Julian

But that is not really what it says, it simply says that he goes before them and that they will see him there. They could be going to play some air hockey for all we know. I think the danger here is reading into Mark what we know from Mattew and Luke. If Mark wanted to make sure that the reader understood it as a resoration to the faith then why didn't he just say so?

Julian

Ben C Smith

That is not the command part. The command is to the women (go, tell). The part involving the disciples is a prediction.

I think I can agree with you that it is presumed, rather than commanded, that the disciples will go into Galilee. In fact, within the scope of Mark, perhaps it would not be altogether without merit to interpret 14.28 and 16.7 almost ironically, as if to say: I know you are not going to understand this right now, but after I am raised I am going to go in victory where you are going in defeat. I am not certain that tone is what Mark had in mind, but I like it.

I think I agree with your reading here.

Well, agreed, but not just because both the risen Jesus and the dejected disciples happen to be in Galilee (it is a big place, after all). We still have that line: There you will see him. That is the part of 16.7 that tells me Mark knows the disciples saw Jesus in Galilee.

Agreed. There is not enough in Mark 16.1-8 to tell us that.

I am unaware of ever having said this was the primary intent. My perception is that the purpose of the resurrection appearance was to recommission the disciples for service. They had served for a while, had utterly failed at the end, but now they were going to serve again. I have honestly not thought about what this means for their understanding beyond possibly a new insight that their service might claim or at least alter their lives, as hinted at in Mark 13.

It is easy, I have noticed, to focus on only one relevant passage to the virtual exclusion of others. Let me summarize my view of the evidence of a restoration to faith concisely:

1. We know from Mark 14.28 and 16.7 that the disciples will see the risen Lord in Galilee.
2. We know from Mark 13.9 that at least some of the disciples (you; refer to 13.3) will be arrested and will stand before kings and governors for the sake of Jesus sometime after Jesus is physically off the scene (see 13.6).
3. We know from Mark 13.13 that Jesus holds out hope for at least some of the disciples that they will (this time) endure to the end.

Now, I am quite conscious of having to draw a connecting line between number 1 above and numbers 2-3. I connect the dots as follows: Peter and company will suffer for Jesus (number 2) and have a legitimate shot of enduring to the end (number 3) because of something that will happen in connection with the resurrection appearance to them (number 1). Mark has to have some way of transforming the cowardly disciples of chapter 14 into witnesses of the caliber described in chapter 13, does he not? If you can think of what such a way might be besides a resurrection appearance, let me know.

Is all of that a controversial call on my part? As a piece of exegesis I myself find it almost bland and unexceptional.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

I said the gospel of Mark because Mark 16.7 is not the only passage in focus.

Completely agreed. Take a look at the three part approach that I boiled down for Amaleq:

1. We know from Mark 14.28 and 16.7 that the disciples will see the risen Lord in Galilee.
2. We know from Mark 13.9 that at least some of the disciples (you; refer to 13.3) will be arrested and will stand before kings and governors for the sake of Jesus sometime after Jesus is physically off the scene (see 13.6).
3. We know from Mark 13.13 that Jesus holds out hope for at least some of the disciples that they will (this time) endure to the end.

Does any part of that read Matthew or Luke into Mark?

He had Jesus tell four of the disciples in private:

...they will deliver you to council, and you will be flogged in synagogues, and you will stand before governors and kings for my sake, as a testimony to them.

...do not worry beforehand about what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you who speak but rather the holy spirit.

You will be hated by all because of my name, but the one who endures to the end will be saved.

How are they going to suffer for the name if they have not experienced some kind of restoration to faith in that name?

Again, I admit to having connected the dots here. I draw the line between cowardly deserters and sufferers for the name directly through resurrection appearance in Galilee. Where would you draw it?

Ben.

JoeWallack

JW:
As always, if there is any One thought you could count on to exclude many others, it would be that "Mark" would not imply that a resurrection sighting was the one and only turning point for the Disciples and not Explicitly show it. This would be my Position even without the use of The Disciples as Poster Boys for Not Jesus behaviour. For someone like you Ben though you have another significant "difficulty". Jesus said there would be no Sign (Evidence) for his Generation. Ya just gotta accept him for who he won't tell you he is. That's the Theme. But since major Themes are subservient to a few Implications in your X-Uh-Jesus, Continuing:

8: (NIV)
27 "Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, "Who do people say I am?"
28They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets."
29"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
Peter answered, "You are the Christ.[b]"
30Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him."

JW:
Okay, fine. Peter knows that Jesus is Messiah. I accept this as Positive treatment. What Peter doesn't know though is what that means which in "Mark's" eyes means he's Guiltier, see:

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. 32He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.
33But 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."
34Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 35For whoever wants to save his life[c] will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it. 36What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? 37Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? 38If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels."

"He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.
33But 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."

JW:
Vork, play back The Parable:

"Some 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."

Ben, can you still connect the dots or did you use up all your crayons? As Vork pointed out, in "Mark" all the demons know who Jesus is. Now Peter does too. And here's Rocky having Satan take The Word from him. I think trouble is coming. No Implication here that Peter is like that Extra on Star Of David Trek who is the First to face the Eliens and you just have a Feeling that he's not going to make it? I think there's something more here than just Negative treatment.

"34Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 35For whoever wants to save his life[c] will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it. 36What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? 37Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? 38If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels."

No, I don't think Peter's going to make it. Wasn't he ashamed of Jesus and his words? Why no Long-Term Implications here Ben?



Joseph

SATAN, n.
One of the Creator's lamentable mistakes, repented in sashcloth and axes. Being instated as an archangel, Satan made himself multifariously objectionable and was finally expelled from Heaven. Halfway in his descent he paused, bent his head in thought a moment and at last went back. "There is one favor that I should like to ask," said he.
"Name it."

"Man, I understand, is about to be created. He will need laws."

"What, wretch! you his appointed adversary, charged from the dawn of eternity with hatred of his soul -- you ask for the right to make his laws?"

"Pardon; what I have to ask is that he be permitted to make them himself."

It was so ordered.

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

Ben C Smith

...you have intentionally avoided discussing the passages upon which I am hanging my hat.

I seriously considered this correlation when Michael first brought it up. But it does not work. Jesus asked; Peter answered. Unless the answer was incorrect I find it virtually impossible to imagine Mark lumping Peter with the demons for his confession. (It is in the next few verses that we see Mark lumping Peter with the demons.)

Ben.

Amaleq13

<aside>But why Galilee and not in Jerusalem where the disciples already were? Is this just because that is where Mark believes the movement began?</aside>

Why not just depict it, then? As it stands, it doesn't really accomplish that purpose.

I agree that Mark 13 appears to contradict the generally negative depiction of the disciples but I've always understood this "prophecy" to be placed in the mouth of Jesus by the author and intended for the author's audience (community?). They are the ones being warned about persecution and false Christs and promised an ultimate vindication. Even still, I'm left with the apparent, and admittedly problematic, connection drawn between the four disciples and Mark's community. That doesn't seem to fit the argument I've been making very well.

JoeWallack

JW:
I've already said I agree with you that the passages you cite have Implications that support your Conclusion. I Am also largely trying to go in order through all the Cites of "Mark" two by two. And Amalek and Julian have been discussing your passages and making good observations. You probably think Amalek's X-Uh-Jesus is better than mine anyway. Now you are being ganged up on by The Three so I give you a lot of credit for persevering until The End (unlike Peter).

So while I'm speaking generally and continuing to intentionally avoid discussing the passages upon which you are hanging, until I hand you your hat let me make an overall observation. Considering the age of "Mark" and poor literary skills compared to our time and the Extreme Religious Ironic Contrasting Style written in Part for his Audience it shouldn't be surprising that there would be some Conflicting Implications. I made an assertion before that it's more Likely that Christianity Forged Implications in your favor here than Vice-Versa. If you agree than you need some Discount to your Implications. Now I think Fayyun is Original and Bultman is correct (as usual) but I am arguing based on the Text we have even though I think the Transition to full resurrection sighting in "Mark" would have been Gradual. First an Implication, than a Prediction, than a sighting and than harmonizing, sweet harmonizing.

JW:
[Satire]
Yes, a Christian would never think of Jews as being Inspired by The Devil.
[/Satire]
I know it's hard but if you can somehow remove subsequent Christianity from "Mark" than "Mark's" Peter and The Boys are just Jews, Sinbolic for Jewish Failure and Guilt as they were First and Inside but had no Faith despite the most Evidence.

Continuing:

9: (NIV)
2 "After six days Jesus took Peter, James and John with him and led them up a high mountain, where they were all alone. There he was transfigured before them. 3His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than anyone in the world could bleach them. 4And there appeared before them Elijah and Moses, who were talking with Jesus.
5Peter said to Jesus, "Rabbi, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah." 6(He did not know what to say, they were so frightened.)
7Then a cloud appeared and enveloped them, and a voice came from the cloud: "This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to him!"
8Suddenly, when they looked around, they no longer saw anyone with them except Jesus.
9As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus gave them orders not to tell anyone what they had seen until the Son of Man had risen from the dead. 10They kept the matter to themselves, discussing what "rising from the dead" meant."

JW:
"Mark" has an issue of the supposed Source of Jesus' power, God or Beetlezebub Baaley. Impossible Jesus is acknowledged but as Evidence you need to know The Source. Here we see the Disciples given presumably the best possible evidence for Jews. They see first hand that Jesus is the successor to The Jewish Bible and God confirms this. Predictably they still don't understand and were discussing privately possible explanations for The Voice from Heaven:

1) It was actually just a very young George Burns preparing for his future role in Oh God, Part Jew!

2) In addition to being extremely talented in the food preparation and personal training Industries Jesus was also the world's foremost ventriloquist.

3) The Author was speaking to them instead of his Audience.

"Jesus gave them orders not to tell anyone what they had seen until the Son of Man had risen from the dead."

More support for you I guess. Another Implication for what would happen AC (After Crucifixion). Let me point out though regarding these Types of Instructions that the Significance depends in part on your overall view of "Mark". My overall view is The Disciples were Targeted as Counter examples of Faith. Therefore, when Instructions are given to The Disciples I place more weight on the Reaction than the Implication of just giving the instructions. Instructions can't be not understood unless they are given, right?
Regarding your favored implications here including "Galilee" I suspect these are additions and if they are than I certainly think the Intent of the Adder is in line with your Conclusion. I can still consider original "Galilee" here as just The Author's Ironic style. Technically the statement is correct that The Disciples will go to Galilee after Jesus but not intentionally and unlike Leo Bloom, with no Big Finish.

And the Counter story:
21" Jesus asked the boy's father, "How long has he been like this?"
"From childhood," he answered. 22"It has often thrown him into fire or water to kill him. But if you can do anything, take pity on us and help us."
23" 'If you can'?" said Jesus. "Everything is possible for him who believes."
24Immediately the boy's father exclaimed, "I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!"
25When Jesus saw that a crowd was running to the scene, he rebuked the evil[a] spirit. "You deaf and mute spirit," he said, "I command you, come out of him and never enter him again."
26The spirit shrieked, convulsed him violently and came out. The boy looked so much like a corpse that many said, "He's dead." 27But Jesus took him by the hand and lifted him to his feet, and he stood up.
28After Jesus had gone indoors, his disciples asked him privately, "Why couldn't we drive it out?"
29He replied, "This kind can come out only by prayer.[b]"

JW:
Despite seeing The Heroes of The Faith and receiving a private endorsement from Above, The Disciples still don't have Faith. The Strangers though, having received none of this great Evidence, do (immediately). ""This kind can come out only by prayer." is probably also an Apology. Likely some sincere Believers observed that no matter how much Faith you had sometimes there was no change in The Patient or they even got worse. This Apology teaches that sometimes you just have to keep Praying until:

1) There's something, anything that's better.

2) You have more Faith.

3) It's been so long everyone forgets all about it.



Joseph

Don't get strung up, by The Way I look,
Don't judge a Messiah by his cover.
I'm not much of a son of man by the Light of day.
But by night I'm one hell of a Love one another.

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

Ben C Smith

My opinion is that Mark is having Jesus start over with the disciples. They were called the first time in Galilee, and they will be called a second, more decisive, time in Galilee too.

I think that Mark did depict it, and then the original ending was lost. I agree with you that as it stands the ending does not get the disciples recommissioned. We are left only with strong inferences from other parts of the text that they came back to faith somehow.

I have always found you fair and evenhanded.

I agree that Mark 13 is also supposed to be a warning to more Christians (let the reader understand) than just four of the original disciples. And the sudden change between you and they in verse 14 implies for me that the disciples themselves were supposed to warn people (when you see the abomination... those in Judea must flee).

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Joe, you are welcome to excise all of the positive predictions as later additions. Maybe they are. As for me and my house, we will continue to read and interpret the text as best we can reconstruct it. I am very glad you brought up the Fayyum fragment, as I would have missed that point on my own (as you saw at the time). If other evidence pointed in the same way as that fragment I would be tempted to follow it, just as I am tempted to reconstruct an original Luke using Marcion as the main foundation (I am not at all there yet, and still think Marcion cut down Luke rather than vice versa, but such a reconstruction is nevertheless tempting to me).

But I see no evidence against the originality of chapter 10, chapter 13, and 16.7 as yet. Thus so far it is still Fayyum that stands out as the anomaly.

Ben.

Amaleq13

That sounds reasonable. I was wondering if it might not suggest that Mark's community/audience considered itself a continuation of a movement that began (or was based) in Galilee as opposed to one that began (or was based) in Jerusalem. We see some of this in the Mt/Lk revisions with one keeping the Galilee setting and the other appearing to change it to Jerusalem.

Lost or removed and replaced?

I appreciate that though you may be misinterpreting my general confusion.

BTW, why do you think he would add Andrew to the "Main Three"? He got zero mentions by Paul and only appears in Acts as part of a disciple list. John is really the only other author to feature him somewhat prominently and I have to wonder if depicting him as convincing his brother, Peter, to join up is just another way to put him "under" the Beloved Disciple.