Reconciling the Gospel of Mark and the talpiot tomb with our faith

[Phill]

The title says it all, how do we reconcile the basic nature of Mark, (i.e. the fact there is no virgin birth recorded, mircles seem less miraculous, no resurrection appearances) and the discovery of the Talpiot tomb,with our Christian faith? When you compare our old gospel with the other three, it does seem like there was legendary development in the story of Jesus, plus with the discovery of the Talpiot Tomb it would seem to suggest that possibly Jesus may not of had a physical resurrection, if one at all. I know we have Paul’s creed, that was written in 1 Corinthians 15 that scholars date within the first 10 years of the resurrection, but it just seems the more it looks, it seems like the earliest Christians may have had a different belief than we do now and if Jesus never rose from the dead then “if Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain: and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God: because we have given testimony against God”. Am I just missing something or is my confusion warranted?

 

[Wesrock]

There’s no real evidence to take the Talpiot Tomb as being about Jesus Christ. Joseph, Jesus/Joshua, and Mary were very popular names at the time in that area.

And while it might not be the same as medieval England, I can’t help but remember that for a time it seems like everyone important in England was named Thomas, George, or Henry. Have three cousins, a father, and an uncle named Thomas already? Who cares, you’re another Thomas.

 

[Phill]

I know, my confusion doesn’t rest just on the Talpiot Tomb because there isn’t any definitive proof it’s the same, but it’s more of a cumulative case thing. We have Mark, with little miraculous stuff, then you have some of the older “gnostic” writtings that seem to mesh well with Mark, as opposed to what we have as cannon, plus the Talpiot Tomb, so on and so forth. I have a couple more things that add to the confusion, but they aren’t relative to this discussion directly.

 

[Jimbo]

I’m really not following.

There is significant question about the Talpiot tomb. And when you look at Mark’s discussion of the resurrection:

The Resurrection​

16 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of [a]James, and Salome, bought spices, so that they might come and anoint Him. 2 Very early on the first day of the week, they *came to the tomb when the sun had risen. 3 They were saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?” 4 Looking up, they *saw that the stone had been rolled away, [b]although it was extremely large. 5 Entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed. 6 And he *said to them, “Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him. 7 But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’” 8 They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

It sounds like Mark is very clear a resurrection occurred.

Couple that with the other Gospels, Pauls letters, etc. and I don’t see the basis for your premise that a legendarium built up around Christ.

 

[Phill]

It’s not my premise, just something that was brought to my attention that Kinda shook me. The reason being, each gospel has variation in each of the endings. Plus, Mark makes it seem like verse 8 is the end of the story in a way. I vould totally be off base and over thinking it. It just seems like Mark understood a spiritual resurrection, not a physical one. He also makes no mention of Jesus in Jerusalem. Just that the women saw a young man who told them that they would see him in Galilee.

 

[Jimbo]

I think I understand.

I’m not sure, I think we are just looking at it differently. The person showing them the empty tomb, and showing him specifically where Jesus had laid in death, seems pretty physical to me. Similarly him telling them that they would see Jesus in Galilee. That seems pretty physical.

When you combine it with the other Gospel accounts, the letters of Paul, and the actions of the early Church fathers, it seems to me that the most consistent view is that the early Church was convinced of Christ’s physical resurrection.

 

[Jimbo]

from: Gospel of Saint Mark - Encyclopedia Volume - Catholic Encyclopedia - Catholic Online

“The very firstchapter records three miracles : the casting out of an unclean spirit, the cure of Peter’s mother-in-law, and the healing of a leper, besides alluding summarily to many others (i, 32-34); and, of the eighteen miracles recorded altogether in the Gospel, all but three (ix, 16-28; x, 46-52; xi, 12-14) occur in the first eight chapters. Only two of these miracles (vii, 31-37; viii, 22-26) are peculiar to Mark, but, in regard to nearly all, there are graphic touches and minute details not found in the other Synoptics.”

Less miracles maybe. But definitely miraculous events. And 18 is a pretty significant number.

 

[Pattylt]

Most serious secular biblical scholars (of which most are Christian) have not accepted the Tapriot tomb. As far as I remember, one noted scholar has accepted it as authentic and a few others view it as possible but by far most reject it.

I won’t comment on the rest of your question as I’m not a biblical scholar and it would only be personal opinion.

 

[Hodos]

I think that Mark’s gospel actually serves to underscore the historicity of the miracles recorded in the gospels. You are correct in observing that the miracles such as Christ walking on water, and performing miraculous healings, as well as the resurrection events are unadorned in Mark. This should actually give us greater confidence in their historicity. What is interesting as well though, is that the miraculous events recorded also in Matthew, Luke, and John, are similarly devoid of adornment in their description (yes, they may contain more detail, but are discussed dispassionately as a matter of fact). With regard to Mark not describing the virgin birth, I don’t see that as an issue either. While Mark does not describe the virgin birth, his concern in writing about Jesus is less about describing Jesus life, but in describing his ministry and evoking the need to immediate discipleship. In other words, we see a difference in focus which causes him to select different material for inclusion in his gospel. This explains why he starts his narrative with John the Baptist’s testimony about Christ. Matthew however is interested in showing Christ as the promised king of Israel, the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant, and the coming of the kingdom of heaven. Hence he begins with the virgin birth and how Christ is of the line of David through Joseph, his adopted father. This isn’t an argument that the virgin birth was somehow a legendary development, merely a difference in interpretation or emphasis of the authors. Also, keep in mind the gospel writers are still writing in the lifetimes of the witnesses of Christ’s ministry. Luke for example writes during the lifetime of many of the witnesses that he describes and constantly name drops them to his reader Theophilus as witnesses who will corroborate his account of the gospel.

 

[De_Maria]

The title says it all, how do we reconcile the basic nature of Mark, (i.e. the fact there is no virgin birth recorded, mircles seem less miraculous, no resurrection appearances) and the discovery of the Talpiot tomb,with our Christian faith?

You’re mixing apples and oranges. There’s no connection between St. Mark’s Gospel and theTalpiot tomb.

There are differences in all the Gospels which actually point to their authenticity. It is well known, that when various individuals give their testimonies, the one’s that are identical to one another are the fabricated accounts. People see things differently and have different points of view.

And, as for the Resurrection, I’ll just quote Scripture:

1 Cor 15: Results of Denial. [e] 12 But if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some among you say there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then neither has Christ been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then empty [too] is our preaching; empty, too, your faith. 15 Then we are also false witnesses to God, because we testified against God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, neither has Christ been raised, 17 and if Christ has not been raised,[f] your faith is vain; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are the most pitiable people of all.

Am I just missing something or is my confusion warranted?

In my opinion, your confusion is not warranted and you are missing a bit of faith.

Take this to God, in earnest prayer. He’ll give you the answer that you need.

Praying for you.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[C.Longinus]

The longer ending says otherwise.

 

[Brian_K]

I believe the Gospel of Mark is Peter’s account as recorded by John Mark, and Peter, being a gruff fisherman and a no-nonsense kind of guy gives a basic, to-the-point summary of the life of Christ. The different gospels have different endings and different details not to conflict but to complement each other. I can’t say I answered your question well, but just had some thoughts to share.

 

[C.Longinus]

Mark actually has the most miracles.

 

[Phill]

No you did fine! that makes a lot of sense! I think I’m just over thinking things a bit haha

 

[Phill]

I think the biggest thing that worries me the most was the added ending to Mark. Because a lot of our earliest manuscripts stop after verse 8. So i always wondered why 9-19 were added.

 

[po18guy]

I see a crisis of faith. Something or someone is corroding your faith. Am I right in thinking that you seem to be looking away from Christ and are being influenced by this world of non-believers? Reasons to doubt are as innumerable as the stars of the sky - well, 1/3 of them, anyway.

There is but one reason to believe: Jesus Christ. Have you ever spent a holy hour before our Lord? If the intellectual is leading you astray, please allow the spiritual to call you back.

I most highly recommend that you go and spend time with our Lord in His Sacramental presence. Tell Him of your doubts and the questions that have arisen.

Then, be as patient with Him as He has been with you. And, as Fr. Benedict Groeschel, C.F.R. taught…

“When you become aware that He is there, you will be changed.”

Each Gospel was written to a different audience, for different reasons. Why not risk a purchase? Inside the Bible by Fr. Kenneth Baker, S.J.

 

[OddBird]

I don’t want to add to your confusion, but there are actually five different endings to Mark that we know of, which differ mostly in length.

The consensus is that v.8 was, very early on, not seen as “good enough” as an end to the story. But what many scholars actually say today, specially those who specialize in narrative criticism, is that Mk 16:8 was not intended as an ending at all. In v.7, the angels tell the women : “He comes before you in Galilea, this is where you will meet him” (or something like that; the only New Testaments I have with me right now are in French and Greek). This is interpreted as an invitation to go back to the beginning of the gospel, where Jesus’ public ministry begins thus : “In these days, Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilea”…
(Mk 1:9).

In the Gospel of Mark, the disciples are notoriously presented as slow to understand what Jesus does and who he actually is. So the original ending could well have been construed as an exhortation to read, read and read the Gospel again, in order to get a proper understanding of Christ. This has no bearing on wether or not Jesus rose from the dead (chapter 16 is pretty clear he did, even with the short ending).

The way NT scholarship sees it, the conflict in endings is not a conflict about the historicity of Christ’s resurrection. It simply translates different ways of dealing with it – going back to the beginning and meditating, again and again, on Christ’s life, or following a more “lucanian” path towards Acts and the life of the Church. These options are not mutually exclusive either.

 

[Isearch]

Honestly, if evidence were to lean more and more to the notion that the Talpiot Tomb is truly Christ’s family tomb in succeeding years, possibly whatever faith I currently have will erode. Anyway, truth is truth; even if it’s unconfortable.

 

[Hodos]

I think the biggest thing that worries me the most was the added ending to Mark. Because a lot of our earliest manuscripts stop after verse 8. So i always wondered why 9-19 were added.

I have my own theory, but it really doesn’t matter. Because of the way that the scriptures spread all over the place very early on, we have a really robust textual transmission history that actually allows us to look at things like this and have a lot of confidence in what was original and what was expanded upon throughout the textual history. That being said, the longer ending of Mark is consistent with other material in the Bible that we know to be original.

 

[Phill]

That’s true, i think maybe im just over thinking it. Plus Tabor is a really good salesman. I’ll just do some more research and see how it goes. Thanks for the reply!