Ben C Smith

Hi, Jake.

I cannot help but think that you are ridiculing the possibility of something happening that happened all the time.

Ben.

fta

Building on Crossan's theory, maybe Mark's dog ate Jesus too.

S.C.Carlson

:notworthy:

Solo

....this gotta be the quip of the month :rolling:

Jiri

jakejonesiv

The Failure of the Women

The disciples had already abanonded Jesus (Mark 14:51). They weren't around for the crucfixtion. The women did observe the crucifixtion, but only from afar (15:40). This compromises their ability as eyewitnesses. Who was nailed to the cross, the Nazorean or the Cyrenian? Who cried out and what was said? Don't ask the women.

The body was taken down and immediately wrapped head to foot in linen (15:46). The woman had no opportunity to view the body. They merely followed at a a discrete distance and saw the body placed in a tomb, and a stone rolled against the entrance (14:46).

After the Sabbath, in the very early dawn (16:2), the women set out on a fool's errand. They are going to anoint Jesus' body (16:1). The women had utterly forgotten that this had already been accomplished (14:8).

The women are as dense as the male disciples had ever been. They are halfway there before they remember there is a stone blocking the tomb that they are apparently incapable of moving themselves. and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?" (Mark 16:3). This is intractable stupidity. They should have thought of that beforehand.

When the two Mary's and Salmone arrive at the tomb, events had already transpired. We find the stone rolled away and the body gone. How this happened is not told. Even the audience (the readers and hearers of GMark) are kept in the dark. This is the only event in the entire gospel that the audience is not privy to. There are secrets afoot, perhaps only for more advanced initiates.

But now we see the utter folly of the women's mission. The young man's announcement is a rebuke, not a doxology. They are looking for Jesus in the wrong place! He had told them he would see them again in Galilee (14:28), not in a tomb in Jerusalem. There is no assurance that they will see Jesus again unless the "follow him there." Merely wandering back home is insufficient. Jesus had said, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me." Mark 8:34. As the gospel ends, there can be no assurance that this would happen.

In Mark, only Peter is called Satan. Not even Judas is singled out for condemnation, as he is in the other gospels. In Mark, he does not commit suicide, and presumably is still considered one of the disciples. Peter is singled from the other disciples (16:7), not for praise but for condemnation. He was ashamed of Jesus, thrice denying him. And now Jesus is ashamed of him (8:38).

Thus we reach the conclusion of the trajectory. The women's final failure, the terminal silence, is inevitable. "... and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid." 16:8.
The irony is thick enough to cut with a knife. Throughout the narrative Jesus asks various characters to be silent, and they seldom are.

Jesus has been utterly abandoned, and none have been rehabilitated; an ending fitting for a Greek Tragedy. Only the audience of Mark, the hearers (4:9, 23) and readers (13:24), understand. It is enough.

Jake Jones IV

S.C.Carlson

On the Christian Origins list, Joseph Tyson has recently outlined his views on the composition of Luke.

Stephen

Malachi151

I couldn't disagree more. The Gospel of Mark does take a negative view of the apostles, indeed that is part of the whole point.

First of all, it does seem clear from the letters of Paul that Paul took a negative view of Peter, James, and John. If, as I suspect, the Gospel of Mark was written by a Pauline Christian then this would be a following of the precedence set by Paul.

Secondly, the Gospel of Mark was written after the destruction of Judea, a time of despair and a time of failure for the Jews. That failure and despair is reflected in the Gospel of Mark, and indeed I think that the failures of the Jews and the apostles is a critically important element of the story, as this is what relates the story to the current events, this is what makes the story relevant.

Despite Vork's claims, I think that the Gospel of Mark being talked about in the Papias passage (whether Papias was invented or not), is the same Gospel that we call Mark as well. The claim that the Gospel of Mark is "out of order" makes perfect sense, and indicates that whoever wrote this passage was talking about the Mark and Matthew that we have, because the events do take place in a different order in Mark and Matthew.

DramaQ

This makes sense to me. Suppose the final chapter was a scene in the vein of John 21 (as has been suggested as a reworking of the original ending.)

Suppose AMark wanted more than a “hint” and made the failure of the disciples final and plain: say in a final appearance by JC, on the banks of the Sea of Galilee. Peter et al are back to fishing. They see him but utterly fail to recognize him and refuse to “follow him”.

We end up at the place we started but with the opposite response.

I could see why such an ending would be expurgated.

DQ

Vorkosigan

Maybe! But the key is that Papias never existed. He's a mid second century invention. There is no multi-volume history of the Church. Why do you think even Eusebius didn't trust him? He took one look at Papias and knew he was BS.....

Michael

Amaleq13

If not by Eusebius, then by whom?