JoeWallack

JW:
You know we could go on arguing over the meaning of phrases and words here Ad Nazorean but I Am afraid that could take hundreds of years and cost thousands of lost Reader lives. Yes Ben, the above has some Implication that per the Author the Disciples would see Jesus in Galilee. We disagree on how much of an Implication there is here and the Relationship of any Implication here to what would be Implied in the rest of "Mark".

In this situation I suspect that Editing may have changed what was clearer in the Original but I Am reluctant to try to demonstrate by Appealing to possible changes in related texts because once you start combining anything other than probable statements the weight of the possible Evidence goes down faster than Madonna at halftime of the NBA All-Star game.

JW:
This isn't Ben C Smith. What are you doing on his computer and where is Ben?

Frum Ben C. Smith's site:

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

"Papyrus Vindobonensis 2325.
Also known as the Fayyum fragment.

Papyrus Vindobonensis (or Vienna) Greek 2325 (late century III):

1. [...ε]ξαγειν ως ε[ι]πε[ν] οτι, Α[παντες]
2. [εν ταυτη] τη νυκτι σκανδαλισ[θησεσ-]
3. [θε κατα] το γÏ?αφεν· �*αταξω τον [ποιμε-]
4. [να και τα] Ï€Ï?οβατα διασκοÏ?πισθησ[ονται. ει-]
5. [ποντος το]Ï… �*ετ{Ï?ου}· Και ει παντες ο[υκ εγω...]
6. [...Ι{ησου}ς· �*Ï?ι]ν αλεκτÏ?υων δις κοκ[κυσει Ï„Ï?ις]
7. [...με α]παÏ?ν[ηση].

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].

TextExcavation 2005.
Ben C. Smith, author and designer.
File last modified Thu, 27 Oct 2005 23:46:34 GMT."

JW:
"6. [...J{esu}s: Befor]e a cock twice cr[ows, thrice]"

The "twice" here is uniquely "Mark", at least before later Editing. This would be especially Ironic for the real Ben C. Smith to miss as I used this as an example of Editing in the post you are responding to.

When you see the real Ben C. Smith please tell him though that I Am entirely open in general to the possibility that he is Right where Bible scholarship is wrong or at least correct in re-measuring the weight of Evidence.

Continuing...

4: (NIV)

1 "Again Jesus began to teach by the lake. The crowd that gathered around him was so large that he got into a boat and sat in it out on the lake, while all the people were along the shore at the water's edge. 2He taught them many things by parables, and in his teaching said: 3"Listen! A farmer went out to sow his seed. 4As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. 5Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. 6But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. 7Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants, so that they did not bear grain. 8Still other seed fell on good soil. It came up, grew and produced a crop, multiplying thirty, sixty, or even a hundred times."

JW:
"Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. 6But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root."

Could this be referring to Peter Ben?

"rocky" = Peter?

"quickly" refers to the first call which was immediately answered?

"when the sun came up" - hmmm, now what could that possibly refer to?

Is there an Implication here that the illustrative Failure of Peter is being referred to? Careful, it could be a trap.


Joseph

"As I said" - JoeWallack

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

Ben C Smith

Fair enough. We simply disagree on the merits of the case either way, but our disagreement should come as a shock to absolutely nobody by now.

Ah, you are correct. The twice is Mark all the way. My mistake. (The real Ben Smith is the one who made this clumsy mistake; I have noticed he is prone to such silly errors, and have tried on numerous occasions to trade him in for a better model, with no success to date.)

Indeed, I think the seed on rocky soil is meant to refer to Peter. I have no absolutely solid proof, but it makes perfect sense.

It has been a pleasure exchanging with you.

Ben.

JoeWallack

JW:
The only thing I'm sure about is that I Am much harder to get along with then you. But you are my little brother.

Continuing...

4: (NIV)
9 "Then Jesus said, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear."
10 When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. 11He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12so that,
" 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'[a]"
13 Then Jesus said to them, "Don't you understand this parable? How then will you understand any parable? 14The farmer sows the word. 15Some people are like seed along the path, where the word is sown. As soon as they hear it, Satan comes and takes away the word that was sown in them. 16Others, like seed sown on rocky places, hear the word and at once receive it with joy. 17But since they have no root, they last only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away. 18Still others, like seed sown among thorns, hear the word; 19but the worries of this life, the deceitfulness of wealth and the desires for other things come in and choke the word, making it unfruitful. 20Others, like seed sown on good soil, hear the word, accept it, and produce a crop—thirty, sixty or even a hundred times what was sown."

JW:
"13 Then Jesus said to them, "Don't you understand this parable? How then will you understand any parable?"

So Ben, this isn't just any parable, this is a key to understanding all the Parables?

"16 Others, like seed sown on rocky places, hear the word and at once receive it with joy. 17 But since they have no root, they last only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away."

You agree that it refers to Peter so wouldn't the specific applications be as follows:

1) "hear the word and at once receive it with joy" = Immediately answered the initial Call of Jesus.

2) "But since they have no root, they last only a short time." = Only for the Ministry.

3) "When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away." = The Arrest of Jesus and related Denial.

Wouldn't this all be in opposition to the final Peace of the Parable:

"20 Others, like seed sown on good soil, hear the word, accept it, and produce a crop—thirty, sixty or even a hundred times what was sown."

Doesn't this Parable fit better with my Position that according to the Author Peter was a complete Failure and there was no meeting with a Post Dead Jesus that rehabilitated him?



Joseph

PERSEVERANCE, n.
A lowly virtue whereby mediocrity achieves an inglorious success.

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

Amaleq13

Nice work. That there is purty as they come. :thumbs:

Ben C Smith

It would if I could just ignore everything in Mark that points to a resurrection appearance to the disciples, including Peter.

As I think about it, rehabilitation might not be the best word for it. If (big, big if) I am correct that Mark originally ended with a meeting in Galilee much like John 21, a meeting that paralleled Mark 1.16-20, then what would actually be going on is more of a complete starting over. Peter started well, ended badly, and then had to start all over again. This would parallel the parable in the first two parts, but then go beyond the parable for the third part.

That third part may actually come in Mark 8.22-26, often regarded as an enacted parable demonstrating the blindness of the disciples. The first stage of the healing (when the man sees only treelike people) might represent the entire ministry of Jesus, but then the second stage of the healing (full restoration of sight) would imply that the disciples are supposed to see the light, as it were, at some point.

Ben.

JoeWallack

JW:
The Parable Specifically and "Mark" Generally is primarily about Reactions to Jesus (in Noun Form) and The Word (in Verb Form). I've already pointed out that if The Author intended Resurrection sighting to be what made Peter Believe in Jesus than that Belief would be based on Evidence which goes against the Theme of the Gospel and it would be difficult/impossible to explain why, if this is what did it, the Author would not say so Explicitly. Similarly, The Parable is about The Word, Teaching about Faith and not providing Actions which would give Evidence. There's nothing in The Parable indicating a second chance. Peter's Part Ends with the definite:

"6 But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root."

I'm pretty sure that is a euphemism for "dead". The Dying is Contrasted with The Sun's Rising. This is the Theme throughout "Mark". Initial Acceptance of Jesus and subsequent Rejection due to reasons in The Parable. At the Time you Reject Jesus you are "Dead", at least according to The Author. The idea of a Second chance is Subsequent Christianity's. Who gets a Second chance in "Mark"?

Continuing...

4:
"35 That day when evening came, he said to his disciples, "Let us go over to the other side." 36Leaving the crowd behind, they took him along, just as he was, in the boat. There were also other boats with him. 37A furious squall came up, and the waves broke over the boat, so that it was nearly swamped. 38Jesus was in the stern, sleeping on a cushion. The disciples woke him and said to him, "Teacher, don't you care if we drown?"
39 He got up, rebuked the wind and said to the waves, "Quiet! Be still!" Then the wind died down and it was completely calm.
40 He said to his disciples, "Why are you so afraid? Do you still have no faith?"
41 They were terrified and asked each other, "Who is this? Even the wind and the waves obey him!"

"he said to his disciples, "Let us go over to the other side." - "The "other" side". Hmmm, what could that possibly mean?

"A furious squall came up" - Remember "Furiuos" and "squall" for the next story. Sounds like trouble.

"38 Jesus was in the stern, sleeping" - "Sleeping" but close by

"The disciples woke him and said to him, "Teacher, don't you care if we drown?"" - The Disciples are not appealing to Jesus to Save them they are just informing him of the situation.

"40 He said to his disciples, "Why are you so afraid? Do you still have no faith?" - A Negative portrayal Ben?

"41 They were terrified and asked each other, "Who is this? Even the wind and the waves obey him!" - They don't know who he is becuase they "still have no faith". This is opposed to The Demons who do know as indicated in the next story "on the other side".


Joseph

"Cast your loaf upon the water and it shall come back to you a thousand fold" - Jesus. "Yea, but who the hell wants a thousand loaves of soggy bread." - Monster

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

Ben C Smith

Agreed. Good thing the gospel of Mark does not end with that parable.

The blind man. The first time through the healing only made things fuzzy. But Jesus did not give up on his sight; he perservered and restored it fully.

Mark 13 presumes that the disciples, including Peter, will be in positions of influence in the church, and not as the enemy. Verse 13 asserts that, sometime after Jesus is off the scene (see 13.6), these disciples will be persecuted in the name of Jesus. This verse also holds out hope that they will endure to the end. I do not see the point of any of this if Mark knows that the death of Jesus was the end for the disciples.

Mark 16.7 then promises a resurrection appearance to the disciples. It does not take a genius to connect these dots. The evidence of the text itself forces us to conclude that Peter and company are offered a second chance sometime after 16.8, and they take it, whether that is the original ending or not.

Ben.

Julian

Is there any evidence to suggest that Chapter 13 was not original to GMark? What would be a good book for studying the evolution and/or layering of Mark?

Julian

Ben C Smith

None of which I am presently aware. There is no lack of researchers who think that the little apocalypse originally stood on its own, but I think they also tend to regard it as a constitutive part of the original composition of Mark. (IOW, it preceded Mark in the tradition, but there was never any copy of Mark that lacked it.)

Gerd Theissen, The Gospels in Context, is useful.

Ben.

Julian

You had to pick a $45 book, didn'tya? It is now on my wishlist.

How about Weeden, is he worth reading? Anyone else good to read regarding Mark?

Julian