[Dialogue] 5/14/15, Spong: Resurrection – A Reality or a Pious Dream? Part IV: The Surprise Found in Mark, the Earliest Biblical Narrative of Easter

[Ellie Stock via Dialogue]

     HOMEPAGE        MY PROFILE        ESSAY ARCHIVE       MESSAGE BOARDS       CALENDAR
              
             
            
          
 
         
         
          
           
            
            
              
               
                
                
                  
                   
                   
Resurrection – A Reality or a Pious Dream?
 Part IV: The Surprise Found in Mark, the Earliest Biblical Narrative of Easter
                    
What did the Christian movement know about the resurrection of Jesus before the first gospel was written in the eighth decade of the Christian era? The answer to that question is “not very much.” As I have noted in the first columns in this series, the only records we have that emerge in the years between 30 CE, the date of the crucifixion, and 72 CE, the date of the writing of the first gospel, are found in the writings of Paul, who wrote between 51 and 64 CE. From Paul we learned first that the resurrection of Jesus was always spoken of in the passive tense. “Jesus was raised,” said Paul. He did not rise. That use of the passive verb form appears to indicate that originally resurrection was thought of as an act of God being applied to Jesus, not an act of Jesus in charge of his own destiny. We learned that Paul believed that the raised Jesus had “appeared” to certain chosen witnesses. We noted that the Greek word that has been translated “appeared” in our Bibles was “ophthe,” and that it does not necessarily refer to physical seeing or to the seeing of an objective reality. It was the word used in the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek in 250 BCE, called the Septuagint, to describe what Moses “saw” of God at the burning bush in the wilderness as described by the book of Exodus. It is a word that could also be translated “was revealed to” or “was made manifest to.” It might better mean “insight” or “second sight,” not physical sight, as Christians have traditionally suggested.
                    
We also learned that Paul asserted that he himself was one of those to whom the raised Christ “appeared.” Since Paul’s conversion is today believed to have happened anywhere from one to six years after the crucifixion (I think closer to one than to six), we must conclude that what Paul saw was not a physical body. Since Paul claimed that what he “saw” of the raised Jesus was identical with what everyone else on his list of witnesses “saw,” except that his was last, can we assert any longer with credibility that Easter had something to do with a physically resuscitated body? Do not these biblical facts suggest that the way Easter has been traditionally presented to us by the Christian Church, as “an objective event that broke into history,” may not even be biblically accurate? Perhaps we Christians throughout history should have paid more attention to the biblical texts themselves, than we seem to have done to the literalized doctrines that formed the creeds in the 4th century and on the basis of which dogmatic Christian theology has been constructed. If the story of the resurrection of Jesus did not originally mean the return of the deceased Jesus to the life of this world, as most church leaders have constantly asserted, then what does it mean? Is resurrection only a myth? A fantasy? A pious dream? If so, is not Christianity erected on a house of cards? Is not its demise, therefore, both predictable and certain? Or is there some truth, profound and life changing, about the meaning of resurrection that cannot be encompassed in this former literalistic understanding? Has some irrepressible truth managed to survive while the church for over two thousand years tried to force it into being a literal event that happened in history? Does whatever resurrection is or was disappear when that literal form collapses and breaks apart under the pressure of contemporary scholarship? Before we begin to answer any of these questions or to draw conclusions, let me continue to examine the biblical texts that purport to tell us of the meaning of Easter. Thus far we have looked at only one, the witness of Paul. There are four more. These are the witnesses of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. This study must not be short-circuited until it is complete. So today I bring into our spotlight, the witness of Mark.
                    
The first thing that one notices about Mark is that this original gospel’s story of Easter is incredibly brief, even stark. It is only eight verses long. This was, however, quite clearly the way Mark intended it to be. Many early Christians found it so lacking in details that more than one wrote a new ending for this gospel. Two of those “new” endings were later incorporated into the text of Mark itself and they even appeared as part of Mark’s gospel in the King James Version of the Bible. Later scholarship, however, has demonstrated quite conclusively that these additions to Mark’s gospel (Mark 16: 9-20) were later and not part of the original text at all. Today, New Testament scholars universally attest to that. Most modern translations of Mark’s gospel have dropped everything after Mark 16:8 into a footnote or they have separated 16:9-20 from 16:1-8 by a space and say in the footnotes that these verses “cannot have been part of the original text of Mark,” as my New Oxford Annotated Bible, known as the Revised Standard Version, states on page 1238 of its text. A cursory reading of these verses reveals that they were an attempt to harmonize Mark’s gospel with the texts of the later gospels. So, if we are going to be faithful to our stated task of examining what the New Testament literally says about the resurrection of Jesus, we must go next to Mark, but only Mark 16:1-8. This is the extent of first gospel’s text of Easter and as such is, therefore, the second witness to the resurrection, in the New Testament.
                    
We notice first that there is no appearance of the raised Jesus to anyone in the first gospel to be written. There are also no angels and no supernatural signs. There is only an empty tomb, a messenger wearing a white robe, an announcement and an expression of existential fear. The first gospel’s narrative of the resurrection is hardly a picture of the birth of conviction and faith that we have long asserted.
                    
Mark’s details are these. The Sabbath (Saturday) following the crucifixion on Friday has now passed. Dawn on the first day of the week has arrived. Three women, bearing spices, come to the tomb of Jesus. Mark identified them as Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome. Fearing that the body was not properly prepared for burial in the haste of getting the deceased Jesus buried before sundown on Friday, they have come to anoint him. We need to be aware that the Sabbath for the Jews began at sundown on Friday, not at 12 midnight as it does for us. With the arrival of the Sabbath at sundown, the work of preparing the body for burial would have been prohibited, as would have been the work of taking the body down from the cross. That was the reason for haste and with it the sense of incompletion. So these women approached the grave of Jesus at the first moment they were allowed to do so. The Sabbath has passed and the dawn has broken the darkness, announcing the arrival of a new day.
                    
As these women walked toward the tomb, Mark says that their biggest concern was how would they manage the removal of the large stone from the mouth of the grave. Unless that stone was removed, they reasoned, it would be impossible for them to gain access to the body and thus to do the work of anointing for which they had come.
                    
We are told, however, that when they arrived they discovered that the great stone had already been removed. No explanation as to how that removal had occurred was given. Entering the tomb, these women, we are told, saw a young man. He was described quite simply as “dressed in a white robe.” His role in Mark’s story was to be “the messenger of the resurrection.” Was he a supernatural figure? An angel? The text of Mark does not say that, though the later gospels certainly upgrade him to a divine status. Could he have been a religious functionary? They do tend to be dressed in white robes. Does this story reflect an early Easter liturgical event that was conducted at the supposed gravesite? Was the white robe simply a liturgical garment? Mark’s text gives no answer to these questions. For our purposes, however, it is clear that in this first gospel to be written, this messenger was neither an angelic being nor was he meant to be understood as supernatural.
                    
Mark describes these women as “amazed.” The messenger speaks to their fear: “Do not be amazed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen, he is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go tell his disciples, and Peter, (it is interesting how Peter is singled out) that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, as he told you.” The words: “as he told you,” are a reference by the author of this gospel to an earlier text in his narrative (Mark 14:28) where Jesus was said to have spoken these words to the disciples at the Last Supper: “After I am raised, I will go before you into Galilee.”
                    
These words of the messenger did little, it seems, to calm the fears of these women. The text of Mark’s gospel tells us: “And they (the women) went out and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.” That is all there is to Mark’s original story of Easter. Human beings are confronted with an empty tomb, a tomb, which was symbolic of death itself, that they asserted could not contain Jesus of Nazareth. There was no birth of faith. There were no appearances of the risen Christ to anyone. It is easy to understand that this original story was almost scandalous to the early followers of Jesus, necessitating the creation of expanded and more faith-producing additions. We must embrace, however, that this was the way that the resurrection was understood when the first gospel was written some forty-two years after the crucifixion. What does this mean? It is important that we know what the text actually says before we try to answer the question as to what the resurrection meant to the first Christians. It is apparently not exactly the way we have always thought. Next week we will look at the second of the gospel witnesses, the one we call Matthew. So stay tuned.
                    
~John Shelby Spong
                    
Read the essay online here.
                   
 
                 
                
              
               
                
                
                  
                   
                   
Question & Answer
                    
John Hertel from Adairsville, Georgia, writes:
                    

 Question:
                    
I discovered your Internet talks in the fall of 2011. For the preceding 50 years I gritted my teeth all the way through the Christmas season, feeling angry, frustrated and guilty simultaneously. Suddenly a burden was lifted from my psyche. Through your scholarly talks, I was able to leave old baggage behind. Thank you.
                    
Have you ever considered how many elements had to come together at the right time in the right place with the right people and the right geopolitical chess board for the Christian belief system to be born and to endure?
                    
In one of your talks, you spoke about a religion of guilt and control. Christianity was born under the boot and sword of the Roman Empire. Had the Roman Empire not been created, Pilate would not have been there to judge. The management position of the Pope would not have been created. The Roman roads and networks would not have been available, the Roman soldiers who spread the Christian message would not have been present, etc…was this God’s plan?
                    

 Answer:
                    
Dear John,
                    
I find it a waste of time to occupy myself with trying to discern God’s plan. In my life I find it difficult enough just to discern my own plan. Every day is altered by forces over which I have no control. Events transpire, emergencies arise, sickness occurs, death surprises, accidents happen and blessings seem to fall from heaven. I am very disciplined in my life. I plan for daily exercise, for daily study and writing time, for regular duties like grocery shopping, cooking, and handling the mail that this column creates as well as personal mail, keeping medical appointments, reading the New York Times and a thousand other things that fill up each day (like watching the New York Yankees play baseball). No matter how organized I think I am, however, no day ever goes as planned.
                    
When I look back over the whole course of my life, I can see a bigger picture. The individual events fade and a pattern seems to emerge. Is it, however, a plan? Is it God’s plan? Has this plan been imposed on my life unknowingly? Or is it all chance? Is it pre-destined?
                    
For example, in 1976 when I moved to New Jersey, we looked for a home somewhere in the diocese I was to serve as bishop. We narrowed our choice to two houses, one in Morristown and one in Maplewood. Maplewood was closer to my office, but the priest who was assisting in the house search lobbied hard for Morristown. It was a tough call.
                    
The thing that proved to be the deciding factor was that beautiful, lush new carpeting had been recently installed in the Maplewood house. It was far too elegant for me to change, but the color was “ice blue.” I am drawn to earth colors, reds, oranges, yellows, browns, and rust. I do not believe I could have lived happily in a house surrounded by “ice blue,” so we chose Morristown. That decision determined so much of my life that I cannot overestimate it. My community of friends was a gift to me from Morristown. My church, St. Peter's, is in Morristown. My first wife died in Morristown in 1988 and that church sustained me. I would not have met Christine to whom I have now been married for 25 years, had I not chosen to live in Morristown. I cannot imagine another path through life than the one I have walked and it all hung on my distaste for the “ice blue” carpet.
                    
I feel a tremendous sense of destiny about my life. I cannot imagine being married to anyone other than Christine. I cannot imagine being apart from my church or my friends in Morristown. Was it a divine plan? Luck? Predestination? No, I think we all make routine decisions and then we live with and into these decisions, transforming them in the process.
                    
Was Jesus born, as St. Paul suggested, “in the fullness of time?” Was the mission of the Christian Church prepared for by the universal nature of the Greek language and the Roman roads? Or do we live with and make decisions in the moment and then in retrospect see meaning unfolding inside those decisions? Is there such as thing as God’s plan? I don’t think so. What I believe is that every moment of life is filled with choice and meaning. If we choose life over death, love over hatred, peace over war, reconciliation over hurt and acceptance over prejudice often enough and long enough, then meaning emerges and our lives are transfigured. God, I believe, is in that memory and in that transfiguration.
                    
So I worry not about discerning God’s plan for history, the church, the world or my life. I worry only about making the right decisions in every moment of life and then living into those decisions with integrity.
                    
So live well, John, live well and meet whatever comes your way with grace and hope. If you do that faithfully, you will have no time to speculate on whatever you think God’s plan might be.
                    
John Shelby Spong
                   
 
                 
                
              
               
                
                
                  
                   
                   
Announcements
                    
Did you catch last month's eBulletin on Personal and World Transformation through Social Justice? 
 
 There is hardly anything more rewarding then practicing acts of kindness, or when standing up for something we believe in, especially when we are able to see the positive affects of those actions.  Jesus was first and foremost a social activist. He saw inequalities and injustices around him and he spoke out against them. He called us to give up our possessions, to share our bounty, and to love our enemies.
 
 This eBulletin continued our series on Personal and World Transformation as we asked our contributors to ponder the idea of Social Justice. 
 
 
 Check it out here!
 
 Would you like to more information about our free monthly eBulletin's which are full of articles, books, liturgies, videos, events, and music? Click here.
                   
 
                 
                
              
 
             
            
          
 
         
         
          
           
            
            
              
               
                
                
                  
                   
                                     
 
                 
                 
                  
 
                   
                    
                   
                   
 
 
                 
                 
                  
                   
                  
 
                 
                
              
 
             
            
          
 
         
        
      
 
 
     
    
  
  
  
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
    
    
      
       
        
        
          
 
 
         
        
      
 
     
    
  
     
  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue-wedgeblade.net/attachments/20150514/855cb6cd/attachment-0001.htm>