Ben C Smith

What about the fact that in this personal letter Eusebius is trying to solve an apparent contradiction between Matthew and Mark, a contradiction that is resolved if the longer ending is removed? Do you see this contingency as a potential source for bias on the part of Eusebius (bias, that is, for removing the longer ending)?

Ben.

Solo

The Peter's commendation at C.P. is in Matthew, not in Mark. There is no commendation of Peter by Jesus anywhere in Mark.

No, Ben, it is you who has to argue that the Fayyum fragment contains a scribal omission.

But even with the Galilee 'promise' in the text, Jesus himself says nothing about any sightings. He said he would 'lead' the disciples into Galilee which is open to interpretation. It is only the angel in 16:7 who thinks it's a sighting and says the promise came from Jesus. Make of it what you will.

No purchase necessary, but tell me if these are valid inferences:

1) he is pressed into service because none of the disciples was around to help;

2) he is pressed into service, as a stranger to the events surrounding Jesus (being a passer-by and arriving in the city).


That's a cute argument, Ben. Where in Mark do you see Peter as deserving of a 'sighting' if the gospel portrays him as faithless to the end ? Based on what ? The need for church unity ? Matthew ?

Jiri

Ben C Smith

You are correct. What I was actually thinking of is from Mark is 10.28-30, which is not at Caesarea Philippi.

Why do I have to argue that? I do not think the Fayyum fragment is a text of Mark. It has elements of Matthew, too. There is no reason for me to suppose that a scribe omitted anything.

Only the angel? Come on. Mark 16.7 promises a sighting, period. No fudging (maybe the angel is a lying angel; maybe the angel is only guessing; maybe...).

No, he is pressed into service because Jesus is too weak to go on from his beating(s) and the Roman soldiers are hardly going to tote that cross themselves. (Whether you see this as historical or ahistorical does not matter; that is the immediate background and the narrative logic.)

Yes, I think we can presume (in the narrative logic) that he was a stranger to those events.

Cute... and absolutely damning to your argument. IOW, even if you are right, your argument cannot be the reason you are right.

He is not deserving of a sighting. That is kind of the point, and that is where Pauline theology helps us out. You think that Mark was Paulinistic? Fine; then go the whole way. A Pauline Christ does not need to appear only to those who deserve an appearance. The fact that Peter does not deserve it, yet is promised it anyway, is one of the things that makes the whole thing Pauline in the first place.

Ben.

JoeWallack

JW:
Exxxcellent. So "Mark" with the AE still indicates that Peter was a follower of Jesus post resurrection but not based on merit as a disciple. Peter is surprised to see Jesus in Galilee and is now the first who became the last. His standing is no better than Paul's because being a disciple gave him no advantage and his authority is only based on believing in the resurrected Jesus, same as Paul. Is this what you believe?



Joseph

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

Ben C Smith

IIUC, yes, Mark with the abrupt ending (and with 14.28 and 16.7 intact) implies that Peter will soon be reinstated as a follower (unless the postresurrection appearance to him is only meant to taunt him, which I doubt but cannot rule out entirely).

Not quite as sure about the first and last thing (though that is a plausible interpretation, IMO), but yes, in my conjecture Peter is surprised to see Jesus in Galilee (as he is in John 21, incongruously given John 20, and as it looks like he will be in Peter 14).

Believe may be a loaded word here; but that is what I think or at least suspect, yes. (Which is why I do not think Mark is either pro-Peter or anti-Peter, at least not in the all-or-nothing sense that I see proposed a lot.)

Ben.

Susan2

When I was a little girl and I was afraid, I would invent happy endings. I started doing that when I was about 6 years old. My first grade teacher read us a fairy tale one day, and I was hooked. I went home and told that same story to my siblings. From there I began to add my own flair. One fairy tale became another. I'd mix them all up and invent stories of my own, all with happy endings. I would presume that this is what all little kids want?

Do you think Eusibus wanted a happy ending?

Do you think he wondered why the women were afraid?

Do you think he cared?

Solo

Oh, I see...... and the mention of persecutions for the sake of the gospel, which Peter seeks to avoid (as per Gal 6:12), you read as commendation which in your mind balances Jesus calling Peter Satan at C.P. Correct ?


I am not the one fudging: I am looking at the text of Mk 14:28 and comparing it with 16:7. Jesus does not say anything about about being seen. The angel says he does. An intelligent reader will make his or her conclusion about the purpose of the angel in the scenario(s) of one or more scribes.


Ok, fine, Ben. So you don't think Mark in the Simon of Cyrene figure meant to make a comment on the moral fibre of the absent disciples and Simon Peter specifically. I am good with that.

So, he Simon of Cyrene - being an unassuming passer-by (in the narrative logic), would not have known the saying of Jesus, made immediately after the rebuke of Peter at C.P., "if any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me".

The 'cute' was sarcastic. Technically speaking you are arguing tautologically. If Jesus preaches kingdom of God to those who repent, and Peter doesn't repent in the gospel, then it must be because he repents (and wins salvation) in the presumed lost ending of the gospel.

IOW, are assuming what you are trying to prove.

I believe you are mistaken, Ben. He who through faith is righteous shall live. said Paul. There was no compromise in him on that point. Price is right on the provenance of 1 Cor 15:3-11; it's later church co-opting Paul, not Paul.

Jiri

JoeWallack

JW:
Loomis' real name is Harvey Dubish.



Joseph

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

Amaleq13

He says he will arrive at their destination before them which seems to imply that they would meet there. :huh:

This reader thinks you are making too much of this slight difference in wording.

Even if I one understands "lead" as the verb (vs "go before"), it still implies that they would follow him to the same destination. And that implies that they would meet.

Solo

How (they are going to meet) is the big question. Jesus was not appearing to Paul. God revealed his son in Paul (i.e. in his body). This is hugely different phrasing - from my perspective. There was something happening to Paul when he burning in prophetic fevers, which he interpreted as revelations of Jesus Christ, the risen Lord.
I understand Mark to be a Pauline, and Jesus in his gospel being at once the misunderstood and failed prophet of the Nazarenes and at the same time the Pauline phantom that appears (and disappears) through the Spirit. It is the latter Jesus that resurrects, or rather is already in the state of resurrection (as he is timeless) when he teaches and performs his miracles. It is that Jesus of Nazareth that Mark asserts against the idol that Peter and the gang follow around in a naive belief he would bring the kingdom of God to earth. So they constantly misunderstand the message the phantom is telling them. Of all of the things they misunderstand, it is 'resurrection', they don't get the most. Mark has Jesus stage a demonstration of his resurrected glory by transfiguring before Peter and the Zebs. They don't get it; they do not associate resurrection with the Pauline metamorphosis (the verb metamorphomai, transfigure, or change into another form, occurs only in Mark 9 (ignore the Matthean copy) and in Paul describing the glory of morphing into the Lord by the Spirit in 2 Cor 3:18). Coming down the mountain they question what the rising from the dead means. They can't figure it out because they take it as a literal 'revival', as e.g. in the rising of Jairus daughter, i.e. a 'fleshy' body returning to life !. For this reason alone I do not credit any expansion of the gospel that would have a 'sighting' of a risen Jesus wearing flesh (or apparition thereof) as part of Mark's original purpose.

What do you want, Doug ? A cookie ? :wave:


Jiri