Ben C Smith

These heirs of the apostles could not value oral tradition over written gospel texts before at least one such text was written, so what gospel text do you see as having preceded Mark so that he could write against such people?

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Missed this paragraph in my response to you, Joe:

Are you sure you are not importing a thoroughly modern view of crying into this ancient text? I can think of an awful lot of biblical men who are said to have wept.

Ben.

Julian

I guess I will speak a little bit about where I am coming from here. I believe that GMark is a gnostic, separationist gospel. It fits the facts far better than the strained attempts to fit it into preconceived orthodox views.

While the gospel lacks a lot of the fancy mythology we see in many of the Nag Hammadi scrolls, Mark explicitly presents gnostic ideas and concepts. One of the most telling is 4:11-13 where the usual gnostic idea of reading secret meaning into the parables is presented. People read them but do not understand, because there is a secret meaning in them. Mark is telling us exactly what he is about in black and white. The theme of a lack of understanding continues throughout, for example 7:18, 8:16-18, 8:21 and other, less direct references.

It is a separationist (not adoptionist really) shown by the Christ entering into (εις) Jesus at the baptism and leaving him again on the cross (signiofied by the Ps. 22 quote).

As a gnostic Mark means to show that the church didn't understand what Jesus was teaching, and he says so explicitly. Mark has to be humble before the fact that history at his time understood the disciples to be the start of the early church so he has to incorporate them into his gospel, but he does so showing their lack of understanding. Perfect for Mark, he satisfies history and also shows them to not get it. Exactly what you would expect if you approach it from a gnostic point of view.

I like JW's response to this above.
I believe this to be a simple chreia. Peter is just there to serve up the question. Jesus doesn't praise him for asking nor indicate anything positive about Peter in this passage.
I think that Mark wanted to emphasize, to the readers, that Peter had failed. The failure and lack of understanding of the disciples is a cornerstone of Mark's work. Here Peter is, crying over his failure, what better way to drive it home?
To drive the point home, he shows not concern for Peter or I think some sign of redemption should have been evident here, but emphasizes his failure and Peter's knowledge of that failure. But I suspect that we will disagree on this bit.
I believe that it has to in order for Mark to keep authorization from the church and to keep the knowledge secret.
Peter was conceived of as a founder, Mark could not escape this. Peter was an early leader of the church and this is acknowledged by Mark. Your statement begs the question, why is Peter shown as having misunderstood the message of Jesus if Peter and Mark were on the same side? Why would Mark invalidate the teaching of a church that he participates in? Why undermine the authority of his own organization? It just doesn't work. However, from a gnostic point of view, it makes perfect sense.
And Mark was the 'heretic' and the text reflects that view.
See my questions above. How can you answer those without appealing to a split?
Because it was a fact. They simply didn't represent Mark's views.
But he does exactly that, again and again. He is putting down the disciples which is the same as attacking the orthodox church. He couldn't very well attack the church directly since it wouldn't have existed at the time of Jesus. All he could do was attack the roots of the church, indirectly the church itself.
The church includes Peter and Co. but the church doesn't understand.

Julian

Julian

Absolutely. Probably quite a bit later.
I started this thread to establish this 'positive light' but there doesn't seem to be a lot of it. I don't believe there is any positive light but wanted to put it to the test. I suspect people are seeing a positive light simply as a result of gospel bagage picked up from the other three. Most readers are accustomed to a particular idea or view of the gospels and simply read into it was isn't there. That is what is going on here, I suspect. As demonstrated in this thread, there really isn't much positive stuff in there at all. So where does the idea of positive come from? It must be bagage from elsewhere since GMark itself certainly doesn't support it.

Julian

Julian

The redemptions are implied, possibly, but the attacks are explicit and numerous. If Mark had really wanted to imply a redemption then why didn't it get just a little more emphasis? Even your implied passages only show the possibility of a post-resurrection appearance. It doesn't imply redemption. Jesus puts up with them throughout all their bungling, there is no need to think that any post-resurrection get together would be any different.

Julian

Vorkosigan

No, this too is part of writer of Mark's narrative strategy of denigrating Peter, in fact, this is, with the possible exception of Peter's betrayal, the absolute nadir of the writer of Mark's denigration of Peter. Because here first the writer has Peter identify Jesus, something only demons have been doing. To complete the link for the reader, Jesus explicitly says what Peter is: "Retro me, baby! I know what you are!" This feels a lot like 14:29 thematically, where Peter tries to be a good boy, and Jesus slaps him down.

Vorkosigan

Julian

That's excellent. I shall have to seriuosly consider that.

How do you figure him being slapped down in 14:29? As I mentioned above, I see this as a chreia with Peter serving merely as pitcher.

Julian

JoeWallack

JW:
Mark 16: (NIV)
1 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body. 2Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?"
4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.
6 "Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.' "
8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid."

JW:
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.



Joseph

END, n.
The position farthest removed on either hand from the Interlocutor.

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

Amaleq13

Wouldn't Mark's readers be aware of the "witness list" Paul offers in his letter to the Corinthians and assume, despite the text, that Jesus appeared to Christ's Eleven (starring Brad Pitt, George Clooney and Julia Roberts as Mary)?

Julian

It is a dangerous assumption in a world sans Internet, decent libraries and a Paul that possibly didn't have the regard that he later came to enjoy. It would also depend on the geographic location of Mark which I keep seeing disputed, mostly between Syria and Rome. We have the luxury of a canon and aprocryphal works. They probably had a scant selection. Would Mark take the chance that most of his readers would be familiar with a Pauline epistle? And a section of which, I don't believe to be authentic, certainly large chunks of the tailend has been shown to be spurious. It sounds like an awful risk for Mark to take.

Julian