Ben C Smith

Two words for you: Interlibrary loan. I live on it. (Almost makes paying taxes worthwhile. Almost.)

I always enjoy Weeden, though I disagree with him frequently. Also try The Passion in Mark, edited by Kelber. For a more conservative approach nobody beats Martin Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark. Commentaries are always helpful; I like the Word Biblical Commentary on Mark (in two volumes).

Online, Michael Turton has a lot of good stuff in his Historical Commentary, though I imagine you already knew that.

Ben.

JoeWallack

JW:
Perhaps I underestimated you Ben. Not your Reason. Your Faith. "The evidence of the text itself forces us to conclude". Sadly, this is the consensus of Mainstream Christian Bible scholarship. It is also Bad X-Uh-Jesus. It would normally be unusual to have a Forced Conclusion for something not Explicitly stated. In the present situation, with the additional Evidence I've already presented indicating "Mark" considered The Disciples in General and Specifically Peter Total Failures (and I'm only on Chapter 4) it would be something more than "unusual".

Let's take a Closer look at The Parable:

4:17 (ASV)
"and they have no root in themselves, but endure for a while; then, when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, straightway they stumble."

http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Ma...ter=4&verse=17

4:17 "καὶ οá½?κ ἔχουσιν ῥίζαν á¼?ν ἑαυτοῖς ἀλλὰ Ï€Ï?όσκαιÏ?οί εἰσιν εἶτα γενομένης θλίψεως á¼¢ διωγμοῦ διὰ τὸν λόγον εá½?θὺς σκανδαλίζονται"

We've seen "fall away" also but this Greek word isn't just "fall away":

BDAG:

"σκανδαλίζω (σκάνδαλον) 1 aor. �σκανδάλισα. Pass.: 1 fut. σκανδαλισθήσομαι; 1 aor. �σκανδαλίσθην; pf. ptc. �σκανδαλισμ�*νος; (LXX, Aq., Sym., Theod.; PsSol 16:7; TestSol; AscIs 3:14 [but not in Test12Patr, EpArist, Philo, Joseph., apolog.]; Cat. Cod. Astr. X 67, 23; Christian authors).
�* to cause to be brought to a downfall, cause to sin (the sin may consist in a breach of the moral law, in unbelief, or in the acceptance of false teachings)
â“? τινά someone (Mal 2:8 Sym., Theod.; PsSol 16:7 γυναικὸς σκανδαλιζοÏ?σης ἄφÏ?ονα; Palladius 5 p. 21 σκανδαλίσαι ψυχήν) Mt 5:29f; 18:6, 8f; Mk 9:42f, 45, 47; Lk 17:2; 1 Cor 8:13ab; 1 Cl 46:8.—Pass. be led into sin (Sir 23:8; 32:15; AcJ 82 [Aa II/1, 192, 1]) so perh. 2 Cor 11:29 (s. 2 below).—The abs. pass. can also mean let oneself be led into sin (for the ‘permissive pass.’ s. Gildersleeve, Syntax I §167), fall away (Passio Perpet. 20, 10 vGebh.; MartPt 3 [Aa I p. 82, 22]) Mt 13:21; 24:10; Mk 4:17; 14:27, 29; J 16:1; D 16:5.—á¼?σκανδαλισμ�*νοι Hv 4, 1, 3; m 8:10 are people who have been led astray, but who have not altogether fallen away fr. the faith.
ⓑ σκανδαλίζεσθαι ἔν τινι (Sir 9:5; 23:8; 32:15) be led into sin, be repelled by someone of Jesus; by refusing to believe in him or by becoming apostate fr. him a person falls into sin Mt 11:6; 13:57; 26:31, 33 (cp. AscIs 3, 14 δώδεκα οἱ μετ᾽ α�τοῦ ὑπ᾽ α�τοῦ σκανδαλισθήσονται); Mk 6:3; Lk 7:23. �ν ᾧ � ἀδελφὸς σκανδαλίζεται Ro 14:21 v.l.
â‘¡ to shock through word or action, give offense to, anger, shock (AcJ 56 [Aa II/1 p. 178, 35]; Athanasius, Vita Anton. 81; Palladius 37 p. 115 σκανδαλίζω πολλοÏ?Ï‚; 46 p. 136) τινά someone Mt 17:27 (JDerrett, NovT 6, ’63, 1–15); J 6:61. Pass. Mt 15:12.—τίς σκανδαλίζεται; perh. who has any reason to take offense? 2 Cor 11:29 (s. 1a above).—S. σκάνδαλον, end.—DELG s.v. σκάνδαλον. M-M. EDNT. TW."

Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. 2000. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. "Based on Walter Bauer's Griechisch-deutsches Wr̲terbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frhüchristlichen [sic] Literatur, sixth edition, ed. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, with Viktor Reichmann and on previous English editions by W.F. Arndt, F.W. Gingrich, and F.W. Danker." (3rd ed.) . University of Chicago Press: Chicago

JW:
We have a primary meaning of "downfall" in the context of a Religious Follower. The subject was described earlier in The Parable as:

"and when the sun was risen, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away."

indicating Finality. After the Key Parable describing the Types of Disciples "Mark's" Jesus explains proper Disciple Behaviour:

9:42 (ASV)
"And whosoever shall cause one of these little ones that believe on me to stumble, it were better for him if a great millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea."

http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Ma...ter=9&verse=42

καὶ ὃς ἂν σκανδαλίσῃ ἕνα τῶν μικÏ?ῶν τούτων τῶν πιστευόντων εἰς á¼?μέ καλόν á¼?στιν αá½?Ï„á¿· μᾶλλον εἰ πεÏ?ίκειται μύλος ὀνικὸς πεÏ?ὶ τὸν Ï„Ï?άχηλον αá½?τοῦ καὶ βέβληται εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν

There's the word again, "σκανδαλίσῃ". Bring about the downfall of a Religious follower. Now you might initially like the use of the same word in the following explanations indicating sacrificing whatever causes the downfall in order to be Restored, but in all instances you still have to Sacrifice the Cause of the "σκανδαλίσῃ". This is the Likely message of "Mark" here, Peter, as well as all the Disciples, had to be sacrificed because they brought Disbelief. "Mark" incidently uses "Children" as The Example of future Believers because Children Believe based on Faith and not Evidence. Now the "Author" has skillfully set up:

14:27 (ASV)
"And Jesus saith unto them, All ye shall be offended: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered abroad."

http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Ma...er=14&verse=27

καὶ λέγει αá½?τοῖς á½? Ἰησοῦς ὅτι πάντες σκανδαλισθήσεσθε ὅτι γέγÏ?απται πατάξω τὸν ποιμένα καὶ Ï„á½° Ï€Ï?όβατα διασκοÏ?πισθήσονται

JW:
I think I can say with a clear conscience that "offended" Crosses the line between Possible and Impossible translation because there's that word again:

"σκανδαλισθήσεσθε"

"the downfall of a Religious follower"

Thus, based on "Mark's" set-up, it's Likely that "σκανδαλισθήσεσθε" is in a Final sense here. Not that it's necessary but the Fayyum Fragment also indicates that 14:28 may be a Forgery.

If I was Like you here I would say that all this forces me to Conclude that "Mark" intended Peter to be a Total and Final Failure no matter what Evidence you present to the Contrary. But that would also be bad X-Uh-Jesus. Therefore, I only Conclude it Likely that "Mark" did not intend a Post resurrection Re-Training Program but I accept that you have some Evidence that he did. Just not enough. This is Good X-Uh-Jesus. Obviously the Long Ending indicates that Christianity was God willing and able to make much more Significant changes than the Type of Evidence you are presenting here to Conclude Post resurrection sighting.

To be Continued...



Joseph

"Follow me! Uh oh, Simon didn't say." - "Mark's" Jesus

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

JoeWallack

JW:
5: (NIV)
1 "They went across the lake to the region of the Gerasenes.[a] 2When Jesus got out of the boat, a man with an evil[b] spirit came from the tombs to meet him. 3This man lived in the tombs, and no one could bind him any more, not even with a chain. 4For he had often been chained hand and foot, but he tore the chains apart and broke the irons on his feet. No one was strong enough to subdue him. 5Night and day among the tombs and in the hills he would cry out and cut himself with stones.
6 When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and fell on his knees in front of him. 7He shouted at the top of his voice, "What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? Swear to God that you won't torture me!" 8For Jesus had said to him, "Come out of this man, you evil spirit!"
9 Then Jesus asked him, "What is your name?"
"My name is Legion," he replied, "for we are many." 10And he begged Jesus again and again not to send them out of the area.
11 A large herd of pigs was feeding on the nearby hillside. 12The demons begged Jesus, "Send us among the pigs; allow us to go into them." 13He gave them permission, and the evil spirits came out and went into the pigs. The herd, about two thousand in number, rushed down the steep bank into the lake and were drowned.
14Those tending the pigs ran off and reported this in the town and countryside, and the people went out to see what had happened. 15When they came to Jesus, they saw the man who had been possessed by the legion of demons, sitting there, dressed and in his right mind; and they were afraid. 16Those who had seen it told the people what had happened to the demon-possessed man—and told about the pigs as well. 17Then the people began to plead with Jesus to leave their region.
18As Jesus was getting into the boat, the man who had been demon-possessed begged to go with him. 19Jesus did not let him, but said, "Go home to your family and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and how he has had mercy on you." 20So the man went away and began to tell in the Decapolis[c]how much Jesus had done for him. And all the people were amazed."

JW:
The author has skillfully merged here a Story of Faith and the Historical Roman occupation but still:

"They went across the lake" - A contrast to the Previous Story (about the disciples)

"When Jesus got out of the boat, a man with an evil[b] spirit came from the tombs to meet him. 3This man lived in the tombs, and no one could bind him any more, not even with a chain. 4For he had often been chained hand and foot, but he tore the chains apart and broke the irons on his feet. No one was strong enough to subdue him." - A man with an Evil spirit that is Fierce. Compare to Furious Squall/Wind/Air/Spirit in the Previous story. The Furious Squall though was External. The Fierce Spirit is Internal.

"He shouted at the top of his voice, "What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God?" - He knows Who Jesus is compared to The Disciples.

"The demons begged Jesus, "Send us among the pigs; allow us to go into them." - The Demons Know that Jesus has The Power compared to the Disciples.

So the Disciples are used as an Example and Contrasted with Someone Healed:

Even though the Disciples are on the Inside and First:

1) They don't know who Jesus is (Who is this?). The Demons and Stranger do.

2) The Furious/Fierce Storm/Spirit is External for the Disciples but Internal for the Demon Stranger.

3) The Demon Stranger has Faith that Jesus has The Power. The Disciples don't.

4) Jesus Heals The Disciples External problem and the Demon Stranger's Internal one.

5) The Disciples end up Terrified while the Stranger ends up Calm (as in Calming The Storm).



Joseph

"Break on through to the "other" side" - JimM

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

Ben C Smith

You are mistaken. There is nothing in my faith that requires Mark to restore Peter.

It took three posts to get you to directly address Mark 16.7, and it looks like it might take another few to get you to directly address Mark 13.

Ben.

JoeWallack

JW:
Still think that "Mark's" treatment of The Disciples is Fair and "Balanced" or is Peter Restoration based on The 3 (Evidence of (the) trinity?) Places?



Joseph

"Hee, heeeh!" - Dave

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

Ben C Smith

Fair seems beyond the scope of this inquiry, but the treatment that the disciples receive at the hands of Mark is mostly negative throughout the body of the gospel; that negative treatment, however, is balanced by the promise of their positive restoration after the resurrection, a restoration hinted at in several spots in the body of the gospel.

If the three places you are referring to are Mark 10.28-31, Mark 13, and Mark 16.7, then yes, the predicted restoration of Peter is based on those passages.

Ben.

Amaleq13

"But many that are first shall be last; and the last first." (10:31, KJV)

Shouldn't the first "first" be read as a reference to either the disciples, in general, or Peter, specifically? And doesn't placing them "last" present a problem for your interpretation?

Ben C Smith

I read the first as referring to (people like) the rich man in 10.17-22, and the last as referring to anybody who, as per 10.29, has left family and land to follow Jesus. And, in context, it is (at least) the disciples who have left family and land to follow Jesus.

Ben.

Amaleq13

I don't see how the rich man can be considered included since he has not given up his belongings, there is no indication in the text that he plans to become one of them and an apparent implication that he won't since he leaves the story grieving the notion.

I agree that the disciples are clearly identified as among those mentioned in 10:29-30 but Jesus follows that inclusion with the place-reversing statement. Given that the disciples are part of the named group, how could they be anything but the first members of it? Certainly nobody in the story gave up their way of life before them.

The only mitigating factor, I think, is that they are not excluded from the group but placed last.

Ben C Smith

He is not, in my view, included in the blessings of Mark 10.30. Far from it!

Right; the rich man is not throwing his lot in with those who have abandoned family and land.

Correct.

Correct. In giving up the things that would have made them prominent in this life the disciples have set themselves up to be prominent in the age to come.

Oh, oh, oh, I see. You are taking first as meaning the first (timewise) to get into the group.... I do not read it that way at all. I take Ï€Ï?ωτοι to mean most important or prominent. You know, like when the Testimonium Flavianum talks about the principal men among us; same Greek word, and it surely does not mean that these were the first to become men among us. Rather, they were the most prominent citizens, the leaders.

Mark has already set us up for this dominical saying in 9.35:

If anyone wants to be first [Ï€Ï?ωτος], let him be last [εσχατος] of all and servant of all.

First and last here are about lordship and servanthood (that is, social rank), not about temporal priority.

In my reading the rich man is one of the Ï€Ï?ωτοι (foremost, prominent, important ones) who will be last (in the age to come), while the disciples are among the εσχατοι (least significant, unimportant ones) who will be first (in the age to come).

Ben.