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

neaniskos

Expand Messages
  • K. Hanhart
    Several correspondents offered a contribution on the identity of the neaniskos in Mark 14,51f and 16,5 being a neophyte. I ve long been impressed by that
    Message 1 of 5 , Mar 1, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      Several correspondents offered a contribution on the identity of the
      neaniskos in Mark 14,51f and 16,5 being a neophyte. I've long been
      impressed by that possibility. Neophytes did put on a white robe at
      baptism; Paul had used the metaphor of being 'buried with Christ in
      order to be raised with him and walk in newness of life; (this is
      somewhat like the neaniskos in the tomb); some have proposed rightly
      that neophytes were baptized after the reading of Mark at Passover time
      early Sundaymorning.
      However, reading Neirynck's article on the question I changed my mind.
      He rightly noted that if someone had wanted to introduce the neophyte
      into his Gospel, he would not have started this introduction with the
      scene in Gethsemane. One is hard put to link the Gethsemane scene with
      its skirmish and clashing of swords with baptism. Besides it is not
      likely that undressing for baptism meant that neophytes were completely
      naked before putting on a white robe.
      In the last century Theodor Zahn, of course, suggested that the
      neasniskos was the author himself. Like an artist "he painted a picture
      of himself in the margin of his work". In our time van Iersel in his new
      commentary holds the same opinion. In 14,51 it is attractive if one
      supposes that the last supper was held in the 'upper room' of the house
      of Mary, John Mark's mother. But 1. would the author have dared to make
      himself into an angel in Jesus' tomb? 2. Why would Matthew, Luke and
      John have omitted this important incident? 3. If AMk wrote a late
      summary of Mt he could not have been John Mark who woke up from sleep
      and secretly followed Jesus and the eleven to Gethsemane.
      Moreover, the term 'gumnos' is definitely embarassing in a Judean (not
      in a Hellenic) context.
      Elsewhere I have argued that the anonymous neaniskos is a retrojection
      of the apostle Paul into the Gospel story.
      1. Neaniskos means little boy and Paulus is Latin for small,
      inconsiderable.
      2. As I wrote in my post on the question of the anonymous Beloved
      Disiciple appearing three times in John 13,23: 19,26; 21,2.7 etc, I
      maintain that there John does indeed introduce the "thirteenth apostle"
      into the Gospel at three critical points of the story. If it is true
      that the 'neaniskos' is a retrojection of Paul's later role in the
      ecclesia, John would be simply follow Mark's example in this instance.
      3. The word 'gumnos' is critical in Mark 14,52; 2 Cor 5,3 and John 21,7.
      In 2 Cor 5,3 Paul uses the term 'naked' as in the Hebrew Bible,
      appearing naked before God's eye. This also seems to be the case in John
      21,7. There it is also used in a metaphoric sense for one normally
      doesnot dress up to go swimming. And it conveys the same meaning. Peter
      had to learn from the BD that also Gentiles were to be caught in the
      'great net'. In this line of thought, the two pictures of the neaniskos:
      one of judgment in 14,52 as the man who persecuted the ecclesia with
      'letters from the high priest' and one as proclaiming the meaning of the
      resurrection to the women is quite possible.
      4. In Mark 14,51 this 'neaniskos' co-followed Jesus (sun-ekolouthei)
      inferring the idea that he was a thirteenth apostle, untimely born.
      5. This converted Pharisee took Judas' place in Acts and he appears on
      the scene precisely at the moment that Judas is about to 'hand over'
      Jesus to the high priest.
      6. The same three protagonists (Peter-Paul-Judas) would appear at the
      critical supper scene concerning the one who will 'hand over' Jesus in
      John 13, if indeed the BD = Paul.
      I'm curious about your reactions Karel

      .
    • Sakari Hdkkinen
      Karel, your suggestion that the NEANISKOS in Mark 14,51f and 16,5 is interesting. GMark is usually seen as ultra-pauline gospel. But why couldn t the author
      Message 2 of 5 , Mar 2, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        Karel,
        your suggestion that the NEANISKOS in Mark 14,51f and 16,5
        is interesting. GMark is usually seen as ultra-pauline
        gospel. But why couldn't the author more clearly tell the
        audience that this is Paul standing here but Paul is instead
        referred here in such an obscure way? And for what reason
        should Paul be presented as having been present in these
        situations?

        Sakari
        _______________
        Sakari Hakkinen
        University of Helsinki
        Department of Biblical Studies
        sakari.hakkinen@...
      • Mark Goodacre
        ... This is similar to Michael Goulder s argument in An Old Friend Incognito , _SJT_ 45 (1992), pp. 487-513, which suggests that for John, the Beloved
        Message 3 of 5 , Mar 2, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          On 1 Mar 99 at 17:39, K. Hanhart wrote:

          > 2. As I wrote in my post on the question of the anonymous Beloved
          > Disiciple appearing three times in John 13,23: 19,26; 21,2.7 etc, I
          > maintain that there John does indeed introduce the "thirteenth apostle"
          > into the Gospel at three critical points of the story. If it is true
          > that the 'neaniskos' is a retrojection of Paul's later role in the
          > ecclesia, John would be simply follow Mark's example in this instance.

          This is similar to Michael Goulder's argument in "An Old Friend Incognito",
          _SJT_ 45 (1992), pp. 487-513, which suggests that for John, the Beloved
          Disciple is a retrojected Paul "incognito".

          Mark
          --------------------------------------
          Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
          Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
          University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
          Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom

          http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
          Aseneth Home Page
          Recommended New Testament Web Resources
          World Without Q
        • K. Hanhart
          ... Right you are. Michael and I have been discussing this for the last ten years. I knew he had been working on this article. We differ only in that I find
          Message 4 of 5 , Mar 2, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            Mark Goodacre wrote:
            >
            > On 1 Mar 99 at 17:39, K. Hanhart wrote:
            >
            > > 2. As I wrote in my post on the question of the anonymous Beloved
            > > Disiciple appearing three times in John 13,23: 19,26; 21,2.7 etc, I
            > > maintain that there John does indeed introduce the "thirteenth apostle"
            > > into the Gospel at three critical points of the story. If it is true
            > > that the 'neaniskos' is a retrojection of Paul's later role in the
            > > ecclesia, John would be simply follow Mark's example in this instance.
            >
            > This is similar to Michael Goulder's argument in "An Old Friend Incognito",
            > _SJT_ 45 (1992), pp. 487-513, which suggests that for John, the Beloved
            > Disciple is a retrojected Paul "incognito".
            >
            > Mark
            > --------------------------------------
            > Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
            > Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
            > University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
            > Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom
            >
            > http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
            > Aseneth Home Page
            > Recommended New Testament Web Resources
            > World Without Q

            Right you are. Michael and I have been discussing this for the last ten
            years. I knew he had been working on this article. We differ only in
            that I find two anonymous disciples in John (cf 21,2); one is, I think,
            John of Jerusalem (the author of Revelation?) the John that silently
            accompanies Peter in the beginning of Acts, one of the three pillars.
            And the other anonymous disciple is Paul. Paul only in chpts 13; 19,26;
            and chpt 21. There he is explicitly called, whom Jesus loved.
          • Maluflen@aol.com
            In a message dated 3/1/1999 12:40:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, K.Hanhart@net.HCC.nl writes:
            Message 5 of 5 , Mar 7, 1999
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 3/1/1999 12:40:29 PM Eastern Standard Time,
              K.Hanhart@... writes:

              << Elsewhere I have argued that the anonymous neaniskos is a retrojection
              of the apostle Paul into the Gospel story.
              1. Neaniskos means little boy and Paulus is Latin for small,
              inconsiderable.
              [snip]
              4. In Mark 14,51 this 'neaniskos' co-followed Jesus (sun-ekolouthei)
              inferring the idea that he was a thirteenth apostle, untimely born.
              5. This converted Pharisee took Judas' place in Acts and he appears on
              the scene precisely at the moment that Judas is about to 'hand over'
              Jesus to the high priest.
              [snip]>>

              Karel, I was away last week and so just now read your post from which the
              above are taken. I find the suggestion intriguing, but some of the arguments
              for it a bit weak. I hope, for example, that you will respond to the questions
              of Sakari. Also, in #5 above, what about Matthias? Isn't he the one who
              ostensibly takes the place of Judas in Acts? And #4 seems a bit weak to me
              too, because the young man ends up by running away from (and therefore not
              following) Jesus in the scene.

              I have recently completed an article on Lk 9:46-48, presented in part at the
              CBA meeting last fall, and due to be published this year in a collection of
              essays in honor of Ghislain Lafont, in which I argue that the person alluded
              by the expression ho...mikroteros en pasin hymin hyparchon of v.48c, and also
              described there as [ho] megas, is Paul, the thirteenth apostle, one "greater
              than" the twelve. The question posed inside the minds of the disciples in this
              very much altered Lukan "version" of Matt 18:1-5 should be rendered "..who
              might be greater than they", not "which of them might be the greatest"
              (contrast the wording of Lk 22:24). This was noted by several German scholars
              early this century (including the two prominent Weisses) and has been rejected
              repeatedly by commentators this century, beginning with Lagrange and Plummer,
              but without good reason. I give strong contextual arguments to support my
              hypothesis from the setting of the pericope in the Gospel of Luke.
              "mikroteros" is of course also a much closer play on "Paulus" than is
              neaniskos, and in the following pericope, Luke has Jesus quote a famous remark
              of Cicero (speaking of Julius Caesar, and his benevolence toward non-party
              members: "he who is not against you is for you"). So there is a high incidence
              of Latinitas in the entire section. In the OT, Paul's tribal ancestor Beniamin
              is also referred to as ho mikroteros in a Gen text, and there are also echoes
              in Lk's text of an OT passage that describes Paul's namesake (in Luke's
              story!) Saul.

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