Resurrection in Mark

[Socius]

I'n Mark's gospel Joseph of Arimathea (JA) is called a "respected member of the council, who was also himself waiting expectantly for the Kingdom of God." (Mk 15:43). None of this need to suggest that JA was a follower of Jesus, rather, on first reading one would think that he may have also wanted Jesus' death. He was a member of the council that wanted Jesus to be killed.

Mark leaves the conclusion ambiguous. JA places Jesus in a tomb. Nothing about the tomb being his (that is JA's) and nothing about it never having been used. One could almost think it were a tomb where criminals were placed and that JA wanted the body to be taken down because the Sabbath was fast approaching and that impurity laws made it undesirable for a body to be hanging during the sabbath. Jesus was then placed in a tomb out of rock. Nothing about it never been used before. Nothing about it not being used. Could it be a tomb for crinimals? If JA was only a member of the council and not a disciple of Jesus and wanted the body off the cross because of the closeness of the sabbath, it may have been a tomb for criminals. Of course the other evangelists didn't like Mark's rendering and changed the story turning JA into a disciple of Jesus (Matt and Jn), someone who did not consent to the death of Jesus (Lk). The tomb was JA's own tomb (Matt) where no one had previously been laid (Lk and Jn).

It seems Matt, Lk and Jn understood the ambiguity of the earlier Markan tradition. As Mark is the earliest known source and that at least Matt and Lk followed and then embellished Mark, could not there be a clue in Mark's version that suggest that Jesus was buried in a tomb of criminals? His body decomposed, therefore was not physically resurrected. I'm not saying Mark did not believe in a physical resurrection, I believe that he did, but an earlier tradition may survive in Mk that may have some historical validitiy. Eventually the women do find a empty tomb (women finding an empty is no proof of historical validity as many Christians believe. It is a Markan theological motive that runs throughout his gospel where outsiders and/or underprivilidged understand the message but the apostles are thick, they just don't get it). Also, add to this that there is no resurrection appearance in Mk, may point to an earlier traditon in which the resurrection required a physical body was not very important. In fact, the resurrection proclamation by the angels in the tomb to the women refers back to the crucifixion. Though Jesus was crucified, you won't find him in a tomb. Jesus lives.

The point: as Matt, Lk and Jn embellished Mk, Mk may himself embellished an earlier resurrection tradition. One where a physical resurrection was not primarily in view (pre-Markan) to one where a non-physical and physical become joined (Mk) to one where a physical resurrection takes over (Matt, Lk and Jn).

[Metacrock]

I'n Mark's gospel Joseph of Arimathea (JA) is called a "respected member of the council, who was also himself waiting expectantly for the Kingdom of God." (Mk 15:43). None of this need to suggest that JA was a follower of Jesus, rather, on first reading one would think that he may have also wanted Jesus' death. He was a member of the council that wanted Jesus to be killed.

Mark leaves the conclusion ambiguous. JA places Jesus in a tomb. Nothing about the tomb being his (that is JA's) and nothing about it never having been used. One could almost think it were a tomb where criminals were placed and that JA wanted the body to be taken down because the Sabbath was fast approaching and that impurity laws made it undesirable for a body to be hanging during the sabbath. Jesus was then placed in a tomb out of rock. Nothing about it never been used before. Nothing about it not being used. Could it be a tomb for crinimals? If JA was only a member of the council and not a disciple of Jesus and wanted the body off the cross because of the closeness of the sabbath, it may have been a tomb for criminals. Of course the other evangelists didn't like Mark's rendering and changed the story turning JA into a disciple of Jesus (Matt and Jn), someone who did not consent to the death of Jesus (Lk). The tomb was JA's own tomb (Matt) where no one had previously been laid (Lk and Jn).

It seems Matt, Lk and Jn understood the ambiguity of the earlier Markan tradition. As Mark is the earliest known source and that at least Matt and Lk followed and then embellished Mark, could not there be a clue in Mark's version that suggest that Jesus was buried in a tomb of criminals? His body decomposed, therefore was not physically resurrected. I'm not saying Mark did not believe in a physical resurrection, I believe that he did, but an earlier tradition may survive in Mk that may have some historical validitiy. Eventually the women do find a empty tomb (women finding an empty is no proof of historical validity as many Christians believe. It is a Markan theological motive that runs throughout his gospel where outsiders and/or underprivilidged understand the message but the apostles are thick, they just don't get it). Also, add to this that there is no resurrection appearance in Mk, may point to an earlier traditon in which the resurrection required a physical body was not very important. In fact, the resurrection proclamation by the angels in the tomb to the women refers back to the crucifixion. Though Jesus was crucified, you won't find him in a tomb. Jesus lives.

The point: as Matt, Lk and Jn embellished Mk, Mk may himself embellished an earlier resurrection tradition. One where a physical resurrection was not primarily in view (pre-Markan) to one where a non-physical and physical become joined (Mk) to one where a physical resurrection takes over (Matt, Lk and Jn).

The angels in Mark say he's risen.

there is no basis for belief that per Mark resurrection was non physical. Koester shows that The story of empty tomb circulated in writing mid century and it was pre Mark and it was the empty tomb. You can only have an empty tomb if you have a physical resurrection. See Helmutt Koester Ancient Christian Gospels.

You are just reading in supposition that is not in evidence.

read both pages of this link but especially on page 2 I talk about Koester's book:

Page 1
http://www.doxa.ws/Bible/Gospel_behind.html

Page 2
http://www.doxa.ws/Bible/Gospel_behind2.html

[Socius]

I am familiar with Koester. I do have that book and have read it.

There is a good point that you make about the physicial resurrection being mid-1st century. This may be so. However, when Mark narrates it it is done in a way that suggests that the resurrection narrative is very much the product of Mark. In other words, though there maybe an earlier physical resurrection tradition familiar to Mark, the version we have in Mark appears to be modelled upon familiar Markan themes and concepts, suggesting it was mostly his creation. However, in the background of Mark, there seems to be a non-physical resurrection tradition lurking.

Interestingly, C. K. Barrett has argued for a pre- Markan gospel upon which canonical Mark was modelled upon. Barrett argues that this pre-Markan gospel was that used by the Ebionites. For Barrett the Ebionites do not believe in the virgin birth nor a physical resurrection.

For my account, in relation to Barret and Koester, I think Koester and Barrett are working upon models which are now outdated. Many scholars are realising that talk of groups such as Ebionites and even Christian for at least the first century are problematic. The herisologists of the 2nd century wrote of Christians as if they were distinct from 1st century Jews. They created these heresy groups of Ebionites, Nazarites, gnostics, etc., placing them in categories that were not really in use in the 1st century. Modern scholars now see that as 1st century Judaism was diverse, what we today call Christian were in fact a part of this diverse form of Judaism. Orthodoxy did not come before Heresy. Rather, many forms of Jesus-followers were present in the first century. This is obvious when we read Paul. I think Mark shows remnants of this diverse form within his resurrection narrative.

For some intersting work in this area see works by Judith Lieu, Joan Taylor and Paricularly Daniel Boyarin who has wriiten a superb book titled "Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity."

[Metacrock]

I am familiar with Koester. I do have that book and have read it.

There is a good point that you make about the physicial resurrection being mid-1st century. This may be so. However, when Mark narrates it it is done in a way that suggests that the resurrection narrative is very much the product of Mark. In other words, though there maybe an earlier physical resurrection tradition familiar to Mark, the version we have in Mark appears to be modelled upon familiar Markan themes and concepts, suggesting it was mostly his creation. However, in the background of Mark, there seems to be a non-physical resurrection tradition lurking.

that's carzy. why should you just up decide mark mad it up when there's all kinds of evidence of other sources that draw upon a mutual source? Gospel of Peter is early and independent for example. The other synoptic are not getting it from Mark. they are all getting it from the mutual source.

Interestingly, C. K. Barrett has argued for a pre- Markan gospel upon which canonical Mark was modelled upon. Barrett argues that this pre-Markan gospel was that used by the Ebionites. For Barrett the Ebionites do not believe in the virgin birth nor a physical resurrection.

the idea of Ur Mark goes way back to mide 18th or 19th century. Gospel of the Ebionites is more Mathewen than Mark. There's no reason to assume they came first.

For my account, in relation to Barret and Koester, I think Koester and Barrett are working upon models which are now outdated. Many scholars are realising that talk of groups such as Ebionites and even Christian for at least the first century are problematic.

don't try to disqualify Koester by lumiping him with this other guy he would totally opposed to the Ebiooniates as some some model or mark and totally opposed to Mark as the origin of the resurrection or empty tomb. far from being obsolete he's the consensus.

The herisologists of the 2nd century wrote of Christians as if they were distinct from 1st century Jews. They created these heresy groups of Ebionites, Nazarites, gnostics, etc., placing them in categories that were not really in use in the 1st century. Modern scholars now see that as 1st century Judaism was diverse, what we today call Christian were in fact a part of this diverse form of Judaism. Orthodoxy did not come before Heresy. Rather, many forms of Jesus-followers were present in the first century. This is obvious when we read Paul. I think Mark shows remnants of this diverse form within his resurrection narrative.

that has nothing to do with the issue. that neither removes the fact of the empty tomb at an early date nor makes Mark the origin of the res.