JoeWallack

JW:
This is not Jesus speaking here. Agreed?

Unless you want to argue that among his many other talents Jesus was also the world's foremost disguise artist (this would explain a lot - why the Tomb became empty, why the non-"Mark" disciples didn't recognize Jesus and how Jesus was seen by the Indead 500 tracts. The hole thing was an "Inside" Job.).

Methinks the phrase "tell his disciples and Peter" is another not so subtle clue that Peter has lost it (subject of course to Jeffrey's review).



Joseph

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

Solo

And I think you have read it right. Mark is I believe trying to retrofit a real incident (one traditioned about Jesus) vis-a-vis Paul's Cross theology. Jesus would have doubts of his mission and offered, in somewhat of an accusatory tone, that he would not succeed in inaugurating the Kingdom and that he would be killed. Peter took him aside, obviously upset at J's espousing suicidal ideas, but Jesus exploded in anger and called Peter "Satan" which was heard and remembered by the entourage.

When this reached Mark, he bagged it for the theory of the unique redemptive power of Jesus' sacrifice. But Mark's Jesus - unlike Paul's suffering servant who only has faith - knows his Messiahship is for real and foresees and controls everything. (This is little bit like the LAPD defence's theory of Rodney King controlling his own beating by the cops.) In reality, what likely happened (if it happened) was that Jesus was in a nasty mood, and brooding - quite possibly accusing his entourage of betrayal of his mission - and when Peter tried to talk some sense into him he blew up in his face.

In Mark's paranoid scenario in which the crucifixion is read into, and informs, the meaning of past events, the Caesarea Philippi incident acquires special significance: Peter did not know from Paul what Mark knows from Paul(when he reaches Caesarea Philippi in his script), namely that Jesus was going to be crucified for everyone else's sins.

Now, it is clear that Mark has one up on Peter and the rest of the company of Jesus disciples but he also is a good Paul's Christian (who has one up on everybody), and therefore refrains from judging them (to the point of denying them Christ's grace.) Therefore, he confirms the rendezvous in Galilee through the Lord's stand-in.

Joe Wallack denies Mark actually meant to do that. Ben and Steve deny the significance of Mk 16:8 in completing the picture.

But, as I have often observed, God gives us all our special purposes. As Christian Morgenstern once beautifully captured our Sitz im Leben:

Vice Versa

Ein Hase sitzt auf einer Wiese,
des Glaubens, niemand saehe diese
Doch, in Besitze eines Zeisses
betrachtet voll gehaltnen Fleisses
von vis-a-vis gelgnen Berg
Ein Mensch den kleinen Loeffelzwerg
Ihn aber blickt hinwiederum
ein Gott von fern an, mild und stumm.

(A rabbit sits on a meadow green
convinced it cannot be seen
but armed with Zeiss'es pair of glass
and gripped silly by the critter's sass
a man observes the hopping skill
from a thicket on a nearby hill.
And the man, in turn, falls in the eye
of God
who is fair and quiet, by and by.)

Jiri

Amaleq13

It is not written as a quote of words as they were spoken but they are words attributed to Jesus by the author. I'm not sure why the distinction matters for my position.

Whether offered as a direct quote or as a secondhand, albeit angelic, attribution, I do not consider it likely that the author would depict Jesus as having made a false promise.

JoeWallack

JW:
Let's put some Textual pressure on your position:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_16

16:7
"But go, tell his disciples and Peter, He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." (ASV)

JW:
What gives this the status of a promise from Jesus is "as he said unto you".
In the UBS Text this refers to:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_14

14:27
"Howbeit, after I am raised up, I will go before you into Galilee."

Externally:

http://www.textexcavation.com/pvindobonensis2325.html

The Fayyum Fragment:

1."[...l]ead out, when he s[a]i[d]: A[ll]
2. of you [on this] night will be scandaliz[ed]
3. [according to] what is written: I shall strike the [shep-]
4. [herd and the] sheep shall be scatter[ed. When]
5. [said] Pet{er}: Even if all, n[ot I....]
6. [...J{esu}s: Befor]e a cock twice cr[ows, thrice]
7. [you will d]en[y me]."

which looks to be by far the earliest reference to this section of "Mark" lacks 14:27. Presumably UBS has ignored The Fayyum Fragment (FF) because it has numerous minor differences with the UBS text. Ironically Nazaroo is correct that UBS does deserve some criticism but it's all in the opposite direction as Julian mentioned. The combination of this being the earliest reference and the temptation of removing the difficulty the omission of 14:27 causes assures the FF should at least be mentioned in UBS. If I can go out on a branch and make my own promise here, it is that Ehrman will make amends for this deception in the future.

Internally:

1) Peter's response completely ignores 14:27.

2) The immediately preceding verse shows abandonment of the Disciples to fulfill prophecy.

3) I've previously shown that 14:27 does not fit the chiastic structure of the section.

If 14:27 is Forged than the "as he said unto you" of 16:7 probably is as well. I think they are both Forged but I admit I do not have enough evidence to prove it. My guess is the above is enough to make you doubt if 14:27 is original but not enough to make you think it is not?

Assuming that you still think 14:27 original let me ask/confirm that 14:27 & 16:7 are the only significant textual support for your position that "Mark" intended to Imply that the Disciples would in some way see Jesus in Galilee?

If this is the case I will also point out that this situation (limited textual support for an important position) is symptomatic of Forgery. Such an important Assertian of Christianity is only supported by two slight phrases in "Mark" and goes against the Thematic and Stylistic grain. This is exactly what will allow me to accept that 14:27 is original and still successfully argue that "Mark" probably did not intend a Galilee reunion.



Joseph

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

Amaleq13

I have to admit that Peter's response completely ignores 14:28 (just a slip?) and that does make it look like an interpolation but (everybody's got one) it seems odd that the interpolator didn't use the entire phrase (ie a reference to seeing them in addition to preceding them). Space constraints on the scroll?

Are you thinking that this interpolator is also responsible for the extended dance version ending? It seems odd for him to introduce a promise into the text without also adding a depiction of it being fulfilled but the added ending is no less critical of the disciples than the rest of the story. :huh:

So, our interpolator has carefully inserted both the original promise and the reminder as a fairly minimal effort to rehabilitate the disciples? Then somebody else who generally agreed with Mark and against the interpolator added the extra scenes? Or did the extra ending get added first?

Good guess. Even as an interpolation, I'm not sure it requires that 16:7 be an interpolation. Including the original promise earlier in the text makes for good literature but, to be honest, I had forgotten about the earlier reference and was willing to accept the angelic message without it. How much more accepting would a person of faith be?

As far as I recall (for what that has been demonstrated to be worth), yes.

Perhaps but it seems like a pretty ineffectual interpolation if the goal was to rehabilitate Pete and company.

Agreed but I still find it more plausible as a response to historical constraints (ie it was generally known that Peter, et. al. claimed to have seen the risen Christ) than as interpolations.

Ben C Smith

The extended dance version ending. :rolling:

And all this time I have been stuck with some colorless term like the longer ending.

Ben.

Solo

....or perhaps a sign that Joe is off da Mark ?

....not so fast, Doug. If Peter ignores 14:28, as a reprieve from Jesus, it may well be because he believes the charge itself is unjustified. So if Mark's Jesus intended to say in 14:27-28, "you will deny me...but you will be pardoned", then Peter's reply is "no, I will not deny you".

I'd say that neither interpolation (if 14:28/16:7 are interpolated) makes much sense without the other. The promise of J. to go ahead to Galilee, needs some kind of meaningful continuance, and the angel's reference to Galilee is entirely redundant, if not ex-voto to the Mount of Olives promise. (in, 16:6 the apparition confirms Jesus' ascension by pointing to the "absence of body", i.e. re-referencing the transfigured J. on the mountain in 9:2-7; in 16:8 the women flee trembling and astonished, i.e. confirming they "received" the words of Lord's emissary. No more would have been needed for Mark to close the story).

Jiri

Amaleq13

I've been reconsidering the likelihood of interpolation.

What Peter is ignoring is more than just a reprieve but an announcement of the resurrection and a promise of a subsequent reuniting in Galilee. Instead, he focuses on himself and that seems to fit in with the general theme of depicting Peter and Co. as continually missing the point. That they need to be reminded of this later is yet another.

Ben C Smith

In Mark 10.28 there is a somewhat similar instance of Peter skipping over something in the conversation to answer a previous point. Mark 10.25 is the saying about how hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom. Then, in 10.26-27, the disciples ask who can be saved (probably thinking that, if the rich cannot be saved, then nobody can), and Jesus answers that all things are possible with God. But then in the next verse Peter avers that he and the others have left everything (that is, become poor) to follow Jesus. It appears he is still thinking about verse 25, reminding Jesus that he and the other disciples are not rich men. His answer does not really deal with all things being possible with God.

Ben.

Amaleq13

No, he just focuses on himself. Again.