Kata Markon

[Karel Hanhart <K.Hanhart AT net.HCC.nl>]

>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: Flight of the naked Youth ; gmark digest: March 13, 2001
> From: "L. J. Swain" <larry.swain AT wmich.edu>
> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 01:19:37 -0500
> X-Message-Number: 2
>
> 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,

Sc roggs and Groff in "Baptism" JBL  92.4: "Baptism" 531-548. "That there is 
e relation has become clear, but what the nature of that relationship is 
still needs clarification." The clarification
concerns the identity of this strangely anonymous youth. This anonymity of an 
important figure (after all, he is the one who addresses the women) is like 
another anonymous figure in John "the Beloved
Disciple". Many believe that her too was a historical figure who could not be 
mentioned by name because he would not 'fit' in person in the Jesus' story 
not having been a disciple in Jesus' time but
someone who nevertheless had such authority in the early church that he was 
anonymously retrojected into the story.

> including your own articles,

I was not referring to  an article of mine but to a book.

> 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:

You are right: context is king. That is why one must search in the text 
itself to discover - if possible - the identity of this man. I have tried to 
do this at length. One hint is that he "followed"
Jesus together with the eleven (sun-ekolouthei) This  "sun-' ekolouthei"  is 
very unusual. If he is not one of the disciples in Getsemane, who can he be? 
"Nakedness" is a sign of judgment in Scripture.
Paul f.i.. wrote he doesnot hope to be found "naked" when he appears before 
the judgment seat of Christ (2 Cor 5,3.10). In fact, I have argued that Paul 
would fit this youth rather well. He was 'untimely
born' - an apostle who had not been a disciple of Jesus {- in fact he outran 
his fate of by a hair breadth, but Saul became Paul through baptism. - ] for 
he too like Judas had been in the service of the
high priest. But he did become a powerful figure in the ecclesia. The canon 
of the apostolic writings shows how important his influence would become.
. In Mark's  post-70 passover story he could function as an angelus interpres 
explaining the deep meaning of the resurrection (via the women) to the eleven 
and especially to Peter. Notice the order of
his pronouncement in 16,7.  But the women remained silent. Of course,  for in 
the passover story they receive their vision of the future (in which the 
risen Christ would go ahead of his own into the
Galilee of the Gentiles) already on the third day after the crucifixion. But 
that vision doesnot concern story time but the real time of history. As I 
have tried to show, their vision concerns the new
exile: Jerusalem fallen!, the temple destroyed!, the Romans would hold there 
their sway.  Paul was no longer alive then. Therefore,  in the vision of the 
women Paul could very well appear as an angelus
interpres, a heavenly messenger  In the context the fear and the flight of 
the women (who saw the terrible events in 70)  can thus be explained. It is 
part of the Secret in Mark: the delay of the
parousia and the delay of the establishment of the kingdom on earth  (cf Acts 
1,6)..  What do you think of that solution? It would explain why Matthew left 
the youth out - for he was wary of Paul whose
view of Jesus and the Torah was somewhat different from that of Matthew.

Karel Hanhart


> Larry Swain
>
>
>
> In determining what an author is doing in a text we must deal with at least 
> four
> areas: is here merely alluding to a previous text, is a previous text the 
> source
> of the current text, is the author imitating (memesis) a previous text, is 
> the
> author reporting tradition, or is the author inventing.  I guess that makes 
> five.
> Or some combination of the above processes.  I'm not convinced that Mark was
> constructing scenes based on nebulous, distant allusions. If we must scour 
> the

> Hebrew Bible to find appropriate references, then it is likely that the 
> scene as

> constructed at best alludes to, rather than is based on, the texts that we 
> find.

This is precisely the difference between a 20th century non-Judean 
interpreter who indeed has to scour the Hebrew Bible for some (meaningless) 
allusion. However,in midrash (searching the Scripture) one
is dealing with a different phenomenon. Mark and his readers knew the Hebrew 
Scriptures BY HEART. And they could identify with - say - the writings of 
Jeremiah and Isaiah because they were dealing with
their people, their temple, their capital. As Paul van Buren said: we are 
reading someone else's mail.

> The purpose of a scene which is constructed to deliberately recall a 
> previous text
> is that the text the author wishes the reader to recall should be a fairly 
> obvious
> one ..

We all wish that were true but in midrash that is not so - but one must study 
the Scriptures.to extract its gems.
Karel Hanhart


> not one they have to scour the source text for.
>
> Larry Swain
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Fiction
> From: Steve Black <sblack AT axionet.com>
> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 22:36:44 -0800
> X-Message-Number: 5
>
> At 12:02 AM -0500 3/15/01, Kata Markon digest wrote:
> >Other than this disagreement, there is much in Ted's analysis with which I
> >agree.  We both agree that Mark's betrayal and arrest story is probably
> >fictional, and that's the most important thing, by far, in my opinion.
>
> Joe,  why would the story being fictional be the most important thing?
>
> Attempts to understand the "historicity" of any given biblical text
> is but one element towards understanding the nature and "meaning" of
> the text. Its merely one step along the way, not the destination!

I too believe that we may not loose sight of the fact that given all symbolism
the story is rooted in history. In the above hypothesis (the anonymous naked
youth could very well be Paul combines symbolism with history.

Karel H

> Steve Black
> Diocese of New Westminster
> Anglican Church of Canada
>
> 3049 West 14th Ave
> Vancouver, BC
> Canada
> V6K 2X7
>
>
> Joe,
> Some have done so, which is my problem of how to get these two disparate
> scenes to contain the same young man with white garment.  Contrasting
> young men, possibly, but I don't see how we can see the two as the same
> one, but perhaps I'm missing something essential in Karel's articles.
>

The heart of my argument concerns the theme of Mark's Gospel
the 'handing over of the Human One [Son of Man] to the Gentiles'
The theme is developed in 8,31, 9,31 and 1033f  The high priests
(always in the plural in Mark) were handing over the Messiah (and his
people) to be killed by the Gentiles 'unto death'. Their attempt was in vain.
They could kill the body but not the soul. The apostles (including Paul) would
'hand over' the Human One to the Gentiles 'unto life'.  The tomb story
symbolizes to be "buried with Christ" in order "to rise with him".


> Karel 
> H----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> <snip>
>
> Mr. Greffen, Please forgive a short term leeker, first time poster, I know
> I've read of this, but it has been awhile and I'm not sure where sorry,
> maybe someone else might help?



>
>
> <snip>
> 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