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

Re: Ending of Mark?

Expand Messages
  • Jim West
    ... Hmmm... And one might say as well that those who have taken even a cursory look at the primary evidence (i.e. the textual variants) would, I think, not
    Message 1 of 21 , Jan 27, 1999
      At 05:48 PM 1/27/99 -0500, you wrote:

      > The textual witnesses clearly tell against inclusion of the longer ending [of
      >Mark]
      > The internal evidence (which I did not mention) is likwise unambiguous in
      > its opposition to inclusion.>>
      >
      > Those who have read William Farmer's "The Last Twelve Verses.." would, I
      >think, wisely refrain from such strong statements as the above. The internal
      >evidence is certainly not "unambiguous in its opposition to inclusion."
      >
      >Leonard Maluf


      Hmmm... And one might say as well that those who have taken even a cursory
      look at the primary evidence (i.e. the textual variants) would, I think, not
      find it necessary to rely on a secondary source to tell them what is there.
      It is not merely the internal evidence that is telling- or even primary. It
      is the textual evidence.

      Best,

      Jim

      +++++++++++++++++++++++++

      Jim West, ThD
      Quartz Hill School of Theology

      jwest@...
      http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
    • Maluflen@aol.com
      In a message dated 1/27/1999 4:00:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, jwest@Highland.Net writes:
      Message 2 of 21 , Jan 27, 1999
        In a message dated 1/27/1999 4:00:00 PM Eastern Standard Time,
        jwest@... writes:

        <<
        The textual witnesses clearly tell against inclusion of the longer ending [of
        Mark]
        The internal evidence (which I did not mention) is likwise unambiguous in
        its opposition to inclusion.>>

        Those who have read William Farmer's "The Last Twelve Verses.." would, I
        think, wisely refrain from such strong statements as the above. The internal
        evidence is certainly not "unambiguous in its opposition to inclusion."

        Leonard Maluf
      • Carl W. Conrad
        ... It s always struck me as strange that people should argue against EFOBOUNTO GAR. There s absolutely nothing wrong with it even in Classical Greek, inasmuch
        Message 3 of 21 , Jan 27, 1999
          At 10:06 PM +0000 1/27/99, Julian Waterfield wrote:
          >Perhaps we should remember that, although EFOBUNTO GAR may be an
          >insufficient way to end a sentance in classical Greek, Mark is far from
          >Classical.

          It's always struck me as strange that people should argue against EFOBOUNTO
          GAR. There's absolutely nothing wrong with it even in Classical Greek,
          inasmuch as GAR is a postpositive and EFOBOUNTO is a whole clause in itself
          with subject (implicitly identified from the preceding material) and verb
          all in one word. It may be a very short sentence, but there's nothing wrong
          with it and it is rhetorically very effective "They didn't tell anyone
          anything--after all, they were terrified."

          Carl W. Conrad
          Department of Classics/Washington University
          One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
          Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
          cwconrad@... OR cconrad@...
          WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
        • Mark Goodacre
          On the text-critical issue, might I recommend my colleague David Parker s recent discussion in _The Living Text of the Gospels_ (Cambridge: Cambridge
          Message 4 of 21 , Jan 28, 1999
            On the text-critical issue, might I recommend my colleague David Parker's
            recent discussion in _The Living Text of the Gospels_ (Cambridge:
            Cambridge University Press, 1997), Chapter 8? For details, see the CUP
            catalogue at:

            http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk/scripts/webbook.asp?isbn=0521599512

            or http://www.cup.org/Titles/59/0521590620.html (North American version)

            There was a discussion too a little while ago (October 1998) on TC-List on Mark
            16.9ff -- go to TC List archives at FindMail
            (http://www.egroups.com/list/tc-list/) and search for Mark 16.9-20.

            Mark
            --------------------------------------
            Dr Mark Goodacre M.S.Goodacre@...
            Dept of Theology, University of Birmingham

            Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
            --------------------------------------

            Synoptic-L Web Page: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            Synoptic-L Archive: http://www.egroups.com/list/synoptic-l
            Synoptic-L Owner: mailto:Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • Mark Matson
            ... Yes, I think this point is very well put. A wonderful, and often overlooked, little book on the issue of the ending of Mark is J. Lee Magness s book,
            Message 5 of 21 , Jan 28, 1999
              Carl Conrad noted:
              >
              > It's always struck me as strange that people should argue against EFOBOUNTO
              > GAR. There's absolutely nothing wrong with it even in Classical Greek,
              > inasmuch as GAR is a postpositive and EFOBOUNTO is a whole clause in itself
              > with subject (implicitly identified from the preceding material) and verb
              > all in one word. It may be a very short sentence, but there's nothing wrong
              > with it and it is rhetorically very effective "They didn't tell anyone
              > anything--after all, they were terrified."
              >
              Yes, I think this point is very well put. A wonderful, and often
              overlooked, little book on the issue of the ending of Mark is J. Lee
              Magness's book, "Sense and Absence: Structure and suspension in the
              ending of Mark's Gospel." (Scholars Press, 1986)

              While it has been a while since I read the book, I think I can
              accurately summarize the main points. Lee points precisely that such
              a grammatical construction is not all that unusual. More
              importantly, he surveys other literature of the time, especially
              novelistic literature, and finds that suspended endings such as this
              were not unknown and were used quite effectively to produce a
              rhetorical effect on the readers.

              Mark's ending, then, should not be seen as accidental or disruptive,
              but rather carefully calculated to produce in the reader the
              self-questioning that involves them in the plot .... "was there
              anyone who was faithful, who really understood who Jesus was? Would
              I have been so? Is the story a failure?"

              Of course internal references (i.e. Jesus' own authoritative
              references to the disciples' proclamation) point to a subsequent
              reformation of the disciples and the success of the gospel -- as the
              very fact that the gospel is written also suggests. But while these
              pointers are suggestive, the rhetorical thrust of the suspended
              ending is nonetheless suggestive.

              So a literary reading of Mark supports the extensive textual support
              that Mark should end at 16:9.

              Mark
              Mark A. Matson, Ph.D.
              Asst. Director, Sanford Institute of Public Policy
              Adjunct Professor of New Testament
              Duke University
              Durham, NC 27713
              (919) 613-7310
            • Maluflen@aol.com
              In a message dated 99-01-27 18:20:40 EST, jwest@Highland.Net writes: [regarding the final verses of Mark, and Farmer s book on same]
              Message 6 of 21 , Jan 28, 1999
                In a message dated 99-01-27 18:20:40 EST, jwest@... writes:

                [regarding the final verses of Mark, and Farmer's book on same]
                << Hmmm... And one might say as well that those who have taken even a cursory
                look at the primary evidence (i.e. the textual variants) would, I think, not
                find it necessary to rely on a secondary source to tell them what is there.
                It is not merely the internal evidence that is telling- or even primary. It
                is the textual evidence.>>

                What is great about Professor Farmer's study is that, on the question of
                the internal evidence, he deals meticulously and professionally with the
                primary evidence (the Greek text of Mark 16:9-20). His well-argued conclusion,
                on the basis of that evidence, is that it contains aspects that point in both
                directions, regarding the question of Markan authenticity (which is a slightly
                different question, perhaps, from that of whether the verses belonged to the
                original autograph of Mark). Thus, the proper overall term to describe the
                evidence (as to whether the verses were written by Mark) is, precisely,
                "ambiguous", not "unambiguous".

                Leonard Maluf
              • Jim West
                ... Carl, See H. Waetjen, The Ending of Mark and the Gospel s Shift in Eschatology in ASTI 4 (1965) 114-131. A. Vanhoye and J. McEnroe, The Young
                Message 7 of 21 , Jan 28, 1999
                  At 01:20 PM 1/28/99 -0600, you wrote:

                  >I'm a little hesitant to bring this up because I can't remember where I've
                  >seen this idea (it's certainly not original with me and I'm not even sure
                  >that I buy the hypothesis): that the NEANISKOS of 14:51 is the Marcan
                  >neophyte believer, the disciple who takes seriously what Jesus says of his
                  >mission and of discipleship in the 3-fold passion-prediction/teaching
                  >sequence of chapters 8-10, who believes (as the original twelve never quite
                  >do believe) that Jesus and disciples must be delivered up and perish before
                  >they can be saved in resurrection, and that the SINDWN which he leaves
                  >behind as he escapes naked is the SINDWN that Jesus leaves behind in the
                  >tomb as well. On this view the challenge of the Marcan ending at 16:8 is to
                  >faith in the risen Jesus WITHOUT a vision of the risen Jesus prior to the
                  >meeting in Galilee, which seems somehow, symbolically, still to lie in the
                  >future, albeit for Mark's community, an imminent future. These are elements
                  >in a fuller interpretation of the whole of Mark's gospel which I can't
                  >pretend ability to expound; I only want to point to a linkage between
                  >16:1-8 and 14:51f. that has been made elsewhere. I'd appreciate it if
                  >anyone knows where this view originated and where it is given a more
                  >intelligible exposition.
                  >
                  >Carl W. Conrad

                  Carl,

                  See H. Waetjen, "The Ending of Mark and the Gospel's Shift in Eschatology"
                  in <ul> ASTI </ul> 4 (1965) 114-131.

                  A. Vanhoye and J. McEnroe, "The Young Man at the Tomb" in <ul> ExpT </ul> 80
                  (1968/69) 125, who "der Juengling und Engel sogar mit dem Evangelisten
                  Markus identifizieren will" (Pesch, Markusevangelium 2, 403).

                  Best,

                  Jim

                  +++++++++++++++++++++++++

                  Jim West, ThD
                  Quartz Hill School of Theology

                  jwest@...
                  http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
                • Julian Waterfield
                  It s a nice thought, but I find it hard to be convinced. The link seems obscure. Perhaps if the young man of chapter 16 had sternly charged them to tell
                  Message 8 of 21 , Jan 28, 1999
                    It's a nice thought, but I find it hard to be convinced. The link seems
                    obscure. Perhaps if the young man of chapter 16 had 'sternly charged' them
                    to tell Peter and the rest. Besides the leper disobeyed Jesus and went
                    around telling people about his healing. Should we therefore assume that
                    the women did likewise? There is no mention of fear at 1:40-45 either. Can
                    anyone persuade me?!

                    Speaking of the young man... can he be linked with the naked young man of
                    14:51f.? What explanations do people have of 14:51f.?

                    Julian Waterfield
                    Exeter College, Oxford, OX1 3DP
                    julian.waterfield@...
                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: Jeff Peterson <peterson@...>
                    To: Synoptics <synoptic-l@...>
                    Date: 28 January 1999 17:00 PM
                    Subject: Re: Ending of Mark?


                    >Thanks to contributors for the interesting discussion regarding Mark
                    >16:1-8. In conversation last summer, Larry Hurtado suggested that 16:8's
                    >KAI OUDENI OUDEN EIPAN should perhaps be read in light of 1:44's hORA
                    >MHDENI MHDEN EIPH(I)S, where the prohibition clearly involves an exception
                    >for the priest to whom the cleansed leper is to communicate his
                    >restoration. If read in light of Mark's earlier narrative, the conclusion
                    >would then run: ". . . go tell his disciples and Peter" . . . And they said
                    >nothing to anyone [else], for they were afraid.
                    >
                    >This exegesis would retain much of the suspense that Mark Matson mentions,
                    >the question left for the reader being whether the disciples would overcome
                    >their fear and participate in the dissemination of the gospel among all
                    >nations adumbrated at 13:10; 14:9, the risen Lord's commission to which is
                    >prefigured at 14:28; 16:7.
                    >
                    >Any thoughts on the plausibility of this interesting reading?
                    >
                    >Jeff
                    >
                    >------------------------------------
                    >Jeffrey Peterson, Ph.D.
                    >Assistant Professor of New Testament
                    >Institute for Christian Studies
                    >Austin, Texas, USA
                    >------------------------------------
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                  • Jeff Peterson
                    Thanks to contributors for the interesting discussion regarding Mark 16:1-8. In conversation last summer, Larry Hurtado suggested that 16:8 s KAI OUDENI OUDEN
                    Message 9 of 21 , Jan 28, 1999
                      Thanks to contributors for the interesting discussion regarding Mark
                      16:1-8. In conversation last summer, Larry Hurtado suggested that 16:8's
                      KAI OUDENI OUDEN EIPAN should perhaps be read in light of 1:44's hORA
                      MHDENI MHDEN EIPH(I)S, where the prohibition clearly involves an exception
                      for the priest to whom the cleansed leper is to communicate his
                      restoration. If read in light of Mark's earlier narrative, the conclusion
                      would then run: ". . . go tell his disciples and Peter" . . . And they said
                      nothing to anyone [else], for they were afraid.

                      This exegesis would retain much of the suspense that Mark Matson mentions,
                      the question left for the reader being whether the disciples would overcome
                      their fear and participate in the dissemination of the gospel among all
                      nations adumbrated at 13:10; 14:9, the risen Lord's commission to which is
                      prefigured at 14:28; 16:7.

                      Any thoughts on the plausibility of this interesting reading?

                      Jeff

                      ------------------------------------
                      Jeffrey Peterson, Ph.D.
                      Assistant Professor of New Testament
                      Institute for Christian Studies
                      Austin, Texas, USA
                      ------------------------------------
                    • Antonio Jerez
                      ... Thanks for those words of wisdom. A little knowledge about the noble art of litterary criticism is certainly something that would benefit a lot of scholars
                      Message 10 of 21 , Jan 28, 1999
                        Carl Conrad noted:
                        >
                        > It's always struck me as strange that people should argue against EFOBOUNTO
                        > GAR. There's absolutely nothing wrong with it even in Classical Greek,
                        > inasmuch as GAR is a postpositive and EFOBOUNTO is a whole clause in itself
                        > with subject (implicitly identified from the preceding material) and verb
                        > all in one word. It may be a very short sentence, but there's nothing wrong
                        > with it and it is rhetorically very effective "They didn't tell anyone
                        > anything--after all, they were terrified."
                        >


                        >>Yes, I think this point is very well put. A wonderful, and often
                        >>overlooked, little book on the issue of the ending of Mark is J. Lee
                        >>Magness's book, "Sense and Absence: Structure and suspension in the
                        >>ending of Mark's Gospel." (Scholars Press, 1986)

                        >>While it has been a while since I read the book, I think I can
                        >>accurately summarize the main points. Lee points precisely that such
                        >>a grammatical construction is not all that unusual. More
                        >>importantly, he surveys other literature of the time, especially
                        >>novelistic literature, and finds that suspended endings such as this
                        >>were not unknown and were used quite effectively to produce a
                        >>rhetorical effect on the readers.

                        >>Mark's ending, then, should not be seen as accidental or disruptive,
                        >>but rather carefully calculated to produce in the reader the
                        >>self-questioning that involves them in the plot .... "was there
                        >>anyone who was faithful, who really understood who Jesus was? Would
                        >>I have been so? Is the story a failure?"

                        >>Of course internal references (i.e. Jesus' own authoritative
                        >>references to the disciples' proclamation) point to a subsequent
                        >>reformation of the disciples and the success of the gospel -- as the
                        >>very fact that the gospel is written also suggests. But while these
                        >>pointers are suggestive, the rhetorical thrust of the suspended
                        >>ending is nonetheless suggestive.

                        >>So a literary reading of Mark supports the extensive textual support
                        >>that Mark should end at 16:9.

                        Thanks for those words of wisdom. A little knowledge about the noble
                        art of litterary criticism is certainly something that would benefit a lot
                        of scholars who mostly deal with source criticism and redaction criticism.
                        Why not take a look from time to time at Mark's text as a WHOLE and
                        see how brilliantly the author weaves the threads together. This is no
                        amalgation of GMatthew and GLuke. I agree totally with Jim West and
                        a lot of others who claim that there is no need for any more verses in
                        Mark beyond 16:8. The litterary logic of the text tells it and the textual
                        evidence tells it.

                        And may this nonsensical hypothesis about a "lost page" rest in
                        peace.

                        Best wishes

                        Antonio Jerez
                      • Carl W. Conrad
                        ... I m a little hesitant to bring this up because I can t remember where I ve seen this idea (it s certainly not original with me and I m not even sure that I
                        Message 11 of 21 , Jan 28, 1999
                          At 5:55 PM +0000 1/28/99, Julian Waterfield wrote:
                          >It's a nice thought, but I find it hard to be convinced. The link seems
                          >obscure. Perhaps if the young man of chapter 16 had 'sternly charged' them
                          >to tell Peter and the rest. Besides the leper disobeyed Jesus and went
                          >around telling people about his healing. Should we therefore assume that
                          >the women did likewise? There is no mention of fear at 1:40-45 either. Can
                          >anyone persuade me?!
                          >
                          >Speaking of the young man... can he be linked with the naked young man of
                          >14:51f.? What explanations do people have of 14:51f.?

                          I'm a little hesitant to bring this up because I can't remember where I've
                          seen this idea (it's certainly not original with me and I'm not even sure
                          that I buy the hypothesis): that the NEANISKOS of 14:51 is the Marcan
                          neophyte believer, the disciple who takes seriously what Jesus says of his
                          mission and of discipleship in the 3-fold passion-prediction/teaching
                          sequence of chapters 8-10, who believes (as the original twelve never quite
                          do believe) that Jesus and disciples must be delivered up and perish before
                          they can be saved in resurrection, and that the SINDWN which he leaves
                          behind as he escapes naked is the SINDWN that Jesus leaves behind in the
                          tomb as well. On this view the challenge of the Marcan ending at 16:8 is to
                          faith in the risen Jesus WITHOUT a vision of the risen Jesus prior to the
                          meeting in Galilee, which seems somehow, symbolically, still to lie in the
                          future, albeit for Mark's community, an imminent future. These are elements
                          in a fuller interpretation of the whole of Mark's gospel which I can't
                          pretend ability to expound; I only want to point to a linkage between
                          16:1-8 and 14:51f. that has been made elsewhere. I'd appreciate it if
                          anyone knows where this view originated and where it is given a more
                          intelligible exposition.

                          Carl W. Conrad
                          Department of Classics/Washington University
                          One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
                          Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
                          cwconrad@... OR cconrad@...
                          WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
                        • Brian E. Wilson
                          Julian Waterfield writes - ... My explanation is that it really happened. I think it rather unlikely to have been made up. Very embarrassing material, even for
                          Message 12 of 21 , Jan 28, 1999
                            Julian Waterfield writes -
                            >
                            >the naked young man of 14:51f. ...
                            >...what explanations do people have of 14:51f.?
                            >
                            My explanation is that it really happened. I think it rather unlikely to
                            have been made up. Very embarrassing material, even for people in those
                            days! No wonder Matthew and Luke do not include it. As one commentator
                            puts it, "No good reason can be suggested for the recording of the
                            incident unless it rests on a genuine reminiscence." And another
                            commentator - "It is much more likely that here we have a genuine
                            reminiscence...why should Mark insert such a trivial detail in so solemn
                            a narrative?" And a third - "The incident in itself has seemingly no
                            christological or soteriological significance, and most likely rests on
                            historical reminiscence."

                            And who is going to believe the Griesbachians and Augustinians that Mark
                            added this account to his source material? How do they **wriggle out
                            of** this one?!

                            Best wishes,
                            BRIAN WILSON

                            E-MAIL : brian@... *** HOMEPAGE RECENTLY UPDATED ***
                            SNAILMAIL ; Rev B. E. Wilson, http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk
                            10 York Close, Godmanchester,
                            Huntingdon, Cambs, PE18 8EB, UK
                          • Jim Deardorff
                            ... Brian, The obvious solution can only be seen by those who find Mark not to be primary and who acknowledge that its many disparaging slurs against the
                            Message 13 of 21 , Jan 28, 1999
                              At 09:06 PM 1/28/99 +0000, Brian E. Wilson wrote:

                              >My explanation is that it really happened. I think it rather unlikely to
                              >have been made up. Very embarrassing material, even for people in those
                              >days! .....
                              >And who is going to believe the Griesbachians and Augustinians that Mark
                              >added this account to his source material? How do they **wriggle out
                              >of** this one?!
                              >
                              >Best wishes,
                              >BRIAN WILSON

                              Brian,

                              The obvious solution can only be seen by those who find Mark not to be
                              primary and who acknowledge that its many disparaging slurs against the
                              disciples are just that, and not accidents of unknown origin. It's the
                              solution I posted a couple months back. No wriggling out is necessary, just
                              a willingness to face up to what may be reality.

                              The verse preceding Mk 14:51 notes that all of them (apparently referring to
                              the disciples in Mt 26:56b) fled. Elsewhere AMk had earlier made some slurs
                              against the disciples in portraying them as fearful (Mk 9:32, 10:32), and so
                              this greatest failure on their part where fear actually was involved --
                              failure to defend their Lord at this crucial moment -- called for a special
                              denigration of them:

                              The disciples in their cowardly flight are likened to a defenseless young
                              man who flees in embarrassing nakedness.

                              AMk's attitude is attributed to his pro-gentile outlook and consequent
                              disgust for Matthew's anti-gentile slurs and its extension of discipleship
                              only towards the "lost sheep" of Israel (Mt 28:19-20 & 12:17-22 being later
                              additions). Perhaps AMk had already been anti-Semitic, but this does not
                              seem necessary to explain his attitude.

                              AMk's disgust over the disciples' lack of action here is consistent with his
                              omission of Matthean Sermon verses urging peace, turning the other cheek,
                              not resisting evil, loving your enemy, not being angry, and the Mt 26 verse
                              of not using the sword.

                              Jim Deardorff
                              Corvallis, Oregon
                              E-mail: deardorj@...
                              Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
                            • Fr. Donald Murphy
                              Dear Carl, What a joy to see you once again participating -- if not on Crosstalk -- on Synoptic-1! ... There are elements of the interpretation you summarize
                              Message 14 of 21 , Jan 28, 1999
                                Dear Carl,

                                What a joy to see you once again participating -- if not on Crosstalk -- on
                                Synoptic-1!

                                Carl W. Conrad wrote:

                                > Julian Waterfield wrote:

                                Julian:

                                > Speaking of the young man... can he be linked with the naked young man of
                                > 14:51f.? What explanations do people have of 14:51f.?

                                Carl:

                                > I'm a little hesitant to bring this up because I can't remember where I've seen
                                > this idea (it's certainly not original with me and I'm not even sure that I buy
                                > the hypothesis): that the NEANISKOS of 14:51 is the Marcan neophyte believer,
                                > the disciple who takes seriously what Jesus says of his mission and of
                                > discipleship in the 3-fold passion-prediction/teaching sequence of chapters
                                > 8-10, who believes (as the original twelve never quite do believe) that Jesus
                                > and disciples must be delivered up and perish before they can be saved in
                                > resurrection, and that the SINDWN which he leaves behind as he escapes naked is
                                > the SINDWN that Jesus leaves behind in the tomb as well. On this view the
                                > challenge of the Marcan ending at 16:8 is to faith in the risen Jesus WITHOUT a
                                > vision of the risen Jesus prior to the meeting in Galilee, which seems somehow,
                                > symbolically, still to lie in the future, albeit for Mark's community, an
                                > imminent future. These are elements in a fuller interpretation of the whole of
                                > Mark's gospel which I can't pretend ability to expound; I only want to point to
                                > a linkage between 16:1-8 and 14:51f. that has been made elsewhere. I'd
                                > appreciate it if anyone knows where this view originated and where it is given
                                > a more intelligible exposition.

                                There are elements of the interpretation you summarize from memory that
                                correspond to the interpretation given by Ched Myers in his Binding the Strong
                                Man: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis
                                Books, 1988 -- on pp. 368-69 and 397-98. Can you remember having read this
                                commentary?

                                Myers's overall interpretation of Mark is the best I have found. Though it
                                surprised me often -- and continues to do so, I have come to see that the
                                seriousness of his combination of both a political and a literary (narrative
                                analysis) approach unifies my understanding of all of Mark in ways I have found
                                no one else to do.

                                I discovered last spring on Crosstalk that some contributors, without carefully
                                studying what Myers does throughout his commentary, are put off by his unabashed
                                recognition of the contributions of Liberation Theologians to the understanding
                                of Mark. For my part I rejoice to see that Myers both recognizes the value of
                                much these theologican have done and carefully criticizes the lack of firm method
                                on their part -- and then goes further to provide, with solid method, conclusions
                                somewhat similar to the ones they intuitively reached.

                                I prefer not to attempt to paraphrase an author with such carefully worked out
                                interpretations. If there is interest, however, I will gladly transcribe for
                                Synoptic-1 the parts of Myers's treatment of Mk 14:51f. and 16:1-8 that
                                specifically deal with the neaniskos and the sindwn in both passages -- always
                                with the caveat that these interpretations must be seen in their connections with
                                his interpretations of every other passage in Mark..

                                Peace!

                                Don

                                P.S. I still don't know a really effective way of making sure that certain
                                persons on a list (in this case, Julian and Carl) will
                                read a message while at the same time sending it to the whole list.
                                Double-postings can be a headache, I know.
                              • David C. Hindley
                                Carl, ... I ve seen this idea [that the young man in the white robe of 16:5 can be identified with the naked youth who fled Jesus arrest in 14:52] ...
                                Message 15 of 21 , Jan 28, 1999
                                  Carl,

                                  >>I'm a little hesitant to bring this up because I can't remember where
                                  I've seen this idea [that the young man in the white robe of 16:5 can be
                                  identified with the naked youth who fled Jesus' arrest in 14:52] ...<<

                                  It sounds a little like something proposed by Morton Smith.

                                  The naked youth of 14:52 was being initiated into the "Mystery of the
                                  Kingdom of God", and I suppose the same youth was there at the tomb in ch
                                  16.

                                  I only have the popular version of his book (The Secret Gospel, Dawn Horse,
                                  1982), not the longer, more academic version, so it has no index. Still, I
                                  found reference to 14:52 on pages 80-81.

                                  Dave Hindley
                                  DHindley@...
                                • Graham Hamer
                                  Brian Wilson writes As one commentator ... Brian, Have you seen Frank Kermode s The Genesis of Secrecy (Harvard University Press, 1979) which has some
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Jan 29, 1999
                                    Brian Wilson writes

                                    As one commentator
                                    > puts it, "No good reason can be suggested for the recording of the
                                    > incident unless it rests on a genuine reminiscence."

                                    Brian,

                                    Have you seen Frank Kermode's "The Genesis of Secrecy" (Harvard University
                                    Press, 1979) which has some interesting comments on this passage.

                                    Best wishes,

                                    Graham
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.