Amaleq13

You were arguing against the notion that the promised meeting in Mark countered your "negative" points 2-4. However you interpret that promise or the nature of that meeting, it still carries the same apparently positive connotation for Peter. He is promised something good. You seem to me to be hyper-parsing and still failing to counter the claim.

I tend to agree but he didn't seem to have a problem describing his revelatory experience as an appearance:

"...have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?..." (1Cor9:1)

I think it is your perspective that makes it seem hugely different.

There is no implied comprehension in Mark's promised meeting. There is a promised appearance/revelation but not a promised correct understanding. In fact, I would argue that absence of anything countering the preceding consistent theme of failed understanding implies that they didn't. Your Pauline author can continue to assert that they still got it wrong while acknowledging they claimed to have had resurrection experiences.

That one really only works in response to a claimed achievement. You would have been better off with a comment about "intelligent reader".

Solo

Where did Mark's Jesus promise anything to Peter ?

Jesus said in 14:28 he was going to lead the disciples into Galilee. Are we in agreement they would only see him if they went there ? The angel in 16:7 says to the women to tell the disciples that Jesus has gone to Galilee where they would see him, as he says (or interprets what) Jesus said. But the women say nothing to no-one.

So, where is any promise invoved in that ? It would only happen if they followed Jesus...i.e. took their cross and followed him....but in Mark they didn't. In the original Mark they do not know he is risen (in the Pauline way) because they do not have faith.

So perhaps the great mystery of Jesus 'appearances' (as the man who walked or his hallucinated appartion) would be in the Petrines' reading Mark's gospel (!!!) and saying...hey, he wasn't there, but Peter and our mentors were, and they walked with Jesus, not Paul. So, how would Mark know (!) about what happened...after the cross ?

(What did the Petrines believe about Jesus death and post-mortem before they read Mark ? Glad you asked: take a peek at the thread My Review of the Empty Tomb; there are some ideas floated there.)


Ok, a 'gotcha', chalk one up ... all I can say is that Paul's 'seeing' is of a different kind..it is meant metaphorically, i.e. does not relate to seeing Jesus as either the man who walked or his ghost.

They are hugely different. It's the difference, as Alan Watts put it brilliantly, between eating a steak and eating a menu page with steak printed on it.

Look, you are perfectly in your rights to have a different opinion. You see Mark gracing Peter with forgiveness and a promise of seeing the Lord. I am ok with that; I mean there is nothing I can do about the science that goes into your convictions. Just show me your support for the idea that Mark's Jesus would be appearing to vainglorious hypocrites.

My Pauline author ? Are you trying to make a deal with me ? I am flattered by the offer, but no, thank you.

But you reacted to that remark with this reader which obviously means you felt I was offering to stroke your ego. But that was not my intent.

Jiri

Amaleq13

14:28 Rolling your eyes at that makes no sense. Surely you aren't going to deny that telling someone what you intend to do in the future constitutes a promise?

Yeah, he promised to go there before them.

Yes. And the promise clearly implies that he believed they would.

So? When Jesus made the original promise, he clearly thought they were returning to Galilee and that certainly seems like the most logical destination especially if they thought he was dead.

promise: 1. a declaration that something will or will not be done, given, etc., by one

Jesus said they would but he would get there first.

Yep, they won't have their experiences until they return to Galilee in defeat.

Bigger fonts and repeating the assertion notwithstanding, you haven't made the case.

No, I see Mark depicting Peter, et al as consistently missing the point and acknowledging their resurrected Christ experiences without conceding any authority to them.

Yes, that is the perception I am informing you was mistaken and which resulted in the off-target effort.

Ben C Smith

That is one of the things that makes the John 21 conjecture attractive (and bear in mind that it is still only a conjecture, while the promised meeting in our extant text of Mark is certainly not). Commentators have long remarked that, despite its being set up as the third postresurrection appearance by Jesus, it looks and sounds like a first appearance. And Peter and company certainly think he is dead in the apparent parallel in Peter 14.60 when they pack their tackle boxes.

Maybe the font just was not quite big enough even yet. I am confident that adding about 50% to the font size the next time round would finally convince me.

And here, Doug, have a cookie.



Ben.

Ben C Smith

Ah, thanks.

JoeWallack

JW:
As an introduction to what was the original ending here is a summary of Metzger's summary of External evidence. Note that Metzger summarizes by conclusion (ending):

Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart, 1971), pages 122-126.

1) AE (Abrupt Ending)

Manuscript

א - Oldest

B - Oldest

Sinaitic Syriac

one hundred Armenian manuscripts

the two oldest Georgian manuscripts

Patristic

Clement

Origen

Eusebius

Jerome

Ammonius

Scribal

Notes that older Greek lacked it

Codes for spurious addition

2) SE & LE (Short ending & Long ending)

Manuscript

Greek L Ψ 099 0112

several Sahidic

several Bohairic

not a few Ethiopic manuscripts

Scribal

margin of the Harelean Syriac

3) LE (Long ending)

Manuscript

A C D K W X Δ Θ Π Ψ 099 0112 f 13 28 33 al

Patristic

Irenaeus

Diatessaron

4) EE (Extended ending)

Manuscript

Codex Washingtonianus

Patristic

Jerome

Everyone is welcome to comment except for Harvey Dubish.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Solo

I am surely going to deny that Jesus promises (in 14:28) to meet the disciples in Galilee.

Yeah, he did that !

To you perhaps: but would that be a given to Pauline church at the time of Mark ?

Jesus clearly thought ? Or the 'intelligent reader' Doug thinks Jesus clearly thought ?

Ben saying to Doug he would be going before him to New Jersey does not clearly imply a promise of Ben meeting Doug there. You follow ?



Yes, we have no bananas,... but no they will not see da Lord until they have faith, take up their their cross and follow da man.

I haven't made the case with you, so it seems. But you are right, one cannot cure blindness by increasing the size of the font.


: hmmm,....... 'acknowledging their resurrected Christ experiences without conceding any authority to them'...... Would that be like 'putting their hand into a cookie jar without permission, and getting away with it ' ?

Perceptions aside, Doug, it is a fact I wrote an 'intelligent reader would know what to make of x' and you responded to it 'this reader thinks y'.

So if I was mistaken in thinking you might want a cookie, i.e. if you do not think of yourself as an intelligent reader , I apologize.

Jiri

Solo

Just what one would expect from a biblical literalist !

Jiri

Ben C Smith

And yet you got it from a biblical nonliteralist.

Ben.

DCHindley

Hmm,

I have it from tradition that Harvey Dubish was born 24 Aug 1937, and subsequently died 20 Jan 1995, in Hennepin, Minnesota, and I presume one could check the archives if doubt remains.

Are you claiming Loomis has returned from the dead?

DCH