Kata Markon

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

Kata Markon digest wrote:

> GMARK Digest for Tuesday, July 03, 2001.
>
> 1. The Young Man
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: The Young Man
> From: Steve Black <sblack AT axionet.com>
> Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 08:23:13 -0800
> X-Message-Number: 1
>
> I recall this being discussed, but I don't recall the outcome.
>
> Why is the "young man" (clothed) in 16:5 not to be equated with the
> young man (naked) of 14:51?
> It seems a plausible enough possibility.
>
> Another question.
> Much has been made of the women's failure at the end of the gospel
> (...and they said nothing...). One common strategy I've heard is that
> Mark intends the reader  to understand this as only a temporary
> failure, otherwise not only would the twelve never find out about the
> ðcó
> found out. Has the young man been considered as an option (intended
> by Mark within the context of the reader's imagination) as a source
> of this information? Having got there before the women, perhaps his
> witness is to be considered superior. This involves a great deal of
> speculation, but it seems that due to the nature of the material,
> speculation may not be avoidable.
>
> Any thoughts?
> --
> Peace
>
> Steve Black
> Vancouver, BC
>

Steve,

You referred to last year's postings.  I believe you yourself participated in
it. Indeed, there wasn't any outcome. The reason is, of course, that we all 
have
our assumptions on introductory questions.
I for one believe that any new attempt at exegesis should begin with the 
oldest
traditions re. the identity of Mark. He was John Mark, born in Jerusalem who
knew both Peter and Paul. This makes him a Christian Jew (Judean) who knew his
scriptures
.   He wrote his Gospel from or to the Roman community or to the one in
Alexandria.
(Here follows my assuumption): whatever this option the dating should be
post-70. Thus it was written in the wake of the for every Judean traumatic
ending of the revolt against Rome.
    I have taken the liberty to repeat below my arguments why I believe this
youth was highly esteemed in the ecclesia but had to remain anonymous because 
he
hadnot been a disciple of Jesus during his ministry. As you say the question 
is
important and the discussion suddenly ended. So why not pick up the thread?

yous cordially,

Karel Hanhart  K.Hanhart AT net.HCC.nl



> Dealing with fundamental texts like Gethsemane
> and the open tomb, one treads on sacred ground for those who consider
> themselves to be practicing christians;  and sacred ground just as well
> for those not sharing the christian's faith simply because of respect
> for the faith of fellow humans. Careful formulation is always in order.
> Sometimes one wonders if a fast medium like the format we are using,
> lends itself to thoughtful exchange of thought. However,
> the very possibility of such exchange across great distances means a
> great advance for exegesis.... I wonder, in the meantime if my innovative
> solution that the
> anonymous 'youth' might well be Saul/Paul, would find a response in the
> negative or in the affirmative. In other words the actions of the

> neaniskos would represent important aspects of Paul's life and teaching.
> I'll try below to enter my thesis into the debate.
>
>
> > Subject: Re: gmark digest: March 15, 2001 /naked Youth
> > From: Karel Hanhart <K.Hanhart AT net.HCC.nl>
> > Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 11:49:52 +0100
> > X-Message-Number: 3
>
> > > 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 convert 
> to
> the faith in Jesus. He is "buried with Christ" in order to "rise with him to
> new life".
>
> > >   But THE ANALOGY OF BAPTISM  does not exhaustively explain the text
> about the young man dressed in a white 'stola' and sitting inside the grave
> as someone buried 'with Christ". Prof. Neirynck of Louvain rightly offered
> a critique of the idea that the neaniskos is merely an "initiate" baptized.
> Mark's readers wouldn't have grasped rhis after the reading of the passion
> story. But Neirynck failed to look for a possible   connection between a
> person baptized and an anonymous person who narrowly escaped "naked' 
> leaving a
> linen cloth in the hands of soldiers. This set me to further research:

> Mark must have had a historical disciple or apostle (sun-ekolouthei! 14.51) 
> in
>
> mind. someone like Simon Peter - who for a mysterious reason could
> appear in the vision of the women as a messenger from beyond the veil of
> death. In other words this historical youth, must historically have gone
> through an experience symbolized by the shameful flight from Gethsemane
> and the content of the women's vision. This historical 'follower' must
> have died in the period between Gethsemane and the event the women saw
> in their vision  As to the thesis the 'neaniskos' may well have symbolized 
> the
> historical
> figure of Paul, retrojected into the Gospel story  ANONYMOUSLY
> 1. because he had not been a disciple in the lifetime of Jesus, but as
> an apostle, untimely born - he became part of the gospel witness. Many
> will agree that Mark was highly influenced by Paul's letters.
> 2. His shameful flight could refer to his having been - so to speak - on
> the side of Iscariot. He had persecuted the ecclesia.
> 3. The biblical term 'naked' always refers to divine judgment (f.i. Gen.
> Ezek). Moreover, in a key passage of II Cor 5,3 Paul is writing that
> when he dies he must 'appear before the judgment seat of Christ" (vs
> 10). He hopes not to be found "naked"
> in shame at that time, because he has been "clothed" - at the time of
> his baptism he had "put on Christ". The use of the word 'naked is
> uniquely Pauline in this context and because the passage deals with his
> hope in the face of death is quite appropriate also in Mark's story.
> 4. The identity of Paul would explain why Matthew left this neaniskos
> out of his composition. After all Paul in Galatians had called the Law a
> 'curse' - not Matthean language to be sure. On the other hand, Luke in
> his Acts assigned a major role to Paul next to Peter. This would also be
> the case if indeed in their vision of the future catastrophe the 'angel
> of Paul', or the 'spirit of Paul' would appear and bid the women
> "to tell... Peter (!)" about what they had seen and heard". Jesus would
> go before them into exile, that is "Galilee of the Gentiles".
> 5. This would also explain why Mark is insistent that the women did NOT
> tell the
> Peter and the eleven. Simply because none of the apostles (including
> Paul) had foreseen this outcome of the Jewish war.
> 6. But Paul had foreseen a mystery (cf Mk 4,9f.) that a 'part of Israel'
> would harden their hearts while the "Gentiles would come in" (Rom
> 11,25). So Mark may well have applied the 'muster ion' of Rom 11 to the
> events of the War.
> 7. The ending '-iskos' in 'neaniskos' is a diminutive a young man of
> small stature, a boy. The Latin word 'Paulus' means 'small' 'of little
> weight' Paul regarded himself the 'least of the apostles'. Paulus is of
> course also a Roman surname, but this does not prevent the reader, in
> search of Mark's meaning. to lay the link.
>         These are some of the arguments that may point the way to a
> solution.
>
> >  Karel Hanhart
>