Mark 16: why women and not men?

[Giuseppe]

R. Salm may be right about the following idea:

Perhaps women were the first to claim a physical resurrection for ‘Jesus,’ previously a spiritual entity (= spirit of gnosis, or simply ‘gnosis’). The idea then caught on among some men among the Jesus fellowship, and (as they say) ‘the rest is history.’

http://www.mythicistpapers.com/2018/06/ ... ment-40329

So this may be a first beginning for the historicist idea: Jesus was historicized by starting from the his resurrection, i.e. before the Risen Christ was considered a 'historical person' and only later the human being Jesus (before his crucifixion) was considered a 'historical person'.

if this is the case, then the mistake of the ''women''/''Egyptians'' was

1) to think that Jesus was really risen ''in the flesh''
2) to be interested only about the Jesus ''in the flesh'' (that is the reason of their going to the empty tomb).

[Ethan]

tradition

Eze 8:14
Zec 12:11

[Ben C. Smith]

I do not think the the correlation between the three events for which the creed names no witnesses and the things seen by the named women who show up abruptly in Mark’s gospel is coincidental. Conservative apologists often suggest that the testimony of the women has to be accepted since, in first century Judaism, women’s testimony was not valued, so no one would invent it. On that theory, the pre-Pauline creed knew of the women’s testimony, but suppressed their names. But it seems to me that the thesis that a writer might invent the testimony of women who told no one in order to explain to his readers why they have never heard this story before is the better explanation.

On this hypothesis, is the idea that the women finally, eventually broke their silence, then? Your hypothesis explains neatly how the burial story could be published relatively late and given a rationale for surfacing only "now," at publication; but it does not (yet) explain how it is finally coming to light, and the women being the only witnesses to the empty tomb seems to imply that only the women eventually (too late to affect the story itself) breaking their silence will do. Is that correct?

[Ken Olson]

I do not think the the correlation between the three events for which the creed names no witnesses and the things seen by the named women who show up abruptly in Mark’s gospel is coincidental. Conservative apologists often suggest that the testimony of the women has to be accepted since, in first century Judaism, women’s testimony was not valued, so no one would invent it. On that theory, the pre-Pauline creed knew of the women’s testimony, but suppressed their names. But it seems to me that the thesis that a writer might invent the testimony of women who told no one in order to explain to his readers why they have never heard this story before is the better explanation.

On this hypothesis, is the idea that the women finally, eventually broke their silence, then? Your hypothesis explains neatly how the burial story could be published relatively late and given a rationale for surfacing only "now," at publication; but it does not (yet) explain how it is finally coming to light, and the women being the only witnesses to the empty tomb seems to imply that only the women eventually (too late to affect the story itself) breaking their silence will do. Is that correct?

Maybe. That would be a reasonable inference. The women may have eventually broken their silence too late to affect their story, but I'm not sure Mark necessarily meant to imply that.

MARK 16.6 But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you.” 8 So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

It seems to me that the claim "they said nothing to anyone" means they did not follow the young man's instruction to go and tell the disciples and Peter that Jesus was going ahead of them into Galilee where they would see him. If it meant "they said nothing to anyone at that time, but later went and told the disciples who then went to Galilee to see the risen Jesus," it would seem pointless to include "they said nothing to anyone" at all. I don't think that the women's obedience or the disciples cooperation is required in order for Jesus' words from Mark 14.28 (to which "Just as he told you" is a back reference) to come true.

MARK 14.26 When they had sung the hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives. 27 And Jesus said to them, “You will all become deserters; for it is written,‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.’ 28 But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee.” 29 Peter said to him, “Even though all become deserters, I will not.” 30 Jesus said to him, “Truly I tell you, this day, this very night, before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.” 31 But he said vehemently, “Even though I must die with you, I will not deny you.” And all of them said the same.

What Jesus says is going to happen is going to happen. All of the disciples say they will not deny Jesus, but then they do. This leads the reader to expect that Jesus prediction that he will go before them to Galilee will also come to pass whatever the disciples do, and it doesn't matter whether the women communicated to them that they should go to Galilee to meet them or not.

I take it your question, though, is whether Mark meant to imply that the women much later, after Jesus' appearance to the disciples, broke their silence and told someone. This would seem reasonable because, somehow, the story had to get to the narrator. Even if Mark made up the whole thing, his audience would have to be able to account for his knowledge.

My problem with this is that Mark is an omniscient narrator and doesn't give his readers a lot of help in understanding how his knowledge came to him. In Mark 2.8, not only can Jesus read the minds of his adversaries, but Mark can read the mind of Jesus.

MARK 2:6 Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, 7 “Why does this fellow speak in this way? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” 8 At once Jesus perceived in his spirit that they were discussing these questions among themselves; and he said to them, “Why do you raise such questions in your hearts?

Another well known case Mark 14.12-21, where Mark narrates what Jesus prayed while his disciples were asleep. Modern apologists have given various rationalizations for this (it doesn't say they were asleep continuously, they might have been awake long enough to hear what Jesus said).

Maybe the risen Jesus revealed all the difficult bits the disciples, or to Mark, later. The author of Mark, though, is content to let his audience guess how he came to know what he knows.

[Ben C. Smith]

It seems to me that the claim "they said nothing to anyone" means they did not follow the young man's instruction to go and tell the disciples and Peter that Jesus was going ahead of them into Galilee where they would see him. If it meant "they said nothing to anyone at that time, but later went and told the disciples who then went to Galilee to see the risen Jesus," it would seem pointless to include "they said nothing to anyone" at all. I don't think that the women's obedience or the disciples cooperation is required in order for Jesus' words from Mark 14.28 (to which "Just as he told you" is a back reference) to come true.

I completely agree with this. I have made the same point before.

I take it your question, though, is whether Mark meant to imply that the women much later, after Jesus' appearance to the disciples, broke their silence and told someone. This would seem reasonable because, somehow, the story had to get to the narrator. Even if Mark made up the whole thing, his audience would have to be able to account for his knowledge.

Yes, this was my question.

My problem with this is that Mark is an omniscient narrator and doesn't give his readers a lot of help in understanding how his knowledge came to him. In Mark 2.8, not only can Jesus read the minds of his adversaries, but Mark can read the mind of Jesus.

....

Another well known case Mark 14.12-21, where Mark narrates what Jesus prayed while his disciples were asleep. Modern apologists have given various rationalizations for this (it doesn't say they were asleep continuously, they might have been awake long enough to hear what Jesus said).

Maybe the risen Jesus revealed all the difficult bits the disciples, or to Mark, later. The author of Mark, though, is content to let his audience guess how he came to know what he knows.

These bits (especially Gethsemane) came to mind, but when I wrote my post I was actually thinking of them as a problem for your hypothesis. If Mark generally does not care to establish for his readers how certain information could have come to him, then why should he care to account for why his readers have never heard the story of the empty tomb before?

But, since posting that, it has occurred to me that Mark can be focusing on the part of his readers' knowledge that leads into his literary creation, including the women's role in witnessing the crucifixion, the burial, and the emptiness of the tomb, without necessarily focusing on the part of his readers' knowledge that would lead out of his literary creation: to wit, anything requiring an explanation (from outside the story) of whence Mark got his information, about which these examples of omniscient narration demonstrate that Mark seems to care little. In short, Mark can be at pains to account for why the story has not been heard before without necessarily being at pains to account for how the story came to him in the first place.

The analogy with your example of Daniel would be that the author takes pains to account for the presumed lack of reader knowledge of Daniel's important prophecies without simultaneously concocting some backstory about finding Daniel's scroll in a cave or the like.