neilgodfrey

I have long concurred with the argument (Weeden's) that Mark's gospel is an attack on the the Twelve disciples and/or whatever theology they represented.

But now I have a problem others here may help me resolve.

Mark's gospel starts out being nice to the apostles and gives no reason that I can identify for why he suddenly decides to start putting them down as uncomprehending idiots.

The best explanation in my view is still Mary Ann Talbert's idea that they are ciphers acting out the rocky soil in the parable of the sower. I can't accept her hypothesis totally however, since I think that some of the disciples at other times demonstrate the traits of the seed sown among thorns, not unlike the rich man. (But the number Twelve was important for other reasons nonetheless.)

But the more I think about that, the more I sense a conflict with the first argument. If the disciples are parabolic figures then they start out handsomely and only go in to decline because of internal character flaws (the inability to endure the heat) -- not because they represent an acquired and particularly bad doctrinal position. The turning point in their relationship with Jesus comes just after the feeding of the 5000 when they are up against a difficult head-wind. That's when the sight of Jesus terrifies the daylights out of them. It's from that moment that it's downhill all the way. They have to go back and repeat the mass feeding lesson and still flunk it, get called Satan, blather like idiots at the transfiguration, etc.

Sure, there are some wrong beliefs in there (re the role of the messiah especially), but the fault they are attacked for is inability to continue growing after doing so well -- a lack of depth, blindness after being able to see so well. It's hard to read "a suddenly unexpected difference of opinion" into that.

That's the problem -- the incompatibility of the rocky soil parabolic role (Tolbert) with the 'attack on the theological position of the Twelve' (Weeden) arguments.

So if the gospel is a parable of the different soil types, particularly of the rocky soil, then where does it fit? If it doesn't quite fit as an attack on the wrong brand of Christianity, then how or where does it to relate to a wider historical and/or ideological context?

The author of this gospel was steeped in Jewish scriptures. One article I read discusses literally multiple scores of OT allusions in the Passion Narrative alone.

There is one constant refrain throughout those scriptures: the failure of "old Israel / people of god" and the lesson that their respective stories holds up for the "new".

• Adam starts out perfectly but ends in exile or decline;
• ditto Noah;
• ditto the history of the patriarchs from Abraham to the children of Israel in Egypt;
• ditto from the exodus to death in the wilderness;
• ditto from the conquest of Canaan to the experience of the Judges;
• ditto from the rise of the first king of Israel to his fall;
• ditto from the glory of the Davidic-Solomonic kingdom to its demise in exile;
• and ditto with so many of the individual kings along the way, including David and Solomon themselves.

All that makes sense as a constant refrain if many of those OT texts were written as a part of a process of enculturation that assisted recent generations of deportees (from Persian times) acquire a new identity. The message was repetitive: Don't be like your forefathers; you are the new people of your God; you do it right, don't be like them.

If that was the over-riding message of the Jewish writings, especially of those upheld as the most sacred, in which the author of Mark's gospel was drenched, then should we be surprised if he imitates their theme, their constant theological refrain?

Only he is adapting this theme to his own conditions, to a new time, when Israel or the new people of God, his people, no longer had a geographical area to look to, but were obliged to find a new identity and pride in being from a land of gentiles and mixed races and sinners and lepers and the demon-possessed, a Galilee in place of exclusivist Jerusalem now destroyed, led by a heavenly promised-king(dom) Joshua in place of a geographical dust-rotting Moses.

The gospel ends strangely for a "foundation myth", however. There is no pointer at all to any link between the old and the present. It ends as abruptly and negatively as the tiresome succession of OT stories listed above.

The explanation is simple: the happy ending is to be the response of the readers and hearers of the story. Don't be like them. You are their successors. You know better. Learn from their mistakes. YOU are the people of God. The new Israel. You do it right.

The rejection of the twelve disciples was a symbolic tale of the final rejection of Jerusalem and old Israel. They had been called by God -- some just ignored the message and let it fall by the wayside; others responded well for a time but withered under the heat and in the time of persecution; others were offended over having to give up riches and others over displays of wealth being showered on their leaders. The rejection of the twelve disciples, given their call to the mountain and their feeding in the wilderness, was also symbolic of the rejection of old Mosaic Israel. Judaism and Jewish-Christians both belonged to the reject pile.

The Gospel of Mark was for those who stood apart from both. Subsequent theologians, under pressure from Marcionism and other nasties, found it useful to rehabilitate and use the Twelve instead of relegating them to the reject pile. Twelve apostles could be a nice way to symbolically cement the new faith to the venerable (albeit allegorically interpreted) Jewish scriptures and old Israel.

In other words, the story of the decline and rise of the Twelve only acquires coherence in a post 70 c.e. world?

Malachi151

#1) The "twelve" disciples are purely incidental. The only ones of any importance are the three, Peter, James, and John. Mark is really an attack on Peter, James, and John, the other 12 are just a fictional supporting cast.

#2) I don't know that the Jesus character is ever really "nice" to the disciples.

I'd read my article on the matter. It covers a lot of what you have talked about in this post.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...ospel_mark.htm

yalla

Before I read Malachi's article but partly riffing off his post in the other thread I reckon we can look at the 12 as mainly functioning as a plot device for the author.
Borrowing the number from a Jewish and zodiacal motif, marrying it to the 12 in Paul and adopting some of the names in Paul, the author of gMark uses thes characters to illustrate his points. Sort of like the straight man in a comedy duo who sets up the punch line for the funny man or the Dorothy Dix questions asked of ministers in parliament by members of that party.
'Can the Minister explain why......?"/"Who's on first?"
The disciples reactions and questions, plotted by the author, allow the author to have JC explain what is really going on in the story.
The 12 perform a very convenient role.
Possibly it is also a veiled atack on those who were reputed to be the original apostles of the new religion and author "Mark" wished to disassociate his version from their authority, an attack modified by the later synoptics, but I see them as primarily oil for his vehicle.
cheers
yalla

aa5874

The fundamental problems with analysing gMark or any other book of the NT are that it cannot be determined accurately when these books were written and what information was available at time of their writing.

It cannot be determined for sure whether or not there were other stories of the Christ before gMark, and this information is extremely critical to make a proper analysis.

The authors of the NT appear to imply that the crucified Jesus of Nazareth who had 12 disciples was the first with followers, but this may completely erroneous, there may have been another Christ of another God that preceeded this Jesus, but the authors of the NT merely distorted the facts and called the first Christ,not of he God of Moses, in error, Jesus of Nazareth, son of the God of Moses.

What did the author of gMark know about the "Christ" while he was writing?

neilgodfrey

Which makes all our hypotheses tentative. But we can only work with the evidence we do have, not with what we imagine there might have been, and be humble :angel: about our conclusions.

neilgodfrey

Thanks for the link. You've put together a lot of useful references there.

My interest in the twelve is how/why they originated and subsequently became a major motif among the "orthodox" -- especially by the time of Luke-Acts where their number is very significant -- in early canonical and noncanonical writings.

I agree with you and yalla about their literary place and function in Mark. But however incidental they may have been (I think they were a bit more than that - and we also have to explain why 3 sometimes becomes 4 who are important) they were an idea that took off in a direction different from the one originally intended by Mark. So one asks how those other early authors read Mark and why they changed him.

The "niceness" on the part of the author of Mark appears in

• the most impressive immediate response of the 4 to the call of Jesus -- outdoing even Elisha's response to Elijah -- contrast their deserting him at the end;
  
• Jesus using their house as the setting for a show of private and public miracles -- contrast the mood and events in the house of a Simon at the end of the gospel;
  
• Simon and his friends searching for Jesus early in the morning -- contrast their failure to keep watch when others were seeking him at the end;
  
• their use as models of true obedience to the ways of Jesus by not fasting and by not observing the sabbath regulations in the cornfields;
  
• their being called to join Jesus on the mountain top where they are given special honours and powers;
  
• their being given the trust of going out to preach and do miracles, which they do.

The negative treatment is marked by a definite turning point, Mark 6:48 and the head-wind.

Just like a classic Jewish scripture story? Good old Israel turns bad. The lesson is for the new Israel, the hearers/readers.

aa5874

Well, my humble opinions are always tentative. Why do you think my opinions are not humble because I disagree with some of your humble opinions?

All my opinions are tentative and are subject to change with or without anyone's permission. And my opinions now do not restrict me from taking into consideration any new data which may alter my present opinion.

neilgodfrey

Woah there! Why do you think I think your opinions are not humble? No such suggestion intended. We can share thoughts without suspicion we are not really sharing thoughts, I hope.

aa5874

I just want you to know my opinion, so you don't have to imagine.

mountainman

Hi Neil,

With respect to the evidence, have
you read any of the following:

Syriac Acts of Philip
The Acts of Peter and the (11, 12 or was it 13?) Apostles
The Acts of Andrew and Matthew
The Acts of Peter and Andrew
The Acts of Thomas
The Act of Peter

And do you see in any of these writings
an attack on the "canonical Apostles"?


Best wishes,


Pete Brown