Question on GMark's Adoptionism vs. the Empty Tomb

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Question on GMark's Adoptionism vs. the Empty Tomb

Post by Giuseppe »

toejam wrote: Thu Jul 26, 2018 12:15 pm While we're on the topic, has anyone read this?

https://www.bookdepository.com/Jesus-Et ... 0802875068
I have read the his book How God became Jesus. I agree with him on the fact that the adoptionism was the second earlier Christology (the earliest Christology being in his view the incarnational Christology). But I think that the earliest Christology was docetism.
I think that the fact that in Mark there is clear evidence of adoptionism doesn't imply ipso facto that the earliest Christology was adoptionism.

It seems that for M. Bird the Markan Christology, only in virtue of the his presence in Mark, has to be necessarily the earliest Christology. I disagree entirely and totally with this assumption.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Aleph One
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 12:13 am

Re: Question on GMark's Adoptionism vs. the Empty Tomb

Post by Aleph One »

Thanks very much to everyone who replied. There's definitely some stuff to chew on here. I'm going to check out the links to the papers from Ben and some of the other recommended material and see what jumps out at me.
User avatar
toejam
Posts: 754
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 1:35 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Question on GMark's Adoptionism vs. the Empty Tomb

Post by toejam »

Giuseppe wrote: Thu Jul 26, 2018 8:27 pm
It seems that for M. Bird the Markan Christology, only in virtue of the his presence in Mark, has to be necessarily the earliest Christology. I disagree entirely and totally with this assumption.
I purchased the book this morning and have skimmed through most of it. Yes, I think Bird assumes too quickly that Mark itself paints a consistent and coherent Christological picture. Bird admits that Mark's baptism scene on its own can well be read as an adoptionist scene. But then he tries to downplay that by having us interpret it through the lens of other Markan passages that imply pre-existence and a more exhalted Christology. But I think he misses the plausibility that Mark (as with the other gospels) contains a mixed bag of Christologies.
My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Question on GMark's Adoptionism vs. the Empty Tomb

Post by Ulan »

toejam wrote: Fri Jul 27, 2018 12:34 am Bird admits that Mark's baptism scene on its own can well be read as an adoptionist scene.
It's really hard to explain the adoptionist nature of this scene away. The parallel to David's anointing scene in 1 Samuel 16 may not be perfect, but is pretty close.
Aleph One
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 12:13 am

Re: Question on GMark's Adoptionism vs. the Empty Tomb

Post by Aleph One »

So I was looking through all the NT post-resurrection appearances of Jesus to see which ones they recognized him in immediately, and which ones he had some other form. My purpose was just to look into the idea that if Jesus was going to appear to everyone as a stranger anyway, then there's even less reason for him to need the physical bodily form. I have to say there's not much pattern to it, as far as I can tell.

In GMatt he seems to be recognized immediately in both of the post-resurrection appearances. In GLuke I would say he is mostly UN-recognized by the disciples, until he opens their eyes spiritually. Even in GLuke though this isn't always the case (and I should say it's hard for me to parse exact wording like this without any understanding of ancient greek, as if that's not obvious). GJohn seems similar to GLuke in that sometimes the risen Jesus is definitely taking a different bodily form, but other times he's recognizable. And also, like the appearances in Acts, Jesus comes off as more of a ghost or apparition than a figure with bodily form looking one way or the other.

I'm not sure what this adds to anything but I thought I would share what I came up with. ;-)
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: Question on GMark's Adoptionism vs. the Empty Tomb

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

Aleph One writes:
GJohn seems similar to GLuke in that sometimes the risen Jesus is definitely taking a different bodily form, but other times he's recognizable.

Another reading of John's account of Mary meeting the risen Jesus is that the author is realistically depicting clinical shock. During a weekend of severe psychological trauma, Mary becomes fixated on the idea that the missing corpse has been moved. When Jesus comes along, she sees him as a functional character within her fixation and not as an identifiable acquaintance. Jesus brings her out of it, but there is no indication that he "changes form" to do that. On the contrary, he complains that her drowning victim's grip on him will damage his form and be inconvenient to repair.

The inherent drama of recognition scenes was well known in ancient times. Their artistry, in large part, is how to orchestrate the delay. John is an artist of the first rank.

Paul's christophany in Acts is a different problem. Presumably, Paul had never met Jesus, so he wouldn't recognize a personal form anyway. OK, then, let's go for something cosmic. A voice sounds from above, with an impersonal sky display. Mark has two of those; what harm going to that well one more time?

The display is not a representation of Jesus' form, but a demonstration of what he can do. There is artistry here, too, since Paul never does show much interest in the human form of Jesus, but shows a lot of interest in what a rebooted Jesus can do. Very elegant, then, to capture the gist of Paul's Christian career while telling about its inception.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Question on GMark's Adoptionism vs. the Empty Tomb

Post by John2 »

Aleph One wrote:
If the spirit of Christ left the body of Jesus as he died on the cross then why would his body disappear from the tomb later before the resurrection appearances?
I'm more or less with John T on this one. I think the answer to your question is in 1 Cor. 15:35-54:
But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else ... So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body ...

Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”
And in Php. 3:20-21:
But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.
So Jesus' body was transformed into a spiritual body, in the way that a seed is transformed into a plant. This is why there was no body left behind in the tomb -it had been transformed into a spiritual body.

I don't get the impression that "the spirit of Christ left the body of Jesus as he died on the cross" in Mark. Unless I'm missing something, all I see is that Jesus cited something from Psalm 22 and then "breathed his last."

Mk. 15:33-37:
At noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon. And at three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).

When some of those standing near heard this, they said, “Listen, he’s calling Elijah.”

Someone ran, filled a sponge with wine vinegar, put it on a staff, and offered it to Jesus to drink. “Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to take him down,” he said.

With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.


And since Jesus' body was taken down and placed in a tomb, I'm thinking it must have been transformed into a spiritual body when it was inside the tomb.
Last edited by John2 on Sat Jul 28, 2018 3:04 pm, edited 5 times in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Question on GMark's Adoptionism vs. the Empty Tomb

Post by John2 »

And I don't think the tomb was opened so that Jesus' spiritual body could get out but so that the women could get in and see that Jesus' body wasn't there.

Mk. 16:1-7:
1When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body. Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb and they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?”

But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

“Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’ ”
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8024
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Question on GMark's Adoptionism vs. the Empty Tomb

Post by Peter Kirby »

Secret Alias wrote: Thu Jul 26, 2018 6:53 am If his article was published in 2002 it must have been written in something like 2000. That's 18 years ago. He doesn't even look 38 now. But still, he was 20 when he wrote that?
It was based on this webpage (2001):

https://infidels.org/library/modern/peter_kirby/tomb/

There were several trips to the UCI libraries behind that. I was an undergrad in computer science then.

I would suppose that it was included because of its good timing and appropriateness to the volume (The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave) being edited by Jeff Lowder and Robert Price, both of whom knew me a little bit from my web site and from my participation in internet discussions.

I had been participating in online discussions since about 1995, when I was 14. These were Usenet days.

I was unfocused and could be considered a failure as a young adult. I could do very well in English, in computer science, and in mathematical tasks, but my personal growth and emotional intelligence lagged. I was a slacker, unless it was something I cared about - but most things felt like bullshit.

I met my wife 8 years ago and got married 6 years ago.

I still dislike school almost as much as I ever did, but I eventually went back to finish my BA in math and am now doing my MS in computer science while working, taking one class at a time. It's a grind, but it will be over eventually.

I greatly prefer projects where I contribute to defining the scope and where I can see real world impact.

I am much happier now, working as a software engineer, where what I am doing is not just BS.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Aleph One
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 12:13 am

Re: Question on GMark's Adoptionism vs. the Empty Tomb

Post by Aleph One »

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Sat Jul 28, 2018 1:12 am Another reading of John's account of Mary meeting the risen Jesus is that the author is realistically depicting clinical shock. During a weekend of severe psychological trauma, Mary becomes fixated on the idea that the missing corpse has been moved. When Jesus comes along, she sees him as a functional character within her fixation and not as an identifiable acquaintance. Jesus brings her out of it, but there is no indication that he "changes form" to do that. On the contrary, he complains that her drowning victim's grip on him will damage his form and be inconvenient to repair.
Wow now that's a perspective I haven't explored before. I'm not sure I buy it but I would certainly read a book about that perspective if you wrote one. :thumbup: I'd be interested to see how it all hangs together in this version of events.
John2 wrote: Sat Jul 28, 2018 2:17 pm I'm more or less with John T on this one. I think the answer to your question is in 1 Cor. 15:35-54
Yea if GMark really is fundamentally a Pauline gospel then that makes sense. And I know there is a lot of discussion about "bodily" vs. "spiritual" resurrection in Paul, especially, and elsewhere in NT. I think this all makes sense.
Post Reply