Does Mark appear in his own Gospel? Where? How?

System

This discussion was created from comments split from: The boring thread on how we know what we know about what Jesus said and did.

Gramps49

Is there a diary of a disciple? No, but the writer of Luke does come close in his descriptions of Paul's travels in Acts. The Gospel of Mary, which is extra canonical, is interesting. Mark may have some autobiographical parts if you make certain assumptions (that he is the man called Legion who appears again in the story of Gethsemane and at the tomb). There is some agreement that the writer of Mark may have been at Gethsemane if he were John Mark who had been a follower of Paul.

Martin54

Gramps49 wrote: »

Is there a diary of a disciple? No, but the writer of Luke does come close in his descriptions of Paul's travels in Acts. The Gospel of Mary, which is extra canonical, is interesting. Mark may have some autobiographical parts if you make certain assumptions (that he is the man called Legion who appears again in the story of Gethsemane and at the tomb). There is some agreement that the writer of Mark may have been at Gethsemane if he were John Mark who had been a follower of Paul.

What man called Legion? The Gadarene demoniac?

@Anna_Baptist, you detailed my thoughts. Wealthy women bankrolled Jesus and the twelve. And they were men of at least basic property, not slaves, not serfs tied to land stolen from them and their ancestors. Jesus would have been well prepared for his 1,280 day ministry.

Gramps49

Yes, I am talking about the man who was possessed by a Legion of demons.

Thomas Rowans

I've read a lot about Mark's Gospel and just took a whole class in grad school about it and have never heard the theory that Mark is the Gerasene demoniac. I have heard the theory that Mark is the naked man, but that theory doesn't usually extend this identity claim to then being the young man in the tomb. Why would we think Mark is the Gerasene demoniac?

Martin54

Gramps49 wrote: »

Yes, I am talking about the man who was possessed by a Legion of demons.

Why?

Gramps49

Why would I argue the Gerasene man occupied by a Legion of Demons be the same person that ran away naked in Gethsemane and the young man who told the women Jesus had risen?

First of all, they are all men, and they all appear to be young.

Second, all three locations are rather remote. The man in all three stories appears to prefer living in remote areas.

Third, internally the stories are very detailed which is unusual for Mark

The connection with the Gerasene and the young man in the tomb is also in the clothing. Remember the once the Gerasene was cleansed, he is dressed in clean clothes. The man in the tomb was also clothed in a dazzling robe.

Martin54

Sorry @Gramps49, that is peculiar to you.

Lamb Chopped

I have suspicions that Mark was the guy in the garden of Gethsemane, as a lot of people do. To sneak out of the house in the equivalent of a bathrobe when your elders think you're in bed, because you know something's afoot and you can't bear to be left out--yeah, that's a believable profile of a teenage John Mark. And that's why I can't see him as the demon-possessed man--that fellow appears to be a lot older than Mark, having lived for some years under horrible conditions. If he had been in the garden, he'd have come better prepared (like, with real clothes?) and probably have hidden himself better, knowing from grim experience what angry human beings can do to people. IMHO it really takes a teenager to behave as naively as the young man in Gethsemane did.
And the one who announced the resurrection--well, he's described as a young man, and for all I know he may have been one, but I'm inclined to think "angel" because he just shows up in the text, does his job, and disappears from the record. Very angel-like, in that. And with no explanation for how he knows what he knows about the resurrection, which is odd if he's just an ordinary human being. I mean, if he's just human, then he's also presumably the first eyewitness to the risen Christ--and why hasn't something about THAT come down in the record? And how did he manage not to fall over in a faint, like the guards did (even though they missed out on actually seeing Jesus)? Or run freaked out down the road, like the women did? This messenger is far too self-possessed in my opinion. I think he's an angel, because he isn't losing his shit.

Still, it wouldn't bother me much if I turn out to be wrong.

KoF

Surely it is first important to discuss how/why the gospel was ascribed to Mark.

jay_emm

Yes, and perhaps on a similar line to split speculation of where the author might appear in the gospel and where Mark appears gospel (and then note if the overlap is consistent with Mark from Acts being the Author)

Twangist

I have a very vague memory of the idea of Mark being in the (otherwise) empty tomb appearing in "who moved the stone?" By I think frank morrison - I may be mistaken.

Lamb Chopped

He had a very odd half-unexplained theory on the last page, more or less, but I seem to recall it being about the high priest's servant?

Twangist

He of the ear chopping incident?
It was over 30 years ago i read it so memory is failing I'm afraid.

Gamma Gamaliel

I think @Gramps49 has posited this before. I've never heard it from anyone else. The only apparent 'evidence' he puts forward is that clothes are mentioned in the story of the Gadarene demoniac and the lack of them in the instance of the young man running away from Gethsemane.

What possible difference any of this makes to our understanding of Mark's Gospel is beyond me. Heck, I'm Orthodox and we have all sorts of extra-biblical stuff and traditions about various people mentioned briefly in the NT, but I draw the line at this.

Last time I raised objections like this I was told off because the posters who post this stuff are preachers and ministers whose job it is to exposit these texts. Sure, I get that. But there's a difference being doing that and stating that the author of Mark's Gospel and the Gadarene demoniac might be one and the same simply because it sounds like a good idea for him to have been. What's it meant to demonstrate? Inclusivity? We get that from the Gospel accounts anyway without having to stretch things even further.

Gramps49

Yes. I have discussed this before. I do not think it deserves a thread of its own. I never asked for it.

But since someone else brought this up, as I recall the last time I talked about it, I challenged others to prove me wrong. The challenge still stands.

Thomas Rowans

Challenge to prove you wrong that the author of Mark is not the Gerasene Demoniac? For the two young men, both of them are identified as young men in the Greek with the same word, so there's a linguistic affinity in the text. The Gerasene Demoniac is not identified as a young man, and given that he's described as being afflicted for a long time he would not be considered young. The Gerasene Demoniac is a detailed pericope, and there's an argument to be made that the young man in the garden is also detailed, but the young man in the tomb is not. Detailed stories are not unusual for Mark. In fact, they're quite common and occur regularly throughout. In the Markan criticism they are referred to as "immersive narratives" because biblical scholars are quite boring. That the Gerasene Demoniac is clothed is certainly crucial, but Mark is overall highly concerned with clothing. Witness the woman with a flow of blood, Jesus' transfiguration, and Jesus' commissioning of the disciples. Mark also makes a point of narrating the crowd of people pushing in around Jesus that they want to just touch the fringe of his cloak to be healed. This has also been noted in the critical literature, that Mark is unusually focused on clothing.

Tying the Gerasene Demoniac to the two young men seems like a stretch to the point of breaking; further tying the Gerasene Demoniac to the author of Mark is untenable. I see nothing within the text that supports that. There are some people who make the claim that Mark is the naked young man, but they don't then extend that identity to the young man in the tomb (I think I've already said that).

Gamma Gamaliel

I don't think the challenge still stands at all, @Gramps49. Your argument was unconvincing on that thread and remains unconvincing now. In fact @Thomas Rowans has demolished it in about five minutes flat.

Of course, with speculative assertions of this kind we can't 'prove' anything with 100% certainty.

I could make a claim that any unnamed individual in Mark's Gospel was actually the author. Let's pick one shall we? Then you can try and prove me wrong.

There's no textual indication whatsoever that the Gaderene demoniac and the author of Mark's Gospel are one and the same. Even if they were I can't see what difference it would make. Besides, as someone from a Big T Tradition tradition, I would have assumed that something as dramatic as that would have found it's way into some of the extra-biblical accounts or Patristic glosses and commentaries.

'Hey look! The chap who was Legion later went on to write one of the Gospels. Ain't that something?'

I can't remember you citing Patristic commentary or additional sources but I'm prepared to be corrected if you did.

We are all entitled to opinions but I thought Kerygmania was about drawing things from the text not imposing ideas onto them simply because we've got nothing better to do on a wet March afternoon 😉.

Besides, surely the onus is on your to 'prove' your contention not to challenge the rest of us to accept it.

Admit it, @Gramps49 - you don't have a leg to stand on and hubristically imagine we should all accept your eccentric take purely on your say so. It doesn't work like that, I'm afraid.

No cigar.

KarlLB

I have to concur that this looks very much like someone's pet theory that you can't really prove wrong but there's not much support for either - even if what evidence there is is consistent with it being true, it's also consistent with it not being true.

There was a pigeon in my garden this morning. Later I saw a dead pigeon in the road. Same pigeon? Can't prove it wasn't. But there's every possibility it isn't.

Martin54

Gramps49 wrote: »

Yes. I have discussed this before. I do not think it deserves a thread of its own. I never asked for it.

But since someone else brought this up, as I recall the last time I talked about it, I challenged others to prove me wrong. The challenge still stands.

As with any weird claim, the challenge is on you.

Gramps49

The main connecting thread is the clothing. The Gerasene man ends up wearing clean clothing after the demons are cast out. The young man in Gethsemane was wearing a linen robe, and the young man at the tomb is wearing a dazzling robe. Notice the progression of the clothing: clean clothing; linen robe, dazzling garment.

Even if this is not indicating that the young man is Mark, it is interesting how the writer uses the clothing as some sort of symbol.

KarlLB

Gramps49 wrote: »

The main connecting thread is the clothing. The Gerasene man ends up wearing clean clothing after the demons are cast out. The young man in Gethsemane was wearing a linen robe, and the young man at the tomb is wearing a dazzling robe. Notice the progression of the clothing: clean clothing; linen robe, dazzling garment.

Even if this is not indicating that the young man is Mark, it is interesting how the writer uses the clothing as some sort of symbol.

I really don't see any particular progression there. For one thing I'd expect Clean between Linen and Dazzling.

Gamma Gamaliel

Sorry - what I meant to type, was that the onus is on you to prove your contention not challenge the rest of us to disprove it as though it were already a done-deal because Pope Gramps49 has declared it to be so. 😉

Is this your own idea or have you picked it up from some reputable authority or source?

I can't remember whether you cited sources in the previous thread, I'm afraid.

The emphasis on clothing is interesting and I'll look out for other instances as I continue to work through Mark in a Bible study group I'm involved with.

I think @Thomas Rowans has already alluded to the clothing motifs in Mark's Gospel.

I don't see any textual suggestion to link any of those references other than that they all involve clothing.

It's a bit of a jump from where I'm standing.

Martin54

Gramps49 wrote: »

The main connecting thread is the clothing. The Gerasene man ends up wearing clean clothing after the demons are cast out. The young man in Gethsemane was wearing a linen robe, and the young man at the tomb is wearing a dazzling robe. Notice the progression of the clothing: clean clothing; linen robe, dazzling garment.

Even if this is not indicating that the young man is Mark, it is interesting how the writer uses the clothing as some sort of symbol.

Mark is being self-effacing, but not about being the Gadarene demoniac, or an angel.

Thomas Rowans

Gramps49 wrote: »

The main connecting thread is the clothing. The Gerasene man ends up wearing clean clothing after the demons are cast out. The young man in Gethsemane was wearing a linen robe, and the young man at the tomb is wearing a dazzling robe. Notice the progression of the clothing: clean clothing; linen robe, dazzling garment.

Even if this is not indicating that the young man is Mark, it is interesting how the writer uses the clothing as some sort of symbol.

Mark is definitely concerned with clothing. It appears right away with noting what John the Baptist was wearing and it continues throughout the gospel.

I don’t think you can tie the naked young man to the Gerasene demoniac in that respect for several reasons, not least of which that the clothing item the young man loses is later the same kind of clothing item Jesus is buried in. Same Greek word. (“Sidon” if I’m remembering correctly but I don’t have the time to look it up right now). Clothing is a fun theme in Mark and has been perceptively written about by several scholars.

Lamb Chopped

I’d like to hear more about the general clothing thing, if anybody would like to summarize what they see. Sounds cool.

Leaf

I expect that in a hundred years, some scholar will be able to "prove" that half the posters on this thread are all actually the same person.

Lamb Chopped

Of course we are!

Hedgehog

Leaf wrote: »

I expect that in a hundred years, some scholar will be able to "prove" that half the posters on this thread are all actually the same person.

Or, possibly, John the Baptist.

It does remind me of a funny bit from Walt Kelly's Pogo. Paraphrasing from memory: A preacher (Chicken Little) has calculated the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin at 27-and-a-half. One of the other swamp denizens (maybe Albert) asks what constitutes half an angel. Chicken Little blows his top, screaming that the question is heresy and, if his calculations are wrong, may his god fall from the heavens. An acorn then falls from a tree and hits Chicken Little on the head. Aghast, Chicken Little then concludes that "God Is Dead!" and runs off in terror. Albert looks at the acorn and asks "that's God?" To which another character (Hound Dog, maybe?) replies: "Theologically speaking, it might be the other half of an angel."

Thomas Rowans

Lamb Chopped wrote: »

I’d like to hear more about the general clothing thing, if anybody would like to summarize what they see. Sounds cool.

I don't have anything like a complete or systematic reading of it, but I think it's tied to Mark's overall concern of discipleship and following Jesus. Morna Hooker in her commentary on Mark in the Blackwell's Commentary series remarks that ancient peoples thought of clothing as an extension of not just a person's being in an ontological sense, but an extension of a character's being within a story. The problem is that she doesn't cite where she comes up with this and doesn't develop that theme (as an aside, Hooker is a fabulous biblical critic and is almost always right on the money, but this aspect of her otherwise incredible commentary has been noted with bewilderment by several scholars). Regardless, I think Mark uses some of this latent ancient thinking to reflect people's encounters with Jesus. The Gerasene Demoniac is clothed and in his right mind; the woman with a flow of blood reaches out in faith just to touch the fringe of Jesus' garment and then some sort of intense communion (see what I did there) takes place between Jesus and the woman; in the clearest link between Jesus and the prophets of the Old Testament, his clothing--not his face!--shines more white than any bleach could make it and the disciples see this. Jesus is stripped of his garments at the passion, mockingly clothed by the centurions, and then stripped again, perhaps gesturing something about the journey he is undertaking in the passion. That clothing is important enough to Mark to have Jesus mention it specifically in his commissioning of the disciples speaks, again, to the importance of clothing in the narrative world.

Again, I don't have anything like a complete or systematic reading of this. Stephen B Hatton's “Cuts, Breaks, Tears, and a Hole: Schizophrenia, or the Fractured Gospel of Mark” in the Revue Biblique is a neat reading of clothing in Mark and the one I have found sticks with me the most, although he also deals with a lot of other stuff. I've tried to make the argument that Mark is playing with the Pauline idea of "putting on Christ" and that various people, especially the woman with the flow of blood, put on Christ and model a kind of discipleship, but it's a difficult argument to make and I've not done so in any satisfactory way.

Thomas Rowans

Leaf wrote: »

I expect that in a hundred years, some scholar will be able to "prove" that half the posters on this thread are all actually the same person.

This is a remarkably optimistic view of the durability of electronic records. A view I do not share, alas!

Lamb Chopped

The clothing thing would really make a great dissertation topic for somebody (says she, looking around hopefully). But whoever it was would have to go into things like the connection of the fringe/hems of the garment of the Messiah with the healing incident you mention--apparently there's some sort of legendry there?--and also take into the account the much higher value of clothing in those days relative to what we in our 21st century abundance automatically assume... Mark's Transfiguration focus on his clothing might mean something, or it might be simply a factor of not being capable of looking at Jesus face to face for long--you know, glory overload, like we get in Isaiah 6, where you also find a lot of clothing-and-furniture description but virtually none of the Lord himself! And so on and so forth.

It would make a fantastic monograph.

Thomas Rowans

Yeah, one could go down a giant rabbit hole with thinking about garments in the 2nd temple period and how Hellenistic Greeks and Romans thought about clothing. Brill/De Gruyter would publish it perfect bound in boards at $300 a pop.

Mark's emphasis on clothing in the transfiguration mostly stands out because it seems to be calling back to Moses' experience on the mountain, and his face shines there, and Matthew seems to pick up on that and help Mark along and so changes it to showing Jesus' face shining. So I think that within the synoptics, Mark's difference here is significant, but your point about not seeing the Lord face to face is also intriguing! One would have to ask why then they can't see him face to face, etc etc. Mark is a lot of fun for these and all sorts of reasons!

Lamb Chopped

It's pretty cool to look at Isaiah being all freaked out (Ezekiel, too) and the way they start babbling when they're face to face with the Lord, and finally they fall down. I mean, I can totally understand...

Lamb Chopped

It's interesting knowing the Lord while being faceblind, if I can bring up a personal subject; I mean, when it comes to metaphysical imagery and um, communication, I get nothing but a blur above the chest... completely to be expected, when I can't hold an ordinary face in memory like a normal person can. I do hope this will change some day.

Thomas Rowans

The freaking out in Isaiah and Ezekiel is a good point to bring up and bear in mind when thinking about the disciples reaction to the Transfiguration, especially Peter who just stammers about booths. I usually read this as being indicative of the disciples' further performance of errors, but maybe something more like the holy freak out you see in the Prophets is more apt. That's a good point, especially given your earlier point about Isaiah and seeing the Lord and stuff.

Faceblindness sounds unpleasant. But Mark has anticipated that problem and tells you to focus on the clothing of the Lord! Also, eating with him, which if you're a deeply sacramental, Anglo-Catholic sort is awfully helpful

Gramps49

Gamma Gamaliel wrote: »

Sorry - what I meant to type, was that the onus is on you to prove your contention not challenge the rest of us to disprove it as though it were already a done-deal because Pope Gramps49 has declared it to be so. 😉

Is this your own idea or have you picked it up from some reputable authority or source?

I can't remember whether you cited sources in the previous thread, I'm afraid.

The emphasis on clothing is interesting and I'll look out for other instances as I continue to work through Mark in a Bible study group I'm involved with.

I think @Thomas Rowans has already alluded to the clothing motifs in Mark's Gospel.

I don't see any textual suggestion to link any of those references other than that they all involve clothing.

It's a bit of a jump from where I'm standing.

Whatever happened to attacking the idea, but not the person?

jay_emm

[Keryg Hosting]

Gamma Gamaliel wrote: »

I don't think the challenge still stands at ... it.

Admit it, @Gramps49 - you don't have a leg to stand on and hubristically imagine we should all accept your eccentric take purely on your say so. It doesn't work like that, I'm afraid.

No cigar.

Please all, avoid making things personal. @Gamma Gamaliel you've done so twice on the thread (although there was also a lot of reasoned argument as well).

On the flip side, please (@gramps49 and everyone) try and phrase personal views, tradition, biblical claims, etc appropriately. I know it's hard and the line is blurry.

Jay-emm, Keryg Host

[/Keryg Hosting]

(ETA Formatting, DT)

Gamma Gamaliel

Ok. Sorry. I overstepped the mark.

Small 'm'.

Enoch

I'm with @Martin54, @Lamb Chopped and @Gamma Gamaliel on this one. I've heard the suggestion before that Mark might have been the one who fled naked into the night, but I've never heard the other two. I think they're too far fetched to give them much time. I'm also pretty sure that the reader or hearer is expected to understand the young man in the garden as an angel.

I don't accept the argument that if someone propounds a new theory, it is up to those who aren't persuaded by it to disprove it rather than to the propounder to make their case and persuade.

I'm also persuaded by @Lamb Chopped's point that if the young man in the garden had been a human rather than an angel, he would have been the first witness to the resurrection, and more would have been made of him and his identity.


Two things about Mark's gospel which I think are rather more interesting are these. First, there's an idea I've heard and I think goes back well into the past - possibly Eusebius -, that Mark got much of his material from St Peter, and that there may be a sense that Mark's gospel is in some ways, Peter's.

Second, if it's true that ancient ears were much more attuned to recognise chasmsic structures than ours, Mark's gospel seems to be built round Peter's confession of faith at Mark 8:29, his answer to Jesus's question "But you, who do you say that I am". It is like a hinge. Up to that point the gospel rattles along with exciting things happening, but from then on it turns more serious, more sombre, leading ultimately to the Passion and Resurrection.

jay_emm

The Peter proxy gospel is definitely an old one. And I'd probably take it as the default, that said it's good to challenge defaults, occasionally.

The "Mark also known as John" seems to have been initially Jerusalem based and pretty early linked to the early church (and Peter). Especially if he was also in the garden, there doesn't seem that much to learn in Rome.
Maybe we've got Marks Gospel and are missing Marks 'papal remineces'*

The manacle breaking Legion, doesn't come across to me as a "young man".
Mark with a maid and house in Jerusalem doesn't seem a likely Galilean maniac. But the maniac was healed, and people do rebuild lives.
The possessed man is also in all synoptics, so isn't a unique biographical insert (although Matthew has less detail).

*Note down your crazy what-ifs, there may be a time to air them.

Gramps49

When Mark says the person at the tomb was a young man, he means the person was a young man. The connection between the young man in the tomb, to me, is he is found among the tombs, same as the Gerasene man. Note, too, that when the Gerasene wants to follow Jesus, Jesus tells him to share the good news among his people. The Gerasene should be thought of the first one sent out (an Apostle) by Jesus. But, the good news had yet to become fully known. My thought is the Gerasene continued to follow Jesus from a distance until he could fully share the good news, that Jesus had risen,

It is not so unusual for someone to come up with a new hypothesis on the writer of one of the Gospels. It has to be either proven or disproven. Other than stating my opinion, I do not expect anyone to agree with me. It is just my opinion.

The last time I brought this up, I had mentioned I thought this could be a good subject for a doctoral dissertation. However, considering that I am now approaching 75, I do not have the time or the resources to go for a doctorate. And, even if I could, would there be a return on the investment at my age?

I am pleased Lamb Chopped said the discussion we have been having about the garments of the men may have given her an idea on a dissertation about Mark's emphasis on clothing. To which I would say, go for it, LC.

Lamb Chopped

Um, I wasn’t volunteering! My last took me five years. I’m sorry!

Gamma Gamaliel

Thing is, though @Gramps49 youending weren't only stating an opinion but challenging people to disprove it, as if the onus was on us to do so rather than you to demonstrate it.

Hence my exasperation. Which doesn't excuse my earlier ad hominem remarks of course.

I think you do raise a significant point about the Gerasene demoniac (I keep writing 'Gadarene', I might type 'Gasoline' next). And that is the issue of his becoming a significant witness and 'apostle'. In my reading of this Gospel I've often thought, 'Ah, happy ending' and left it at that.

You have made me think more about the wider community impact of his conversion/deliverance - and about human capacity and potential through divine grace more broadly.

Lots to think about there.

I'm sure there must be legends and stories about his subsequent career, as it were. There are about other figures from the Gospels of course, such as The Woman at the Well.

They almost invariably end up being martyred it seems to me. I think I'm right in saying that this is said to have happened to the Syro-Phoenician woman, for instance.

We'll generally find that the RCs and Orthodox will have some extra-biblical story or other. It's part of our charm ...

jay_emm

I will note that it's very easy to have a very simplified memory of how a topic developed.
Jay-emm

Gramps49

Yes, the woman at the well became a witness. But I do not think Jesus commissioned her to do that. It was rather spontaneous. Many times, when Jesus healed, he would tell the recipient not to tell anyone, but they did so anyway. In the case of the Gerasene, though, Jesus specifically told him to go to his people and share the Good News. Where I think Jesus told others not to say anything and they did anyway, what's to say the man, though he was told to go share the good news to his people, did not and continued to follow Jesus from a distance?

All I can find about the man, though, is that he went back to the decapolis area. Nothing seems to have been said about him after that.

Nick Tamen

Thomas Rowans wrote: »

Lamb Chopped wrote: »

I’d like to hear more about the general clothing thing, if anybody would like to summarize what they see. Sounds cool.

I don't have anything like a complete or systematic reading of it, but I think it's tied to Mark's overall concern of discipleship and following Jesus. Morna Hooker in her commentary on Mark in the Blackwell's Commentary series remarks that ancient peoples thought of clothing as an extension of not just a person's being in an ontological sense, but an extension of a character's being within a story. The problem is that she doesn't cite where she comes up with this and doesn't develop that theme (as an aside, Hooker is a fabulous biblical critic and is almost always right on the money, but this aspect of her otherwise incredible commentary has been noted with bewilderment by several scholars). Regardless, I think Mark uses some of this latent ancient thinking to reflect people's encounters with Jesus.

I’m far from an expert on ancient views of clothing, but I’ll admit that on reading that Hooker posits that clothing is “an extension of a character's being within a story,” my mind immediately went to theater, where costume does indeed tell the audience about the characters’ character. I think I remember from college mumble mumble years ago that the Greeks used costume in that way.

And then, of course, there were the priestly garments described in the Torah. They tell us who the priest is in his role as priest.

Gramps49

I happened to bounce my theory with a New Testament scholar I personally know. He does not think the Gerasene man is connected to the young man in the garden or in the tomb, but he does think the young man in the garden might be connected to the young man in the tomb. Mark uses the same word for the young men, νεανίσκος. This is the only two times in all of Mark where that word is used. If you assume the young man in the garden is Mark, then it stands to reason the young man at the tomb is also Mark.

BroJames

νεανίσκος is the word for a young man. If a young man is to be depicted, there isn’t a more likely word to use. Frankly it’s a stretch to assume that two references to a young man in different circumstances on different occasions refer to the same person. It’s a possibility sure. But it hardly ‘stands to reason’.

James Priestman

On Saturday 6th July, Janet Scott (former Director of Studies in Theology and Religious Studies at Homerton College in Cambridge) will be giving a seminar on the literary techniques used in the Gospel of Mark. It will be part of a festival of Biblical litearture in Malvern, Worcestershire. There will be seminars, music and poetry. See https://www.festivalofbiblicalliterature.co.uk/programme/ I am directing the festival and I'm happy for people to contact me about it at jamesdpriestman@gmail.com

[Double of http in link removed, hopefully works now.
Not sure of the advertising, it's on a relavant thread at least.]

[ Advertisment of event hidden. See post following.
Jay-emm kerygmania host ]

jay_emm

Hi, and welcome to the ship.

I've hidden the text of the Marlborough event advertisement, as thats policy to try to be consistent

I'm told there is space in your profile for you to put anything like that.

Interesting point on the Job thread.

Jay_emm