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

Re: [John_Lit] Burial story at close

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a message dated 9/11/2004 5:23:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ... Which is of course exactly what happens in Matthew in the first place. Mark got into trouble
    Message 1 of 2 , Sep 12, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 9/11/2004 5:23:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
      flameris@... writes:


      > "GJohn disagrees with GMark on another important
      > point. For him the burial of Jesus was not temporary but final. Jesus
      > was embalmed before being put in the tomb and there was no need for the
      > women to go back, retrieve the body and embalm it before burying it
      > again. This correction is important. If the women go back to the tomb
      > after the Sabbath, it must have been to mourn Jesus, not to anoint his
      > body.
      >

      Which is of course exactly what happens in Matthew in the first place. Mark
      got into trouble because he was conflating the texts of Matthew and Luke
      here. For Matthew, there was no question of an anointing for burial at the time of
      Easter. Jesus' body had already been anointed for burial by the woman in
      26:6-16. Then Luke came along and transformed this Matthean story into one of a
      woman who washes and anoints Jesus in another context entirely, without any
      reference to the burial of Jesus (Lk 7:36-50). So Luke has to have the women at
      the tomb preparing spices and ointment (23:56; 24:1). Mark picks up this
      feature, while conflating the Lukan and Matthean texts, without noticing its
      inconsistency with the story he had copied from Matthew in 14:3-9.

      Leonard Maluf


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.