two uses of this exact word which reMarkably is the Imperfect, "they are being afraid". Both contexts are reactions to resurrection. The effect is silence and the cause is fear. 9:32, the prediction, foreshadows 16:8, the fulfillment. Combined with "Mark's" primary theme that the disciples did not accept the Passion, the ending of "Mark" is clearly evidence for the ending of "Mark" (16:8). Ironically, the resurrection is secondary to this theme (look through "Mark" and see which theme dominates).



Joseph

ErrancyWiki