Evidence for a Resurrectionless Christianity Developed from the Short Ending of Mark

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Evidence for a Resurrectionless Christianity Developed from the Short Ending of Mark

Post by Secret Alias »

The gospel of Mark originally ended with an empty tomb and no resurrection of the crucified one. I have noted in another thread that the Hebrew of Daniel 9:26 simply predicts that "Christ will be killed and will disappear." This is reflected in the standard English translation of the Hebrew text (Jewish Publication Society Tanakh) - https://books.google.com/books?id=r4WHD ... el&f=false. It is of course a knee jerk reaction to assume that Christianity necessarily presupposes a resurrection of the crucified one. Nevertheless our earliest commentary or exegesis of the Gospel of Mark assumes the exact opposite. Irenaeus writes "Those, again, who separate Jesus from Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible, but that it was Jesus who suffered, preferring the Gospel by Mark, if they read it with a love of truth, may have their errors rectified. " Clearly a separationist gospel of Mark assumes that either Jesus or Christ separated before the death of Christ (undoubtedly at or before the ninth hour) and so the crucified one does not resurrect in the tomb. He simply disappears as the prophesy of Daniel predicted.

Since the 'normative' Christian expectation associated with the resurrection has come to take on arguments for a bodily resurrection quite specifically it is not surprising that Jesus showing his bones and flesh also manifests itself. Nevertheless it is worth noting that one of our ancient sources claims that spirit Jesus is understood to have said something to the effect of confirming that he was a spirit who does not have flesh and bones. To that end the criticism of the phantom Jesus in Marcionism took a different interpretation of the empty tomb. When we sift through the various statements in Tertullian on the subject of the phantasm Jesus, it is plain that the 'disappearance' of the crucified one in the empty tomb means that he has been made 'like the angels' - that is a spirit. Something about the process of crucifixion along with whatever preparation took place in the lead up to the Passion (i.e. the mysteries of the kingdom of God in Secret Mark) transformed the physical body of the 'Christ' and prepared it for the ultimate sign - the confirmation of Daniel 9:26.

It is worth noting that in Lucian's Passing of Peregrinus the Christian preacher incinerates himself in a large pyre which typically (from what I have seen of Indian cremations) leaves no bones or physical remains. Yes the Martyrdom of Polycarp contradicts this. Nevertheless it is worth noting that Irenaeus may have had an agenda at work. Similarly Against the Jews (translated by Tertullian) develops arguments from two different translation traditions of Daniel. In chapter 12 an understanding is worked out in terms of the standard Greek translations of Daniel 9:26 where the 'unction' will be cut off and disappear. But in the next chapter there is a confirmation of the normative Hebrew text where Christ is expected by Daniel to be 'exterminated' and - based on a strange reading of Psalm 22 - his physical body will also be 'exterminated' clearly implying a disappearance.

Celsus's Jew in a discussion of whether or not Jesus's miracles confirm his Θεότητος (= godness, divineness) it is said that if he wanted to prove himself he should have disappeared from the cross in plain view rather than - presumably - later in the tomb. So significant was the disappearance to Jewish audiences that we hear multiple sources infer that the Christians conspired to empty the tomb. One might wonder why Jews should be so concerned with the emptiness of the tomb rather than proofs that Jesus resurrected (i.e. his being seen after his death). The clear answer is that the Jews remember Christians alleging that the death and disappearance confirmed the fulfillment of Daniel 9:26. Have to run.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Evidence for a Resurrectionless Christianity Developed from the Short Ending of Mark

Post by Secret Alias »

It is also worth noting that the gospel of Mark - when citing the prophesy of the 70 weeks - makes the fulfillment of Daniel 9:27 more immediate than the destruction of the temple, or at least so it would seem from the text as it stands now. If Mark 13 was set in 30 CE - far less the correct date of the narrative c. 21 CE - these words can hardly apply to an event 40 - 50 years away:
You must be on your guard (i.e. you must be on your guard NOW). You will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues. On account of me you will stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them. And the gospel must first be preached to all nations. Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit. Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child. Children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. Everyone will hate you because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.
Given that in the normative text of Daniel there is only a week (= 7 years) left in the 70 weeks (i.e. from the messiah being killed and disappearing until the culmination) and Daniel 9:27 or the part of Daniel 9:27 cited by Mark is not the end it can't possibly be the destruction of the temple.

It would appear - from a natural reading of the material - an event that is on the horizon from 'now' i.e. the time Jesus is alleged to have said these words. It follows a pattern of assuming persecutions of Christians in the immediate aftermath of the crucifixion. Given that Daniel 9:27 is 'on the horizon from now' and Daniel 9:27 is between 'a half a week' to 'a week' from Daniel 9:26 it would stand to reason that Daniel 9:26 is very close to 'now.' Therefore it would be natural to assume that Mark could have understood Daniel 9:26 and its 'messiah killed and then vanishing' to immediately follow Jesus's words in Mark 13. It's at least possible that the earlier readers connected Daniel 9:26 with the Passion.

Also let's not forget something my Hebrew/Aramaic professor told me. The natural term for 'passion' would be yetser.
Just look at the verse in Isaiah that says God will set notsrim on the walls of Jerusalem. Look in BDB under NUN-tsade-resh, qal, participle. You should also go through the shades of meaning of yetser listed in Jastrow, if the meaning of notsarim is “those with a new yetser”.
Indeed as Schiffman notes the concept of the two spirits in the Community Rule bears some relationship to the rabbinic concept of two yetsers or 'natures' in man.

What I am suggesting is that early Christians must have understood God as wanting to come down to earth in the Passion as a means of 'reforming' or 'transforming' humanity from a material being to a spiritual being. Think about what is introduced just before - ritual washing and the consumption of his spiritual flesh and blood. Jesus can disappear at will.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Evidence for a Resurrectionless Christianity Developed from the Short Ending of Mark

Post by Secret Alias »

I think it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus did something to 'Christ' to make him disappear after his crucifixion and this thing was central to early Christianity. It must have been connected with the 'sacraments' as Catholics refer to the service.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Evidence for a Resurrectionless Christianity Developed from the Short Ending of Mark

Post by Secret Alias »

I think this is a very good thesis to develop for a theological journal. No one to my mind has explained what the theology of the short ending of Mark would be - in part because, as Christians, they can't imagine what a Christianity without a resurrection would look like. I think this might help:

Gospel of Matthew: One of the most fundamental things I've learned through this exercise is that the emphasis on the emptiness of the tomb doesn't make sense if the narrative ultimately 'ends' with a resurrected crucified one. Do you see what I mean? If someone dies and then comes back alive I don't need to know the coffin was empty. It would be a footnote to the massive story that a dead man reappeared. Take Matthew's strange emphasis that the empty tomb occurred even with the presence of heavy security around the tomb:
The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate. 63 “Sir,” they said, “we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise again.’ 64 So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first.” 65 “Take a guard,” Pilate answered. “Go, make the tomb as secure as you know how.” 66 So they went and made the tomb secure by putting a seal on the stone and posting the guard.
and then later a variant empty tomb story - one which is followed by an immediate appearance of Jesus once the tomb is discovered empty - follows:
Suddenly Jesus met them. “Greetings,” he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. 10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.” 11 While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. 12 When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, 13 telling them, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ 14 If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.” 15 So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.
This is was clearly written after Mark and it's big finale - the empty tomb. Jewish sources must have heard that the empty tomb meant something. I would argue it meant that Daniel 9:26 had been fulfilled. But in any case, the idea that Jews and Christians went back and forth - i.e. Mark, Jewish reaction to Mark, Matthew - meant that the empty tomb was not only the end of the story but it meant something big.

Since Matthew is alleged to be the 'Jewish Christian gospel' the reaction to Jewish anti-Christian propaganda makes sense at least from a theoretical point of view. Nevertheless Matthew is clearly not the gospel Celsus read. Here 'women' in the plural rather than 'woman' in the singular are actively involved. The ending seems to written only to counter Jewish reaction to Mark's gospel. Note that the Jews only care about the tomb being empty. They have no reaction apparently to the story that Jesus resurrected because the story is constructed in such a way that the guards only know what was originally in Mark save for the fact that their presence at the tomb helps explain why they and the Jews only know about the empty tomb.

For it is apparent that the Jews only knew about the empty tomb. 'What the Jews knew' is the clear background of Matthew's addition to Mark. So the editor creates a narrative where 'soldiers' are added as witnesses to the empty tomb but the women see more that is unknown to the soldiers. The idea seems to avoid the difficulty originally apparent from Mark that the women must have testified to only seeing an empty tomb. This becomes the flash point between Jews and Christian apologists.

Gospel of Peter: The gospel of Peter develops from the same problem albeit without specifically mentioning the anti-Christian Jewish propaganda. The major difference between what develops in the Gospel of Peter is that because apparently the Jews said the Christians removed the body to make it seem empty, the editor explains the emptiness of the tomb without any Christian believers being present. In short, it is more blatant in its efforts to answer the claim Christians emptied the tomb. The soldiers act as witnesses to show that those inside the tomb rolled the stone away and took the 'cross' (= crucified one see Goodacre's explanation of the 'talking cross') up to heaven:
But in the night in which the Lord's day dawned, when the soldiers were safeguarding it two by two in every watch, there was a loud voice in heaven; [36] and they saw that the heavens were opened and that two males who had much radiance had come down from there and come near the sepulcher. [37] But that stone which had been thrust against the door, having rolled by itself, went a distance off the side; and the sepulcher opened, and both the young men entered. [38] And so those soldiers, having seen, awakened the centurion and the elders (for they too were present, safeguarding). [39] And while they were relating what they had seen, again they see three males who have come out from they sepulcher, with the two supporting the other one, and a cross following them, [40] and the head of the two reaching unto heaven, but that of the one being led out by a hand by them going beyond the heavens. [41] And they were hearing a voice from the heavens saying, 'Have you made proclamation to the fallen-asleep?' [42] And an obeisance was heard from the cross, 'Yes.' [43] And so those people were seeking a common perspective to go off and make these things clear to Pilate; [44] and while they were still considering it through, there appear again the opened heavens and a certain man having come down and entered into the burial place. [45] Having seen these things, those around the centurion hastened at night before Pilate (having left the sepulcher which they were safeguarding) and described all the things that they indeed had seen, agonizing greatly and saying: 'Truly he was God's Son.' [46] In answer Pilate said: 'I am clean of the blood of the Son of God, but it was to you that this seemed [the thing to do].' [47] Then all, having come forward, were begging and exhorting him to command the centurion and the soldiers to say to no one what they had seen. [48] 'For,' they said, 'it is better for us to owe the debt of the greatest sin in the sight of God than to fall into the hands of the Jewish people and be stoned.' [49] And so Pilate ordered the centurion and the soldiers to say nothing.
Clearly these accounts are related. They have both (a) added to Mark's original empty tomb narrative and (b) reacted to Jewish propaganda about Christians emptying the tomb to make it appear empty. I can't help but think that Matthew might have come after Peter.

Gospel of Luke: Luke represents a separate and more direct manipulation of Mark's original short ending. Luke like Peter has two angels in the tomb. Matthew had one like Mark. But no mention of soldiers guarding the tomb is in Luke. Luke basically has the women report their encounter with the angel and Peter going back to confirm the emptiness. Yet interestingly Luke has a far more extensive post-Passion narrative and some very interesting things emerge:
As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; 16 but they were kept from recognizing him. 17 He asked them, “What are you discussing together as you walk along?” They stood still, their faces downcast. 18 One of them, named Cleopas, asked him, “Are you the only one visiting Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?” 19 “What things?” he asked. “About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. 20 The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; 21 but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place. 22 In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning 23 but didn’t find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive. 24 Then some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but they did not see Jesus.” 25 He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.
Two things stand out to me. The first is that while we read the story 'knowing' that this 'Jesus' is the same figure emptied from the tomb (owing to indoctrination) it has always struck me as curious that the author deliberately has the witnesses not recognize who they are talking to. Of course it can be argued that by having dumb they can basically 'speak their conscience' to the audience in a naturalistic way. But I don't think that's all there is to it.

The second thing is that the two witnesses speak from a Jewish perspective - i.e. 'he was the messiah who was going to redeem Israel' - in a way that nowhere else spells out Jewish messianism. Yes they still believe that it was Jesus who was crucified. But the context to the rest of the narrative seems very much rooted in Daniel 9:26 - the only explicit mention of the messiah in any of the scriptures. The messiah, they say, was supposed to redeem Israel but - alas - the Jewish authorities got him and now he's gone forever. The ontological crisis they have is exactly the same as laid out in the plain meaning of Daniel 9:26.

The rest of the discussion deals with the empty tomb. They basically say 'hey he was supposed to be the messiah ... but then he was killed and then we found out the tomb was empty ... doesn't make sense.' It all reads like a play where the main character doesn't know what the audience knows. But we usually take that strictly in terms of them not recognizing Jesus is right in front of them. But theologically it is also present. When Jesus hears their confusion about 'the messiah is going to be killed and then disappear' he admonishes them with "How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself." But clearly the only scripture which explicitly mentions the concept of messiah is Daniel. The blindness that the two disciples demonstrate with respect to the presence of Jesus is coupled with respect to the fulfillment of Daniel 9:26 right before their eyes too.

Rather than 'failing' Jesus speaks about the vanishing of the messiah in terms of his glorification. Yet this doesn't make sense with respect to Jesus who has always been divine, who was divine at least since Creation. Moreover the 'Son of Man' figure who is part of the Passion predictions clearly is a third person reference for a reason. It is all part of a separationist understanding of the gospel. While the two disciples are admonished for not understanding that the Passion is a clear fulfillment of Daniel, Jesus never gets mad at them for not recognizing that he is in front of him. That is clearly because Jesus recognizes that he came 'only in appearance' before. Now he appears as something/someone else.

Yet you have to wonder why it is that the appearance of 'Jesus' speaking about 'Christ' in the third person should necessarily be seen in terms of a resurrection of the crucified one. Yes to be certain Luke goes on to have a statement which is interpreted either as 'Jesus has flesh' or 'Jesus does not have flesh.' But there is nothing in Luke which necessitates that Jesus was ever crucified or was specifically the crucified one. Rather I would argue it represents an early addition to Mark in which Jesus teaches the disciples about the prophetic announcement of the empty tomb - i.e. Daniel 9:26.

Conclusion: Matthew and Peter add armed guards to the narrative because of the Jewish claim that Christians deliberately emptied the tomb in order to prove it was a divine sign. Luke has Jesus openly argue that the empty tomb was predicted by the prophets. Given the fact that the Jews must have went to great lengths to discredit the empty tomb its significance must have been rooted in the same context as Luke's pro-Christian propaganda - i.e. that they were threatened by an argument that Daniel predicted the crucifixion of this Christ. To this end, all three extensions of Mark, all three attempts to 'fill in' the abrupt ending of Mark develop from the idea that Daniel's prediction about the 'messiah will be killed and disappear' was fulfilled in the Passion narrative.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: Evidence for a Resurrectionless Christianity Developed from the Short Ending of Mark

Post by perseusomega9 »

What about the women (in Mark) being told to tell the disciples they should go to Galilee to see a risen Jesus?
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Evidence for a Resurrectionless Christianity Developed from the Short Ending of Mark

Post by Secret Alias »

Jesus not Christ right? Clearly the gospel of the heretics who read Mark would not have had the resurrection of the crucified one.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2093
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Evidence for a Resurrectionless Christianity Developed from the Short Ending of Mark

Post by Charles Wilson »

SA --

Nice analysis. Your translation has an edge to it. The RSV is:

1. Matthew 27: 63 - 63 (RSV):

[62] Next day, that is, after the day of Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate
[63] and said, "Sir, we remember how that impostor said, while he was still alive, `After three days I will rise again.'

This is worthy of a Magician's Trick:
"Next day, that is, after the day of preparation..."

What is the day after the Day of Preparation called?

"OH! I know teacher! Call on me!!!
It's... uhhh...ummm. The first day of some Feast. right?"

John 19: 31 (RSV):

[31] Since it was the day of Preparation, in order to prevent the bodies from remaining on the cross on the sabbath (for that sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.

There isn't a real need to put "...that is..." in verse 62, is there? Passover is the day before a High Sabbath in this, you know... Feast. It's not like somebody showed up late or nothin'.

Mark 14: 1, 12 (RSV):

[1] It was now two days before the Passover and the feast of Unleavened Bread. And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to arrest him by stealth, and kill him;
...
[12] And on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the passover lamb, his disciples said to him, "Where will you have us go and prepare for you to eat the passover?"

Uh, oh.

2. "..."Sir, we remember how that impostor [deceiver] said, while he was still alive..."

Once again, John sticks his snoot into somebody's bidness:

John 11: 49 - 51 (RSV):

[49] But one of them, Ca'iaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all;
[50] you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish."
[51] He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation

So, here we have the "Chief Priests" et. al. telling Pilate that this DECEIVER (Imposter, Demon - if not Satan himself) would rise after 3 days. Now, I suppose that the High Priest could have lingered in the garden looking at the rhododendrons while the rest of the "Chief Priests" talked Pilate's ears off but the High Priest appears to be both uttering sacrilege against "Jesus" and Prophesying at virtually the same time.

"We'll just place this little ending right here and all will be well..."
"Uhhh...If you add this then suddenly all of this junk doesn't make sense anymore. We'll just add this little bit and everything will be OK again..."
"Ummm..."

CW
Secret Alias
Posts: 18321
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Evidence for a Resurrectionless Christianity Developed from the Short Ending of Mark

Post by Secret Alias »

Perseus

You have to ask why does Matthew have two angels if Mark has just one. Not sure we are dealing with a transparent or organic development process for the synoptic gospels. I wish I could make those fancy column things at the forum but clearly Celsus testifies to a single female disciple undoubtedly Mary Magdalene as being present in the empty tomb. Mark does not have this. So this is not the original narrative but an altered narrative. The process of inventing Marys is well documented. But I think this is an example of the editor of the fourfold canon (Irenaeus) responding to Celsus who admonishes Christians for depending on a 'half-crazed woman' for their 'proof' of the empty tomb.

So we have to imagine a proto-Mark where all the canonical gospels represent bits and pieces of the original and which were designed to answer objections from both Jews and pagans.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Post by arnoldo »

Another thing to consider is whether Acts 23:8 is a mistranslation.

Acts 23:8-9 King James Version (KJV)

For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.

Viviano, Benedict T., and Justin Taylor. “Sadducees, Angels, and Resurrection (Acts 23:8-9).” Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 111, no. 3, 1992, pp. 496–498. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3267264.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re:

Post by Ben C. Smith »

arnoldo wrote: Fri Nov 02, 2018 6:38 pm Another thing to consider is whether Acts 23:8 is a mistranslation.

Acts 23:8-9 King James Version (KJV)

For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.

Viviano, Benedict T., and Justin Taylor. “Sadducees, Angels, and Resurrection (Acts 23:8-9).” Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 111, no. 3, 1992, pp. 496–498. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3267264.
Good article. Thanks.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply