The ascension in the epistle of Barnabas.

[Ben C. Smith]

to Ben,

I have been working on a proto-Mark hypothesis which lacks the empty tomb story, as well. There are several clues, including the way the women are introduced so late in the game. This, then, would be yet another layered document.

My analysis is right here: http://historical-jesus.info/79.html

Having gone over it in a bit more detail now, I can say that, as seems to be usual, I very much agree with some points and disagree with others. I honestly think you should remove the line from Crossan completely, since your argument and his are so totally different, but whatever.

Here is, I think, a weak spot:

3) Conclusion:
In view of the aforementioned points (foremost the first one), I think there is more than enough for claiming "Mark" did not write the "empty tomb" passage. Then considering, in order to "prove" Jesus' resurrection, "Mark" relied only on:
a) the (alleged) prophecies about it by Jesus himself (as in 8:31, 9:31, 10:34), combined with he being an excellent prophet (even predicting the fall of Jerusalem!).
b) the alleged prior resurrection of a biblical notable: Moses' one, "proven" in 9:2-8.
c) little else, except for the testimony of Paul (1Cor 9:1) and likely other "apostles in Christ", claiming to have "seen" the heavenly Jesus in some way.
It makes sense an early editor/interpolator (probably the first one) felt more was needed, more so in term of physical direct "evidence". However, a bodily reappearance was not dared going for: that will be done later by others and added on to gMark.

On a, it seems odd to me that Jesus would predict his own resurrection after 3 days three times in the gospel, only for the gospel to end the moment the first of those days starts. Not narrating the predicted fall of Jerusalem some 40 years later is one thing, but not narrating the three days when the story reaches it easily is quite another. For my money, an argument for an ending at 15.39 may entail regarding the passion predictions as insertions, as well. At least, I currently do not feel satisfied with leaving them in there but removing the predicted event right on the cusp of its fulfillment.

On b, why is Moses a good example of resurrection? Are not both Moses and Elijah examples, rather, of direct assumption into heaven? (Elijah already in the Jewish scriptures, Moses not until later, in Antiquities 4.8.48 §326, for example.)

If this version of the gospel ends at 15.39, only moments after Jesus' death, then its Christology could be separationist, in which the spirit (πνεῦμα) enters Jesus at the baptism and then exits him at the cross (ἐξέπνευσεν), and this is seen as a form of assumption, agreeing with early credal statements to the effect that Jesus died and then was exalted, with nothing said about 3 days, a resurrection, or a delayed ascension in between. This view of Jesus' death, presumably earlier than the 3 days in the tomb, would also, then, be preserved in Luke 23.43, the promise to the penitent thief that he would see him in Paradise that same day.

I am not committed to any of this yet, by the way; just trying to sort out the various statements and identify the parts that make sense and do not make sense to me so far.

Ben.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

On a, it seems odd to me that Jesus would predict his own resurrection after 3 days three times in the gospel, only for the gospel to end the moment the first of those days starts. Not narrating the predicted fall of Jerusalem some 40 years later is one thing, but not narrating the three days when the story reaches it easily is quite another. For my money, an argument for an ending at 15.39 may entail regarding the passion predictions as insertions, as well. At least, I currently do not feel satisfied with leaving them in there but removing the predicted event right on the cusp of its fulfillment.

Yes odd, but explainable if the remaining of Jesus' body had been disposed off in way not known to any followers and the earliest Christians being told the Resurrection and passage to heaven were spiritual. That's what you get from Paul's epistles & 'Hebrews': no mention of a bodily Resurrection. That's why the empty tomb was added as a first step in order to "prove" the Resurrection but with no daring to go further (until much later). Then later gospels went still one step further, featuring Jesus reappearing in a human-like body (not necessarily his own former one according to gLuke).
BTW, the "after three days" are reduced to about 40 consecutive hours (max), may be good enough for "on the third day", but this is not "after three days". If the same author had Jesus predicting his resurrection after three days, why that same author could not manage to have Jesus being right in his alleged prophecy?
About satisfaction, do you think it is satisfying for Christians to have the women telling no one about the empty tomb at 16:8? Maybe gMark is unsatisfying for an ending at 15:39, but it is also for an ending at 16:8.
More about Jesus' resurrection in the Pauline epistles (through another interpolation):
http://historical-jesus.info/9.html
And Jesus' disciples never believing in the Resurrections & future resurrections:
http://historical-jesus.info/8.html

On b, why is Moses a good example of resurrection? Are not both Moses and Elijah examples, rather, of direct assumption into heaven? (Elijah already in the Jewish scriptures, Moses not until later, in Antiquities 4.8.48 §326, for example.)

I did not include Elijah because allegedly, he is described to have gone to heaven still alive, not having experienced death. So no resurrection, just a rapture. Moses is a good example of resurrection, because it is "demonstrated" in gMark.

If this version of the gospel ends at 15.39, only moments after Jesus' death, then its Christology could be separationist, in which the spirit (πνεῦμα) enters Jesus at the baptism and then exits him at the cross (ἐξέπνευσεν), and this is seen as a form of assumption, agreeing with early credal statements to the effect that Jesus died and then was exalted, with nothing said about 3 days, a resurrection, or a delayed ascension in between. This view of Jesus' death, presumably earlier than the 3 days in the tomb, would also, then, be preserved in Luke 23.43, the promise to the penitent thief that he would see him in Paradise that same day.

Not necessarily so. Christians nowadays do not expect to be possessed by the Holy Spirit right after they are baptized, but they believe their own spirit (without their body) will go to heaven right after death. I do not see why the belief would be different about Jesus and his resurrection in "Mark" way of thinking.
BTW, gMark does not say the Holy Spirit entered Jesus, but "descended upon him". No possession here. Jesus keeps is own spirit. He is just "enlightened".

Yes, neither Paul nor 'Hebrews' mentioned a delay. But that does not mean that could not be invented later for reasons I explained here:
http://historical-jesus.info/77.html at -> 2) How to explain "after three days"?

I think for "Luke" Paradise is in a part of the underworld, as a "nice" place where the souls/spirits of good people go, according to Hellenistic beliefs. That's where Jesus would spend his about 40 hours of death after emerging with a new body to appear to his disciples, before ascending to heaven.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

BTW, the "after three days" are reduced to about 40 consecutive hours (max), may be good enough for "on the third day", but this is not "after three days". If the same author had Jesus predicting his resurrection after three days, why that same author could not manage to have Jesus being right in his alleged prophecy?

I do not imagine it was the same author....

About satisfaction, do you think it is satisfying for Christians to have the women telling no one about the empty tomb at 16:8? Maybe gMark is unsatisfying for an ending at 15:39, but it is also for an ending at 16:8.

No, I have never thought that any version of Mark was supposed to end at 16.8. I have tried, Lord knows, to imagine it so, but I have never quite succeeded. I have always suspected that something after 16.8 was lost, and that the Longer and Shorter Endings were added as bandages.

On b, why is Moses a good example of resurrection? Are not both Moses and Elijah examples, rather, of direct assumption into heaven? (Elijah already in the Jewish scriptures, Moses not until later, in Antiquities 4.8.48 §326, for example.)

I did not include Elijah because allegedly, he is described to have gone to heaven still alive, not having experienced death. So no resurrection, just a rapture. Moses is a good example of resurrection, because it is "demonstrated" in gMark.

What I am saying is that Jewish legend gave the same sort of rapture to Moses, as well as to Elijah. The fact that this is so surely has something to do with both Moses and Elijah appearing together on that mountain.

BTW, gMark does not say the Holy Spirit entered Jesus, but "descended upon him". No possession here. Jesus keeps is own spirit. He is just "enlightened".

Mark 1.10 says that the spirit descended into him (εἰς αὐτόν). This preposition is the exact opposite of the one used at the crucifixion; in 15.37 it is "spirit out" (ἐξέπνευσεν). And Mark 1.12 does kind of look like possession, does it not? The spirit throws him out to the wilderness (ἐκβάλλει; same verb, by the way, as the one in 12.8, and in many of the exorcisms, used of casting out demons; there may be a bit of violence to it, in other words).

Yes, neither Paul nor 'Hebrews' mentioned a delay. But that does not mean that could not be invented later for reasons I explained here:
http://historical-jesus.info/77.html at -> 2) How to explain "after three days"?

Yes, I suspect that the rabbinical material about the spirit hanging around for 3 days is relevant here. And the version in which it comes on the third day would probably come from Hosea 6.2.

I think for "Luke" Paradise is in a part of the underworld, as a "nice" place where the souls/spirits of good people go, according to Hellenistic beliefs. That's where Jesus would spend his about 40 hours of death after emerging with a new body to appear to his disciples, before ascending to heaven.

Do you have stuff to back this up?

Ben.

[maxim1984]

> I do not imagine it was the same author....

Agre it cannot be the same author

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

Mark 1.10 says that the spirit descended into him (εἰς αὐτόν). This preposition is the exact opposite of the one used at the crucifixion; in 15.37 it is "spirit out" (ἐξέπνευσεν). And Mark 1.12 does kind of look like possession, does it not? The spirit throws him out to the wilderness (ἐκβάλλει; same verb, by the way, as the one in 12.8, and in many of the exorcisms, used of casting out demons; there may be a bit of violence to it, in other words).

The fact the Holy Spirit descends 'eis' him like a dove most likely meant that 'eis' indicates "upon" or "on" (as translated by most bibles), as it is legitimate for that word to mean ("into" or "in" are not the only possible translations & meaninf of 'eis'). The dove, in the imagery, is very unlikely to be thought entering Jesus' body, but instead resting on his shoulder.
In 15:37, there is nothing to say the Holy Spirit left Jesus, but at best, it is about Jesus' own spirit. That's the way it is interpreted in Lk 23:46. Of course demons are different of the Holy Spirit.
And the Holy Spirit cast out Jesus to the wilderness: that does not entail that spirit was in Jesus' inner self. Of course the same word is used for Jesus removing demons from people, but if you follow the analogy, then you would have the Holy Spirit from Himself casting out Jesus, which is absurd.

I think for "Luke" Paradise is in a part of the underworld, as a "nice" place where the souls/spirits of good people go, according to Hellenistic beliefs. That's where Jesus would spend his about 40 hours of death after emerging with a new body to appear to his disciples, before ascending to heaven.

Do you have stuff to back this up?

Well, if Jesus goes to heaven not earlier than at Lk 24:21, where would he be during his death if not in the Hellenistic Paradise of the underworld, where the good dead go?
Anyway the two thieves would have to wait for the future resurrections of the dead before going to heaven (if they are allowed to!).
Acts 2:31 RSV:
he foresaw and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

to Ben,

Mark 1.10 says that the spirit descended into him (εἰς αὐτόν). This preposition is the exact opposite of the one used at the crucifixion; in 15.37 it is "spirit out" (ἐξέπνευσεν). And Mark 1.12 does kind of look like possession, does it not? The spirit throws him out to the wilderness (ἐκβάλλει; same verb, by the way, as the one in 12.8, and in many of the exorcisms, used of casting out demons; there may be a bit of violence to it, in other words).

The fact the Holy Spirit descends 'eis' him like a dove most likely meant that 'eis' indicates "upon" or "on" (as translated by most bibles), as it is legitimate for that word to mean ("into" or "in" are not the only possible translations & meaninf of 'eis'). The dove, in the imagery, is very unlikely to be thought entering Jesus' body, but instead resting on his shoulder.
In 15:37, there is nothing to say the Holy Spirit left Jesus, but at best, it is about Jesus' own spirit. That's the way it is interpreted in Lk 23:46. Of course demons are different of the Holy Spirit.

Interestingly, both Matthew and Luke changed that εἰς αὐτόν to ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν, and the gospel of the Hebrews had the spirit resting over him (requievit super eum); I suppose that, from your perspective, they were all clarifying what Mark really meant all along. (The Ebionite gospel apparently had εἰς αὐτόν, just like Mark.)

And the Holy Spirit cast out Jesus to the wilderness: that does not entail that spirit was in Jesus' inner self. Of course the same word is used for Jesus removing demons from people, but if you follow the analogy, then you would have the Holy Spirit from Himself casting out Jesus, which is absurd.

The comparison was for the violence of it, not for the exact imagery.

Well, if Jesus goes to heaven not earlier than at Lk 24:21, where would he be during his death if not in the Hellenistic Paradise of the underworld, where the good dead go?

Assuming the "today in Paradise" tradition is from the same source as the author who penned Luke 24.21, you are correct. I was not assuming that.

Ben.