Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[XTalk] nekkid man in Mark

Expand Messages
  • Ramon Garcia
    While we re on the subject of garments, what do any of you make of the naked man in Mark who ran away when Jesus was arrested? Does this tie in with the naked
    Message 1 of 8 , Nov 7, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      While we're on the subject of garments, what do any of you make of the
      naked man in Mark who ran away when Jesus was arrested? Does this tie in
      with the naked man in secret Mark. Was this an indication of any
      initiations in early christianity? Was there any other literature on said
      subject-naked men & initiations/ baptisms?
      Thanks,
      Ramon
    • Robert M Schacht
      On Sun, 7 Nov 1999 23:32:47 -0500 Liz Fried ... the fact ... garment. ... their ... Liz, I want to pick on the words was derived, as
      Message 2 of 8 , Nov 7, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        On Sun, 7 Nov 1999 23:32:47 -0500 "Liz Fried" <lizfried@...>
        writes:
        > > -----Original Message-----
        > > From: Jim West [mailto:jwest@...]
        >
        > >... that jesus had on multiple garments when arrested is attested by
        the fact
        > > that the soldiers divided his undies and gambled for his outer
        garment.
        > > that he was arrested shortly after the supper with his disciples and
        their
        > > stay in the garden is also attested....
        > >
        >
        > Hi Jim, I have no ax either way, and have no ideas on the subject, but
        > I had always heard this division of his clothes was derived from Psalm
        > 22:18.
        > I don't know if it can be considered a fact about HJ.
        >
        > Liz

        Liz,
        I want to pick on the words "was derived," as this type of logic is one
        of my pet peeves.
        Yes, it *might have been* derived from Psalm 22:18, but what is the
        evidence that it was? Certainly, Jim fell into using the locution "the
        fact that" for something that was attested but that has not been
        established as fact. You go too far in the other direction by jumping
        from the reasonable "might have been derived" to the bald assertion that
        it "was derived."

        This is part of the "prophecy historicized" argument that Crossan has
        popularized, but that is by no means original with him. This type of
        argument carries more weight when the reported event is fabulous; but in
        this case, it is merely concerned with what the soldiers did with Jesus'
        clothes. Would it have been so unusual for the soldiers to have dealt
        with this clothes in this manner? So in this case, it becomes merely a
        matter of preferring one mundane interpretation over another, on the
        basis of nothing more than that the author of the report is suspected of
        using the same literary device elsewhere.

        The preceding is part of a general phenomena among scholars to attack the
        credibility of our sources, if necessary with weak arguments like "it
        might have been, therefore it was." If apologists are accused of
        accepting the text at face value unless proven wrong, some critics might
        be accused of rejecting the veracity of the text unless it is proven
        right.

        Please don't take offense; my argument is not with you, but with overly
        glib statements that jump to conclusions that don't appear to be
        justified by the evidence presented.

        Bob
      • Roger L.. Kimmel
        ... While I am certain Liz can defend herself, it struck me that she never baldly asserted anything, but merely conveyed that she had heard that this was a
        Message 3 of 8 , Nov 7, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          On Sunday 7 November 1999, 11:15 PM Robert M. Schacht said:

          >>Liz Fried said:
          >>
          > > Hi Jim, I have no ax either way, and have no ideas on the subject, but
          > > I had always heard this division of his clothes was derived from Psalm
          > > 22:18.
          > > I don't know if it can be considered a fact about HJ.
          > >
          > Liz,
          > I want to pick on the words "was derived," as this type of logic is one
          > of my pet peeves.
          > Yes, it *might have been* derived from Psalm 22:18, but what is the
          > evidence that it was? Certainly, Jim fell into using the locution "the
          > fact that" for something that was attested but that has not been
          > established as fact. You go too far in the other direction by jumping
          > from the reasonable "might have been derived" to the bald assertion that
          > it "was derived."

          While I am certain Liz can defend herself, it struck me that she never
          baldly asserted anything, but merely conveyed that she had "heard' that this
          was a popular derivation, and, further that she didn't "know" therefore if
          it "can be considered a fact". It seems there are a lot of modifiers here,
          certainly too many for the characterization of her remarks as a "bald
          assertion". In fact, she prefaces her remarks with:

          > > Hi Jim, I have no ax either way, and have no ideas on the subject

          I think, perhaps, a bit of overreaction to her words. What do you think?

          Roger L. Kimmel


          ----- Original Message -----
          From: Robert M Schacht <bobschacht@...>
          To: <crosstalk2@egroups.com>
          Sent: Sunday, November 07, 1999 11:15 PM
          Subject: [XTalk] Re: re: nekkid jesus a la steve davies


          >
          >
          > On Sun, 7 Nov 1999 23:32:47 -0500 "Liz Fried" <lizfried@...>
          > writes:
          > > > -----Original Message-----
          > > > From: Jim West [mailto:jwest@...]
          > >
          > > >... that jesus had on multiple garments when arrested is attested by
          > the fact
          > > > that the soldiers divided his undies and gambled for his outer
          > garment.
          > > > that he was arrested shortly after the supper with his disciples and
          > their
          > > > stay in the garden is also attested....
          > > >
          > >
          > > Hi Jim, I have no ax either way, and have no ideas on the subject, but
          > > I had always heard this division of his clothes was derived from Psalm
          > > 22:18.
          > > I don't know if it can be considered a fact about HJ.
          > >
          > > Liz
          >
          > Liz,
          > I want to pick on the words "was derived," as this type of logic is one
          > of my pet peeves.
          > Yes, it *might have been* derived from Psalm 22:18, but what is the
          > evidence that it was? Certainly, Jim fell into using the locution "the
          > fact that" for something that was attested but that has not been
          > established as fact. You go too far in the other direction by jumping
          > from the reasonable "might have been derived" to the bald assertion that
          > it "was derived."
          >
          > This is part of the "prophecy historicized" argument that Crossan has
          > popularized, but that is by no means original with him. This type of
          > argument carries more weight when the reported event is fabulous; but in
          > this case, it is merely concerned with what the soldiers did with Jesus'
          > clothes. Would it have been so unusual for the soldiers to have dealt
          > with this clothes in this manner? So in this case, it becomes merely a
          > matter of preferring one mundane interpretation over another, on the
          > basis of nothing more than that the author of the report is suspected of
          > using the same literary device elsewhere.
          >
          > The preceding is part of a general phenomena among scholars to attack the
          > credibility of our sources, if necessary with weak arguments like "it
          > might have been, therefore it was." If apologists are accused of
          > accepting the text at face value unless proven wrong, some critics might
          > be accused of rejecting the veracity of the text unless it is proven
          > right.
          >
          > Please don't take offense; my argument is not with you, but with overly
          > glib statements that jump to conclusions that don't appear to be
          > justified by the evidence presented.
          >
          > Bob
          >
          > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
          > The Mental Health Practitioner's Instant
          > Resource Library for $5.99! A 4-book set
          > of time-saving aids for clinical tasks - a
          > $139.35 value. Join the book club NOW at
          > http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1364
          >
          > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@egroups.com
          > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@egroups.com
          > To contact list managers, e-mail us at: crosstalk2-owners@egroups.com
          >
          >
          >
          > eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/crosstalk2
          > http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • Sukie Curtis
          Ramon Garcia wrote: While we re on the subject of garments, what do any of you make of the naked man in Mark who ran away when Jesus was arrested? Does this
          Message 4 of 8 , Nov 8, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            Ramon Garcia wrote:

            While we're on the subject of garments, what do any of you make of the
            naked man in Mark who ran away when Jesus was arrested? Does this tie in
            with the naked man in secret Mark. Was this an indication of any
            initiations in early christianity? Was there any other literature on said
            subject-naked men & initiations/ baptisms?

            Sukie Curtis (new cross-talk-listener) responds:

            Crossan makes just that kind of connection in _Four Other Gospels_ in the
            section on Secret Mark. His proposal, in brief, is that there's evidence
            (as in Hippolytus) for early baptismal liturgies' being done both naked and
            at night, and that there would therefore have been nothing unusual or
            "shocking" about the scene in Secret Mark. Once the Carpocratians began to
            interpet it erotically and homosexually, someone saw the need to amend the
            text to the form of our current canonical Mark, which "took the phrases and
            expressions of that [Secret Mark] story, both small and large, and scattered
            them over the rest of the gospel" (p. 76). He cites Koester as holding a
            similar view: that "'canonical' Mark was a purified version of the 'secret'
            Gospel, because the traces of the author of Secret Mark are still visible in
            the canonical Gospel of Mark". And, from Crossan again, those scattered
            pieces of Secret Mark have often been something of a probelm for readers of
            Mark, in that they don't seem to fit easily in their present contexts.

            Sukie (Susan B.) Curtis
            Cumberland Foreside, Maine
            sbcurtis@...

            ------------------------------------------------------------------------
            The Mental Health Practitioner’s Instant
            Resource Library for $5.99! A 4-book set
            of time-saving aids for clinical tasks - a
            $139.35 value. Join the book club NOW at
            http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/1364

            To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@egroups.com
            To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@egroups.com
            To contact list managers, e-mail us at: crosstalk2-owners@egroups.com


            -- Talk to your group with your own voice!
            -- http://www.egroups.com/VoiceChatPage?listName=crosstalk2&m=1
          • Willi Braun
            ... There is the take of your clothes saying in Thomas 37 and the article by J.Z. Smith, The garments of shame History of Religions 5 (1966): 217-38, where
            Message 5 of 8 , Nov 8, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              Ramon Garcia wrote:
              >While we're on the subject of garments, what do any of you make of the
              >naked man in Mark who ran away when Jesus was arrested? Does this tie in
              >with the naked man in secret Mark. Was this an indication of any
              >initiations in early christianity? Was there any other literature on said
              >subject-naked men & initiations/ baptisms?

              There is the "take of your clothes" saying in Thomas 37 and the article by
              J.Z. Smith, "The garments of shame" History of Religions 5 (1966): 217-38,
              where Smith adduces rather wide-spread evidence of what he calls "cultic
              nudity".

              On the "eunuch" theme: I take it that this type was commonly sneered at in
              Greco-Roman times generally. E.g. Lucian, The Eunuch 3: "they are neither
              man nor woman ... but hybrids (syntheton), mixtures (mikton), freaks
              (teratodes) outside the bounds of human nature." About on the same level of
              regard as the androgynos. I am not suggesting there is a link between
              Matt's eunuch, Mark's naked guy, and Thomas' androgyne, except that the
              folks in these times seemed to think that whatever redemption meant it also
              had something to do with bodily surfaces and gender.

              Willi
            • omcguire@wlu.edu
              robert m schacht wrote: original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/crosstalk2/?start=3070 ... but ... that ... in ... Jesus ... Bob,
              Message 6 of 8 , Nov 8, 1999
              • 0 Attachment
                robert m schacht <bobschach-@...> wrote:
                original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/crosstalk2/?start=3070
                >
                > > Hi Jim, I have no ax either way, and have no ideas on the subject,
                but
                > I had always heard this division of his clothes was derived from Psalm
                > 22:18.
                > I don't know if it can be considered a fact about HJ.
                >
                > Liz

                >Liz,
                >I want to pick on the words "was derived," as this type of logic is one
                >of my pet peeves.
                >Yes, it *might have been* derived from Psalm 22:18, but what is the
                >evidence that it was? Certainly, Jim fell into using the locution "the
                >fact that" for something that was attested but that has not been
                >established as fact. You go too far in the other direction by jumping
                >from the reasonable "might have been derived" to the bald assertion
                that
                >it "was derived."

                >This is part of the "prophecy historicized" argument that Crossan has
                >popularized, but that is by no means original with him. This type of
                >argument carries more weight when the reported event is fabulous; but
                in
                >this case, it is merely concerned with what the soldiers did with
                Jesus'
                >clothes. Would it have been so unusual for the soldiers to have dealt
                >with this clothes in this manner?

                Bob,
                I share your skepticism, if not your 'peeve', with automatic and
                general application of the "prophecy historicised" criterion of
                (non)historicity.
                But the case for its application here is stronger than you have made it
                seem.

                In answer to your rhetorical question: No, it would not be unusal for
                Roman soldiers to gamble for the clothes of a condemned criminal. What
                is unusual, for a historian at least, is that this is just one of
                several correspondences in detail (and often LXX word) between Psalm 22
                and gospel accounts of the crucifixion scene: "...why hast thou
                forsaken me?"; "... they wag their heads"; "...he committed his cause
                to God, let him deliver him"; etc. These are already more coincidences
                than a historian ought to be expected to swallow. Why swallow the one
                about casting lots? Also, John aknowledges directly that the 22nd Psalm
                is being 'fulfilled' by this detail. And the historian can no more
                accept as genuine a specific, remote prescience in prophecy than
                considerable set of textual coincidences.

                All of which is to say that the soldiers may or may not have thrown
                dice for the clothes, but the textual evidence is overwhelmingly
                against any of the gospel accounts being based, however remotely and
                indirectly, on a material witnessing of the event. Historically
                speaking, Liz is accurate. The account is derived from Psalm 22.

                Best, Odell
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.