gstafleu

There is another thread about the ending of Mark active, but it seems to have, err, well, it seems to have. But in it Jeffrey Gibson points to an interesting article he wrote (JSNT 27 (1986): 31–47). In it he makes the point that Mark 8:14-21 is not so much a scene where Jesus berates the disciples for being stupid, but rather for being "apostates" (my word): they refuse to accept the extension of Jesus salvation mission to the Gentiles. The fact that bread was left over after a previous feeding-the-multitudes (amongst whom many gentiles) episode signifies that there is enough salvation to go around. The obnoxious disciples however purposely refuse to take "extra bread" with them, in the hope that this enough-to-go-around bit will disappear. Thus the passage is part of an over arching theme in Mark: the mission to the Gentiles and Jewish (as symbolized by the disciples) opposition to this.

I hope I got all that right.

So now I want to practice my new-found knowledge (thanks Jeffrey ). The short, and likely original, ending of Mark is as follows:

1 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body. 2 Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3 and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?"

4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

6 "Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.' "

8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

Some searching on the web leads me to believe that Galilee is "the land of the Gentiles." Which means that "going to Galilee" means "going to the Gentiles." Now remember that the disciples, going by Jeffrey's article, are opposed to Jesus going to the Gentiles. What we then have here is the following. The women discover Jesus gone. They then get the message that he has gone to these bloody foreigners again. And they, the women, are supposed to tell that to the disciples who hate that idea? The disciples would throw the mother of all hissy fits: even once he's undead Jesus still gives preference to the Gentiles rather than to the true tribe. So of course the women are gripped by an understandable anxiety attack and wisely determine to say nothing.

Makes sense to me.

Gerard Stafleu

Amaleq13

This seems to correspond to the notion that Paul's "revealed gospel" was focused on the inclusion of the Gentiles but not with his claim that the Pillars approved of it.

Ben C Smith

You know, for an idea you hatched just a few hours ago, this is pretty good. (Not that I am biting yet, mind you, especially since it would entail taking a few positions that I do not hold at present, but I think this is an insight at least worth looking into.) Good show.

Ben.

gstafleu

Provided of course that the Pillars were the type of Jews who opposed the mission to the Gentiles. How certain is that, Pillars=disciples is not established with any kind of certainty, is it?

Gerard Stafleu

gstafleu

Thanks Ben . And you know that you should try and abandon at least three previously held positions before breakfast...

Gerard Stafleu

neilgodfrey

Everything in Jeffrey's article seems to fit except for 2 verses:

[19] When I brake the five loaves among five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? They say unto him, Twelve.
[20] And when the seven among four thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? And they said, Seven.

Don't those verses really sound like the issue is, after all, one of failing to understand the 'impossible to misunderstand' -- that Jesus has the power to provide from a very little? Why else stress the exact numbers involved both ends of the supply chain? No hint of those supplied being the wrong targets.

I like the argument in JG's article but those couple of verses still bug me. (I'm happy to have their consistency with JG's argument clarified, however.)

I'd also like to know how JG's interpretation sheds light on the disciple's reaction to the first feeding miracle in 6:49-52:

[49] But when they saw him walking upon the sea, they supposed it had been a spirit, and cried out:
[50] For they all saw him, and were troubled. And immediately he talked with them, and saith unto them, Be of good cheer: it is I; be not afraid.
[51] And he went up unto them into the ship; and the wind ceased: and they were sore amazed in themselves beyond measure, and wondered.
[52] For they considered not the miracle of the loaves: for their heart was hardened.

The disciple's fear at seeing Jesus walking on the water and shock at seeing the wind stop when he entered their boat is directly related to their failure to understand(?) the miracle of the loaves. What's this all about and does it relate to JG's argument? If not, why not?





Neil Godfrey

http://vridar.wordpress.com

Amaleq13

No, Paul tells us that they approved his mission to the Gentiles. That would be in contrast with the proposed interpretation of Mark as depicting the disciples as disapproving.

It is certainly established that the author of Mark has used the same names for Jesus' closest disciples as Paul used for his "pillars".

JoeWallack

JW:
The best understanding I've seen of "Mark" is Werner Kelber's Mark's Story of Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk) ( <edit - not funny, bub> ). In it Kelber clearly explains how "Mark" intended to discredit The Disciples. "Matthew" and "Luke" than try to discredit "Mark's" discrediting. What "Mark" intended to Communicate about The Disciples will be the next big Fence in Bible scholarship.

Kelber explains that bodies of water, especially Galilee, represent the Divide between Jew and Gentile with Jesus being the bridge. For Kelber the primary significance of Galilee in "Mark" is that it is not Jerusalem. "Mark" is in part Historical commentary on the Jewish choice of war and consequent destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem. Peter and James are left in Jerusalem mistakenly waiting for a traditional Jewish kingdom and they and this Type of Judaism are destroyed in 70. Jesus' invitation in "Mark" to go to Galilee represents the Historical movement of Judaism north after the destruction of Jerusalem and hope for a mixed community of Jews and Gentiles based on Peace and not War.



Joseph

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

gstafleu

A couple of things come to mind. First, seven and twelve are not just any numbers. Seven is a generally significant number in many cultures, Twelve holds special meaning for the Jews (tribes, number of disciples). So possibly there is an extra message here, something like "see, there was enough left over for every tribe." This might be reminiscent of that exact number of fishes mentioned in the (after resurrection I think) fish catching scene (biblegateway seems to be down, so I can't look it up, what do you expect from a programmer). Anyway, that scene has a number in it that has Pythagorean significance, possibly because someone lifted it whole hog from that tradition. But in the case of the loaves there may actually be significance re the Jesus story being told.

Then again Jesus could just be driving home a point here, emphasizing that not only were there pieces left, but that everyone even knew the actual amount of pieces, Seven and Twelve being used as the "default significant numbers."

Or of course a combination of the above: driving home the point and throwing in a message while doing so.

Gerard Stafleu

PhilosopherJay

Hii Gerard and Amaleq13,

I really like this interpretation. The need for a Jewish movement to convert Galileans (Gentiles) would have been seen as necessary by some Jews and ridiculous by others. A text showing that the crucified Christ came back from the dead specifically to ask for it could have played an important role in the argument. It really clarifies one of the primary reasons for many of the arguments in the gospel text.

The point is not that the disciples "approved" Paul's mission to the gentiles, the point is that they needed to "approve" it at all. This indicates that the normal expectation was that the disciples would disapprove. We can easily grasp that the idea that messianic Jews (Jewish Christians) should prosletyze among gentiles would have been an important and diversive issue. Doing something like that would have angered the Romans who could have seen it as a direct threat to their rule. Yet, after the debacle of the Jewish-Roman War(s), it would have become an absolute necessity from a military strategist point of view.

The use of the same names for the pillars in Paul's Galateans as the disciples in Mark's gospel can be explained simply as a later harmonization.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay