Enough Criticism!! Why the naked slutboy in Mark 14:51?

[billd89]

Oh, but 'Secret Mark'.

Dr. Helen Ingram, Ph.D. teaches at the School of Philosophy, Theology and Religion at the University of Birmingham UK; her book seems legitimate, serious scholarship. Link:

In addition to their youth and sexual purity, many divination rituals in the Greek magical papyri require the boy to be naked and dressed in white linen. This manner of dress is described in a divination to Helios (PGM IV. 88-93) which instructs the magician to ‘wrap a naked boy in linen from head to toe (σινδονιάσας κατὰ κεφαλης μέχρι ποδων γυμνὸν κρότα)’. Pure garments or pure sheets are an essential apparatus in most divinatory rites and they are occasionally used by the practitioner himself.

IV. THE νεανίσκος IN GETHSEMANE (MK. 14:51) AND AT THE TOMB (MK. 16:5)

The identity and role of the νεανίσκος (‘young man’) who follows Jesus at Gethsemane (Mk. 14:51) has been subject to a great deal of discussion in New Testament scholarship since his function within the passage and his relationship with Jesus is unclear. Some commentators have suggested that the νεανίσκος of Mk. 14:51 could be the author of Mark inserting himself into the Gospel narrative. However, we may presume from the great care taken by Mark to provide details regarding the youth’s unusual mode of dress that he did not intend the youth to be a superfluous literary device. In addition, simply by the criteria of embarrassment alone, the evangelist would not include a character dressed in such a bizarre fashion without good reason. It appears that the author of Mark was comfortable with the inclusion of this strangely dressed, anonymous figure and therefore the νεανίσκος and the details of his unusual clothing must serve an important function within the narrative.
...
Readers of the divinatory rites in the Greek magical texts cannot fail to notice the similarities, particularly in clothing, between the boy mediums in the magical papyri and the νεανίσκος in Mk. 14:51 and 16:5. The youthfulness of the man is emphasised by Mark’s use of the Greek word νεανίσκος, meaning ‘young man’ or ‘servant’, although the precise age indicated by the term νεανίσκος is contentious. Furthermore, the word σινδών which is used to refer to the linen cloth worn by the νεανίσκος in Mk. 14:51 is also found in many of the rituals in the Great Magical Papyri of Paris (PGM IV). For example, in PGM IV. 88-93 the magician is instructed to ‘wrap a naked boy in linen from head to toe (σινδονιάσας κατὰ κεφαλης μέχρι ποδων γυμνὸν κρότα)’ and in an ‘oracle of Kronos’ (PGM IV. 3086-3124) the practitioner is instructed to ‘be clothed with clean linen (σινδόνα καθαρὰν) in the garb of a priest of Isis’ (IV. 3096). The symbolic use of the sindw,n to represent death and rebirth is evident in certain magical texts in which the participant is required to use a σινδών when performing a pseudo-burial. An example of this appears in a letter concerning bowl divination (PGM IV. 154 – 285) which permits the magician to consult a drowned man or dead man. It reads:

‘go up to the highest part of the house and spread a pure linen garment (σινδόνιον καθαρόν)
on the floor…and while looking upward lie down / naked on the linen
(σινδόνα) and order your eyes to be completely covered with a black band. And
wrap yourself like a corpse, close your eyes and, keeping your direction toward
the sun, begin these words….’

Considering the similarities in age and dress between the boy-mediums in the magical papyri and the neani,skoj in Mk. 14:51 and 16:5, would the early reader of the Gospels, who would in all probability be accustomed to these magical procedures or at least familiar with such activities, notice these resemblances and suspect that the youth in these Markan passages had an equally magical purpose?

[Irish1975]

Regulars will have surmised I was being semi-satirical in the title and OP; ho hum.

Don't feel too bad, no one laughed at my Tertullian joke either. :/

oh yeah, all good

[Peter Kirby]

(emphasis added)

For example, in PGM IV. 88-93 the magician is instructed to ‘wrap a naked boy in linen from head to toe (σινδονιάσας κατὰ κεφαλης μέχρι ποδων γυμνὸν κρότα)’ and in an ‘oracle of Kronos’ (PGM IV. 3086-3124) the practitioner is instructed to ‘be clothed with clean linen (σινδόνα καθαρὰν) in the garb of a priest of Isis’ (IV. 3096). The symbolic use of the sindw,n to represent death and rebirth is evident in certain magical texts in which the participant is required to use a σινδών when performing a pseudo-burial.

Sounds like baptism.

Romans 6:3-6

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? We were buried therefore with Him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin.

Colossians 2:11-13

In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses

2 Corinthians 4:2-4

For in this tent nwe groan, longing to oput on our heavenly dwelling, if indeed by putting it on we may not be found naked. For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened—not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal pmay be swallowed up by life.

Galatians 3:26-27

So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

The word for "linen cloth" appears in Mark 15:46 (as a burial shroud), and of course a "young man" appears in the tomb (Mark 16:5).

Whatever the meaning of the passage is, whatever the symbolism, the extant ancient commentary does not reveal. It's referenced by Gregory of Nazianzus (Oration 33.14), Ambrose (Commentary on Twelve Psalms, 36.53), Jerome (Epistle 64, 71), and Epiphanius (Panarion 78.13.3).

None of them, however, connect it to Amos 2:16. In fact no citation of Amos 2:16 shows up anywhere from a Christian in antiquity in a Biblindex search. More likely than not, it wasn't known as a meaningful proof text.

Here is Gregory:

XIV. And if I am doing wrong in this, that when tyrannized over I endure it, forgive me this wrong; I have borne to be tyrannized over by others too; and I am thankful that my moderation has brought upon me the charge of folly. For I reckon thus, using considerations altogether higher than any of yours; what a mere fraction are these trials of the spittings and blows which Christ, for Whom and by Whose aid we encounter these dangers, endured. I do not count them, taken altogether, worth the one crown of thorns which robbed our conqueror of his crown, for whose sake also I learn that I am crowned for the hardness of life. I do not reckon them worth the one reed by which the rotten empire was destroyed; of the gall alone, the vinegar alone, by which we were cured of the bitter taste; of the gentleness alone which He showed in His Passion. Was He betrayed with a kiss? He reproves with a kiss, but smites not. Is he suddenly arrested? He reproaches indeed, but follows; and if through zeal you cut off the ear of Malchus with the sword, He will be angry, and will restore it. And if one flee in a linen sheet, he will defend him. And if you ask for the fire of Sodom upon his captors, he will not pour it forth; and if he take a thief hanging upon the cross for his crime he will bring him into Paradise through His Goodness. Let all the acts of one that loves men be loving, as were all the sufferings of Christ, to which we could add nothing greater than, when God even died for us, to refuse on our part to forgive even the smallest wrongs of our fellowmen.

Here is Ambrose:

However, just as the children, so too the young men, that is, the spiritual ones. Scripture knows the young man Paul already close to conversion, it also knows Eutychus, a young man who, engrossed in Paul's words, fell asleep and fell from the third floor but was resurrected. It also knows the young man John, reclining on the breast of Christ, who was so strong that he did not fear persecution and overcame evil. This is the boy who left behind his earthly father and followed the eternal Father whom he knew, the young man clothed in a linen cloth who followed the Lord during the time of His passion, who had abandoned all his own things, and who recognized and proved that the Word of God had always been and would always be in the beginning itself, and that He dwelt within himself.

Here is Jerome:

A too careful management of one's income, a too near calculation of one's expenses-these are habits not easily laid aside. Yet to escape the Egyptian woman Joseph had to leave hisgarment with her. And the young man who followed Jesus having a linen cloth cast about him, when he was assailed by the servants had to throw away his earthly covering and to flee naked. Elijah also when he was carried upin a chariot of fire to heaven left his mantle of sheepskin on earth.

Here is Epiphanius:

Therefore Mary never conceives again; the holy Virgin cannot have had marital relations.
13,1 But let us look to other considerations too, to < make the truth hevident in every way* >; since it was always with him, the truth < was* > a follower of Jesus. “Jesus was called to a marriage,” and “his mother < was > there.” 39 And < nowhere > are his brothers mentioned, and nowhere Joseph. < For he says >, “Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come” 40 He didn’t say, “People, what have I to do with you?”
13,2 Mary Magdalene stood by the cross, and Mary the wife of Cleopas, and Mary the mother of Rufus, and the other Mary, and Salome, and other women. And it didn’t say, “Joseph was there”—or “James the Lord’s brother,” < who > died in virginity < at the age > of ninety-six.
13,3 No iron implement had touched his head, he had never visited a bath house, had never eaten meat. He did not own a change of clothing and wore only a threadbare linen garment, as it says in the Gospel, “The young man fled, and left the cloth wherewith he was clad.”

Epiphanius offers up something a little interesting, at least. He says that the young man was James "the Lord's brother." He also says that James was a perpetual virgin, as was Mary.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

If we return to some good old-fashioned German criticism we will likely conclude that the passage is an interpolation.

1838, Christian Gottlob Wilke, explained the reasons:

1. the passage is about the fleeing of the disciples when the authorities come to arrest Jesus -- the flight of the young man is an irrelevant intrusion

2. the account of the flight of the young man is out of place in the way the story is worded: it suggests the authorities were attempting to arrest the followers of Jesus before the arrest of Jesus

3. the point of the story is to tell us that only one person followed Jesus, viz Peter.

4. the story begins with the express statement that Jesus went with the twelve disciples only, and then says that it was those twelve who fled -- leaving the introduction of the young man out of context.

Bruno Bauer drew attention to Wilke's conclusion and added that no other evangelist thought it fit to repeat the episode -- suggesting it was not there to begin with. I would add that Matthew loved to bring in as many explicit prophecy fulfillments as he could and even he passed up this opportunity to refer to the Amos prophecy of the flight of the youth naked.

Conclusion -- it was never part of the original gospel.

My impression is that this Old School Criticism

- in a first step imagines a real historical event or a supposed original report or an only slightly modified report about a historical event and

- in a second step compares this supposed report with the gospels and measures the gospel account against it.

It seems obvious to me that in this comparison between a supposedly original account and the account of the gospels, a reported incident like the present one is always perceived as secondary and therefore often as an interpolation (Wilke: "irrelevant intrusion", "out of place", "out of context"). However, this procedure presupposes that the gospels are or at least want to be a report on historical events.

In addition, Wilke's observation is incorrect. If everyone has already fled, it is not out of context to mention one exception, namely the one who has not fled yet and goes a little further with Jesus. Against Wilke: that's exactly the point of the story (Peter has long since disappeared and only follows "from afar").

[neilgodfrey]

If we return to some good old-fashioned German criticism we will likely conclude that the passage is an interpolation.

1838, Christian Gottlob Wilke, explained the reasons:

1. the passage is about the fleeing of the disciples when the authorities come to arrest Jesus -- the flight of the young man is an irrelevant intrusion

2. the account of the flight of the young man is out of place in the way the story is worded: it suggests the authorities were attempting to arrest the followers of Jesus before the arrest of Jesus

3. the point of the story is to tell us that only one person followed Jesus, viz Peter.

4. the story begins with the express statement that Jesus went with the twelve disciples only, and then says that it was those twelve who fled -- leaving the introduction of the young man out of context.

Bruno Bauer drew attention to Wilke's conclusion and added that no other evangelist thought it fit to repeat the episode -- suggesting it was not there to begin with. I would add that Matthew loved to bring in as many explicit prophecy fulfillments as he could and even he passed up this opportunity to refer to the Amos prophecy of the flight of the youth naked.

Conclusion -- it was never part of the original gospel.

My impression is that this Old School Criticism

- in a first step imagines a real historical event or a supposed original report or an only slightly modified report about a historical event and

- in a second step compares this supposed report with the gospels and measures the gospel account against it.

It seems obvious to me that in this comparison between a supposedly original account and the account of the gospels, a reported incident like the present one is always perceived as secondary and therefore often as an interpolation (Wilke: "irrelevant intrusion", "out of place", "out of context"). However, this procedure presupposes that the gospels are or at least want to be a report on historical events.

In addition, Wilke's observation is incorrect. If everyone has already fled, it is not out of context to mention one exception, namely the one who has not fled yet and goes a little further with Jesus. Against Wilke: that's exactly the point of the story (Peter has long since disappeared and only follows "from afar").

In fairness to Wilke, I think it is reasonable to try to imagine oneself as a narrator planning to write the account. One knows one will include the fleeing young man so one prepares the ground for it in the early stages. One does not drop it in unexpectedly and contrary to what the reader has been led to imagine up till then. So a writer would be expected to begin by saying that Jesus went to the mount of Olives with the Twelve and other followers. Continuing with a clear and coherent account of the events, the writer is more likely to say that after they seized Jesus authorities attempted to arrest those still there with him and grabbed the youth's garment... That would be a coherent account -- unlike the current one.

Yes?

Do you think Matthew's omission of it should carry any weight? Matthew does love to point out explicit fulfilments of prophecy, doesn't he?

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

In fairness to Wilke, ...

I don't want to criticize Wilke and am quite unsure how to judge some of the views of these 19th-century scholars today. Mostly positive, of course.

In fairness to Wilke, I think it is reasonable to try to imagine oneself as a narrator planning to write the account. One knows one will include the fleeing young man so one prepares the ground for it in the early stages. One does not drop it in unexpectedly and contrary to what the reader has been led to imagine up till then. So a writer would be expected to begin by saying that Jesus went to the mount of Olives with the Twelve and other followers. Continuing with a clear and coherent account of the events, the writer is more likely to say that after they seized Jesus authorities attempted to arrest those still there with him and grabbed the youth's garment... That would be a coherent account -- unlike the current one.

Yes?

From this point of view, isn't the appearance of Judas with the whole troop much more surprising than the appearance of the young man? The reader must conclude here: Jesus prayed for an hour, so Judas had enough time to go back to Jerusalem. He ran away from Gethsemane leaving the remaining eight behind. In Jerusalem, very quickly a troop was summoned by the Sanhedrin and Judas brought that troop back to Gethsemane.

But the fact remains that Mark doesn't say anything about it. Wouldn't a reader expect that? Why should other standards apply to the first part of the pericope? Because the further progress of the story inevitably requires an arrest? But then the argument is still not valid.

Do you think Matthew's omission of it should carry any weight? Matthew does love to point out explicit fulfilments of prophecy, doesn't he?

Yes, but imho he wouldn't have liked it if the Twelve were outplayed by a newbie who then appeared in the tomb and preached the resurrection. So why not just bypass him in Gethsemane and make him an angel of the Lord at the tomb?

[billd89]

(emphasis added)

For example, in PGM IV. 88-93 the magician is instructed to ‘wrap a naked boy in linen from head to toe (σινδονιάσας κατὰ κεφαλης μέχρι ποδων γυμνὸν κρότα)’ and in an ‘oracle of Kronos’ (PGM IV. 3086-3124) the practitioner is instructed to ‘be clothed with clean linen (σινδόνα καθαρὰν) in the garb of a priest of Isis’ (IV. 3096). The symbolic use of the σινδών {=fine linen cloth; garment of linen, muslin; cloth, sheet, veil made of linen} to represent death and rebirth is evident in certain magical texts in which the participant is required to use a σινδών when performing a pseudo-burial.

Sounds like baptism.

Maybe, maybe not.

I reject the premise all "baptism" is Xtian, and that sort of crude reductionist thinking is worse than useless. Your following list of Biblical verses suggests that.

Accepting such a variety of "baptismal" forms/interpretations -- this that and the other -- proves that in practice, even to (proto) orthodox Christians, "baptism" meant many different things: some contradictory or strongly counter-intuitive (i.e. wildly alternative). I doubt it: Early Christians must have fought over these highly divergent rituals, but if anything becomes "baptism" we too need to exercise caution, to avoid gross conflation and misunderstanding. At some point, it's just throwing Jello at the wall ...

Hans Betz, The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, Including the Demotic Spells [1986], p.39:

PGM 4.88-93
Another, to Helios: Wrap a naked boy in linen from head to toe, then clap your hands. After making a ringing noise, place the boy opposite the sun and standing behind him say the formula: "I am Barbarioth; Barbarioth am I; PESKOUT YAHO ADONAI ELOAI SABAOTH, come in to this little one today, for I am Barbarioth!"
*Tr.: W. C. Grese and Marvin W. Meyer (Coptic sections, 11.91-93).

By auditory cue and invocation, the child's soul is to be sacrificed to the Sun (at least temporarily) for daimonic possession. I don't think that is even remotely influenced by Christianity -- nor does it appear to be "baptismal" in any of the forms in your list. No, I don't think this is Xtian at all; it looks more like Judeo-Egyptian (Chaldaean) magic, to me. Philo tells us the Therapeutae also prayed to the Sun; Josephus says the same of the Essenes. This suggests a Judaic Helios creed of magicians (to me), but Philo doesn't really tell us what they did outside their compound, as itinerant healers. At any rate -- unless they were in fact Sethians -- we have no reason to assume these Therapeutae practiced "baptism."

If part of this spell appears elsewhere (or is it the same??), presumably it was popular (link):

Amulet to protect from Demoniacal Possession: "Let a boy, standing before the sun, and placing thyself behind him, repeat this formula: I am Barbarioth, Barbarioth am I . . . Adonai Eloai Sabaoth.

The following invocations are presumably a list of separate spells, but the subsequent exorcism might send away that daimon? Obviously, Jesus exorcised daimons (we are told), so his Disciples were a part of THIS magical community (and not vice-versa): nothing Xtian nor baptismal, here.

I exorcise you in the name of Iao and of Sabaoth and of Adonai.

As for the ‘oracle of Kronos’ (PGM 4.3096):

Be clothed with clean linen in the garb of a priest of Isis. Offer to the god sage, together with a heart of a cat, and horse manure.

Sorry, no: I just can't see that as Xtian or baptismal, but your mileage may vary.

[Peter Kirby]

I reject the premise all "baptism" is Xtian

Nobody said that.

Does it not occur to you that the quotes were with reference to Mark?

[nightshadetwine]

Oh, but 'Secret Mark'.

Dr. Helen Ingram, Ph.D. teaches at the School of Philosophy, Theology and Religion at the University of Birmingham UK; her book seems legitimate, serious scholarship. Link:

In addition to their youth and sexual purity, many divination rituals in the Greek magical papyri require the boy to be naked and dressed in white linen. This manner of dress is described in a divination to Helios (PGM IV. 88-93) which instructs the magician to ‘wrap a naked boy in linen from head to toe (σινδονιάσας κατὰ κεφαλης μέχρι ποδων γυμνὸν κρότα)’. Pure garments or pure sheets are an essential apparatus in most divinatory rites and they are occasionally used by the practitioner himself.

IV. THE νεανίσκος IN GETHSEMANE (MK. 14:51) AND AT THE TOMB (MK. 16:5)

The identity and role of the νεανίσκος (‘young man’) who follows Jesus at Gethsemane (Mk. 14:51) has been subject to a great deal of discussion in New Testament scholarship since his function within the passage and his relationship with Jesus is unclear. Some commentators have suggested that the νεανίσκος of Mk. 14:51 could be the author of Mark inserting himself into the Gospel narrative. However, we may presume from the great care taken by Mark to provide details regarding the youth’s unusual mode of dress that he did not intend the youth to be a superfluous literary device. In addition, simply by the criteria of embarrassment alone, the evangelist would not include a character dressed in such a bizarre fashion without good reason. It appears that the author of Mark was comfortable with the inclusion of this strangely dressed, anonymous figure and therefore the νεανίσκος and the details of his unusual clothing must serve an important function within the narrative.
...
Readers of the divinatory rites in the Greek magical texts cannot fail to notice the similarities, particularly in clothing, between the boy mediums in the magical papyri and the νεανίσκος in Mk. 14:51 and 16:5. The youthfulness of the man is emphasised by Mark’s use of the Greek word νεανίσκος, meaning ‘young man’ or ‘servant’, although the precise age indicated by the term νεανίσκος is contentious. Furthermore, the word σινδών which is used to refer to the linen cloth worn by the νεανίσκος in Mk. 14:51 is also found in many of the rituals in the Great Magical Papyri of Paris (PGM IV). For example, in PGM IV. 88-93 the magician is instructed to ‘wrap a naked boy in linen from head to toe (σινδονιάσας κατὰ κεφαλης μέχρι ποδων γυμνὸν κρότα)’ and in an ‘oracle of Kronos’ (PGM IV. 3086-3124) the practitioner is instructed to ‘be clothed with clean linen (σινδόνα καθαρὰν) in the garb of a priest of Isis’ (IV. 3096). The symbolic use of the sindw,n to represent death and rebirth is evident in certain magical texts in which the participant is required to use a σινδών when performing a pseudo-burial. An example of this appears in a letter concerning bowl divination (PGM IV. 154 – 285) which permits the magician to consult a drowned man or dead man. It reads:

‘go up to the highest part of the house and spread a pure linen garment (σινδόνιον καθαρόν)
on the floor…and while looking upward lie down / naked on the linen
(σινδόνα) and order your eyes to be completely covered with a black band. And
wrap yourself like a corpse, close your eyes and, keeping your direction toward
the sun, begin these words….’

Considering the similarities in age and dress between the boy-mediums in the magical papyri and the neani,skoj in Mk. 14:51 and 16:5, would the early reader of the Gospels, who would in all probability be accustomed to these magical procedures or at least familiar with such activities, notice these resemblances and suspect that the youth in these Markan passages had an equally magical purpose?

Good find! In his article "The Baptismal Raising of Lazarus: A New Interpretation of John 11" (Novum Testamentum 58, 2016) Bernhard Lang compares the raising of Lazarus to initiation rituals such as the one found in the magic papyrus of Paris. This supports the idea that the boy (just like Lazarus) is going through a death and rebirth/resurrection with Jesus just like the deceased mummy in the Egyptian mortuary ritual (which was an initiation into the mysteries of the netherworld) in emulation of Osiris. The mummy throws off its linen wrappings and then is clothed in a white garment after being "glorified" by passing the judgement of the dead just like the boy who dies and resurrects with Jesus. In the Isis mysteries the initiate would also go through a death and resurrection/rebirth ritual. This ritual seems to be a continuation of the Egyptian mortuary ritual. Paul describes baptism as dying and resurrecting with Jesus like in initiation rituals. See my other post in this thread.

"The Baptismal Raising of Lazarus: A New Interpretation of John 11", Bernhard Lang, Novum Testamentum 58 (2016):

Though well hidden, the theme of baptism informs the whole story of the raising of Lazarus (John 11)... Once readers are set on this track, they cannot miss the hidden point. Ritually, the person being baptised is pushed into the realm of death, so that he can emerge to a new life... Unfortunately, our ancient sources on mystery religions tell us very little about how the “second birth” was ritually staged, for initiates were required to remain silent about it. Nevertheless, some hints found in ancient sources give an indication. The magic papyrus of Paris provides a good example. Around eleven o’clock in the morning and in the presence of the magician, the candidate is supposed to mount the roof of a house and spread out a piece of cloth. Naked he places himself upon it. His eyes are blindfolded, the entire body wrapped like a mummy... When this occurs, possibly in the form of a draught of air felt by the candidate, the latter stands up. He dons a white garment, burns incense and again utters a spell. The rites completed, he descends from the roof. Now he knows that he has acquired immortality. Similar rites and symbolic representations of death and resurrection can be found in all ancient mystery cults. “When the candidate of the mysteries of Isis applies for initiation, he chooses the ritual death in order to gain true life,” explains Reinhold Merkelbach. In fact, according to the ancients, each initiation ritual involves the death of the old and the birth of a new person; there are no exceptions. Early-Christian baptism divides the lives of those baptised in a sequence of three phases. In the first phase, the human being is enslaved to sin and the world. The second phase means death: the baptismal candidate is killed—symbolically, but not actually drowned by being forced under water. This “drowning” is the actual rite of baptism...

The ritual culminates in the candidate’s resurrection (vii) or—to use Johannine vocabulary (John 3:3)—rebirth to a new life, initiated by the call to
leave the tomb (or to rise). The call, no doubt spoken by a presbyter, is understood as being uttered by Christ: “Truly, truly, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live” (John 5:25, alluded to in 11:25). The hour of which Jesus speaks is the hour of baptism. After coming out of the tomb, Lazarus is freed from the linen strips with which his arms and feet were bound. This unbinding may actually echo an idea dear to the Egyptian culture and depicted on the lid of an ancient sarcophagus: the resurrected human person stands erect, with outstretched arms from which the strips dangle, with which the dead body had been wrapped. The Egyptians wrapped the body with strips of cloth just for the transition period or travel from this world to the other world; once the person has arrived in the next world, the wrapping was taken off. The resurrected Lazarus, one may assume, also belongs to a new world—that of the Christian community...

Cosmology & Eschatology in Jewish & Christian Apocalypticism (Brill, 1996), Adela Yarbro Collins:

Two sayings attributed to Jesus in the Synoptic tradition seem to use the word baptism metaphorically to mean death, especially the death of Jesus. In these sayings, the operative symbol has shifted from cleansing that leads to a pure and holy life to death that leads to new life. These sayings are close to Paul's interpretation of baptism in Romans 6, one of the most important passages on baptism in the NT...In Romans 6: 1-14 the ritual of baptism is explicitly interpreted as a reenactment of the death and resurrection of Jesus in which the baptized person appropriates the significance of that death for him or herself. In this understanding of the ritual, the experience of the Christian is firmly and vividly grounded in the story of the death and resurrection of Christ. These qualities of reenactment of a foundational story and the identification of the participant with the protagonist of the story are strikingly reminiscent of what is known about the initiation rituals of certain mystery religions, notably the Eleusinian mysteries and the Isis mysteries.

[neilgodfrey]

In fairness to Wilke, ...

I don't want to criticize Wilke and am quite unsure how to judge some of the views of these 19th-century scholars today. Mostly positive, of course.

No doubt -- even Bruno Bauer had occasion to disagree with at least one of Wilke's conclusions. But I am finally catching up with an approach to literary criticism that I have failed to fully understand or appreciate before and am attempting to work my way through it.