james_woods...It has to do with the three options given by the authors of that geology paper. I am giving evidence in favor of #3, that the earthquake was added to the original Markan narrative of the crucifixion by drawing on the Vision of the Dry Bones from Ezekiel. It is a Matthean tendency to add references to quakes/shakings (seismos) to the Markan narrative; there are two other examples of this. This was thus more likely to be a later addition to the developing passion narratives (rather than something deriving from historical memory). And the source of the earthquake reference is adequately accounted for by the evangelist's stylistic tendency AND the allusion to Ezekiel; it is unnecessary to posit that there is here a memory of a historical quake that was later incorrectly associated with the crucifixion (option #2).
Quake reveals day of Jesus' crucifixion
by Vidqun 41 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
james_woods
OK, missed that point. It is not hard to realize that such things as an eclipse or an earthquake could become directly associated with so-called new testament events as the stories were repeated over the years.
-
Leolaia
The more I dig into this, the more there is to say concerning the Pericope Zombiae. As mentioned above, the reference to an earthquake at the crucifixion is a Matthean redaction, just as the reference to an earthquake the morning of the resurrection was a Matthean redaction as well. And if we compare the two accounts together, they are in close parallel. This confirms still further that the Pericope Zombiae is a resurrection narrative.
Matthew 27:51-52, 54: "And behold (kai idou) the veil of the Temple was torn in two from top to bottom and the earth shook (hè gè eseisthè) and the rocks were split. The tombs were opened and many bodies of the holy ones who had fallen asleep were raised (ègerthèsan), and coming out from the tombs after he was raised they entered into the holy city and appeared to many.... When the centurion and those with him who were guarding (hoi t è rountes) Jesus saw the earthquake (ton seismon) and all that had happened, they were terrified (ephob è th è san), and exclaimed, 'Surely he was the Son of God' ".
Matthew 28:2, 4-6: "And behold (kai idou) there was a great earthquake (seismos megas), for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. Those who were keeping guard (hoi t è rountes) were so afraid (phobou) of him that they shook (eseisth è san) and became like dead men. The angel said to the women, 'Do not be afraid (phobeisthe), for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen ( è gerth è ), just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay' ".
It is clear that the two episodes are closely parallel to each other....there is an earthquake, the tomb is opened, the dead person inside is raised, the raised person leaves the tomb, and the guards become fearful. And notice too that we have yet another seismos-type word that the author adds to the Markan narrative. And indeed there are several others. Here they all are for the sake of comparison:
Mark 4:37, 11:11, 15:38-39, 16:4-5: "And a great storm of wind arose, and the waves beat into the boat, so that the boat was already filling....And he entered Jerusalem and went into the temple, and when he had looked at everything it was already late and he went out to Bethany with the Twelve...And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And when the centurion, who stood facing him saw that he thus breathed his last, he said, 'Truly this man was the Son of God'....And looking up they saw that the stone was rolled back; it was very large. And entering the tomb they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe".
Matthew 8:24, 21:10, 27:51, 54, 28:2-4: "And behold, there arose a great shaking (seismos megas) on the sea, so the boat was being swamped by the waves....And when he entered Jerusalem all the city was shaken up (eseisthe), saying 'Who is this?' ....And behold the veil of the Temple was torn in two from top to bottom and the earth shook (hè gè eseisthè) and the rocks were split....When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake ( ton seismon ) and all that had happened, they were terrified and exclaimed, 'Surely he was the Son of God'...And behold there was a great earthquake ( seismos megas ), for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow. Those who were keeping guard were so afraid of him that they shook ( eseisth è san )".
So we can see that it is a stylistic feature of the author of Matthew to add references to shakings (forms of the verb seiein and the noun seismos) to the underlying Markan narrative. The earthquake at the crucifixion is part of this redactional tendency.
Now I think I said in my first post on this thread that only Matthew gives a reference to an earthquake, but in fact there is an earthquake mentioned in the Gospel of Peter but at a slightly different place in the narrative: after Jesus was taken down from the cross. Now this raises a host of very interesting issues. There seems to be a special relationship here between Matthew and the Gospel of Peter, and a relationship that again furnishes more evidence that the Pericope Zombiae is a resurrection story. We already know from the statement in Matthew 16:18 (found only in Matthew, compare Mark 8:29-30, Luke 9:20-21) that the author regarded Peter as having unique authority (see the parallel in logion 13 of the Gospel of Thomas, in which Thomas takes the place of Peter), and this is usually taken to mean that the gospel of Matthew belongs to the stream of Petrine tradition in the early church. Mark represents a decidedly Western, or Roman, version of the Petrine tradition (cf. the Latinate vocabulary of the author and cf. the tradition in Papias connecting Mark with Peter), and other Western exemplars of the Petrine tradition are 1 Peter (which mentions both Rome and Mark) and the Acts of Peter (with its famous Quo Vadis story). Matthew, which is the most Law-observant gospel in the NT, belongs with the Eastern, or Syrian, Petrine tradition which is conspicuously Law-observant....other examples likely originating from Syria include the Gospel of Peter, the Kerygma Petrou, and the Itinerary of Peter. The Eastern tradition probably derives from Peter's activity in Syria, particularly Antioch (cf. also Galatians 2:11-14). So there is an interesting connection here between early Christian works connected with Peter (Matthew, the Gospel of Peter, 1 Peter) and Syria (the Odes of Solomon and Ignatius), or the East in general (Justin Martyr). First, let us look at the parallels between Matthew and the Gospel of Peter:
Gospel of Peter 5:20-6:22, 9:35-10:42, 11:45: "And at the same hour the veil of the temple in Jerusalem was rent in two. And they drew the nails from the hands of the Lord and laid him on the earth. And the whole earth shook (hè gè pasa eseisthè) and there came a great fear. Then the sun shone and it was found to be the ninth hour....Now in the night in which the Lord's day dawned, when the soldiers two by two in every watch, were keeping guard, there rang out a loud voice in heaven, and they saw the heavens opened and two men come down from there in a great brightness and draw nigh to the tomb. The stone that had been covering the entrance started to roll by itself and give way to the side, and the tomb was opened (hè taphos ènoigè ), and both the young men entered in. When now the soldiers saw this, they awakened the centurion and the elders, for they also were there to assist at the watch. And while they were relating what they had seen, they saw again three men come out (exelthontas) from the tomb (apo tou taphou), and two of them supporting the other, and a cross was following them, and the heads of the two reached to heaven, but the head of the one held by them surpassed the heavens. And they heard a voice out of the heavens crying, 'Have you preached (ek è ruxas) to those who sleep (tois koimòmenois)?' and from the cross there was heard the answer, 'Yea'.... When those who were in the centurion's command saw this they immediately ran to Pilate in the night, abandoning the tomb they had been guarding, and reported everything they had seen, being full of fear and saying, 'Truly he was the Son of God' ".
Matthew 27:51-52, 28:2-4: "And behold the veil of the temple was rent in two from top to bottom and the earth shook (hè gè eseisthè) and the rocks were split. The tombs were opened (mnèmeia aneòkhthèsan) and many bodies of the holy ones who had fallen asleep (t ò n kekoim è men ò n) were raised, and coming out ( exelthontes ) from the tombs (ex tòn mnèmeiòn) after he was raised they entered into the holy city and appeared to many....When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified and exclaimed, 'Surely he was the Son of God'...And behold there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow. Those who were keeping guard were so afraid of him that they shook".
It is quite clear that despite the differences, the Gospel of Peter and Matthew both diverge from Mark (as well as Luke and John) in many of the same ways. Both have an earthquake or two while the other gospels do not. Both relate the actual opening of Jesus' tomb whereas the other gospels do not (in Mark the tomb is already opened by the time it is mentioned). Whereas in Mark the confession is uttered by the centurion, in Matthew and the Gospel of Peter the confession is extended to the guards. And whereas in Mark and the other gospels the confession was occasioned by the rending of the temple veil, in Matthew and the Gospel of Peter it follows the opening of tombs and resurrection. Also both of these gospels use very similar language: (1) "the earth shook" ( hè gè eseisthè ) vs. "the whole earth shook" ( hè gè eseisthè ), (2) someone "coming out" ( exelthontas vs. exelthontes ) of a tomb, and (3) a reference to the dead as "those who sleep" ( koimòmenois vs. kekoim è men ò n ). The main difference is that in Matthew there are two earthquakes (one associated with the opening of the tombs of the holy ones and one associated with the opening of Jesus' tomb) and the confession occurs right after the resurrection of the holy ones whereas in the Gospel of Peter there is a single earthquake and the confession occurs right after Jesus' resurrection. There also seems to be in the Gospel of Peter a link to Matthew's tradition of the more general resurrection of the dead. The voice from heaven makes reference to a preaching ( ek è ruxas) to "those who sleep", to which the cross affirms, "Yea". It is thus possible that the talking cross accompanying Jesus is a symbol for the dead whom Jesus preached to, who no longer remain in Hades but accompany him in the resurrection (this idea was first proposed by JD Crossan). There is a link here to another Petrine source: 1 Peter. We read in 1 Peter 4:6 that "the gospel was preached even to the dead (nekrois eu è ggelisth è)" and earlier we also read that Jesus "was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit in which he went and preached (ek è ruxen) to the spirits in prison" (3:18-20). Another text with a similar theme is Ephesians 4:8-9 which quotes Psalm 68:18 to claim that when Jesus "descended into the lower parts" he then "ascended on high leading a host of captives and gave gifts to men". Ignatius of Antioch (early second century AD) similarly wrote that Jesus "died in the sight of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth" (Trallians 9:1), and the prophets "looked forward to him [Christ] as their teacher, and therefore he for whom they rightly waited came and raised them from the dead" (Magnesians 9:2). This connects the theme of Jesus preaching to the dead with the resurrection of the dead, which Ignatius here indicates has already occurred. This is quite close to the idea in the pericope in Matthew (notice for instance that while the dead Jesus preached to are sinners in 1 Peter, they are holy prophets in Ignatius), and that makes sense as well since there is a close literary relationship between Ignatius and Matthew (possibly because they originated in the same milieu, i.e. Syria). Another early second century AD source likely from Syria is the Odes of Solomon (which incidentally has a rather Johannine flavor). Here Jesus says: "He who caused me to descend from on high and to ascend from the regions below ... he who gave me authority over chains so that I might loosen them, he who overthrew by my hands the dragon with seven heads ... and your hand leveled the way for those who believe in you, and it chose them from the graves, and separated them from the dead ones. I took dead bones and covered them with flesh ... and the foundation of everything is your rock. And upon it you have built your kingdom, and it became the dwelling places of the holy ones" (22:1-10). Here Jesus refers to the resurrection of the holy ones, and alludes to both Ezekiel 37 and Matthew 16:18 (the passage that gives prestige to Peter). Later on Jesus also says:
Odes of Solomon 42:11-20: "Sheol saw me and was shattered, and Death ejected me and many with me. I have been vinegar and bitterness to it, and I went down with it as far as its depth. Then the feet and the head it released, because it was not able to endure my face. And I made a congregation of living among his dead; and I spoke with them by living lips in order that my word may not fail. And those who had died ran towards me and they cried out and said, 'Son of God, have pity on us. And deal with us according to your kindness, and bring us out from the chains of darkness. And open a door for us by which we may go forth to you, for we perceive that our death does not approach you. May we also be saved with you, because you are our Savior.' Then I heard their voice, and placed their faith in my heart. And I placed my name upon their head, because they are free and they are mine".
A similar tradition can be found in the Ascension of Isaiah (second century AD): "They will lay their hands upon him and hang him upon a tree, not knowing who he is. And thus his descent, as you will see, will be concealed even from the heavens so that it will not be known who he is. And when he has plundered the angel of death, he will rise on the third day and will remain in that world for five hundred and forty-five days. And then many of the righteous will ascend with him, whose spirits do not receive their robes until the Lord Christ ascends and they ascend with him" (9:14-17). Compare also Justin Martyr (middle of the second century AD): "The Lord God remembered his dead people of Israel (Isra è l t ò n nekr ò n autou) who slept ( t ò n kekoim è men ò n ) in their graves, and he descended to preach (euaggelisasthai) to them his own salvation" (Dialogue, 72.4). As one final example of this belief, consider Tertullian (late second century AD): "The patriarchs and prophets migrated from the lower regions (ab inferis migraverint) as appendages of the Lord's resurrection (appendices dominicae resurrectionis)" (De Anima, 55.4). So Matthew and the Gospel of Peter belong to a stream of early Christianity (popular particularly in the East) that construed Jesus as preaching in the underworld and releasing the dead from bondage. The general scenario seems to be that after dying, Jesus preached in the underworld and set free the prophets, patriarchs, and others who were raised with him and ascended to heaven with him. The Gospel of Peter is consistent with this. Matthew departs from this scenario by displacing the resurrection of the dead to the moment of Jesus' death, which then necessitated the awkward gloss that made them stay in their tombs until after Jesus' resurrection. But the idea that there was a resurrection of the dead holy ones of Israel was hardly unique to Matthew. As you can see, it was actually quite a common one in the second century AD.
-
mP
@vidqun
mP, different eye witness accounts, different versions. Each witness saw it from a different perspective. The MS are quite uniform in their renderings. There are many differences in spelling, but few major theological changes have been made. Most of these occur in the miniscules, often where a footnote is incorporated in the text.
mP:
Im sorry they are not simply different accounts they are contradictions. Mt, Mk, Lu as mentioned give a different day of the week for Jesus death than John. That is not simply a different view of the same event , that is a downright mistake. We also have contradictions where some gospels sasy Jesus did not speak a word in fulfillment of prophecy and then others say he said a few things. I gues that means somebody is wrong and the prophecy is wrong as well. How exactly did anybody know what happened in the proceedings given all the apostles ran off in the night ? The reasonable answer is of course they made it all up. How can they be witnesses if by their own admission in their own narratives they were not there ?
I see by your answers you completely ignored what i said, ebcause you dont want to see just how many contradictiosn and errors there are in the gospels.
-
mP
VIDQUN
mP, we have been blessed with a brain more advanced than any computer. I think the idea is to use it. As to the distribution of Greek NT MSS, not much need to be said. As to uncials, there’s approximately 257, 93 papyrus MSS, and roughly 2795 miniscules catalogued. This tally excludes lectionaries and translations. So there’s a cloud of witnesses to choose from. The message is remarkably similar with few deviations. That’s good going.
Again your making statements that incomplete because the details are embarrassing. Few if of those hundreds are complete, most are fragments that have at most a dozen words or a sentence often looking like swiss cheese full of holes and rips, faded text and other similar issues.
Just because tehrea re lot sof copies does not make it true or accurate. The synoptic gospels are just copies of some earlier maniscript. Mt, Mk and Lu are not separate witnesses they are variations of the same with additions. Why did Mt a so called witness copy from someone who was not a witness ? that is absurd and makes absolute no sense.
Look at your own bible the last chapter of mark has no resurrection. Everybody admits the resurrection in Mark is an addition. Surely this is undefencible, the greatest event of the time and your witness some how forgot to write it down. Someone else then came along and made up a resurrection. This is further proof that the gospels are a work in progress, everybody and anybody was adding or removing or editing and more.
-
Leolaia
Look at your own bible the last chapter of mark has no resurrection. Everybody admits the resurrection in Mark is an addition. Surely this is undefencible, the greatest event of the time and your witness some how forgot to write it down. Someone else then came along and made up a resurrection.
No, this is not true at all. Even though there is no appearance narrative like the other gospels, it most definitely claims that Jesus was resurrected. And this is in the last chapter as well; the tomb is empty and the woman are told by the figure in white that Jesus "has risen" and "he is going before you to Galilee, there you will see him as he told you" (16:6-7). So even though there is no appearance narrative, an appearance is promised and would occur in Galilee (this is contrary to the Jerusalem-centered narratives in Luke and John but consistent with Matthew, the Gospel of Peter, and ch. 21 of John). This statement by the figure in the white robe is anticipated by Jesus himself in 14:28: "After I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee". And the preceding narrative is also structured by a series of passion prophecies in 8:31-33, 9:30-32, and 10:32-34 which predict that Jesus would rise after three days; the transfiguration story (which anticipates Jesus' glorification in the resurrection) also states that Jesus "charged them [Peter, James, and John] to tell no one what they have seen, until the Son of Man has risen from the dead" (9:9). These are all not later additions to the gospel since they are part of the Markan material incorporated into the gospels of Matthew and Luke; the logic of the empty tomb story also presumes resurrection. It is really an absence of a resurrection appearance narrative that you are mistaking here for an absence of resurrection. It is not that everyone admits that the resurrection in Mark is an addition (no scholar claims that); it is that the appendix in 16:9-20 is an addition (according to one manuscript it was written by Ariston, the presbyter mentioned by Papias). This makes up for the absence of an appearance narrative. However it is not certain whether Mark in its original form lacked an appearance narrative. It certainly foreshadows an appearance in Galilee (14:28, 16:7) that is not related. One reasonable theory is that the original ending has been lost. This is because the book awkwardly ends in mid-sentence. The book also starts in mid-sentence. So some have suggested that the autograph was written on a codex and the outer leaf had detached and became lost, thereby losing a portion of the beginning and a portion of the ending. This would have happened very early since it is noteworthy that Matthew and Luke both diverge wildly in the beginning (giving two totally irreconcilable birth narratives) and then suddenly agree with each other at the place where Mark starts, and then they agree closely until the part where Mark ends, where again they wildly disagree with each other (giving totally different and contradictory appearance stories).
-
mP
Leo:
No, this is not true at all. Even though there is no appearance narrative like the other gospels, it most definitely claims that Jesus was resurrected. And this is in the last chapter as well; the tomb is empty and the woman are told by the figure in white that Jesus "has risen" and "he is going before you to Galilee, there you will see him as he told you" ( 16:6-7 ).
MP
Before i comment i will include Mk 16:6-7 for reference.
http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/mr/chapter_016.htm
So when the sabbath had passed, Mary Mag´da·lene, and Mary the mother of James, and Sa·lo´me bought spices in order to come and grease him. 2 And very early on the first day of the week they came to the memorial tomb, when the sun had risen. 3 And they were saying one to another: “Who will roll the stone away from the door of the memorial tomb for us?” 4 But when they looked up, they beheld that the stone had been rolled away, although it was very large. 5 When they entered into the memorial tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side clothed in a white robe, and they were stunned.
6 He said to them: “Stop being stunned. Y OU are looking for Jesus the Naz·a·rene´, who was impaled. He was raised up, he is not here. See! The place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of YOU into Gal´i·lee; there YOU will see him, just as he told YOU .’” 8 So when they came out they fled from the memorial tomb, for trembling and strong emotion were gripping them. And they told nobody anything, for they were in fear.
SHORT CONCLUSION
Some late manuscripts and versions contain a short conclusion after Mark 16:8, as follows:
But all the things that had been commanded they related briefly to those around Peter. Further, after these things, Jesus himself sent out through them from the east to the west the holy and incorruptible proclamation of everlasting salvation.
LONG CONCLUSION
Certain ancient manuscripts (ACD) and versions (VgSy c,p ) add the following long conclusion, but which ?BSy s Arm omit:
While it is true the text says he is rised up, it does not say he is resurrected. In those days the jews and others believed after 3 days the soul left the body never to return. The text does not actually say that Jesus returned in the flesh. We today say something similar when somebody dies, many say so and so went to heaven. Its a turn of speach that implies death is final. The only reason most people assume this text means jesus was resurrected is because nearly everyone on the planet even if they dont believe knows the story. Everybody knows at this time Jesus was resurrected. The text itself does not say that. The tomb is empty and thats it.
Somehow its hard toe blieve that the author of Mark really understood the same story, surely he would have more to say ratehr than such an abrupt single line.
-
Vidqun
Heathen, I agree. As with most historical happenings, one needs to assemble the pieces, like a puzzle. After bringing them together, the picture you get hopefully makes sense. But whatever result, there is no guarantee that it is not necessarily right. It might even be distorted, because we just do not have all the pieces. As you remarked, each one must put the pieces together for himself to form a personalized opinion and build his/her own belief system (or not).
mP, I get the impression you distrust everything the Bible says. Don't you think that's going overboard. Add archeaological. geological, geographical, historical and linguistic evidence to the mix, then there are a lot of facts one can use to build upon. The textual critic insists on taking the Bible as they would any historical work and study it from that perspective. They look into the nature and origin of all the witnesses of a Bible book, describing how the texts were written, changed and transmitted. A lot of editing has gone into it some of the books. But what constitutes the original text is up to debate. My point is: We've got a lot to work with. You sift through the evidence, and you keep the gold nuggets. The rest you reject. Concerning the resurrection, as I have said before, I work on the premise that where there is smoke, there is a fire.
Leolaia, thanks for going to the trouble of explaining. Now those of us interested in the subject will have to try and assimilate all that. As a Witness I always steered clear of the apocryphicle and pseudo-apocryphical works, but I see it is worth while to see what these have to say (as additional witnesses). Because they are not incorporated in the canon, does not mean that they have no value. One that I am going to make a point of looking into is the book of Jubilees that often cropped up in the DSS. Because of the number of copies in their library, the Qumran inhabitants viewed it as important. Also interesting to see that the Christian version is different with a few additions.
-
Leolaia
First of all, what you earlier said is that Mark has no resurrection and "everyone admits the resurrection in Mark is an addition". In fact, no expert claims that, and it is special pleading to assert that the usual terms for resurrection, in fact, don't refer to resurrection here. That the Jews believed that the soul went to heaven (or Sheol) after death is a separate issue from whether they believed in a concept of resurrection; many believed that there would still be a resurrection of the flesh (the Sadducees being the expection). So Hippolytus wrote that with regard to the Essenes "the idea of the resurrection (anastaseós) has strength among them for they acknowledge both that the flesh will rise again (tèn sarka anastèsesthai) and that it will be immortal in the same manner as the soul is already immortal. And they maintain that the soul, when separated in the present life, departs into one place, which is well ventilated and full of light where they say it rests until judgment" (Adversus Haereses 9.26-29). So here is stated the view that a person's soul departs to a blessed place after death, but this belief does not deny that there is a resurrection; there is still a concept of a future resurrection. The Pharisees believed similarly, that "there is a resurrection of flesh (sarkos anastasin)" and that "the soul is immortal" (psukhèn athanaton), but the Sadducees instead "deny that there is a resurrection" (anastasin ou) and believe that "the soul does not endure" (psukhèn mè diamenein).
This is consistent with what is stated in Mark. In one pericope, the Sadducees are said to say that "there is no resurrection" (anastasin mè einai), and the controversy that follows implies that Jesus instead does believe in the resurrection, and Jesus states: "When they rise from the dead (ek nekròn anastòsin), they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven " (12:18-27). These are not souls of the dead being lifted to heaven but a raising of the dead into life "from the dead" (ek nekròn), for God is not a god of the "dead" (nekròn) but the "living" (zòntòn). And the author of Mark uses the verb anistèmi interchangeably with egeirein (the verb that occurs in ch. 16), for the same pericope about the Sadducees states that "the dead will rise again (tòn nekròn egeirontai)" (12:26). So resurrection is not foreign to the thought in Mark. The difference in Mark and Paul (and almost every other early Christian writing) is that the resurrection is not something in the distant future ("The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand", 1:15); it has already begun with Jesus' own resurrection. So just as those resurrected rise from the dead ( ek nekròn anastòsin ), the same is said of Jesus: "He charged them to tell no one what they had seen until the Son of Man has risen from the dead (ek nekròn anastènai)" (9:10); identical language is used here, and the phrase ek nekròn shows that the "raising" represents a change from death to life (just as in ch. 12). Compare Mark 6:14 where Herod wonders if the Jesus preaching in the countryside is really John the Baptist, whom he recently had executed, "raised from the dead" (egègertai ek nekròn); this not a deathly existence of the soul postmortem but a resurrection of a dead person back to life in the flesh. This is standard resurrection language in the NT. So we have in John a story about Jesus resurrecting Lazarus, bringing a man who had died back to corporeal life, and Lazarus was thus said in John 12:1, 9 to have been "raised from the dead" (egègertai ek nekròn) — exactly the phrase that is used in Mark 6:14 in reference to Jesus. Acts 4:2 depicts Peter as " proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead (anastasin ek nekròn)", who states (v. 10) that God "raised [Jesus] from the dead" (ègeiren ek nekròn), and he is clearly talking about a resurrection in the flesh since " he [Jesus] was not abandoned to the realm of the dead, nor did his body see decay" (2:31). The same is the case with Paul; he associates the raising of Jesus from the dead (ek nekròn egègertai) with "the resurrection of the dead (anastasis nekròn)" (1 Corinthians 15:12), and he clearly describes the resurrection of the body with the corruptible being changed into incorruptible (v. 52). So what is said of Jesus in Mark is exactly what one would expect from other NT references to the resurrection. And the empty tomb story in ch. 16 is based on the understanding that Jesus was bodily raised; that is why the tomb was empty. The robed figure tells the women that Jesus has been raised and "is not here", and even invites the women to see for themselves (16:6). And they leave in fear, not anointing the body with the spices they brought as there was no body to anoint. Jesus wasn't raised to heaven as a soul in a state of death; he was raised "from the dead" (9:10), i.e. he was no longer among the dead but among the living (12:27), and he hadn't been raised to heaven or a state of blessed existence in a realm of the dead, but rather he was journeying to Galilee ( 14:28, 16:7 ), where his disciples would meet him and see him. So it is certainly incorrect to claim that there is no resurrection in Mark, and unless you show otherwise it is special pleading to claim that the terms that refer to resurrection elsewhere mean something completely different in Mark.
-
mP
@leo
i fail to understand how the theological discussions between jesus and others has any impact on the message about jesus resurrection or not in mk 16 w/out the additions. this info is an interesting side discussion but it hardly changes the fact of what mk 16:6 says. in plain simple words it says he is risen. for me and perhaps many others, i will let others say for themselves, resurrection implies ciming back to life to walk w/ others on earth. in the case of the jesus story, the amazing thing is he came back to life any many others incl thomas got to touch and see him, but that happens in other gospels. in mark all we hear prior to the sh or lg additions is that jesus has risen. i m arguing this is not quite the same as sayi g he has been ressurrected. the text does ot say this. the text does not imply jesus appears to anyone.
im sorry even the wts admits in theur footnotes that the sh and lg endings in mk are additions. many other bhible translations who are prep43%ared by real scholars also say the same. if the wts can admit these additions, given how embarrassing this is, its almost a fact. a quick google can find many scholars admitti g the changes and additions like this. bart ehrmn has writtern and presented many times on youtube about the unreluability of the new nt.
you give many quoyes fromacts , john and other books that discuss a resurrected jesus. i am not disputed that jesus was ressurrected in those materials. my words were very clear, i said there is no ressurrection in mk. i only referred to mk, never mt, lk or john. to imply that i did is dishonest. my pt was mk never tells of a ressurrected jesus. all the appearances, ascent to heaven and more are from the other writings. none of this happens in mk less the short or long ending..