Julian

I didn't want to derail the other thread so I am starting a new one on a topic dear to me for an upcoming theory.

I asked Ben for some examples in Mark where the disciples were shown in a positive light, the above is his response.

1.18
I am not sure that that is all that positive. It is merely stated as a fact. Mark could certainly have added a few positive remarks in there but instead chose to simply state a fact. Hmmm, doesn't quite work for me as a positive statement, seems more neutral to me.

8.29
Yes, Peter does show some knowledge here which I find surprising and somewhat damaging to my theory. I cannot explain this one as it seems very contrary to the rest of Mark. I would call this section positive, except for the following stumble, of course.

10.28-30
Here Peter seems to be whining a bit, but that is probably irrelevant. I think this is only a setup enabling Jesus to speak to what it means to follow Christ, i.e. the reward for the action spoken of by Peter. This is not about the faith of the disciples but rather the reward for christians. This is the author of Mark speaking directly to the audience using Peter to set it up. I would call it neutral.

14.29
I would consider this negative because it is Peter telling Jesus how he will be a good disciple and acknowledge Jesus but Jesus imemediately turns to him and says that Peter will deny Jesus, three times no less. I consider this a direct smack to Peter and the apostolic tradition. Sure, they say that they believe in Jesus yet when push comes to shove they deny him, Peter here representing the proto-orthodox.

14.72
Object lessons taught. He cries because he screwed up. Peter has acknowledged his failure. Super, extra negative.

16.7
Neutral. Says really nothing about Peter, just that he should be told.



Any other potentially positive? Any further comments?

Julian

Ben C Smith

I guess if we were all the same there would be nothing to discuss.... Jesus calls the first four out of the blue, and the first four follow unreservedly (very unlike the rich man later, in Mark 10). That looks like a positive to me.

Both positive and negative. That sounds exactly like the rest of Mark to me.

I do not pick up on any whining. But you put it well when you speak of the reward for the action spoken of by Peter, except that it is not presented only as an action spoken of by Peter. It is an action already performed by Peter; therefore, the reward for that action must be at least for Peter, who has in fact performed that action. I agree completely that the statement in 10.29-30 is also generalized so as to apply to the Christian church at large, but that does not refute that Peter is one of those to whom it applies.

You might have a point here.

I think I completely disagree here. Mark seems quite concerned, not only about the actions of Peter, but also about his mentality, his inner thoughts. In this verse Peter remembers the prediction of his failure and immediately breaks down weeping. Contrast this kind of authorial concern with the lack of it for Judas, who walks off into the night as the betrayer without so much as a glance back.

If not regretting the mistake would have been negative, then why is regretting the mistake not at least a little bit positive? Does his regret not imply that Peter, unlike Judas (for example), has a future with the Jesus movement?

It promises a resurrection appearance to the twelve, and to Peter especially (his name is singled out). It echoes more clearly the promise of 14.27-28: You will all fall away, but I will meet with you again. I do not think that the main purpose of this post mortem reunion with the Lord was to give Jesus a chance to poke Peter in the eye. His restoration to faith is implied.

Look back at Mark 10.28-30 again; surely those verses about homes and lands, amidst persecutions, have to do with the church. If so, then those verses imply that Peter and company will be part of the church; their failure will not be permanent, and they will be restored. The prediction of upcoming persecutions throws us ahead to Mark 13, a sermon delivered to Peter, James, John, and Andrew in private. There Jesus repeatedly speaks to those four disciples in the second person plural, you, about things that will happen to them in the future because of their witness. This also implies a restoration; they will not fall away forever. They will come back to the faith.

I agree that Mark is quite negative toward Peter and company. But I also refuse to overlook what Mark says will happen to Peter and company after the gospel leaves off its narrative. The disciples make a good foil for Jesus during his ministry, but Mark is as conscious as anybody that they will eventually be the leaders of the Jesus movement, and I do not think he regards them as infidels or heretics in that capacity.

Ben.

Julian

To me this relates a bit like Judas later. Mark is neutral in his description, any reaction is left totally to the reader. Mark says nothing about how he feels about it. Like you said, "if we were all the same" there wouldn't be an issue here. Mark simply states the fact, nothing more. You see it as positive, I see it as neutral. I think the fact that we do disagree is due to the fact that Mark has given us no hint here, i.e. neutral.

Mark could certainly have taken the opportunity to give them some praise here but he doesn't. He had to include it in the gospel, probably because it was common knowledge that those guys followed Jesus, but he chooses not to make a big deal out of it. Part of the Markan agenda, I suspect.
I doesn't to me, because the disciples are notoriously dense and never understand anything or figure anything out on their own. This is the one case where Peter actually 'gets' something. Can you think of another case where Peter 'gets' it? Really asking here, not being facetious.
Certainly Peter would be included in that reward, but that is incidental here. Mark is telling christians what they are to get, the fact that Peter happens to be included in that group is not specifically positive about Peter, only in a general sense.
But who is Peter concerned for here? I say it is Peter. Peter has failed despite his best intentions. This is self-pity. I can't see it in any other way. He is not crying for Jesus. He could be crying about letting him down, indirectly for Jesus then, I guess, but the text doesn't say.

He was told that he would fail and he did, so he cries. I am reading self-pity.

Why do you think that he is regretting? I mean, I am sure that he is not happy about it, of course, but there is nothing about regret in there.

Funny, though, isn't it? You read regret, I read self-pity. I would say that the latter is properly Markan, the former is not.
Meeting them again doesn't necessarily mean a physical meeting at some later date, although it is the easiest interpretation. I also agree that any such meeting would not be to punish Peter in some fashion.

However, I believe that Mark has to end at 16:8. That is the whole point. There can be no authorization of the apostles because they represent the church which is ignorant in the eyes of Mark. The teaching is secret, the church doesn't know it. But I am getting carried away here.

I think your reading of Peter's restoration to the faith is quite orthodox and unwarranted. I believe that Mark has shown that Peter (Petros) is one of the pillars of the church, because history at the time Mark wrote made this undeniable, but he [Peter] never understood what Jesus, or more accurately the christ, was talking about.
Probably. They were, at least, topical in some fashion.
I am sure that their participation in the church was a historical fact at the time of Mark. What was he supposed to do? He had to acknowledge them in some minor fashion. He makes sure to relegate them to a lower standing though, in much the same way that JBap has been relegated, probably because historical knowledge precluded his complete removal from the gospels.
They will be part of the proto-orthodox church, a fact that Mark understands, but not one that he respects.
No comments on the small apocalypse, as of yet. I need more time to study that bit.
I agree that he knows that they will be leaders. It was surely well-known and inescapable. So what does Mark do, since he cannot write them out of history? He acknowledges their place in the church but makes sure that the reader understands that they are clueless.

But that's okay, because Uncle Mark's got the goods right here. That secret knowledge...

Julian

Ben C Smith

I think the contrast with the rich man is quite significant here. The disciples literally left their possessions and followed Jesus; the rich man could not do that.

Agreed. They play the buffoon (but not the villain!).

I would say Mark 10.28-30, right after the rich man turns away. Peter gets it, however briefly; he knows that discipleship is about leaving it all behind. What he does not understand (yet) is that one of the things that might have to be left behind is life itself.

Mark has made Peter the spokesperson for the twelve in 10.28. It is the statement of Peter that elicits the glowing description of 10.29-30.

Well, positive in a general sense is better than neutral or even negative. But Mark has once again singled Peter out of the bunch in verse 28. It is his statement of faith that is on the line.

I think you misunderstood what I meant by concern. I was not referring to what Peter is concerned about; I was talking about what Mark was concerned about.

Because Mark did not have to tell us that he remembered what Jesus had said, and he did not have to tell us that Peter wept over it. Mark is showing a concern for Peter that he does not show those who truly, really fall away.

Easiest by far, I would think.

Okay, good.

Ah, there is a great crux. I used to think that Mark ended at 16.8. Maybe it did. But now I doubt it.

Only a little.

Mark could have shown Peter as the future leader of a heretical or unfaithful group, but instead he has shown Peter as the future leader of the only church that Mark hints at (such as in 10.29-30 and chapter 13 passim).

Right, their participation in the church, not some rival movement of infidels, was an historical fact at the time of Mark.

You must see a split between two different church groups somewhere in Mark, and I do not yet see it. It looks like Peter and company are slated to become a principal part of what Mark himself regards as the Jesus movement, the church, or what have you. Peter and the disciples in 10.28 are slated to be part of what Jesus praises in 10.29-30. The four in 13.3 are slated to be part of what Jesus hopes will survive in 13.9-13. Peter and the others are slated to receive a resurrection appearance from Jesus in 16.7.

Mark could have stood outside what you are calling the proto-orthodox church and criticized it roundly, but he did not. Whatever it is that Mark is counting as the historical continuation of the dominical ministry includes, not excludes, Peter and the rest of the disciples.

Ben.

JoeWallack

JW:
Ben, I Pray you didn't Strain yourself coming up with all these examples of "Mark's" Positive portrayal of the Disciples:

Mark 1: (NIV)
16 "As Jesus walked beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen. 17 "Come, follow me," Jesus said, "and I will make you fishers of men." 18 At once they left their nets and followed him."

JW:
"Mark" has an Ironic Contrasting Style primarily illustrating the change in Reaction to Jesus. The Theme throughout is that Where Jesus was initially Welcomed he is subsequently Condemned. The initial Reaction of The Disciples is to Follow Jesus for the smallest possible reason, they were asked to. This is the Contrasted Setup to All The Disciples subsequently receiving Detailed Divine Instruction as to Why they should Follow Jesus and Deiciding Not to. Note that part of the point of "John" was to appeal to a different supposed Apostolic tradition, so Peter is no longer First.

Even as part of The Unfaithfull I can appreciate "Mark's" clever Literary Style, comparing Disciples to Fishersofmen. This wasn't written by an illiterate fisherman or Interpreter drone.

Now, for a "Fair and Balanced" presentation how about listing All of "Mark's" negative portrayal of The Disciples?



Joseph

FAITH, n.
Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Ben C Smith

I thank you for your prayer.

Why would I have to strain myself to find what is so clearly there?

Certainly, Joe (well, not sure about the all part of the request, but then, I am not sure I got all of the positives either).

In Mark 8.33 Jesus calls Peter Satan, the accuser or adversary. It is possible that in Mark 9.5 Peter is being presumptuous, and he certainly comes across as more enthusiastic than knowledgeable. In Mark 14.30 Jesus douses his enthusiasm with the cold water of a denial prediction, and then 14.31 only ups the ante. In Mark 14.37 Jesus finds three disciples sleeping, but singles out Peter as especially or representatively culpable. In Mark 14.66-71 Peter thrice denies his Lord.

Those are the main examples that explicitly involve Simon Peter, but there are quite a few others that involve the disciples in general, presumably including Peter. Their denseness especially comes out in the Bethsaida section. Mark 10.13-14 stands out in my mind, too. Mark 4.13 is a mild rebuke for ignorance of how to interpret parables.

I like that. I really do. Add the part where Jesus implies that the disciples will be restored to faith and we will be in very good shape.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

I completely agree with this statement.

Ben.

andrewcriddle

Mark is probably writing some years after the death of Peter and at least most of the other apostles.

I regard it as plausible that Mark regards the apostles themselves in an ultimately positive light but is hostile to their supposed heirs who were claiming an oral tradition deriving from the apostles and valuing this over written texts such as Mark's gospel.

Andrew Criddle

JoeWallack

JW:
You've got Faith Ben. I think "Mark" would really appreciate that. Probably doesn't get tested much in the Seminary.

(NIV)
27 "You will all fall away," Jesus told them, "for it is written:
" 'I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.'[c]
28 But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee."
29 Peter declared, "Even if all fall away, I will not."
30 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "today—yes, tonight—before the rooster crows twice[d] you yourself will disown me three times."
31 But Peter insisted emphatically, "Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you." And all the others said the same."

Here are your problems Ben (and keep in mind The Shame of being compared to a woman in 1st century Israel):

1) "Mark" is Explicit that the only people who were told Jesus went on to Galilee didn't tell anyone. So any Implication would not overcome an Explicit statement.

2) Only the Failure is cited as Prophecy. A consistent Theme throughout "Mark".

3) The entire Story here does not just present Failure, it Measures Failure. Peter is given the Most attention and specific Identification of his Failure. He isn't just Guilty, he's the Guiltiest.

4) "Mark's" Jesus correctly predicts that he will precede the Galileans into Galilee. But with his clever Ironic Style it's not what you think. Jesus will resurrect and get to Galilee first. The disciples, not realizing Jesus resurrected, will return home (Galilee) thereby getting to Galilee after Jesus. Jesus doesn't say there will be any meeting.

While Jesus is Standing Tall in front of Male Authority, Peter is Denying Jesus in front of a female servant. When Peter cries (like a woman) he finally Confesses. His Failure. What better witness is there that Peter Failed than Himself?

Why does the Author need the Disciples anymore anyway? If his Soul purpose in Life is to persuade Confession of Jesus as Messiah, he already has all he needs, The Gospel. Just out of curiosity Ben, what exactly does it mean anyway to "Confess Jesus as Messiah"?

Also, what exactly happens when Jesus comes flying through the air (even though the Deparapture Time has been delayed 2,000 years which is not as hard to Believe as you might think if you've ever flown Continental) to sort out those who Confess from those who Deny?



Joseph

The Second Coming. V. After the First Coming but before the Third.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Ben C Smith

You are not implying that I am in the seminary, are you?

Always eager to have people I have never met in person recite my problems to me in list form.

In the extant abrupt ending, certainly. And even in my own little hypothetically original ending of Mark the women do not tell the disciples.

See below....

Agreed. He is singled out for some remarkably strong rebukes.

Correct.

Jesus implies that the disciples will see him in resurrected form in 14.28. How, you might ask, do I know that Jesus going before his disciples into Galilee implies that they will see him there? By reading 16.7. The young man at the tomb does say the disciples will see him there, and says that Jesus already told them so: There you will see him, just as he told you. The disciples, according to Mark, are slated to see the risen Lord.

Because he is not utterly against them; they are object lessons, but not, ultimately, reprobate failures. I have pointed out three passages in which Mark presumes that they will be restored to the faith. No good can come of ignoring those three passages.

Good question, but I fear my answer might lead us off topic.

I am pretty fond of my answer to this question. But, again, that might lead us far afield.

Ben.