Kata Markon

["L. J. Swain" <larry.swain AT wmich.edu>]

Karel Hanhart wrote:

>
> You are right, there certainly is no consensus. I agree with you that the 
> neaniskos  in Getsemane
> and in the open tomb are one and the same person.  Austin Farrer and 
> Scroggs and Groff have written in this vein. If indeed Mark was deeply 
> influenced by Pauline thought - I too take this to be
> the case - than a profound symbolism is expressed here" the young man 
> symbolizes the concert to faith in Jesus. He is "buried with Christ" in 
> order to "rise with him to new life".
> I have written extensively on the subject  on pp 341-348; + 349 - 392 (I 
> mention it again simply because. I am looking forward to a critique showing 
> me where I may have gone wrong}.
> Prof. Neirynck, of Louvain offered a valid critique of the idea that the 
> neaniskos is an "initiate" baptized after the reading of the passion story. 
> He failed to see what connection there was of
> baptism with the military scene of soldier grabbing the youth in his 
> flight. This set me to further research: 1. Mark must have had a historical 
> disciple or apostle (sun-ekolouthei!) in mind like
> Simon Peter - yet, there must also be a reason why in the vision of the 
> women he appears as a messenger from beyond the veil of death. In other 
> words this historical youth, must historically have
> gone through an experience symbolized in the flight from Getsemane and he 
> must have died in the period. between Gethsemane and the event the women 
> saw in their vision (I believe, the traumatic
> events of 70).
>

Perhaps I have missed something or not remembered something in the authors 
you mention, including your own articles, but I've never been able to 
understand how under this interpretation one gets from
a naked youth leaving his covering behind to the other worldly youth 
announcing the resurrection, linguistically the connection is there, in terms 
of literary connection I have to admit, I don't see
it.

> Karel Hanhart
>
> > Subject: Re: young man
> > From: "warren barber" <barbewa AT hotmail.com>
> > Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 21:24:25
> > X-Message-Number: 12
> >
> > I think the young man is John-Mark, the author himself, over whom Paul and
> > Barnabas parted company in Acts 15:38-39. I believe His mother's house is
> > likly the location of the "upper room" of the house church in Acts 1 :12,
> > and where the diciples partook of the last supper Mark 14 before
> > unexpectedly (to them not Jesus) leaving for gethsemane after Judas left 
> > to
> > betry Him.  Returning with the temple guards (because he couldn't tell 
> > them
> > before hand where they would be because of Jesus' unusual instructions in
> > 14:13-15 had hid the location from Judus)finding them gone figures they
> > probably went to Gethsemane and goes there, John/Mark awoken (at his
> > mother's house by the temple guards and Judus, quickly pull about himself
> > just a sheet and follows to see what is going on and in there by an
> > eyewittness to what he later records with Peter's help in the Gospel of
> > Mark.  This also follow an existing pattern of litterature in which the
> > author anonamously records his presence.
>
> Warren,
>
> If indeed Mark wanted to write history as accurately as possible than yours 
> is a valid alternative.
> Theodor Zahn offered it  in the last century already. But the problem 
> remains why the author himself, John Mark, would not have mentioned before 
> explaining how he accompanied Jesus and the twelve
> to Gethsemane. More difficult  to answer is the question why Mark would 
> place himself - while still in this life - in the role of an angel. There 
> would have been a less spectacular and less
> prideful way of introducing himself into the story. If I remember 
> correctly, Zahn only referred to the youth in Getsemane - signing in this 
> manner, in the margin so to speak, his gospel.
>
> Karel Hanhart
>

One needs to be careful though.  The two scenes are tied together by an 
interesting, perhaps even compelling use of the terms, but both terms are 
generic and common enough that the author may not
have intended the two scenes to be literarily connected.  And of course 
context is still king:  the second context definitely suggests an other 
worldly being, in the first context it is very
difficult to see an other worldly being; in either context it is easy to see 
a normal man, but how do we connect the one scene of the young man running 
away nude with a scene in which he is at the
tomb BEFORE everyone else and giving instructions of such a nature that 
everyone, women and apostles, do as he says?  Perhaps I'm just obtuse.........

Larry Swain