gstafleu

OK, so Matthew does have the bit about the rising agent:

8 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, "You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread? 9 Do you still not understand? Don't you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? 10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? 11 How is it you don't understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees." 12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

But it has been bowdlerized to only warn against the dastardly Pharisees and Sadducees, which is only the insignificant bit of the story. Plus no mention of pieces left over, the important bit, just that they gathered many baskets. Phew. Jeffrey is still in business, and so is my end-of-Mark interpretation. (I wonder how it is generally explained that these gathered baskets have anything to do with the dastardly Pharisees and Sadducees. I also wonder if this should be in a different thread ).

Gerard Stafleu

John Kesler

Here's a puzzler for me. If we assume Markan priority, why does Matthew change Mark 16:7's special reference to Peter--tell his disciples and Peter--to "tell his disciples"? If anything, given the special place that Peter seems to hold for Matthew (16:18), I would think that the situation should be reversed.

Peter Kirby

A brilliant question! What is the textual evidence for Mark 16:7 and the parallel Matthew, I wonder.

--
Peter Kirby

gstafleu

Then of course we have Matthew 16:23: 'Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."' Plus Peter has just disowned Jesus three times, so perhaps he is out of favor. The real question may be: Why does Mark give him special mention?

Mark has that same rebuking scene:

31 He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. 32 He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.

33 But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. "Get behind me, Satan!" he said. "You do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

"The things of men" in this case being Peter's non-Gentile inclinations rather than his compassion for Jesus the person. Notice that in Mark Peter does not say "Never, Lord! [he said.] This shall never happen to you!" Rather he rebukes Jesus about being "rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law," which better explains the use of the word "rebuke."

Peter in Mark also disowns Jesus. So Peter in Mark also has special status. Given Mark's possibly dim view of the disciples, and Peter's special status (in this case as obnoxious dunderhead in chief) among them, maybe Mark is just rubbing it in.

Gerard Stafleu

Ben C Smith

Mark 16.7 is solid as a rock so far as textual evidence itself goes, I think, but it hearkens back to Mark 14.28, which is missing in the Fayyum fragment.

However, I myself like to think that Matthew dropped Peter from this verse because he was planning on a generic resurrection reunion on that mountain in Galilee, while Mark was planning on a specific resurrection appearance to Peter (confer Luke 24.34; John 21.15-19; 1 Corinthians 15.5).

Matthew also drops Peter, James, and John in the story of the daughter of Jairus, and turns Peter into the disciples in general in the cursing of the fig tree, and turns Peter, James, John, and Andrew into the disciples in general on Olivet.

Ben.

Steven Carr

Does the use of 'brother' in Galatians 1:19 preclude the use of 'brother' to mean apostle?

neilgodfrey

Not if we follow the Weeden interpretation of the text that by the end of the gospel all twelve are condemned by the author. In this context singling Peter out for special mention is a sarcastic reminder of the seed planted in rocky soil, the would-be leader whom Christ addressed as Satan, the one who was too ashamed three times to confess Jesus before men thereby losing his salvation. Singling him out at the end is a final put-down, complete with iron nail through the eyeball.

(As for the other question about the message for the disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee, I think it arises in part from a misunderstanding of the possibilities of the original text -- I suspect, after an author whose work and name I cannot recall at the moment, it is saying: Hey, Why are you looking for Jesus in this tomb! Don't look for him here! He said he would meet you in Galilee! Not here." Again, the point is lost on the women and we know by now it would be wasted on the 12 even if they did get the message.)

Neil Godfrey

http://vridar.wordpress.com

John Kesler

I had a feeling that this is where you were headed. The meaning of "brother of the lord" has been discussed extensively, and I defer to others to debate it, particularly when the underlying Greek is discussed. At any rate, I find J.J. Ramsey's argument for an actual sibling relationship to be convincing, though I am not dogmatic about the issue.

Julian

There are no significant textual variations in either Mark 16:7 or Matthew 16:18, a rare situation.

Julian

jakejonesiv

The notorius passage "James, brother of the Lord" was not in Marcion's version to Galatians.

Marconian did not have the first trip to Jerusalem, Gal 1:18-24. (See Tertullian, Marc 5.3.1; Irenäus, Haer 3.14.3.)
The redactors lie is given away by 1:20, "Now in what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying." Now, anytime someone starts telling you how honest they are, watch out! (cf. Romans 9:1 and 2 Corinthians 11:31).

Almost every passage in the Pauline epistles that is appealed to prove the existence of a Historical Christ, cannot be shown to have been in the Marcionite version.

Jake Jones IV