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.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

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

Post by John2 »

John T wrote: Tue Jul 31, 2018 11:07 am
John2 wrote: Tue Jul 31, 2018 8:03 am
And why does 1 Peter not mention Jesus' physical body being resurrected in 3:18-19?
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 ...
The resurrection of the dead body of Jesus was already established in 1 Peter 1:3.
1 Peter 3:18-19 is taking about what the spirit of Jesus was doing during the 3 days and nights before the resurrection of the body.

Sincerely,
John T
I'm getting the "impression" that 1 Peter 1:3 is talking about a spiritual resurrection of Jesus too. I at least don't see anything in it that makes me think otherwise.

1 Peter 1:3-9:
... through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade. This inheritance is kept in heaven for you, who through faith are shielded by God’s power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time. In all this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials. These have come so that the proven genuineness of your faith—of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire—may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed. Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy, for you are receiving the end result of your faith, the salvation of your souls.
1 Peter 3:18-19:
He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. After being made alive ...
So Peter appears to be talking about "the salvation of your souls" here rather than having a resurrected physical body. And note how similar his language is to what Paul says in 1 Cor. 15:
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in turn: Christ, the first fruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. Then the end will come ... 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 ... The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man ... flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 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.”
So to me it sounds like Peter and Paul are talking about the same thing, i.e, "the salvation of your souls" and not a physical resurrection, with Jesus being the "first fruits" others will follow when their physical; bodies are similarly changed into new imperishable spiritual bodies. I picture it as being like popcorn. First there is a kernel, then it is changed, "in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye," into a new "body," a popped popcorn. So there is no kernel left behind nor does the kernel "go to heaven" (not as a kernel, at least). That's how I see it, anyway.

So I would suppose that Jesus' spiritual body went to hell and then heaven sometime on or after the third day when his physical body was "changed" and "raised imperishable," and that this is why there is no body in the tomb in Mark.
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 found an article by Ulansey called The Heavenly Veil Torn: Mark's Cosmic 'Inclusio' and here is an excerpt:
Indeed, in his 1987 article, "The Rending of the Veil: A Markan Pentecost," S. Motyer points out that there is actually a whole cluster of motifs which occur in Mark at both the baptism (1:9-11) and at the death of Jesus (15:36-39). In addition to the fact that at both of these moments something is torn, Motyer notes that: (1) at both moments a voice is heard declaring Jesus to be the Son of God (at the baptism it is the voice of God, while at the death it is the voice of the centurion); (2) at both moments something is said to descend (at the baptism it is the spirit-dove, while at the death it is the tear in the temple veil, which Mark explicitly describes as moving downward), (3) at both moments the figure of Elijah is symbolically present (at the baptism Elijah is present in the form of John the Baptist, while at Jesus' death the onlookers think that Jesus is calling out to Elijah); (4) the spirit (pneuma) which descends on Jesus at his baptism is recalled at his death by Mark's repeated use of the verb ekpneo (expire), a cognate of pneuma.

According to Motyer, the repetition by Mark of this cluster of motifs at both the baptism and the death of Jesus constitutes a symbolic inclusio which brackets the entire gospel, linking together the precise beginning and the precise end of the earthly career of Jesus. Seen in this context, the presence at both moments of the motif of something being torn is unlikely to be coincidental.

http://www.mysterium.com/veil.html
Fine, but I'm having trouble picturing the death of Jesus as being the end of some kind of proto-Mark rather than the resurrection as we have it, and that is because prior to the existence of Mark (which, again, I think was written by a Gentile follower of Peter), Paul gives four parts to what he says he received (which I presume from the context was from Jewish Christians) that were "of first importance" in 1 Cor. 15:3-11:
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve ... Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.
So why would Mark have a different gospel when this is what everyone was preaching prior to Mark (including Peter, who I think was Cephas, and who in turn I think preached to Mark)? And this is the same "gospel" that is in Mark to (including the Short Ending). Jesus died (or "breathed his last"), then was buried (or placed in a tomb), and then was resurrected on (or "after") the third day, and then he appeared to Cephas (or Peter) and the Twelve, etc. (Mk. 16:7: "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’ ”).

And I think this scenario simply boils down to the meaning of ekpneo, which is complicated by it only appearing in Mark (and Luke 23:46 following Mark). And though it is a cognate of pneuma, the definitions I'm seeing for ekpneo are giving me the impression that it simply means "to breathe out" or "to expire," such as here:
This word means "to breathe out," "to blow out," "to flag," "to expire." In the NT it occurs only in Mk. 15:37, 39 with a suggestion of the vital force leaving the body at death. Mt. 27:50; Jn. 19:30; Lk. 23:46 show that the true self may still survive with the handing over of the spirit to God.

https://books.google.com/books?id=ltZBU ... on&f=false


I'm not sure I follow what the above says about Matthew, John and Luke though. But in any event, whatever may be going on in Mk. 15:37, all of Mark as we have it corresponds with what Paul says he and Jewish Christians preached in 1 Cor. 15, that Jesus died, was buried, resurrected, and appeared to Christians.
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: Sat Aug 04, 2018 1:26 pm I found an article by Ulansey called The Heavenly Veil Torn: Mark's Cosmic 'Inclusio' and here is an excerpt:
Indeed, in his 1987 article, "The Rending of the Veil: A Markan Pentecost," S. Motyer points out that there is actually a whole cluster of motifs which occur in Mark at both the baptism (1:9-11) and at the death of Jesus (15:36-39). In addition to the fact that at both of these moments something is torn, Motyer notes that: (1) at both moments a voice is heard declaring Jesus to be the Son of God (at the baptism it is the voice of God, while at the death it is the voice of the centurion); (2) at both moments something is said to descend (at the baptism it is the spirit-dove, while at the death it is the tear in the temple veil, which Mark explicitly describes as moving downward), (3) at both moments the figure of Elijah is symbolically present (at the baptism Elijah is present in the form of John the Baptist, while at Jesus' death the onlookers think that Jesus is calling out to Elijah); (4) the spirit (pneuma) which descends on Jesus at his baptism is recalled at his death by Mark's repeated use of the verb ekpneo (expire), a cognate of pneuma.

According to Motyer, the repetition by Mark of this cluster of motifs at both the baptism and the death of Jesus constitutes a symbolic inclusio which brackets the entire gospel, linking together the precise beginning and the precise end of the earthly career of Jesus. Seen in this context, the presence at both moments of the motif of something being torn is unlikely to be coincidental.

http://www.mysterium.com/veil.html
Fine, but I'm having trouble picturing the death of Jesus as being the end of some kind of proto-Mark rather than the resurrection as we have it, and that is because prior to the existence of Mark (which, again, I think was written by a Gentile follower of Peter), Paul gives four parts to what he says he received (which I presume from the context was from Jewish Christians) that were "of first importance" in 1 Cor. 15:3-11:
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve ... Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.
So why would Mark have a different gospel when this is what everyone was preaching prior to Mark (including Peter, who I think was Cephas, and who in turn I think preached to Mark)? And this is the same "gospel" that is in Mark to (including the Short Ending).
That Ulansey article was exactly the one I had in mind.

But there are differences between Mark's gospel and Paul's. First, Mark 1.1-11 has Jesus declared to be the son of God at his baptism, while Romans 1.1-6 has Jesus declared to be the son of God at his resurrection and Philippians 2.6-11 has Jesus as the son of God from the very beginning, and Paul (or pseudo-Paul) never mentions Jesus' baptism elsewhere; something is going on there. Second, our extant Mark never actually narrates the appearances to Peter/Cephas or to the Twelve; in fact, our extant Mark seems to sabotage those expectations. Third, even if Mark were to narrate those appearances, it seems unlikely that Jesus would appear to the Twelve, since Judas has defected; Judas goes unmentioned in Paul, of course.

I already know how I myself prefer to solve these difficulties. But how do you solve them?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
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 »

Of course it's not accidental that a very late scene recalls the earliest scene. Right at the outset, there is a voice crying in the wilderness and Jesus uses another form of the same root word to declaim Psalm 22. And on and on.

It doesn't follow that the Jesus' declamation is positioned precisely as far from some "original ending" of the work as the crying out in the wilderness is from the begining. Jesus' death is the emotional climax of the work, not the end of the show. Jesus' death is the end of one phase of his career, but all readers of Paul know that this Jesus fellah did his best work after he'd died.

Three times in the run-up to his death, Mark's Jesus has made a "forward," telling the audience flat out that his death is not going to be the end of the show. So, Mark plays his climax for all it's worth, and then wraps things up in an engaging and satisfying way, paying off on the forwards.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

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

Post by John2 »

Ben wrote:
But there are differences between Mark's gospel and Paul's. First, Mark 1.1-11 has Jesus declared to be the son of God at his baptism, while Romans 1.1-6 has Jesus declared to be the son of God at his resurrection and Philippians 2.6-11 has Jesus as the son of God from the very beginning, and Paul (or pseudo-Paul) never mentions Jesus' baptism elsewhere; something is going on there. Second, our extant Mark never actually narrates the appearances to Peter/Cephas or to the Twelve; in fact, our extant Mark seems to sabotage those expectations. Third, even if Mark were to narrate those appearances, it seems unlikely that Jesus would appear to the Twelve, since Judas has defected; Judas goes unmentioned in Paul, of course.

I already know how I myself prefer to solve these difficulties. But how do you solve them?
Paul and Mark (and other Christians) may well have had different views regarding when Jesus became the son of God, but concerning Jesus' resurrection, Paul says that he and Jewish Christians preached the same thing, that "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve ... Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed."

Why does Mark have to narrate Jesus' appearance to Peter (or Cephas) and the Twelve? The idea is all in 14:27-50:
“You will all fall away,” Jesus told them, “for it is written: “ ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.’ But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee.”

Peter declared, “Even if all fall away, I will not.”

“Truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “today—yes, tonight—before the rooster crows twice you yourself will disown me three times.”

But Peter insisted emphatically, “Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you.” And all the others said the same ... Then everyone deserted him and fled.
I don't think Mark sabotages the expectation that the underlined part will happen, because Jesus says it will happen after the disciples "fall away" (as per the OT), which in Peter's case culminated with disowning Jesus three times "before the rooster crows twice" that day. But Jesus says that "after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee," so Peter and the other disciples know this, and the young man at the tomb underlines it: "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.’ ”

It doesn't matter that the women said nothing, since Jesus had already told them. And the "falling away" that Jesus mentions only pertains to what the disciples did before Jesus' resurrection. “You will all fall away,” Jesus told them, “for it is written: “ ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.’ But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee.”
Last edited by John2 on Sat Aug 04, 2018 4:00 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 »

Third, even if Mark were to narrate those appearances, it seems unlikely that Jesus would appear to the Twelve, since Judas has defected; Judas goes unmentioned in Paul, of course.
I overlooked this one. I see that as a product of Mark taking artistic license to model one of the disciples after Melanthius in Homer, as per MacDonald. I guess it came at the expense of Jesus appearing to the Twelve (as per Paul and Jewish Christians) .

https://books.google.com/books?id=8JkFq ... as&f=false
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: Sat Aug 04, 2018 3:01 pmI don't think Mark sabotages the expectation that the underlined part will happen, because Jesus says it will happen after the disciples "fall away" (as per the OT), which in Peter's case culminated with disowning Jesus three times "before the rooster crows twice" that day.
I personally do not think that our extant Mark sabotages the fact of the reunion with the disciples (though I also tend to think that both 14.28 and 16.7 are glosses). More than one interpreter of Mark, however, has used the ending at 16.8 to suggest that Jesus does not appear to them at all; narrating the appearances would not allow for this sorcery. But ask yourself: does Mark intend us to understand that the disciples remembered Jesus' words and thus either sought him out or actively waited for him in Galilee? Or does Mark intend us to understand that they forgot, returned to their old lives, and were then surprised by his appearance to them? Also, does Mark intend us to understand that Jesus appeared to Peter first and only then to the Eleven? Or is it all one composite appearance? Finally, when Jesus calls them "the disciples and Peter" in 16.7, does he mean to say that Peter is no longer a disciple? If not, why this wording? If so, however, is he now a graduate (= more than a disciple), as Stefan has suggested on this board, or is he an apostate (= less than a disciple)? Does Mark even attempt to answer these questions which most naturally arise about his abrupt ending?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
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: Sat Aug 04, 2018 3:40 pmI overlooked this one. I see that as a product of Mark taking artistic license to model one of the disciples after Melanthius in Homer, as per MacDonald. I guess it came at the expense of Jesus appearing to the Twelve (as per Paul and Jewish Christians).
John2 wrote: Sat Aug 04, 2018 3:01 pmPaul and Mark (and other Christians) may well have had different views regarding when Jesus became the son of God....
Okay, and I myself have no problem with Mark and Paul differing on such points. But you were the one who wrote:
John2 wrote: Sat Aug 04, 2018 1:26 pmSo why would Mark have a different gospel when this is what everyone was preaching prior to Mark (including Peter, who I think was Cephas, and who in turn I think preached to Mark)?
If Mark saw fit to turn the Twelve into Eleven, and if Mark saw fit to disagree with Pauline Christology, why do you expect him to agree with Paul on these points? One might treat the defection of Judas as a minor matter, but surely Christology is a pretty major issue. I do not understand why you assume that Mark and Paul must have the same gospel but are not at all surprised when they have different Christologies.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

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

Post by John2 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sat Aug 04, 2018 4:17 pm
John2 wrote: Sat Aug 04, 2018 3:40 pmI overlooked this one. I see that as a product of Mark taking artistic license to model one of the disciples after Melanthius in Homer, as per MacDonald. I guess it came at the expense of Jesus appearing to the Twelve (as per Paul and Jewish Christians).
John2 wrote: Sat Aug 04, 2018 3:01 pmPaul and Mark (and other Christians) may well have had different views regarding when Jesus became the son of God....
Okay, and I myself have no problem with Mark and Paul differing on such points. But you were the one who wrote:
John2 wrote: Sat Aug 04, 2018 1:26 pmSo why would Mark have a different gospel when this is what everyone was preaching prior to Mark (including Peter, who I think was Cephas, and who in turn I think preached to Mark)?
If Mark saw fit to turn the Twelve into Eleven, and if Mark saw fit to disagree with Pauline Christology, why do you expect him to agree with Paul on these points? One might treat the defection of Judas as a minor matter, but surely Christology is a pretty major issue. I do not understand why you assume that Mark and Paul must have the same gospel but are not at all surprised when they have different Christologies.
By "gospel" I meant the preaching about the resurrection that Paul mentions in 1 Cor. 15. I expect Mark and Paul to agree on these particular points because Paul says that Cephas (in my view Peter) and other Christians preached the same thing (and that it was "of first importance").
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: Sat Aug 04, 2018 4:57 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Sat Aug 04, 2018 4:17 pm
John2 wrote: Sat Aug 04, 2018 3:40 pmI overlooked this one. I see that as a product of Mark taking artistic license to model one of the disciples after Melanthius in Homer, as per MacDonald. I guess it came at the expense of Jesus appearing to the Twelve (as per Paul and Jewish Christians).
John2 wrote: Sat Aug 04, 2018 3:01 pmPaul and Mark (and other Christians) may well have had different views regarding when Jesus became the son of God....
Okay, and I myself have no problem with Mark and Paul differing on such points. But you were the one who wrote:
John2 wrote: Sat Aug 04, 2018 1:26 pmSo why would Mark have a different gospel when this is what everyone was preaching prior to Mark (including Peter, who I think was Cephas, and who in turn I think preached to Mark)?
If Mark saw fit to turn the Twelve into Eleven, and if Mark saw fit to disagree with Pauline Christology, why do you expect him to agree with Paul on these points? One might treat the defection of Judas as a minor matter, but surely Christology is a pretty major issue. I do not understand why you assume that Mark and Paul must have the same gospel but are not at all surprised when they have different Christologies.
By "gospel" I meant the preaching about the resurrection that Paul mentions in 1 Cor. 15. I expect Mark and Paul to agree on these particular points because Paul says that Cephas (in my view Peter) and other Christians preached the same thing (and that it was "of first importance").
Interesting, then, that the appearance to the Twelve appears on this "very important" list.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply