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.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

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

Post by John T »

Touching Jesus will damage his form and make it inconvenient to repair?

That is a view I have never heard before and I have heard many.
The one I prefer regarding John 20:17 is a more logical approach.

That is, Mary returns to the tomb to finish the burial preparations to the body of Jesus. She could not immediately perform the burial custom because the Sabbath does not allow such work. John 19:39-42 .

So, when the Sabbaths (yes there were two Sabbaths during the three day period) was over she went back to the tomb to finish the job. Jesus tells her, do not touch me for there no longer is a need but instead go to my brothers and tell them I'm still alive.

Sincerely,

John T
Last edited by John T on Sun Jul 29, 2018 5:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

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

Post by John T »

Peter Kirby wrote: Sat Jul 28, 2018 9:44 pm
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.
Peter,

I take it, you were raised as an atheist?
Meaning, when you first started to read the Bible it was in a piece meal fashion not to see the truths in it but to verify the atheist arguments that falsified it. :confusedsmiley:

Sincerely,

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8027
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 »

John T wrote: Sun Jul 29, 2018 3:53 am I take it, you were raised as an atheist?
No, I was not. My parents were Christian. I went to church on Sunday. My siblings and I had 12 years of Catholic school education. I went to an all-boys high school. We had a picture of Jesus on the wall near the stairs at home; maybe you've seen it before.

Image
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

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

Post by Ulan »

John2 wrote: Sat Jul 28, 2018 2:17 pm 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."
I guess the KJV is one of the few translations that tries a more literal approach with "gives up the ghost". The word is "exepneusen". It's easy to see why someone would think that the spirit (which is also "pneuma" in Greek) would leave Jesus here.

By the way, the expressions in gMatthew (27:50 "apheken to pneuma", "released the spirit") and gJohn (19:30 "paredoken to pneuma", "handed over the spirit") are quite similar and transport the same idea.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

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

Post by John T »

Peter Kirby wrote: Sun Jul 29, 2018 11:29 am
John T wrote: Sun Jul 29, 2018 3:53 am I take it, you were raised as an atheist?
No, I was not. My parents were Christian. I went to church on Sunday. My siblings and I had 12 years of Catholic school education. I went to an all-boys high school. We had a picture of Jesus on the wall near the stairs at home; maybe you've seen it before.

Image
Yep, I know it well. I was raised as a Methodist (John Wesley) and after Sunday school I would walk up the stairs for worship service and see that picture of Jesus hanging over me. I always wondered if Jesus was supposed to be a Jew how come he looks Aryan, that is, blonde hair and blue eyes?

I later learned that much of what I was taught about Jesus in Sunday school was just not so.

Sincerely,

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

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

Post by John2 »

Ulan wrote: Sun Jul 29, 2018 12:51 pm
John2 wrote: Sat Jul 28, 2018 2:17 pm 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."
I guess the KJV is one of the few translations that tries a more literal approach with "gives up the ghost". The word is "exepneusen". It's easy to see why someone would think that the spirit (which is also "pneuma" in Greek) would leave Jesus here.

By the way, the expressions in gMatthew (27:50 "apheken to pneuma", "released the spirit") and gJohn (19:30 "paredoken to pneuma", "handed over the spirit") are quite similar and transport the same idea.
I see only three uses of the word exepneusen in the NT (http://biblehub.com/greek/1606.htm), and the definitions I am seeing for it only say "to breathe out, expire," and the definitions and uses of the root for it (pneo) also appear to have the sense of "blowing"
(http://biblehub.com/greek/4154.htm). I suppose pneo is related to pneuma (http://biblehub.com/str/greek/4151.htm), but I don't see any sense of "spirit" in the seven occurrences of pneo.

But in any event, it certainly looks like Mk.15:37 was at least understood by Matthew and John (and Lk. 23:46) to mean that Jesus' spirit left his body during the crucifixion, and I don't know Greek well enough to say if this understanding is right.
Last edited by John2 on Mon Jul 30, 2018 9:11 am, edited 1 time 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 »

Aleph One wrote: Sat Jul 28, 2018 11:47 pm
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.
I think the idea of a spiritual resurrection originated with Jewish Christians rather than Paul, since, as John T pointed out, 1 Peter (which I think is genuine) espouses the same idea in 3:18-22:
He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.
And as Paul says about Jesus' resurrection in 1 Cor. 15:3-11:
For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures; and that he appeared to Cephas; then to the twelve; then he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain until now, but some are fallen asleep; then he appeared to James; then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to the child untimely born, he appeared to me also. For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not found vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. Whether then it be I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.


Offhand, I'm unaware of any Jewish Christian writing that castigates Paul for this particular belief. And my understanding from Church fathers is that Jewish Christians believed that Jesus (or the "Christ" spirit that entered into him at some point during his life) was a heavenly being.
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 »

I'm thinking the root of adoptionism (as per Mk. is Is. 11:1-2 and Is. 61:1.
A shoot will spring up from the stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots will bear fruit. The Spirit of the Lord will rest on Him— the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and strength, the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD.
The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor.
Jesus even cites the latter in Lk. 4:18.

"On" (defined as "upon, above, over"):

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/5921.htm

Cf. Mk. 1:10-11:
Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”


Heb. 5:5 and the gospel of the Hebrews are even more explicit.
But God said to him, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father."
Jerome Com. Is. 4:
According to the Gospel written in the Hebrew speech, which the Nazaraeans read, the whole fount of the Holy Spirit shall descend upon him .... Further in the Gospel which we have just mentioned we find the following written: "And it came to pass when the Lord was come up out of the water, the whole fount of the Holy Spirit descended upon him and rested on him and said to him: My son, in all the prophets was I waiting for you that you should come and I might rest in you. For you are my rest; you are my first begotten Son that reigns forever.
Last edited by John2 on Mon Jul 30, 2018 9:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

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

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Mon Jul 30, 2018 8:53 am
Ulan wrote: Sun Jul 29, 2018 12:51 pm
John2 wrote: Sat Jul 28, 2018 2:17 pm 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."
I guess the KJV is one of the few translations that tries a more literal approach with "gives up the ghost". The word is "exepneusen". It's easy to see why someone would think that the spirit (which is also "pneuma" in Greek) would leave Jesus here.

By the way, the expressions in gMatthew (27:50 "apheken to pneuma", "released the spirit") and gJohn (19:30 "paredoken to pneuma", "handed over the spirit") are quite similar and transport the same idea.
I see only three uses of the word exepneusen in the NT (http://biblehub.com/greek/1606.htm), and the definitions I am seeing for it only say "to breathe out, expire," and the definitions and uses of the root for it (pneo) also appear to have the sense of "blowing"
(http://biblehub.com/greek/4154.htm). I suppose pneo is related to pneuma (http://biblehub.com/str/greek/4151.htm), but I don't see any sense of "spirit" in the seven occurrences of pneo.

But in any event, it certainly looks like Mk.15:37 was at least understood by Matthew and John (and Lk. 23:46) to mean that Jesus' spirit left his body during the crucifixion, and I don't know Greek well enough to say if this understanding is right.
It is a matter of the ancients (and many moderns) perceiving death as the spirit leaving the body.

The verb ἐκπνέω can mean "let one's spirit out" in pretty much the same way that πνεῦμα itself means "spirit," since in both cases the sense of "human spirit" is a tertiary meaning:

ἐκπνέω:

1. "breathe out"
2. "blow out" (of a wind)
3. "let one's spirit out" = die/"expire"

πνεῦμα:

1. "wind"
2. "breath"
3. "spirit"

The word ἐκπνέω would/could not even mean "to die" if πνεῦμα did not mean "spirit." Breathing out does not mean dying (exhaling is not expiring); but releasing one's spirit does.

It is obviously possible that Mark used ἐκπνέω perfectly innocently here, not noticing that embedded morpheme meaning "spirit" in it. But, given the correlations between the baptism and the death in Mark, I doubt it:
  1. At both events something descends; the holy spirit descends as a dove at the baptism of Jesus, and the veil rips in two from top to bottom at his death.
  2. At both events the spirit is moving; at the baptism the spirit enters Jesus, and at his death the spirit exits him.
  3. At both events somebody claims that Jesus is a son of God; at his baptism it is a voice from heaven, at his death a nearby centurion.
  4. At both events the eschatological figure of Elijah is symbolically present; at the baptism of Jesus it is in the person of John the baptist (whom Jesus himself affirms as Elijah in Mark 9.9-13), while at his death the bystanders mistake his forlorn cry for a call to Elijah.
  5. At both events something tears; at the baptism of Jesus it is heaven, and at his death it is the veil.
And, as you say, both Matthew and Luke seem to have gotten the point, even if our more modern languages and sensibilities might tend to obscure it.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

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

Post by Ulan »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Jul 30, 2018 9:36 am
John2 wrote: Mon Jul 30, 2018 8:53 am
Ulan wrote: Sun Jul 29, 2018 12:51 pm
John2 wrote: Sat Jul 28, 2018 2:17 pm 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."
I guess the KJV is one of the few translations that tries a more literal approach with "gives up the ghost". The word is "exepneusen". It's easy to see why someone would think that the spirit (which is also "pneuma" in Greek) would leave Jesus here.

By the way, the expressions in gMatthew (27:50 "apheken to pneuma", "released the spirit") and gJohn (19:30 "paredoken to pneuma", "handed over the spirit") are quite similar and transport the same idea.
I see only three uses of the word exepneusen in the NT (http://biblehub.com/greek/1606.htm), and the definitions I am seeing for it only say "to breathe out, expire," and the definitions and uses of the root for it (pneo) also appear to have the sense of "blowing"
(http://biblehub.com/greek/4154.htm). I suppose pneo is related to pneuma (http://biblehub.com/str/greek/4151.htm), but I don't see any sense of "spirit" in the seven occurrences of pneo.

But in any event, it certainly looks like Mk.15:37 was at least understood by Matthew and John (and Lk. 23:46) to mean that Jesus' spirit left his body during the crucifixion, and I don't know Greek well enough to say if this understanding is right.
It is a matter of the ancients (and many moderns) perceiving death as the spirit leaving the body.

The verb ἐκπνέω can mean "let one's spirit out" in pretty much the same way that πνεῦμα itself means "spirit," since in both cases the sense of "human spirit" is a tertiary meaning:

ἐκπνέω:

1. "breathe out"
2. "blow out" (of a wind)
3. "let one's spirit out" = die/"expire"

πνεῦμα:

1. "wind"
2. "breath"
3. "spirit"

The word ἐκπνέω would/could not even mean "to die" if πνεῦμα did not mean "spirit." Breathing out does not mean dying (exhaling is not expiring); but releasing one's spirit does.

It is obviously possible that Mark used ἐκπνέω perfectly innocently here, not noticing that embedded morpheme meaning "spirit" in it. But, given the correlations between the baptism and the death in Mark, I doubt it:
  1. At both events something descends; the holy spirit descends as a dove at the baptism of Jesus, and the veil rips in two from top to bottom at his death.
  2. At both events the spirit is moving; at the baptism the spirit enters Jesus, and at his death the spirit exits him.
  3. At both events somebody claims that Jesus is a son of God; at his baptism it is a voice from heaven, at his death a nearby centurion.
  4. At both events the eschatological figure of Elijah is symbolically present; at the baptism of Jesus it is in the person of John the baptist (whom Jesus himself affirms as Elijah in Mark 9.9-13), while at his death the bystanders mistake his forlorn cry for a call to Elijah.
  5. At both events something tears; at the baptism of Jesus it is heaven, and at his death it is the veil.
And, as you say, both Matthew and Luke seem to have gotten the point, even if our more modern languages and sensibilities might tend to obscure it.
Indeed. For what it's worth, a Bible commentary I read claimed that the word Mark uses here is definitely not a common Greek euphemism for "dying", which seems to explain why Matthew and John got the point Mark tried to make. Nevertheless, most English language translations choose some more general expression for "dying" here. In Matthew, that's not as easily feasible, and the interlinear tries to put "released (his) spirit" to keep the reader from getting heretic thoughts, even if there's only the definite article to be found. The official German translation of the Catholic Church tries to translate Mark as "Then he exhaled the spirit". Even if this is somewhat doubled up, it matches the original relatively closely.
Post Reply