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 »

Interesting, then, that the appearance to the Twelve appears on this "very important" list.
As I said, that may have been the price to pay for Mark modeling of one of the disciples on Melanthius (as per MacDonald).

But now that I think about it, who says Judas was no longer part of the Twelve and could not/did not later see the resurrected Jesus? I don't see anything in the Short Ending of Mark that suggests that.
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 5:51 pm
Interesting, then, that the appearance to the Twelve appears on this "very important" list.
As I said, that may have been the price to pay for Mark modeling of one of the disciples on Melanthius (as per MacDonald).

But now that I think about it, who says Judas was no longer part of the Twelve and could not/did not later see the resurrected Jesus? I don't see anything in the Short Ending of Mark that suggests that.
Another loose end in Mark, indeed.

I simply do not believe that anybody originally intended to end this gospel at 16.8.
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 wrote:
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?


I would guess the former. After all, if Jesus' other words were remembered (which one assumes was the case at least in Mark, for how else would anything he said be in Mark, from Mark's point of view?), why wouldn't they remember these too?
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?
Peter is at least the first one to answer Jesus after he says "But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee,” followed by "all the others," which is similar to the ordering in 1 Cor. 15:5 ("he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve").
But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee. Peter declared, “Even if all fall away, I will not” ... Peter insisted emphatically, “Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you.” And all the others said the same.
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?
I guess I see two ways of looking at it. Peter is not part of the Twelve in Paul, right? ("He appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve"). And Paul says Peter is an apostle in Gal. 1:18-19 and 2:8:
Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.
For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles


So I suppose one could argue that Peter as not a "disciple" but an apostle (or he had become an apostle by Paul's time). But Mark has Peter as part of the Twelve in 3:14-16:
He appointed twelve that they might be with him and that he might send them out to preach and to have authority to drive out demons. These are the twelve he appointed: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter) ...
But I'm not sure what the distinction is between a disciple and an apostle anyway. Could Peter not have been a disciple and an apostle? Also, I've seen 16:7 translated as "Go and tell the disciples, even Peter ..." This is one of the definitions I see for kai, anyway.
and, even, also, namely.

https://biblehub.com/greek/2532.htm
Could 16:7 mean, "tell the disciples, even [or namely/specifically/especially/including] Peter"?
Last edited by John2 on Sat Aug 04, 2018 7:14 pm, edited 2 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 »

Ben wrote:
Another loose end in Mark, indeed.

I simply do not believe that anybody originally intended to end this gospel at 16.8.
I wonder if Mark was changed at 16:8 because of the later development of the idea of "the Eleven." Maybe Judas didn't hang himself in the original ending of Mark (if there was one beyond the Short Ending) and that simply would not do after Matthew became became popular, hence the emphasis on "the Eleven" in the Long Ending.
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 6:46 pm Ben wrote:
Another loose end in Mark, indeed.

I simply do not believe that anybody originally intended to end this gospel at 16.8.
I wonder if Mark was changed at 16:8 because of the later development of the idea of "the Eleven." Maybe Judas didn't hang himself in the original ending of Mark (if there was one beyond the Short Ending) and that simply would not do after Matthew became became popular, hence the emphasis on "the Eleven" in the Long Ending.
That seems possible. I am quite open to hypotheses that Mark's ending, once lost (for whatever reason), tended to stay lost (at least in some circles) because of something which was seen as objectionable in it. That said, though, the whole Eleven versus Twelve issue seems a bit trivial to me as a reason to suppress the ending. If nobody bothered to harmonize the Twelve in Paul with the Eleven in Matthew and Luke, why should somebody bother to suppress an entire gospel ending on that score alone? It is possible as a one-off sort of thing, but it seems less likely to me than that something doctrinal was at stake. Perhaps Mark's ending gave away the game so far as adoptionism or separationism is concerned; or perhaps it came off as too docetic.
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 7:15 pm
John2 wrote: Sat Aug 04, 2018 6:46 pm Ben wrote:
Another loose end in Mark, indeed.

I simply do not believe that anybody originally intended to end this gospel at 16.8.
I wonder if Mark was changed at 16:8 because of the later development of the idea of "the Eleven." Maybe Judas didn't hang himself in the original ending of Mark (if there was one beyond the Short Ending) and that simply would not do after Matthew became became popular, hence the emphasis on "the Eleven" in the Long Ending.
That seems possible. I am quite open to hypotheses that Mark's ending, once lost (for whatever reason), tended to stay lost (at least in some circles) because of something which was seen as objectionable in it. That said, though, the whole Eleven versus Twelve issue seems a bit trivial to me as a reason to suppress the ending. If nobody bothered to harmonize the Twelve in Paul with the Eleven in Matthew and Luke, why should somebody bother to suppress an entire gospel ending on that score alone? It is possible as a one-off sort of thing, but it seems less likely to me than that something doctrinal was at stake. Perhaps Mark's ending gave away the game so far as adoptionism or separationism is concerned; or perhaps it came off as too docetic.
In any event, I'm suddenly seeing Judas as at least possibly being part of "the Twelve" in Mark even after the resurrection.

Over and over Mk. 14 refers to "the Twelve" and calls Judas "one of the Twelve":
Then Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve, went to the chief priests to betray Jesus to them ... When evening came, Jesus arrived with the Twelve. While they were reclining at the table eating, he said, “Truly I tell you, one of you will betray me—one who is eating with me.” They were saddened, and one by one they said to him, “Surely you don’t mean me?” “It is one of the Twelve,” he replied ... Just as he was speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, appeared.
Bearing that in mind, I assume that Judas must be included in Jesus' statement to go to Galilee after his 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.”


I'm going to guess that the second "you" above is plural and thus refers to "the Twelve," which, to judge from the context, would include Judas. That would let Mark have his "Melanthius" (as per MacDonald) and keep "the Twelve" intact (as per 1 Cor. 15:5).

Why would Matthew (or whoever translated the original Hebrew Matthew and combined it with Mark) want Judas to hang himself? My guess would be for the same reason Matthew embellishes Mark in other respects. Surely the guy who betrayed Jesus came to a bad end, right? But does that not go against what Jesus says in Mk. 14:27-28 ("You will all fall away ... But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee”)?
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 7:44 pmI'm going to guess that the second "you" above is plural and thus refers to "the Twelve," which, to judge from the context, would include Judas. That would let Mark have his "Melanthius" (as per MacDonald) and keep "the Twelve" intact (as per 1 Cor. 15:5).

Why would Matthew (or whoever translated the original Hebrew Matthew and combined it with Mark) want Judas to hang himself? My guess would be for the same reason Matthew embellishes Mark in other respects. Surely the guy who betrayed Jesus came to a bad end, right? But does that not go against what Jesus says in Mk. 14:27-28 ("You will all fall away ... But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee”)?
Those are good points. And yes, that explicit "you" (ὑμᾶς) in verse 28 is plural, just like the implicit "you" in verse 27.
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 »

One problem with that idea though is Mk. 14:20-21:
“It is one of the Twelve,” he replied, “one who dips bread into the bowl with me. The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.”


Hm.
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 suppose this made people wonder (naturally enough), "What happened to Judas?" It's making me wonder what it could mean in light of You will all fall away/I will go ahead of you.
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 see that Mk. 14:21 is compared to Job 3:1-3:
After this, Job opened his mouth and cursed the day of his birth. He said: “May the day of my birth perish ...
And what happened to Job? He had various severe sufferings, but he didn't die from them, right? So does Mk. 14:21 necessarily mean that Judas died (and thus could not/did not see the resurrected Jesus), or could it mean that God (in Jesus' view) would allow him to suffer and "curse the day of his birth" but nevertheless let him live like Job (and thus get to see the resurrected Jesus)?
Last edited by John2 on Sat Aug 04, 2018 8:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Post Reply