dzim77

Interesting. How so?

It is strongly implied from what I see...


In Mark, Jesus never makes a promise that isn't fulfilled. His promises/prophecies are usually misunderstood by his disciples, but not unfulfilled. Why should we think that his promise of a reunion in Galilee would go unfulfilled?

The 16:8 ending seems consistent with the theme of misunderstanding in Mark. We end with the women afraid, confused, and misundertanding the situation. Makes sense. But how would this imply no reunion?

Malachi151

That's the main crux. Jesus proved himself and kept us his end of the bargain throughout the story, but in the end all the Jews fail. To me the short ending makes most most sense and is dramatic irony, which makes the point as to why Judea was destroyed by the Romans.

dzim77

huh? So you agree Mark implies a reunion in Galilee?

Malachi151

Yes. Jesus upheld his end of the bargain, his followers didn't. That THE POINT of the whole story.

dzim77

I see. So you think Mark intends that the disciples never met up with Jesus in Galilee. Interesting take.

However, I would suggest that Jesus promises that the disciples WILL meet up with him in Galilee in Mk. 14. So, if they missed the reunion, his promise went unfulfilled.

Malachi151

Yes, but to me, the author of Mark is saying that he is presenting the story of Jesus because he is the one that has "figured it all out", while the disciples never did, hence the reason that they never seem to understand what he is saying. He sets up the disciples as fools throughout the whole story.

Its really quite a different story than the traditional reading of it I think. We mostly ha a Pro-Christian interpretation that comes more from tradition than the story itself. If you read the story with a little pre-conceptions as possible, I think that you find it is a work that is not favorable to ANY of the characters in the story except Jesus himself.

jgibson000

What about the woman of whom Jesus states in 14:9 that "wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her"?

May I ask if you have ever read a (or any of the standard) critical commentary(commentaries) on Mark, let alone anything on Mk. 16:7 other than what you might find on it on the web?

If so, what might the commentary and the articles be?

Jeffrey Gibson

dzim77

I agree that the disciples are portrayed as misunderstanding, mistake-prone, and ultimately inadequate. But they also have moments of brilliance and success. In other words, they are very human.

Perhaps the disciples are a set up as a 'foil' to encourage the reader to have faith where the disciples have failed.

A pro-Christian interpretation? Not sure what you're referring to?? The idea that the disciples failed in the gospels is not 'anti-Christian'... it could be taken to point to human weakness and need for a Savior.

Malachi151

Well, my take on this looking back from what I was taught in Sunday school, is that when Christians tell the story the impression that they give is that the disciples were good students of Jesus,and I suspect that this comes from the desire to support the view that the gospels come to us from the disciples.

We have to trust the accounts given by the disciples, so we want to think that they were capable. That has always been my view, until really studying the works myself. Reading Mark, I don't see any character in Mark that could have possibly passed on the story of Jesus as it is recorded in the gospel, i.e. the gospel of Mark can't come from any witness that is in the story, because none of them seem capable first of all, and on a more realistic level, none of them were present at all of the scenes.

But, I think that Christians like to think of the disciples as capable people, who understood Jesus message, because THEY ARE THE LINK. If the disciples didn't understand his message, then how could it possibly have been passed on correctly? You see....

jgibson000

Why on earth should you take it, as you seem to do continuously, that anything you were taught at Sunday school represents what the truth of the matter is vis a vis Mark, let alone what anyone else besides your teachers believes? Are you actually equating what you were taught there with what real students of Mark think vis a vis the disciples in Mark?

What do you mean by "not capable"? And what is your criteria for determining that the capacity of characters in the story to pass on the story is lacking? Doesn't Jesus both presume and declare in his testimonial to the woman who anoints him that some of those who surrounded him are not only capable of passing on the story of what she did but that they would do so? Doesn't he also do this in his command to Peter and James and John to tell know one what they had seen in the "trasfiguration" event? Is the Markan Jesus an unreliable witness?

And doesn't Mark himself portray the disciples as showing themselves as not only remembering accurately, but, more importantly, being able to report accurately what they have witnessed Jesus do when, in Mk. 8:14-21, they do not get wrong the answers to Jesus' questions about what the quantity of left-overs was after the feedings of the 4000 and the feedings of the 5000?

And surely if you can remember and are capable of passing on what you learned as a child in Sunday school, how much more so should disciples be able to remember and be capable of passing on what they learned as adults, yes?

Even if you are right in your (undocumented and at the moment wholly subjective) claim above about what you think Christians like to think, what Christians like to think the disciples are is not the issue. Nor is it relevant to your claims that the characters in Mark's were not capable of passing on the Jesus story. The only issue vis a vis the Markan presentation of things is whether Mark tells us that this was the case.

Does he? For one who says he has been "really" studying the "work" (i.e., Mark), you seem to have missed some significant data.

Jeffrey Gibson