Mark's "intended" ending

[MrMacSon]

... there seem to be separate traditions at work.

Highly likely


This is interesting -

Regarding Galilee, that's actually where the Jewish leadership moved after the fall of Jerusalem, which means that this may be an echo of this.

because of this -

Some ...think that the name of the city [of 'Nazareth'] must be connected with the name of the hill behind it, from which one of the finest prospects in Israel is obtained, and accordingly they derive it from the Hebrew notserah, i.e., one guarding or watching, thus designating the hill which overlooks and thus guards an extensive region.

http://www.christiananswers.net/diction ... areth.html

I have seen other references to 'natsar/na·ṣar' - נָצַר - meaning "to watch" (whereas 'netser' is said to mean "branch");

hence 'Natsarith' is said to mean watchtower, and 'Natsarim' are 'watchmen'

• There is also a view there is a passive meaning of 'preserved, protected' in reference to its secluded position -
  
  RH Mounce, "Nazareth", in Geoffrey W Bromiley (ed) The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol 3: Eerdmans, 1986; pp 500–1

The word "Gennetsaret" ('vale of Netsar') is said to refer to the whole district which would be seen from the hill

[Ben C. Smith]

However the idea that the first resurrection appearances took place in Galilee does find favour with me, because I think it is more likely that the Christians based in Jerusalem, who even Paul sees as having a central role, would create such stories than the non-central Christian communities in Galilee created them in Galilee.

I am not following. You like the idea that the first resurrection appearances took place in Galilee because you see the Jerusalem crowd as more likely to create resurrection stories?

From Paul we know there was a Christian community led by James, Peter and John in Jerusalem that claimed a leadership role. We do not know of a Christian community in Galilee that claimed a leadership role. Therefore for me, it is more likely that the Christian community that claimed the leadership role would create resurrection stories happening in their area. I suppose in the same way that Rome by the second century had stories of the deaths of Peter and Paul at Rome.

If Peter did have his resurrection appearance experience in Jerusalem it is harder to understand why anyone would create a resurrection appearance for him in Galilee. However if Peter did have his resurrection appearance experience in Galilee because after Jesus was crucified he had returned home in disappointment there are stronger reasons for moving the appearance to Jerusalem, especially with Luke’s central aim of a continuous controlled growth of the church theology.

I hope I have explained what I mean better this time.

Ah, I see. You were meaning something different by "creating" resurrection appearances and "having" resurrection appearances.

[rakovsky]

We just do not have any early stories about the resurrection appearances to the disciples. Q doesn’t have any. Mark doesn’t give us any, except the clue that the disciples will see Jesus in Galilee and two possible resurrection stories that Mark or his early Christian community have reworked into Jesus’ life. Matthew and Luke fill this void in their own way. Matthew’s story is likely to have been his own creation, but it is possible that Luke re-worked earlier resurrection stories created by the Jerusalem Christian community. John just reworked the stories in the synoptics. I don’t see 1 Cor 15:3-11 as early, I see it as an interpolation.

There are a number of reasons for this. It is generally accepted that the language is not Paul’s normal language. Paul states he didn’t get his message from men, but from God. It is generally accepted this was from men. It is unlikely that Paul would have added this to his teaching if he learnt it 17 years after he was converted. It has been recognised that there are three layers of development to verses 3-7. It is unlikely there would have been enough time to have lapsed for Paul to have picked it up after he had been preaching for three years. Also verse 12 runs well after verse 2 with no need for verses 3-11. As Paul does not refer to the twelve disciples anywhere but here, it is suspect. This is especially true if we see the development of the twelve disciples as a later tradition coming from Jewish eschatological belief and not from Jesus.

Hello, Michael!

How early do you mean by "early" stories? Much of the New Testament I think was written within the apostles' lifetime, particularly that of John. And Biblical books from the gospels to Acts to Corinthians to Revelation narrate them. I conclude that the stories of the appearances were already in circulation during the time of the self-professed witnesses' lives.
Second, I suppose that Paul's st hort narration of the appearances, although I guess it could have been inserted.
Third, I think Matthew's gospel probably should have priority in time, and would invite you and others to discuss it here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2171
Fourth, Mark in effect tells the reader that there were appearances to the apostles based not only on 14:28, but in the angel's message about the meeting. The allusions to resurrection throughout the gospels even before the appearances' narration (eg. the story of Jonah and the three days), along with the narration of the empty tomb itself, leads the reader to expect Jesus' resurrection to have really occurred in the story.

[Michael BG]

Ah, I see. You were meaning something different by "creating" resurrection appearances and "having" resurrection appearances.

Indeed.

One way out of this dilemma may be that the identification of Cephas with Simon Peter is shaky. And why is James the leader? Or, in other words, there seem to be separate traditions at work.

Regarding Galilee, that's actually where the Jewish leadership moved after the fall of Jerusalem, which means that this may be an echo of this. The word "Jerusalem" may just be used in a metaphorical sense, just like for the so-called "Jerusalem Talmud" that was written mostly in Galilee (Tiberias, Sepphoris) and Caesarea, but definitely not in Jerusalem. Which means that we should always consider that the word "Jerusalem" may just transport an idea and not actually refer to the place.

It is interesting that James is not a major figure in the gospels but he is a major figure in Paul’s letters. A possible explanation is that James was Jesus’ brother and this family tie gave him the leadership role, while Peter was just the leading follower of Jesus. There is an anti-family motif in Mark’s gospel, which could be a reflection of historical events where Jesus' family didn’t accept Jesus’ role until after the resurrection and a reason why James doesn’t have a major role.

I don’t think Luke thought of the church being based in Galilee, he centres it in Jerusalem. Paul also has James, Cephas and John in Jerusalem and he is collecting money for those in Jerusalem.

Hello, Michael!

How early do you mean by "early" stories? Much of the New Testament I think was written within the apostles' lifetime, particularly that of John. And Biblical books from the gospels to Acts to Corinthians to Revelation narrate them. I conclude that the stories of the appearances were already in circulation during the time of the self-professed witnesses' lives.
Second, I suppose that Paul's st hort narration of the appearances, although I guess it could have been inserted.
Third, I think Matthew's gospel probably should have priority in time, and would invite you and others to discuss it here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2171
Fourth, Mark in effect tells the reader that there were appearances to the apostles based not only on 14:28, but in the angel's message about the meeting. The allusions to resurrection throughout the gospels even before the appearances' narration (eg. the story of Jonah and the three days), along with the narration of the empty tomb itself, leads the reader to expect Jesus' resurrection to have really occurred in the story.

I can accept that Mark leads his reader to expect there to be a resurrected Jesus. This would make sense if all his readers already believed in a resurrected Jesus because they were Christians.

There are some scholars who would date John’s gospel early, but I am not convinced, and there is some evidence that John knew the other gospels in the form we know them.

I think Peter Kirby sets out the case for Marcan priority very clearly and in your thread, you refer to, you haven’t countered that position at all with any discussions of the texts of Mark and Matthew.

I assume when you wrote “apostles' lifetime” you mean “disciples’ lifetime”. I would expect most disciples to be dead by 70 CE. There is no strong evidence that the gospels we have today were written before this. I believe that Q was written before this, but I am not sure the scholarly consensus agrees. As some believe there are three layers to Q, then the first layer is likely to have been written before 70 CE. It is also possible that the passion narrative behind Mark’s was also written before 70 CE. Life expectancy was low and therefore it is possible that most of the people who knew Jesus were dead quite some time before 70 CE.

When I wrote, “We just do not have any early stories about the resurrection appearances to the disciples.” I mean earlier that the gospels of Matthew and Luke, because the two earlier gospels Mark and Q don’t have any resurrection appearances. The appearance stories for Paul that we have in Acts seem to be early, in that they are vision stories. The resurrection appearance stories we have in the gospels are a later development of traditional appearance of angel stories. We can conclude that Paul believed he saw the resurrected Jesus, but he doesn’t give us a description of what he saw. Therefore it is possible that Peter didn’t give any description either. Some scholars believe that Luke created Paul’s appearance stories, but I have yet to be convinced. It is therefore possible that when Christians first talked about resurrection appearance stories they were along the lines of vision stories – seeing Jesus exalted in heaven, then later they developed into angelic type appearance stories and from there they developed into the bodily resurrection stories we find in the gospels of Luke and John.

[MrMacSon]

It is interesting that James is not a major figure in the gospels but he is a major figure in Paul’s letters. A possible explanation is that James was Jesus’ brother and this family tie gave him the leadership role, while Peter was just the leading follower of Jesus. There is an anti-family motif in Mark’s gospel, which could be a reflection of historical events where Jesus' family didn’t accept Jesus’ role until after the resurrection and a reason why James doesn’t have a major role.

.... Paul also has James, Cephas and John in Jerusalem and he is collecting money for those in Jerusalem.

Which James are you referring to? - there is more than one in the NT.

[rakovsky]

I assume when you wrote “apostles' lifetime” you mean “disciples’ lifetime”. I would expect most disciples to be dead by 70 CE. There is no strong evidence that the gospels we have today were written before this. I believe that Q was written before this, but I am not sure the scholarly consensus agrees. As some believe there are three layers to Q, then the first layer is likely to have been written before 70 CE. It is also possible that the passion narrative behind Mark’s was also written before 70 CE. Life expectancy was low and therefore it is possible that most of the people who knew Jesus were dead quite some time before 70 CE.

When I wrote, “We just do not have any early stories about the resurrection appearances to the disciples.” I mean earlier that the gospels of Matthew and Luke, because the two earlier gospels Mark and Q don’t have any resurrection appearances. The appearance stories for Paul that we have in Acts seem to be early, in that they are vision stories. The resurrection appearance stories we have in the gospels are a later development of traditional appearance of angel stories. We can conclude that Paul believed he saw the resurrected Jesus, but he doesn’t give us a description of what he saw. Therefore it is possible that Peter didn’t give any description either. Some scholars believe that Luke created Paul’s appearance stories, but I have yet to be convinced. It is therefore possible that when Christians first talked about resurrection appearance stories they were along the lines of vision stories – seeing Jesus exalted in heaven, then later they developed into angelic type appearance stories and from there they developed into the bodily resurrection stories we find in the gospels of Luke and John.

If the disciples were 20 years old in 30 AD when Jesus started his teaching, they would be 70 years old in 90 AD. John supposedly lived a long time and Polycarpus; AD 69 – 155 claims to have known John.

I think that the gospels reflect the apostles' contemporary stories/claims/narratives to a greater extent than many critics realize who are living 1900 years later.

[Michael BG]

If the disciples were 20 years old in 30 AD when Jesus started his teaching, they would be 70 years old in 90 AD. John supposedly lived a long time and Polycarpus; AD 69 – 155 claims to have known John.

I think that the gospels reflect the apostles' contemporary stories/claims/narratives to a greater extent than many critics realize who are living 1900 years later.

You seem to have made a mistake in your calculation 90-30 = 60 + 20 = 80 not 70.

Life expectancy was 47.5 if a person managed to survive past 10 in the Roman Empire and among the late medieval English peerage it was 64 if they survived past 21. Factors that influence life expectancy are public health, diet and medical care. All these are likely to be less for a Palestinian Jew travelling from Christian community to Christian community than for a member of the English peerage or the average Roman. Therefore it is likely that most disciples of Jesus would die before they reached 48 than when they reached 80 or 90. If a disciple was 20 in 30 CE and not all of them would be so young, he would be 50 in 60 CE and 60 in 70 CE and therefore mostly likely dead.

Hopefully we both recognise that the authors of the New Testament were not interested in pure history as today’s historians are and that their writings were influenced by the message they were presenting.

Unfortunately we don’t know if Polycarp claimed to have heard an apostle called John. We only have Irenaeus (c. 202) claiming to have heard Polycarp say that Polycarp had spoken with John and others who had seen Jesus Christ and heard him speak. Irenaeus interprets this to mean the earthy Jesus, but it is possible if it were true (and we have no way of knowing if it is) that Polycarp is talking of people who have had a vision of the heavenly Jesus Christ and heard him speak like Paul. We need to remember that Irenaeus had his own agenda and may well have created this as evidence for apostolic succession. Irenaeus states that Polycarp kissed the chains of Ignatius of Antioch as he passed Smyrna on his way to Rome. This is problematic if Ignatius never existed and was a creation of the second century church.

Also it is possible that Polycarp died in 167 CE as attested to by Eusebius and was is only legend that has him aged 86 at the time making him born in 81 CE and so he could have been born 20 or so years later.

There have been scholars who would agree with you about tracing the stories back to the disciples (for me an apostle is someone who has seen the heavenly Jesus Christ and a disciple is someone who knew Jesus when he was live) of Jesus, but this is now a minority with the majority accepting that the gospel writers where they are passing on tradition, this tradition is second or third hand and comes to them from Christian communities or earlier texts and not people who met Jesus.

[rakovsky]

If the disciples were 20 years old in 30 AD when Jesus started his teaching, they would be 70 years old in 90 AD. John supposedly lived a long time and Polycarpus; AD 69 – 155 claims to have known John.

I think that the gospels reflect the apostles' contemporary stories/claims/narratives to a greater extent than many critics realize who are living 1900 years later.

You seem to have made a mistake in your calculation 90-30 = 60 + 20 = 80 not 70.

Life expectancy was 47.5 if a person managed to survive past 10 in the Roman Empire and among the late medieval English peerage it was 64 if they survived past 21. Factors that influence life expectancy are public health, diet and medical care. All these are likely to be less for a Palestinian Jew travelling from Christian community to Christian community than for a member of the English peerage or the average Roman. Therefore it is likely that most disciples of Jesus would die before they reached 48 than when they reached 80 or 90. If a disciple was 20 in 30 CE and not all of them would be so young, he would be 50 in 60 CE and 60 in 70 CE and therefore mostly likely dead.

Hopefully we both recognise that the authors of the New Testament were not interested in pure history as today’s historians are and that their writings were influenced by the message they were presenting.

Unfortunately we don’t know if Polycarp claimed to have heard an apostle called John. We only have Irenaeus (c. 202) claiming to have heard Polycarp say that Polycarp had spoken with John and others who had seen Jesus Christ and heard him speak. Irenaeus interprets this to mean the earthy Jesus, but it is possible if it were true (and we have no way of knowing if it is) that Polycarp is talking of people who have had a vision of the heavenly Jesus Christ and heard him speak like Paul. We need to remember that Irenaeus had his own agenda and may well have created this as evidence for apostolic succession. Irenaeus states that Polycarp kissed the chains of Ignatius of Antioch as he passed Smyrna on his way to Rome. This is problematic if Ignatius never existed and was a creation of the second century church.

Also it is possible that Polycarp died in 167 CE as attested to by Eusebius and was is only legend that has him aged 86 at the time making him born in 81 CE and so he could have been born 20 or so years later.

There have been scholars who would agree with you about tracing the stories back to the disciples (for me an apostle is someone who has seen the heavenly Jesus Christ and a disciple is someone who knew Jesus when he was live) of Jesus, but this is now a minority with the majority accepting that the gospel writers where they are passing on tradition, this tradition is second or third hand and comes to them from Christian communities or earlier texts and not people who met Jesus.

So if John was born in 10 ad he was 64 in 84 ad when some gospels were being written. And he could live longer than average.