Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ben C Smith · 05-19-2008, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

I think this argument assumes that Peter & Co. heard it the second time.

I do not think so. Rather, the argument assumes only that the angel knew, and was telling the truth. If the angel knew, and if the angel was telling the truth, then Mark is imagining that Peter did meet the risen Lord, whether he narrates that meeting or not.

Nothing depends on whether Peter heard the angelic announcement (through the women, for example) or not.

Ben.

ETA: It also depends, of course, on Mark 14.28 and 16.7 being genuine to Mark; arguments have been advanced on this board before, based primarily on papyrus Vindobonensis 2325, that the former is not, and that the latter falls with it.

ETA: What, BTW, does the restoration of Peter after the three denials have directly to do with the restoration of relations between Peter (Cephas) and Paul after Antioch? Are you saying that one is a code for the other?

Jeffrey Gibson · 05-20-2008, 02:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Quote:

Jeffrey (writing from Oxford)

Welcome to Britain!

Thanks!

Quote:

(So what are you doing here then?)

On holiday and visting old Oxford friends and old Oxford haunts.

Jeffrey

Malachi151 · 05-20-2008, 05:34 AM

I think that the Gospel of Mark is certainly one of the most fascinating pieces of literature of all time, and also certainly the most influential.

You left out one of the greatest ironic scenes in Mark though, one that actually inspired a lot of different legends and the entire Islamic view of who Jesus was.

From my article: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...ospel_mark.htm

Quote:

Mark 15:
6 Now at the festival he used to release a prisoner for them, anyone for whom they asked. 7 Now a man called Barabbas was in prison with the rebels who had committed murder during the insurrection. 8 So the crowd came and began to ask Pilate to do for them according to his custom. 9 Then he answered them, 'Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?' 10 For he realized that it was out of jealousy that the chief priests had handed him over. 11 But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release Barabbas for them instead. 12 Pilate spoke to them again, 'Then what do you wish me to do with the the King of the Jews?' 13 They shouted back, 'Crucify him!' 14 Pilate asked them, 'Why, what evil has he done?' But they shouted all the more, 'Crucify him!' 15 So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released Barabbas for them; and after flogging Jesus, he handed him over to be crucified.

This passage is quite interesting, because it is here that many threads of the story are drawn together. Here Pilate is portrayed as a just and caring ruler, while the Jews are portrayed as an unjust, bloodthirsty, mob. All of the elements of the story so far that have presented various failings of Jews are put into a direct comparison here between Jews and Gentiles, and the story clearly depicts the Gentiles as the good and just ones and the Jews as the unjust transgressors.

There are other elements of interest as well. Line 6 talks about a tradition of releasing a prisoner during the Passover festival, but such a practice is not recorded anywhere else and is highly unlikely, because even holding executions during the holy festival would have been against Jewish law, so they would not have had occasion to release prisoners prior to an execution during the Passover festival because they didn't hold executions during the Passover festival in the first place.

The point of the story-element, however, is not lost on the reader. It is interesting to note that Barabbas literally means "son of the Father". As we have discussed, "Abba" means Father in Aramaic, and bar means "son of". In fact, the original text of Mark may have called Barabbas "Jesus Barabbas", not simply Barabbas. Thus, the two men on trial were not Jesus and Barabbas, but two men, both known as "Jesus Barabbas". Such a reading is not preserved in any of the extant Gospel texts, but there are several 2nd and 3rd century third-party references to the use of "Jesus Barabbas" in this context, and this is, in part, where the tradition developed which claimed that Jesus wasn't crucified, but instead a different man was crucified in his place. This is something that was expounded upon in later stories and is a belief of Muslims today. It all stems from this story element, where the author of Mark has the freed man named "Barabbas" or "Jesus Barabbas", thus some readers later believed that "Barabbas" was actually "Jesus Christ" and this developed into a rationalization for how someone could seemingly come back to life. The rationale went that Barabbas was actually Jesus and that the man crucified was someone else, and that really the man who people saw after the crucifixion was Barabbas, who was really Jesus all along, etc. The silly thing about all of this is that the entire rationalization is built on a fictional story line in the first place. At any rate, that is the history behind this alternate belief.

The intent of the author, however, was to construct a parable and introduce irony. It is also important to note that Barabbas was not a normal name and is not attested to in other sources. The name is only found here in the Gospels, and it is thus highly unlikely that this was a real name at all and it is all the more likely that this entire scene is fabricated with symbolic intent.

JoeWallack · 05-20-2008, 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The best evidence within Mark itself of Peter's future restoration is the combination of Mark 14:27-28 and Mark 16:7

Andrew Criddle

Hi, Andrew,

I think this argument assumes that Peter & Co. heard it the second time. But they did not if you accept the shorter ending of Mark. The first time they they contradict Jesus protesting they would not fall away and be the witness of the Passion. The second time the message does not reach them.

The statement "go before you in Galilee" in Mark 16:7 I think needs to be read as self-referencing. Intuitively, it suggests the self-fulfilment of the gospel : it is saying to the Petrine succession: it is written by the Spirit - you are coming to Galilee (i.e. to us, the Gentile church of the Crucified Messiah).

Jiri

JW:
This Thread is for discussing Irony in "Mark". The Thread for discussing what "Mark" wanted to show as Peter's future as a Jesus' evangelist is:

"The Simontic Problem" - An Inventory Of "Mark's" Negative Casting Of Peter

where I demonstrate that "Mark" had a primary theme of Discrediting Peter as a witness to Jesus:

Quote:

Stage 1 of "The Simontic Problem" was an Inventory of "Mark's" Negative Casting of Peter:

Major Negative Casting:
1) 4:15 The Parable of the Sower specifically refers to Peter as in the category of Disciple Failure.

2) 8:32 Peter is presented as the Opposition to the Passion.

3) 14:30 Jesus predicts that Peter will Deny him Three times.

4) 14:53-72 Peter Denies Jesus Three times.

Minor Negative Casting:
1) 1:29-31 Sickness in Simon's house.

2) 3:16 Jesus gives Simon an extra name, "Peter".

3) 6:3 The name "Simon" is assigned to a brother of Jesus who is presented unfavorably.

4) 14:1-9 A Simon is presented as a Leper.

5) 14:37 Jesus demotes Peter by using his pre-Disciple name, "Simon" to address him.

6) 14:34-42 Peter Fails to Watch out for Jesus.

7) 14:72 Peter mourns the loss of his life for Denying Jesus.

8) 15:21 Peter Simon is figuratively replaced as Leader of Jesus' followers.

Stage 2 was an Inventory of "Mark's" Jesus' Formulas to Identify Disciple Failure and How Peter meets the definitions of Failure:

1) 4:10-17 The Preter Mature Evacuation Problem. Disciples who quickly follow Jesus and just as quickly lose a Jesus' direction.

2) 8:29 Simon Didn't Saay. Explaining How Jesus was the Jewish Messiah by not being the Jewish Messiah. Don't think, just let (the) spirit do the talking. Messiah wrong, Son of God right. Right turn Claudius.

3) 8:31-38 The Jewdie Mind Trick. Don't think, do. It's not enough to just think Passion like Jesus. You have to do Passion. Disciples who at NT crunching Times, are afraid to Affirm Jesus and Deny themselves (their earthly life).

4) 9:35-37 & 10:13-15 Cutting off your own hands, feet, eyes, High Priest's servant's ear and even your Peter to keep from stumbling if your are outside of Austin, Texas. Potential followers of Jesus are determined based on what Jesus thinks and not what you think Jesus thinks. Think about it.

5) 13:33-37 & 14:29-43 Wake up and go to sleep. How to observe if you snore while you sleep. Disciples who fail to keep Watch for Jesus by not being awake while they are sleeping.

Stage 3 is "Mark's" potential Counter to the Negative Inventory above. Does "Mark" provide any Specific praise of Peter to counter all the Negative press. Keep in mind that "Mark" was written before the other Gospels so the Reader would not have a pre-conceived notion of Peter based on subsequent Christianity.

Our Inventory of "Mark's" Jesus' specific praise for Peter is as follows:

Stage 4 is "Matthew" and "Luke's" Reaction to this lack of praise for Peter:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Matthew_16

15 "He saith unto them, But who say ye that I am?

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven.

18 And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

19 I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

JW:
When "Mark's" Peter needed it the most "Matthew's" Jesus gives him the highest praise. Note that "Matthew" even has Peter making the proper declaration "Son of God".

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Matthew_19

27 "Then answered Peter and said unto him, Lo, we have left all, and followed thee; what then shall we have?

28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, that ye who have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

That sounds promising.

Thus we have it on good authority that "Matthew" saw "Mark's" lack of specific praise for Peter as a serious problem that needed to be corrected.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Luke_22

31 "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan asked to have you, that he might sift you as wheat:

32 but I made supplication for thee, that thy faith fail not; and do thou, when once thou hast turned again, establish thy brethren."

JW:
Note that this is a direct Reaction to "Mark's" Peter. "Luke" receives the Peter/Satan tradition and provides her solution. Note that "Luke" moves from Jesus' Intervention here for Peter's Heroine problem to Explicit Rehabilitation:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Acts_1:15

"And in these days Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren, and said (and there was a multitude of persons [gathered] together, about a hundred and twenty),"

(ppst. Neal, I definitely think this 120 is figurative).

Thus we have it on good authority that "Luke", like "Matthew", saw "Mark's" lack of specific praise for Peter as a serious problem that needed to be corrected.

Joseph

"The Simontic Problem" - An Inventory Of "Mark's" Negative Casting Of Peter

Solo · 05-20-2008, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

I think this argument assumes that Peter & Co. heard it the second time.

I do not think so. Rather, the argument assumes only that the angel knew, and was telling the truth. If the angel knew, and if the angel was telling the truth, then Mark is imagining that Peter did meet the risen Lord, whether he narrates that meeting or not.

Nothing depends on whether Peter heard the angelic announcement (through the women, for example) or not.

Ben.

This does not work for me, Ben. There is no reason to question the angel's motives. The messenger tells the women "go tell" and they run away "without telling". I assume Mark wrote it that way with a purpose. My reading of that purpose: to those to whom it is not given, the resurrection is revealed through the Spirit writing the gospel in parables.

This is how I read Mark's mysterious access to Jesus through the Spirit (4:10):

και οτε (and when) εγενετο ((he) was - functions as 3p.sg. aorist ειμι) κατα μονας (alone) ηρωτων (asked) αυτον (him) οι περι (those around) αυτον (him) συν τοις δωδεκα (with the twelve) τας παραβολας (of parables).

"the twelve" bind with "him" and not with "those around" who ask the question. That follows Mark's intent in saying that Jesus was alone/apart when the question was asked.

Quote:

ETA: It also depends, of course, on Mark 14.28 and 16.7 being genuine to Mark; arguments have been advanced on this board before, based primarily on papyrus Vindobonensis 2325, that the former is not, and that the latter falls with it.

interesting...thanks, will check it.

Quote:

ETA: What, BTW, does the restoration of Peter after the three denials have directly to do with the restoration of relations between Peter (Cephas) and Paul after Antioch? Are you saying that one is a code for the other?

The three denials are just literary style, I think. What I consider substantial is that in Mark's short ending the Passion is only known to the Spirit operating in Mark and the Paulinist church (which alone accepts the cross as the attribute of Messiah). From the way Mark wrote his gospel it appears that the Palestinian Jesus followers (or "the Petrines" as I loosely call them), still denied the cross, and were ashamed of it (4:17, I think Joe reads well the "stony ground" in the parable). I read Mark's Passion (whose elements likely had some traditional background, on this I think we are agreed) as an invite to the Petrine succession. Mark is saying to them: Admit you were wrong ! Repent ! Come and party with Paul !

Jiri

Amaleq13 · 05-20-2008, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

This does not work for me, Ben. There is no reason to question the angel's motives. The messenger tells the women "go tell" and they run away "without telling". I assume Mark wrote it that way with a purpose.

I agree but there is no indication that the promised meeting is contingent upon Peter and boys actually getting the reminder. The meeting was already promised and, IIUC, Ben's point is that there is no apparent reason to doubt that the author intended for this promised to be fulfilled despite any failure of the women to provide the reminder.

Ben C Smith · 05-20-2008, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

I do not think so. Rather, the argument assumes only that the angel knew, and was telling the truth. If the angel knew, and if the angel was telling the truth, then Mark is imagining that Peter did meet the risen Lord, whether he narrates that meeting or not.

Nothing depends on whether Peter heard the angelic announcement (through the women, for example) or not.

This does not work for me, Ben.

Doug answered this.

Quote:

There is no reason to question the angel's motives. The messenger tells the women "go tell" and they run away "without telling". I assume Mark wrote it that way with a purpose.

I do too.

Quote:

My reading of that purpose: to those to whom it is not given, the resurrection is revealed through the Spirit writing the gospel in parables.

I am having trouble parsing this. To those to whom the mystery (it?) is not given the resurrection is revealed? Not to know the mystery is a good thing?

Quote:

This is how I read Mark's mysterious access to Jesus through the Spirit (4:10):

και οτε (and when) εγενετο ((he) was - functions as 3p.sg. aorist ειμι) κατα μονας (alone) ηρωτων (asked) αυτον (him) οι περι (those around) αυτον (him) συν τοις δωδεκα (with the twelve) τας παραβολας (of parables).

"the twelve" bind with "him" and not with "those around" who ask the question. That follows Mark's intent in saying that Jesus was alone/apart when the question was asked.

What does this have to do with the angelic message about the resurrection?

Ben.

JoeWallack · 05-20-2008, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

I do not think so. Rather, the argument assumes only that the angel knew, and was telling the truth. If the angel knew, and if the angel was telling the truth, then Mark is imagining that Peter did meet the risen Lord, whether he narrates that meeting or not.

Nothing depends on whether Peter heard the angelic announcement (through the women, for example) or not.

Ben.

This does not work for me, Ben. There is no reason to question the angel's motives. The messenger tells the women "go tell" and they run away "without telling". I assume Mark wrote it that way with a purpose. My reading of that purpose: to those to whom it is not given, the resurrection is revealed through the Spirit writing the gospel in parables.

JW:
Again, the primary purpose of this Thread is to Inventory the use of Irony in "Mark". Whether and what kind of Reunion "Mark" intended for the Disciples is better discussed in:

Mark's view of the disciples

The offending phrases:

http://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_14

Quote:

14:27 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.

14:28 Howbeit, after I am raised up, I will go before you into Galilee.

http://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_16

Quote:

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.

I have Faith that I have demonstrated that it is unlikely that "Mark" intended to imply a Restoration:

Quote:

Again, the Text Explicitly says that the only people (and women at that) that were told Jesus moved on to Galilee did not say anything to anyone. Therefore, I don't need to say anything more to anyone to make it Likely that per "Mark" the disciples did not meet Jesus in Galilee. Once you start favoring Implications over the Explicit you are on The Way to creating a new religion. While we are on the Subject though here are some, ahem, Considerations for you:

1) As I said, Jesus just said, I will go ahead of you into Galilee. He didn't say he would see them there. So, I can be right about the Total Failure of The Disciples, and Jesus would still have made a correct prediction. From a practical standpoint there wouldn't be that much difference anyway between the Disciples returning to Galilee not knowing Jesus was there and the Disciples returning to Galilee knowing Jesus was there. I mean how many persons claiming they were recently resurrected could there Possibly be in 1st century Galilee anyway, 6, maybe 12 tops? No, I think the "Author's" point is Figurative here, the Disciples would not be "looking" for Jesus. Understand Dear Reader?

2) Subsequent Christianity would have been Sympathetic to Implications that "Mark's" disciples did meet Jesus in Galilee (just like you) so some Discount to "Mark's" account is probably Apospropriate (it's been Edited to Improve the Implication you are seeking and Lessen the Implication you are avoiding.)

3) And now, as the Brits Melah say, The Cruncher. "Mark's" overall Theme of Initial Acceptance and Later Rejection:

Mark: (NIV)
1 "The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God.[a]
2 It is written in Isaiah the prophet:
"I will send my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way"[b]—
3 "a voice of one calling in the desert,
'Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for him.' "[c] 4And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 5The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River. 6John wore clothing made of camel's hair, with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey. 7And this was his message: "After me will come one more powerful than I, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. 8I baptize you with[d] water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

JW:
In The Beginning Everyone Listened to The Messenger. In The End, No one Listened to The Messenger. Let he who has ears, see.

JW:
Regarding "Mark's" possible intent we have the following range of possibilities:

1) Full restoration.

This is the current consensus of Christian Bible scholarship and more importantly, our own Christian friends here, Ben and Andrew. This position takes 14:27-28 and 16:7 as proof which negates all contrary evidence in "Mark". I might have seen, ahem, cough, cough, even Bart Ehrman, say "Mark" gives hints of this. The problem for Believers though, which is a tradeMark of Apologists, is that it leaves them with no coherent overall position. Believers think "Mark" is primarily an evangelistic tool with Peter behind it. But for Peter to be responsible for a Gospel which Explicitly shows him not believing in Jesus' resurrection and never Explicitly showing any Restoration, Reunion or even sighting, and than trying to use this Gospel to convince people that Jesus was really resurrected, is ridiculous.

2) Partial restoration.

This is possible and Christian Bible scholarship will gradually retreat to this position. The constant "First will be Last" Marktra comes to mind. The advantage is that you can accept "Mark's" primary theme of discrediting the Disciples and at the same time the Assertian that "Mark's audience knew that the Disciples historically promoted dead Jesus. They just had the wrong priorities.

3) No restoration but the Disciples did literally see Jesus in Galilee.

This is very possible. It is still consistent with the primary theme of "Mark" and meets the literal prediction of the offending verses. Note that the offending verses only go so far as to say the Disciples will see Jesus in Galilee. Anything more has to be read into the verses. The offending verbs are intransitive meaning it is not a leader/follower relationship. They will just end up in the same place. This fits "Mark's" ironic sense of humor very well. The Disciples will see Jesus again in Galilee but they will go there to return home and not to see Jesus (unexpected).

4) No restoration and no Jesus sighting.

I think this most likely. I think the Galilee reference of 14:28 likely Forged which would mean there is also likely forgery in 16:7. Assuming they are original I think they are Instruction rather than prediction, especially since Jesus cited prophecy fulfillment of their scattering, and none for a reunion, and just another instruction that the Disciples did not follow.

Joseph

OutSourcing Paul, A Contract Labor of Love Another's(Writings). Paul as Markan Source

Solo · 05-20-2008, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

This does not work for me, Ben. There is no reason to question the angel's motives. The messenger tells the women "go tell" and they run away "without telling". I assume Mark wrote it that way with a purpose.

I agree but there is no indication that the promised meeting is contingent upon Peter and boys actually getting the reminder.

You can read 14:28 two ways: Either Jesus says 'I will go ahead of you and meet you in Galilee' or, I WILL LEAD YOU (FORTH) INTO GALILEE. (with whatever symbolic meaning 'Galilee' carries).

Quote:

The meeting was already promised and, IIUC, Ben's point is that there is no apparent reason to doubt that the author intended for this promised to be fulfilled despite any failure of the women to provide the reminder.

Again, assuming the shorter ending of Mark, the angel repeats Jesus' resurrectional direction but the word does not reach the disciples, the same way Jesus' word did not reach the disciples the first time.

How ironic! (I had to say that to stay in Joe's thread).

Jiri

andrewcriddle · 05-20-2008, 01:36 PM

If we read Mark in total isolation we might, I suppose, suspect that what is meant to happen afterwards is that the Apostles just go back to being fishermen. End of their story.

However, I don't think this can be what the author intended. I think that the intended audience is supposed to know that (some of) the Apostles,(including Peter), have a future as prominent evangelists on behalf of their version of following Jesus.

If so, then in terms of the logic of Mark's world, I think we are meant to suppose that it is an encounter with the risen Christ that is going to change the Apostles (and Peter) from the situation of total defeat and failure at the end of Mark, to the prominent evangelists that they are due to become.

Andrew Criddle

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-20-2008, 01:36 PM	#20
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	If we read Mark in total isolation we might, I suppose, suspect that what is meant to happen afterwards is that the Apostles just go back to being fishermen. End of their story. However, I don't think this can be what the author intended. I think that the intended audience is supposed to know that (some of) the Apostles,(including Peter), have a future as prominent evangelists on behalf of their version of following Jesus. If so, then in terms of the logic of Mark's world, I think we are meant to suppose that it is an encounter with the risen Christ that is going to change the Apostles (and Peter) from the situation of total defeat and failure at the end of Mark, to the prominent evangelists that they are due to become. Andrew Criddle

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.