Dale Allison on the pious women at the tomb as historical evidence

[Giuseppe]

I read in Note 144 that someone has reached my same conclusion:

Note that Martin Karrer, Jesus Christus im Neuen Testament, GNT 11 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998), 44, can regard the story of the empty tomb as an etiology explaining the lack of a cult at Jesus’ tomb.

...so Joseph of Arimathea is part and parcel of the same etiology. I would call it apology.


Wasn't the entire Gospel an etiology explaining the lack of knowledge of a historical Jesus by the early Apostles?


Another point where Allison sounds interesting:

Although I am unsure how this bears on the issue, I note the lack of old evidence for any place being venerated because a resurrection appearance was thought to have taken place there.

(note 157)

Strange as observation. I remember that Richard Miller mentioned 77 cases of empty tombs, so it would be relatively easy to find the tombs that were venerated.

[mlinssen]

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/16366

But Mark gives us two Mary’s, representing two aspects of this legendary role. “Magdalene” is a variant Hellenization of the Hebrew for “tower,” the same exact word transcribed as Magdôlon in the Septuagint—in other words the biblical Migdol, representing the borders of Egypt, and hence of Death. In Exodus 13, the Hebrews camped near Migdol to lure the Pharaoh’s army to their doom, after which “they passed through the midst of the sea into the wilderness three days” (Numbers 33:7-8), just as Jesus had done, on their way to the “twelve springs and seventy palm trees” of Elim (33:9), just as we know the gospel would be spread by twelve disciples and—according to Luke 10:1-17—seventy missionaries. Meanwhile, “Mary the mother of Jacob” (many don’t know it, but “James” is simply Jacob in the original languages, not a different name) is an obvious reference to the Jacob, of Jacob’s well, whose connection we already see Mark intended. This Jacob is of course better known as Israel himself.

So these two Marys in Mark represent Egypt and Israel, one literally the Mother of Israel; the other, the harbinger of escape from the land of the dead. Thus they represent (on the one side) the borders of the Promised Land and the miraculous defeat of death needed to get across, and (on the other side) the founding of a new nation, a New Israel—both linked to each other, through the sister of the first savior, Moses, and Aaron (the first High Priest), and mediated by Wisdom (Salome).

Samaria and Egypt... and I must really get decided about Thomas being either for or against Samaria, and whether Israel really represents Samaria or not always

[Paul the Uncertain]

Most certainly not, I'm afraid. This is the only one out of the eight points that is not completely mental: women highly likely were looked upon as inferior indeed.
Yet dragons are very well-known for their reliability, so they could not have fulfilled the role as best as the women, not could any of the disciples have

The male disciples aren't there, which is a major plot point. A dragon has no foundation within the story universe. That leaves women or children. Who, in a further major plot point, aren't actually witnesses to much which doesn't also have a male witness available for the literary taking (the fact of entombment, that this is the correct tomb, and what the young man said in the tomb). Since those two males aren't conscripted into service, we may infer that the author was satisfied with the witnesses he does mention.

And which is that role then? You suggest that it is their role to witness an empty tomb, ...

Not quite. I have asserted that their role in the story implies that they are witnesses about whom the narrator character displays some passing familiarity with their reputation. The bar is not high: the narrator character needs only to ground his stance with the possibility of knowledge by natural means in order to maintain his posture of "knowingness." That is much less demanding on him than "proving" that what he says is actually true.

but then you have missed the entire point of the Markan ending - as the actors here are led to the slaughterhouse from the very beginning in 15:40; they are marked for humiliation, shame, rage, hate, and all that jazz.
Because it's their fault, and their fault alone: they were tasked with a simple instruction to tell a very small story of one, possibly two sentences, and they completely screwed it up, they never even started it.
The entire world was left in the dark because of these stupid women who forsook their duty, betrayed their Saviour, let down an entire generation, and so on

That assumes that authentic gMark ends at 16:8, an assumption which I do not share. Even accepting the proposition arguendo, the black marks on the page only require that the women did not tell the disciples what the runaways already knew, what they had been told three times by Jesus, and what Jesus has recently told them to do next, what they would likely do anyway: go home to Galilee.

BTW, what the women are suffering from is clinical shock.

Witnesses?! How dare you take that word into your mouth, given the fact that these terrible, shameful traitors never witnessed anything: they kept it all to themselves!!!!!!!!

There. Add some dramatic music for extra effect

Continuing arguendo with the assumption that authentic gMark ends at 16:8, the depicted events of that morning are separated from the narrator's first performance by at least one generation. There is simply nothing there on the page that prevents information leakage from reaching the narrator over the span of decades.

As I already said, the bar which the narrator needs to clear is not high. Whoever wrote 16:9-11, the point made there stands. The women's lives will go on, Jesus can make things happen, and one or more of the women will eventually speak up. And probably won't be believed immediately anyway.

[mlinssen]

The male disciples aren't there, which is a major plot point. A dragon has no foundation within the story universe. That leaves women or children.

You're working towards your own assumptions here: there are plenty of male left who aren't disciples, and Joseph of Arimathea is one example there. So no, absolutely not does that leave women and children

Who, in a further major plot point, aren't actually witnesses to much which doesn't also have a male witness available for the literary taking (the fact of entombment, that this is the correct tomb, and what the young man said in the tomb). Since those two males aren't conscripted into service, we may infer that the author was satisfied with the witnesses he does mention.

Wrong - there are no explicit witnesses to anything other than these three women. The entombment is witnessed by no one but them, there's nothing suggesting a wrong or right tomb and either way they're are no witnesses to any of that, and there are no witnesses at all to the young man except, again, these three women and only these three women alone.
You're wriggling

That assumes that authentic gMark ends at 16:8, an assumption which I do not share. Even accepting the proposition arguendo, the black marks on the page only require that the women did not tell the disciples what the runaways already knew, what they had been told three times by Jesus, and what Jesus has recently told them to do next, what they would likely do anyway: go home to Galilee.

BTW, what the women are suffering from is clinical shock.

Witnesses?! How dare you take that word into your mouth, given the fact that these terrible, shameful traitors never witnessed anything: they kept it all to themselves!!!!!!!!

There. Add some dramatic music for extra effect

Continuing arguendo with the assumption that authentic gMark ends at 16:8, the depicted events of that morning are separated from the narrator's first performance by at least one generation. There is simply nothing there on the page that prevents information leakage from reaching the narrator over the span of decades.

As I already said, the bar which the narrator needs to clear is not high. Whoever wrote 16:9-11, the point made there stands. The women's lives will go on, Jesus can make things happen, and one or more of the women will eventually speak up. And probably won't be believed immediately anyway.

LOL. You are now fleeing into a context of your own making and abandoning the text - quite understandably so, of course, given the fact that there's no space left in the corner of the room where you have painted yourself into

Mark ends at 16:8, there is complete agreement about that, even Nestle-Aland agrees to that, likely very grudgingly. Whatever comes after is a blatant addition, and one doesn't need to make up reasons for why that was done - even the very fact that we have different endings, each of which greatly varies in general content, evidently testifies to Mark ending right here at 16:8

Needless to say, you don't motivate your opinion that you disagree with the fact that "authentic gMark ends at 16:8, an assumption which I do not share".
It is so easy to discern motivated arguments from feeble opinions, Paul. Everything that you have on this is mere opinion, wishful thinking - which can only mean that you have already convinced yourself of the opposite of what you state here, but couldn't possibly let that out

There's one exception to that, and that is the predicting by Jesus which indeed is working towards all this, to something else than a definite death

Mark 8:31 And He began to teach them that it is necessary for the Son of Man to suffer many things, and to be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and to be killed, and after three days to rise again.
32 And He was speaking openly the word. And Peter having taken Him to him, began to rebuke Him. 33 And having turned and having looked upon His disciples, He rebuked Peter, and said, “Get behind Me, Satan, for your thoughts are not of the things of God, but the things of men.”

Mark 9:30 Having gone forth from there, they were passing through Galilee; and He did not want that anyone should know, 31 for He was teaching His disciples. And He was saying to them, “The Son of Man is delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill Him; and having been killed, on the third day He will arise.” 32 And they did not understand the saying, and they were afraid to ask Him.

Mark 10:32 And they were on the way, going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was going on before them.
And they were astonished, and those following were afraid. And having taken to Him the Twelve again, He began to tell them the things being about to happen to Him:
33 “Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and to the scribes, and they will condemn Him to death, and will betray Him to the Gentiles.
34 And they will mock Him, and will spit upon Him, and will flog and will kill Him, and on the third day He will rise again.”

Here's the rundown of those:

1. Announcement of Jesus’ Death
2. Failure on the Part of the Disciples
3. Jesus Teaches on Discipleship

A1. Jesus will suffer, be rejected, killed, and will rise after three days (8:31)
A2. Peter rebukes Jesus (8:32–33)
A3. Jesus commands them to deny themselves, take up their cross, and follow him (8:33–9:1)

B1. Jesus will be delivered, killed, and will rise after three days (9:30–31)
B2. The disciples do not understand the saying and are afraid to ask him about it (9:32)
B3. Jesus teaches that the first must be last and that those who receive children in his name receive him (9:33–50)

C1. Jesus will be delivered, condemned, mocked, flogged, killed, and will rise after three days (10:33–34)
C2. James and John ask that they may sit next to Jesus in his glory (10:35–37)
C3. Jesus teaches that, to be great, they must become servants; to be first, they must become slaves; and that he came to serve by giving his life as a ransom for many (10:38–45)

It is evident that Mark introduces these, he tells something new, and the disciples fail to understand him, they ignore him, or talk about the weather in response. Mark must do all these in order to have a story exactly because he doesn't have one with his ending, his so-called Passion Predictions *are* his resurrection story, and he needs to express the disciples' non response to that because "they also didn't know of his resurrection".
Everything in Mark points towards his fabrication of the resurrection, simultaneously explaining why nobody ever told about it

Let's assume you were to write a book about Adolf Hitler still being alive today; not only would you have to demonstrate that it is so but you'd also need to explain why it's been such a secret for all these years - and then you'd make your case stronger by having Adolf actually predict all of this by inventing some medical experiments etc, and then in the end the reader would be left with a very simple and basic scenario, e.g.:

Adolf always told everyone that he would live to be 150 years old but no one made any note of that because they were busy with something else;
Adolf left a note every single year stating his being alive and well but the mailman delivering them always tossed them because he didn't like the swastika at the top left of the envelope (and he raised 3 generations of mailmen so they all did the same);
The people that got him out of Berlin and safely brought him to Panama were all executed by Adolf, alas. That story even made it into the local newspapers but the reporter hadn't realised that it was Adolf

Adolf is alive!!!

[Paul the Uncertain]

@mlinssen

You're working towards your own assumptions here: there are plenty of male left who aren't disciples, and Joseph of Arimathea is one example there. So no, absolutely not does that leave women and children

Great, so now we've come full circle again. Mark is satisfied with women and maybe a girl as his narrator's possible witness-informants. We agree that men are available (as I wrote, "[the women] aren't actually witnesses to much which doesn't also have a male witness available for the literary taking ..."). We apparently agree that Mark doesn't use them. Bingo.

Wrong - there are no explicit witnesses to anything other than these three women. The entombment is witnessed by no one but them, there's nothing suggesting a wrong or right tomb and either way they're are no witnesses to any of that, and there are no witnesses at all to the young man except, again, these three women and only these three women alone.

Joseph of Arimathea is a witnes to the entombment, the young man (who is anonymous insofar and only insofar as the author decrees) claims to knowledge that this is the correct tomb ("See where they laid him" 16:6) and is a witness to his own speech. That's all there is that the woman witness.

But we agree that Mark's narrator only displays familiarity with the women for these points. So, Mark is satisfied that that is so.

Mark ends at 16:8, there is complete agreement about that

Actually, there is, and has been for centuries, quite a lot of disagreement about that.

Regardless, in the post you remark upon, I granted 16:8 for the sake of argument. The issue is therefore irrelevant to any point either of us has raised. If you are interested in why I do not share your opinion about 16:8, then you can read all about it on the blog. Traffic is always appreciated.

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/201 ... ally-ends/

That post summarizes, provides links back, and adds some further thoughts to an earlier series on the topic.

The issue is moot here, however.

Speaking of moot; I have no intention of writing a sci-fi novel about Hitler. As near as I can determine, you are elaborating on the idea that somehow 16:8 explains nobody having heard of an empty tomb before? OK, and the evidence that nobody had heard of an empty tomb before is ...? And since, as already discussed, there is nothing in 16:8 about the women maintaining their silence for a generation or two, how would 16:8 "explain" any such thing?

What would need explanation is what changed recently, so that the narrator knows about this now, not what didn't happen one morning decades ago. You know, something like verses 16:9-11, only recent.

[mlinssen]

Speaking of moot; I have no intention of writing a sci-fi novel about Hitler. As near as I can detremine, you are elaborating on the idea that somehow 16:8 explains nobody having heard of an empty tomb before? OK, and the evidence that nobody had heard of an empty tomb before is ...? And since, as already discussed, there is nothing in 16:8 about the women maintaining their silence for a generation or two, how would 16:8 "explain" any such thing?

Once again you are leaving the text and adding your own desired story in order to end up at your desired story - exactly because the text doesn't provide one to you

1. There is really nothing in Mark's ending: no resurrected jesus, certainly not one that gets seen by others - it misses all possible allusions to evidence.
What we have is the young man telling the women, and the women not telling anyone. Case closed, story ended

2. What is there then, In Mark? Well, just one thing and one thing only: a narration of women failing their task, their divine (let's go along with that shall we) instruction to tell of a resurrected Jesus

3. Why? Why only that and nothing more? Because that in itself was a great story, Mark's ending is really bold, audacious, Grand

You know as well as I do that this is a matter of reasoning, Paul, and wanting to see what's there. It is clear and evident that you refuse to see what's there, as it is obvious how you keep throwing your own context into it exactly because the content is failing you. Which is fine, none of us needs to agree with anything, all that needs to be done is to present convincing theories based on text

I just read your blog post, it is extremely disappointing - "However, comments from early authors support awareness of additional verses after 16:8 having been part of Mark, including pieces from 16:9-20. The “third oldest” surviving high-quality manuscript includes 16:9-20, and a bit more besides, see below. Even so, two generations separate Mark‘s estimated composition date from the earliest surviving mention of what may have been composed."

Quotes please, thank you

[mlinssen]

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/201 ... -curtains/

"Verse 16:8 is an unsatisfactory final curtain not because Christians hanker to see the risen Jesus (Godspell does big box-office in modern times without any such appearance), and not because early “apostolic succession” partisans wanted Jesus to commission the original disciples without mentioning Paul. Verse 16:8 is an unsatisfactory final curtain because 16:7 would have served well, and 16:8 adds nothing to the resolutions that 16:7 has just achieved. On the contrary, 16:8 introduces brand new concerns that deserve resolution in their own right."

Unfortunately for your theory, Paul the Uncertain, it's the textual ending that we have. And Mark ends there for a very specific reason, and that reason is what I have set out in viewtopic.php?p=135787#p135787

Mark 16:5 And having entered into the tomb, they saw a young man clothed in a white robe, sitting on the right; and they were greatly amazed. 6 And he says to them, “Do not be amazed. You seek Jesus, the Nazarene, the One having been crucified. He is risen! He is not here! Behold the place where they laid Him. 7 But go, say to His disciples and to Peter that He goes before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, as He said to you.” 8 And having gone out, they fled from the tomb, for trembling and amazement had seized them. And they spoke nothing to anyone ; for they were afraid.

It's a crystal-clear ending really. Mark passes the bal in front of the open goal with no defenders in sight anywhere, the public already gets up from their seats...
and then he misses

End of story, Paul. End of text for that matter! The funniest apologetic that I have received was that "the majority of bibles end at 16:20", perhaps you could give that a shot as well?

[Paul the Uncertain]

@mlinssen

Tell you what - if you're going to discuss the authentic ending of gMark, then you should start a thread for that. Or, if you prefer, comments are enabled on any and all of the blog posts in question. Or both.

Whether or not 16:8 is the last authentic verse of gMark, it is the last verse in which there are "pious women at the tomb." That, as viewed by Dale Allison and reviewed by another blogger, is the topic of this thread. I am delighted to proceed in this thread as if the end of gMark and the end of the on-topic material in gMark coincide.

[mlinssen]

@mlinssen

Tell you what - if you're going to discuss the authentic ending of gMark, then you should start a thread for that. Or, if you prefer, comments are enabled on any and all of the blog posts in question. Or both.

Whether or not 16:8 is the last authentic verse of gMark, it is the last verse in which there are "pious women at the tomb." That, as viewed by Dale Allison and reviewed by another blogger, is the topic of this thread. I am delighted to proceed in this thread as if the end of gMark and the end of the on-topic material in gMark coincide.

The following is how we got here, Paul:

If Mark had wanted a specifically male witness, then he could have had Joseph reappear, or identified the "young man" in the tomb, or perhaps had one of Mary's sons accompany her to the tomb along with or instead of her daughter. Mark didn't, so it is reasonable to conclude that the lack of male "witnesses" was no problem for him, and so no evidentiary weight attaches to his choice.

I take it you mean that the presence or absence of female witnesses doesn't weigh in on the alleged historicity, with which I would not agree: with all of Mark predominantly an overwhelmingly male story, the sudden appearance of women points to a deliberate change in the narrative, and as such points to creation of fiction

On a side note: there's nothing to "discuss the authentic ending of gMark", it ends at 16:8

[Paul the Uncertain]

I take it you mean that the presence or absence of female witnesses doesn't weigh in on the alleged historicity, with which I would not agree: with all of Mark predominantly an overwhelmingly male story, the sudden appearance of women points to a deliberate change in the narrative, and as such points to creation of fiction

OK, we disagree. The sudden appearance of women occurs organically from the development of the story. Not all well-told stories are fictive, but I have no commitment to the story being true. That seems to be about as far as we can go with this.