Ben C Smith

My original take on the discussion poured all of this into one pot. Positive was positive regardless of when Mark thought it had happened (during the ministry or after it, or what have you). I could have made the distinction that you are now making, but I did not at that time, nor ever claimed to.

Agree with you now? If I had been forced to exclude the future predictions (predictions from the point of view of the ministry, not of Mark the evangelist!) I could have basically agreed with that all along (except that I still see some positive apart from predictions in the call of the first disciples in Mark 1 and the contrast with the rich man in Mark 10).

Mark predicts more than a second chance which may or may not be taken advantage of; he predicts that this second chance will be taken. But I agree with you (of course I agree with you) that the primary Marcan purpose of this second chance is to highlight the goodness and plan of Jesus, not the virtues of the disciples.

The thing is, you appeared to be arguing that Mark thought that the disciples had completely disqualified themselves from profitable Christian ministry by their behavior while Jesus walked the earth, and that they would never be restored to faith. Take this exchange, for instance:

(Still fail to understand the remark about testing or not testing my faith in the seminary, BTW.)

You seemed to be arguing from that point onward that the disciples, according to Mark, did not and would not be restored. Now that you are excluding the relevant predictions in the gospel of Mark from the positive side of the ledger it appears that you are at least countenancing the possibility that Mark implies that they were indeed restored after the resurrection. Is this correct?

Completely agreed.

Wait a minute, Joe. If finding this kind of positive treatment is so easy, why did you once suggest that I had to strain myself to find it? See, even you can do it.

Ben.

JoeWallack

JW:
Ya know, I hate the Threads that Devolve into primarily trying to Prove what the other guy supposedly used to think. I've given my take on the Thread development and you've given yours. You do have a lot of Credit with me.

JW:
And this confession is what I want. What you think now is more important than what I think you used to think. I think.

JW:
Uh no Ben. My thinking hasn't changed in your favor. As typically happens, the more detail I look at the worse it looks for Christian assertians. After going in detail through "Mark 6" I now think it even more Likely that "Mark" did not intend a post resurrection appearence. Note that I still don't say I Am Certain or Forced to conclude. I still think it Possible that you are right and "Mark" wanted to imply, at a minimum, that there was a Post resurrection meeting because there is some Evidence for this.

JW:
Ouchhh! Actually, I think The Disciples were just following Instructions mechanically here. Not much detail for this. Substitute MonksKeys for Disciples and the result would have been the same.

Now that you've made clear that by Narrative Action the Disciples receive Unbalanced Negative treatment by "Mark" would you care to comment on my observation that "Mark" appears to like using the Disciples as a Negative Contrast to Counter the Positive behaviour of Strangers in related stories?

Continuing:

7: (NIV)
7 "After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? 19For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")
20He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' 21For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "
The Faith of a Syrophoenician Woman
24Jesus left that place and went to the vicinity of Tyre.[g] He entered a house and did not want anyone to know it; yet he could not keep his presence secret. 25In fact, as soon as she heard about him, a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an evil[h] spirit came and fell at his feet. 26The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.
27"First let the children eat all they want," he told her, "for it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."
28"Yes, Lord," she replied, "but even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs."
29Then he told her, "For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter."
30She went home and found her child lying on the bed, and the demon gone.
."

JW:
Shown up by a Shiksa. Dohh! Jesus explains that non-Jews are people too. Not eating Kosher doesn't make them Evil (unclean). The woman points out that non-Jews (dogs) eat the same stuff Jews do. She understands what The Disciples don't. Nice story by The Way.



Joseph

DOG, n.
A kind of additional or subsidiary Deity designed to catch the overflow and surplus of the world's worship. This Divine Being in some of his smaller and silkier incarnations takes, in the affection of Woman, the place to which there is no human male aspirant. The Dog is a survival -- an anachronism. He toils not, neither does he spin, yet Solomon in all his glory never lay upon a door-mat all day long, sun-soaked and fly-fed and fat, while his master worked for the means wherewith to purchase the idle wag of the Solomonic tail, seasoned with a look of tolerant recognition.

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

Ben C Smith

Good to hear.

Oh, well. I tried.

I do not see it in all cases, though I do in some. But even if I came to see it in every possible case it would not interfere with my persistent viewpoint that Mark is primarily negative about the disciples within the ministry proper but also points forward to a restoration.

Ben.

JoeWallack

JW:
In The Words of Inspector Clouseau, (with finger pointed into the air), "Now we are getting somewhere!" "my persistent viewpoint that Mark is primarily negative about the disciples within the ministry proper" Isn't there an Implication from this (yes, just this) that there would be no Restoration? Especially considering your Restoration is based on Implications?

Continuing:

8: (NIV)
1 "During those days another large crowd gathered. Since they had nothing to eat, Jesus called his disciples to him and said, 2"I have compassion for these people; they have already been with me three days and have nothing to eat. 3If I send them home hungry, they will collapse on the way, because some of them have come a long distance."
4His disciples answered, "But where in this remote place can anyone get enough bread to feed them?"
5"How many loaves do you have?" Jesus asked.
"Seven," they replied.
6He told the crowd to sit down on the ground. When he had taken the seven loaves and given thanks, he broke them and gave them to his disciples to set before the people, and they did so. 7They had a few small fish as well; he gave thanks for them also and told the disciples to distribute them. 8The people ate and were satisfied. Afterward the disciples picked up seven basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. 9About four thousand men were present. And having sent them away, 10he got into the boat with his disciples and went to the region of Dalmanutha."

JW:
So Ben, looks like The Disciples did get a Second chance here. They would have been the only ones here who Witnessed the earlier Miraculous feeding. I guess the Evidence from the First time didn't Produce any, any, now what's The Word?

The Original Meaning of this story for the Historical Jesus was probably The Possible. The point was that Good Teaching was Infinite. It could be shared and passed on by Many. "Mark" spun it to the Impossible.



Joseph

"You've been Wikied!" - ErrancyWiki

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

Ben C Smith

I used the term ministry proper to distinguish the (mostly negative) narrative actions before the crucifixion from the (mostly positive) predictions of what would happen afterward. Now you turn around and use the lack of positive predictions of a restoration in my term ministry proper to imply no positive restoration. That is circular. One can support anything if one first removes all evidence to the contrary.

Bottom line: The gospel of Mark both criticizes the behavior of the disciples before the resurrection and predicts (in some cases presumes) a restoration to the faith after the resurrection. You can heap up as much evidence for the former as you wish (crowds, parables, contrasts, themes) and it will not have touched the basic fact of the latter. The options are not mutually exclusive. Proving one does not disprove the other.

You are naturally free to disagree. But you have by no means convinced me of your basic thesis that Mark intended no restoration of the disciples after the resurrection. And I, too, am free to disagree.

Ben.

Amaleq13

I tend to see the ending as implying that the Disciples would see the risen Jesus in Galilee despite the fact that the women didn't tell them. After all, both the risen Jesus and the Disciples are still planning on going there. IOW, I tend to buy Ben's interpretation up to that point but I have some doubts about going beyond that to reversing the generally negative viewpoint Mark has established.

1) Jesus is headed to Galilee to make it known he has risen but it cannot be ignored that he is not described as making this journey for the benefit of the Disciples. He's going there and he knows they are going there so he knows they'll see him there. IOW, the Disciples are not identified as being as the specific, intended witnesses or as any more special than anyone else in Galilee. They'll just be in the area at the time. Jesus has gone from focusing on teaching the Disciples to focusing on teaching folks in Galilee and, "Hey, since I know you'll be in the neighborhood, we'll probably see each other." That seems to be a rather significant reduction in importance, doesn't it?

2) We are given no reason to assume that the Disciples will suddenly become any better at understanding Jesus after being surprised to see him risen than they did when he was performing miracles before their eyes as a living man.

So, I can see that it is implied that the Disciples will see the risen Jesus but I don't see any implied redemption.

JoeWallack

JW:
I have no intention of letting you Fall Away as "Mark's" Jesus let Peter. Continuing:

8: (NIV)
"The disciples had forgotten to bring bread, except for one loaf they had with them in the boat. 15"Be careful," Jesus warned them. "Watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees and that of Herod."
16They discussed this with one another and said, "It is because we have no bread."
17Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked them: "Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not see or understand? Are your hearts hardened? 18Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear? And don't you remember? 19When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up?"
"Twelve," they replied.
20"And when I broke the seven loaves for the four thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up?"
They answered, "Seven."
21He said to them, "Do you still not understand?"
22They came to Bethsaida, and some people brought a blind man and begged Jesus to touch him. 23He took the blind man by the hand and led him outside the village. When he had spit on the man's eyes and put his hands on him, Jesus asked, "Do you see anything?"
24He looked up and said, "I see people; they look like trees walking around."
25Once more Jesus put his hands on the man's eyes. Then his eyes were opened, his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly. 26Jesus sent him home, saying, "Don't go into the village.[a]"

JW:
At this point, since you agree that "Mark's" view of The Disciples was mainly Negative during The Public Ministry one might ask if I must keep hammering you into submission, reMission and Ohmission with examples -

The Waco Kid: Must you?

JW: I must, I must!

This Thread will Serve as a valuable Reference tool for the Topic. The next step will be comparing "Matthew's" treatment to "Mark's" in the comParable stories. I'll note that we now seem to be in the middle of "Mark", close to the Heart. And unless I'm off The Mark, there's some disproportionately important stuff headed Our Way:

"16They discussed this with one another and said, "It is because we have no bread."
17Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked them: "Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not see or understand? Are your hearts hardened? 18Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear?"

As Dr. Evil said to Scott in the classic "Austin Powers", "You just don't get it, do you?" The Disciples still don't get it. They don't "see". Jesus is all about What's on the Inside (Faith). Not what's on the Outside (Evidence).

"And don't you remember? 19When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up?"
"Twelve," they replied.
20"And when I broke the seven loaves for the four thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up?"
They answered, "Seven."
21He said to them, "Do you still not understand?"

In case there was any doubt that it was the Same Situation (as I pointed out before the Author likes to present the Same Story Setting, as in Jesus' Hometown, in order to Emphasize a Point. It doesn't get filtered with different details.) Even though The Disciples were put in the Same situation they still don't Understand (have Faith). What does this say about their Long Term prospects?

"22They came to Bethsaida, and some people brought a blind man and begged Jesus to touch him. 23He took the blind man by the hand and led him outside the village. When he had spit on the man's eyes and put his hands on him, Jesus asked, "Do you see anything?"
24He looked up and said, "I see people; they look like trees walking around."
25Once more Jesus put his hands on the man's eyes. Then his eyes were opened, his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly."

So once Again the ol switcheroo. The Disciples are left blind on the Inside while the Blind Man can see Clearly on the Outside. And hey, what was that Word used?:

"his sight was restored"

Interesting. The Blind Man was Restored but The Disciples weren't.

I think I See the Heart itself of "Mark" coming up...



Joseph

HEART, n.
An automatic, muscular blood-pump. Figuratively, this useful organ is said to be the esat of emotions and sentiments -- a very pretty fancy which, however, is nothing but a survival of a once universal belief. It is now known that the sentiments and emotions reside in the stomach, being evolved from food by chemical action of the gastric fluid. The exact process by which a beefsteak becomes a feeling -- tender or not, according to the age of the animal from which it was cut; the successive stages of elaboration through which a caviar sandwich is transmuted to a quaint fancy and reappears as a pungent epigram; the marvelous functional methods of converting a hard-boiled egg into religious contrition, or a cream-puff into a sigh of sensibility -- these things have been patiently ascertained by M. Pasteur, and by him expounded with convincing lucidity. (See, also, my monograph, The Essential Identity of the Spiritual Affections and Certain Intestinal Gases Freed in Digestion -- 4to, 687 pp.) In a scientific work entitled, I believe, Delectatio Demonorum (John Camden Hotton, London, 1873) this view of the sentiments receives a striking illustration; and for further light consult Professor Dam's famous treatise on Love as a Product of Alimentary Maceration.


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

Ben C Smith

I could perhaps read Mark 14.28 in isolation in the way you suggest, but Mark 16.7 looks much more like a direct command given in order to get the disciples to Galilee for an appearance. That the women (apparently) failed to tell the disciples does not take away from the implied intent.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

You have given yet another post both (A) detailing the predominantly negative portrayal of the disciples during the ministry of Jesus, a point that is not at issue, and (B) ignoring the predictions of a resurrection appearance and restoration to faith, the point that has been at issue since post #9.

I admit, the question had occurred to me....

Ben.

Amaleq13

I don't see where you get this. There is no indication that the disciples were being told to go to Galilee. Instead, it looks like they were already going to Galilee and the women were to tell them that Jesus will get there before them and they will see him there. That they intended to return to Galilee anyway makes sense if they felt beaten and dejected by the death of their leader. Where else are they going to go but home? If they hang around Jerusalem, they risk getting rounded up as former followers, don't they?

and go, say to his disciples, and Peter, that he doth go before you to Galilee; there ye shall see him, as he said to you.' (YLT)

But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you. (KJV)

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.' " (NIV)

Why should "He is going ahead of you..." read as command rather than an implied assumption that they were going there anyway?

I agree as long as the "implied intent" is to tell the disciples where the risen Jesus will be appearing. If they are going to Galilee anyway, we can still assume they witnessed the risen Jesus. If they weren't going to Galilee anyway and the command wasn't delivered, we don't even have a reason to think they witnessed the risen Jesus.

Either way, there doesn't appear to be anything in this ending that implies the disciples suddenly started to accurately understand Jesus after he appeared to them.

If the primary intent is to appear to the disciples so that they can finally understand him, why does he choose to appear in Galilee where the disciples weren't present but, according to you, needed to be told to go and not necessarily be the only, or even the first, to see him?