The restoration of the disciples in Mark.
Re: The restoration of the disciples in Mark.
It seems that the your reasons to think that the martyrdom of the Pillars deserves (even a minor) redention for Mark is that basically you interpret Mark 10:39 as a positive answer, an approval, an endorsement by Jesus, without no irony or sarcasm in it.
Well, I confess I am perplexed about that view. But at least we agree that it is basically the interpretation of Mark 10:39 what divides our views.
Well, I confess I am perplexed about that view. But at least we agree that it is basically the interpretation of Mark 10:39 what divides our views.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
- Ben C. Smith
- Posts: 8994
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: The restoration of the disciples in Mark.
I would like to run through a scenario close to what I think Joe and Kunigunde are suggesting, one which does not involve a reconciliation between Jesus and the disciples from Mark's perspective:
More importantly, since our assumption above that the readers already knew the disciples preached a gospel without a resurrection is just that, an assumption, it makes me wonder whether other assumptions might not be just as likely, if not more so. For example, if we assume rather that the readers of Mark's gospel knew that the disciples did preach a resurrection, then 14.28 and 16.7 make perfect sense, and we are not forced to regard them as interpolations. (This "knowledge" on their part need not be accurate, incidentally. We know that the disciples were credited with preaching the resurrection at some point anyway, whether early or late, and we need only imagine that Mark's readers knew this much.)
I personally think that Mark could safely assume his readers already know about Simon Peter, at least. I base this on the way in which Simon is introduced in the narrative, without a descriptor: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2551&p=57573. It is much less clear to me that Mark was assuming they knew James and John already; his prediction of their martyrdom in chapter 10 I can see in either light, really: either as affirming what they already knew, to wit, that James and John were martyrs, or as filling them in on the fact for the first time. That James and John are introduced with a descriptor may imply that the second option is better, but I am not married to that outcome. Andrew is more of a wild card, and I do not see any reason to suspect that Mark assumed his readers knew much or anything about Andrew. At any rate, while I think it likely that the Marcan readership already knew about Simon Peter, and therefore may well have known about what kind of gospel he preached, this does not tell us anything about that gospel itself. It could have been a resurrection gospel, or it could have lacked the resurrection.
This post is a bit rambly, I think, but my main point here is to sketch out the possibilities as they relate to Mark 14.28 and 16.7. With those verses intact, a scenario such as the one I sketched out above becomes unlikely, right? We have to assume that those verses are interpolations, right?
- The disciples are known, not only by Mark but also by his readers, to preach a gospel that does not involve the resurrection (it is a healing and teaching gospel, as Joe says). This pretty much has to be known by Mark's readers, I think, because Mark himself takes no pains to point it out in the gospel; the predictions he puts on Jesus' lips about their careers after Jesus' death lack any mention of what kind of gospel they preach, so without this knowledge it would be too easy to assume that they are reconciled to a resurrected Jesus, not just to a healing and teaching Jesus.
- Mark incorporates the history of or legends surrounding those disciples into those dominical predictions. These include the martyrdoms of James and John and the conflicts with the authorities by the four core disciples (Peter, Andrew, James, and John). He does not take the trouble to emphasize that they suffered for an incomplete gospel because, again, presumably his readers already know the contents of their gospel.
- The gospel they preached is incomplete specifically in comparison to the gospel preached by Paul. I say that the gospel is incomplete instead of simply wrong because (A) Paul himself was not against healing and teaching and (B) Jesus himself is the one who gave the disciples this healing and teaching ministry in the first place; they may have missed a turn along the way, but they did not start off with the wrong information.
More importantly, since our assumption above that the readers already knew the disciples preached a gospel without a resurrection is just that, an assumption, it makes me wonder whether other assumptions might not be just as likely, if not more so. For example, if we assume rather that the readers of Mark's gospel knew that the disciples did preach a resurrection, then 14.28 and 16.7 make perfect sense, and we are not forced to regard them as interpolations. (This "knowledge" on their part need not be accurate, incidentally. We know that the disciples were credited with preaching the resurrection at some point anyway, whether early or late, and we need only imagine that Mark's readers knew this much.)
I personally think that Mark could safely assume his readers already know about Simon Peter, at least. I base this on the way in which Simon is introduced in the narrative, without a descriptor: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2551&p=57573. It is much less clear to me that Mark was assuming they knew James and John already; his prediction of their martyrdom in chapter 10 I can see in either light, really: either as affirming what they already knew, to wit, that James and John were martyrs, or as filling them in on the fact for the first time. That James and John are introduced with a descriptor may imply that the second option is better, but I am not married to that outcome. Andrew is more of a wild card, and I do not see any reason to suspect that Mark assumed his readers knew much or anything about Andrew. At any rate, while I think it likely that the Marcan readership already knew about Simon Peter, and therefore may well have known about what kind of gospel he preached, this does not tell us anything about that gospel itself. It could have been a resurrection gospel, or it could have lacked the resurrection.
This post is a bit rambly, I think, but my main point here is to sketch out the possibilities as they relate to Mark 14.28 and 16.7. With those verses intact, a scenario such as the one I sketched out above becomes unlikely, right? We have to assume that those verses are interpolations, right?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
-
- Posts: 18362
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: The restoration of the disciples in Mark.
There is another obvious scenario. Mark as we have it is not ur-Mark but a specific orthodox version of the original text. Irenaeus's report that Luke 10:22 was a part of Mark is a possible confirmation that "other Marks" existed.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
-
- Posts: 2110
- Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
- Location: Leipzig, Germany
- Contact:
Re: The restoration of the disciples in Mark.
This thread is getting more and more interesting. I’m open to follow some of your suggestions, but there are also a few points I tend to disagree. Mark 10.39 may be good example.Ben C. Smith wrote:but everything predicted for after Jesus' resurrection seems to come across as archetypically apostolic and martyrological.
I agree that Mark’s Jesus spoke about a martyr's death in 10:39, but it seems to me that James and John did not understand that (“You do not know what you are asking”). I have always understand this story as a misunderstanding. In my view James and John ask for a “real” glory and not the glory of cross and suffering and they do not understand what Jesus meant with “Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” Therefore in Mark’s story they get from Jesus a martyr's death, but against their actual wishes and against what they think to get.
I think that there is a similar type of explanation for Peter’s future. The intended reason in GMark why Cephas/Peter was an apostle after Jesus’ death seems to me the fulfillment of the private prophecy to Peter (Mark 14:72 And Peter remembered how Jesus had said to him, “Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times.”) But I think that in Mark’s view Peter remembered the false and unimportant of the two ῥῆμα in GMark and not the important one (Mark 9:32) that was spoken in Mark 9:31 (The Son of Man will be delivered into the hands of men. They will kill Him, and after three days He will rise.” 32 But they did not understand this statement, ...)
Btw in Mark isn’t an instruction of Jesus to his disciples to spread the message. The Gospel “must be preached” and the Gospel “will be preached” (Mark 14:9). There seems to be no special need for the four disciples in Mark 13.
- Ben C. Smith
- Posts: 8994
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: The restoration of the disciples in Mark.
I actually agree with this (and am not sure why you thought I might not). This is my preferred reading of the passage. James and John wanted glory without realizing that the path to that glory lay through suffering and even martyrdom. I am not sure exactly what they are supposed to have understood drinking the cup and being baptized with the baptism to mean, but I do not think they understood it as what Jesus had in mind.Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:This thread is getting more and more interesting. I’m open to follow some of your suggestions, but there are also a few points I tend to disagree. Mark 10.39 may be good example.Ben C. Smith wrote:but everything predicted for after Jesus' resurrection seems to come across as archetypically apostolic and martyrological.
I agree that Mark’s Jesus spoke about a martyr's death in 10:39, but it seems to me that James and John did not understand that (“You do not know what you are asking”). I have always understand this story as a misunderstanding. In my view James and John ask for a “real” glory and not the glory of cross and suffering and they do not understand what Jesus meant with “Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” Therefore in Mark’s story they get from Jesus a martyr's death, but against their actual wishes and against what they think to get.
I think I understand most of this, and I love your identification of the two ῥήματα in Mark, but I am missing why you think Peter becoming an apostle is a fulfillment of Mark 14.72.I think that there is a similar type of explanation for Peter’s future. The intended reason in GMark why Cephas/Peter was an apostle after Jesus’ death seems to me the fulfillment of the private prophecy to Peter (Mark 14:72 And Peter remembered how Jesus had said to him, “Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times.”) But I think that in Mark’s view Peter remembered the false and unimportant of the two ῥῆμα in GMark and not the important one (Mark 9:32) that was spoken in Mark 9:31 (The Son of Man will be delivered into the hands of men. They will kill Him, and after three days He will rise.” 32 But they did not understand this statement, ...)
Also, is there a reason you keep writing Cephas/Peter? I understand that Peter is most often viewed as a Greek translation of an Aramaic word transliterated as Cephas (a view which I question), but Mark nowhere calls him Cephas, so is there something important to you in the equation that I am not recognizing?
Well, I think such an instruction is implied for the mission trip in Mark 6.7-13, at least. The instruction is not explicit on Jesus' lips, but seems implicit in the mention of people listening to the disciples in verse 11, as well as in their immediate reaction to it in verse 12: they go out and preach. Are you saying that Jesus meant (in Mark) this instruction to expire? It is also very easy, maybe too easy, to imagine that preaching is the cause of them being hauled in before governors and kings in the first place. Maybe that is just a matter of me importing ideas from Acts and other legendary accounts into the picture, but the juxtaposition of them being brought before rulers (and told what to say by the Spirit) and the mention of preaching the gospel seems telling to me.Btw in Mark isn’t an instruction of Jesus to his disciples to spread the message. The Gospel “must be preached” and the Gospel “will be preached” (Mark 14:9). There seems to be no special need for the four disciples in Mark 13.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
-
- Posts: 2110
- Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
- Location: Leipzig, Germany
- Contact:
Re: The restoration of the disciples in Mark.
I thought that you disagree because I can’t see a „restoration“ in this story. That they will have the honor of a martyr’s death seems to be the result of a funny misunderstanding (a honor by unbelievable grace and not by works – so to speak).Ben C. Smith wrote:I actually agree with this (and am not sure why you thought I might not). This is my preferred reading of the passage. James and John wanted glory without realizing that the path to that glory lay through suffering and even martyrdom. I am not sure exactly what they are supposed to have understood drinking the cup and being baptized with the baptism to mean, but I do not think they understood it as what Jesus had in mind.
I simply assume that Mark’s Peter is Paul’s Cephas but I know that I can’t proove the point.Ben C. Smith wrote:I think I understand most of this, and I love your identification of the two ῥήματα in Mark, but I am missing why you think Peter becoming an apostle is a fulfillment of Mark 14.72.
Also, is there a reason you keep writing Cephas/Peter? I understand that Peter is most often viewed as a Greek translation of an Aramaic word transliterated as Cephas (a view which I question), but Mark nowhere calls him Cephas, so is there something important to you in the equation that I am not recognizing?
My impression is that GMark does not focus on a “psychological development” of the characters, but such a thing may be not completely absent. The betrayal and abandonment by the disciples seems to be the result of a long line of misunderstanding and little disagreements in a situation under pressure. But that raises the logical question why the disciples (and especially Peter) are engaged in a Jesus-mission after the death of Jesus. Why they do not go home to their fishing nets? I think that Peter understood in Mark 14:72 the cock crows as the exact fulfillment of the prophecy of Jesus and came to the conclusion that not all was bad and that at least Jesus was able to make true prophecies.
- Ben C. Smith
- Posts: 8994
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: The restoration of the disciples in Mark.
Ah, so there is a slight difference between our views. For me, there is a misunderstanding, but it is not the cause of their martyrdom. Rather, Jesus already knows the future (as he seems to know throughout the rest of the gospel, with the exception of things that he says only his Father knows), and he already knows that they will fall away from him, then be restored, and then die martyr's deaths. He is, from their perspective, granting their wish, but in reality he is just predicting their future, and he asked that leading question ("can you drink this cup?") in order to get them to accept that fate, however unwittingly at first.Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:I thought that you disagree because I can’t see a „restoration“ in this story. That they will have the honor of a martyr’s death seems to be the result of a funny misunderstanding (a honor by unbelievable grace and not by works – so to speak).Ben C. Smith wrote:I actually agree with this (and am not sure why you thought I might not). This is my preferred reading of the passage. James and John wanted glory without realizing that the path to that glory lay through suffering and even martyrdom. I am not sure exactly what they are supposed to have understood drinking the cup and being baptized with the baptism to mean, but I do not think they understood it as what Jesus had in mind.
But even in your scenario I see a restoration. Even if their martyrdom is the direct result of their request here, and Jesus is in fact granting their wish, they do not have to be martyrs in order to be restored. I do not think the sense of Mark is necessarily that all four of the inner disciples will die that way (we are not told Andrew's specific fate, at any rate; nor Peter's, for that matter); but at least those inner four will be brought before kings and such. Had James and John not made the request, in other words, they would still have been given the opportunity to be restored (and Jesus is predicting in chapter 13 that they will take that opportunity), but not necessarily die as martyrs.
The restoration, for me, depends only on comparing the predictions with the disciples' defection. My question is whether Mark envisions their defection (at Jesus' arrest) as the disciples' last true action in the Jesus movement, and my answer is that he does not: he knows that they will come back to the movement in a positive capacity (not simply as hypocritical preachers or wolves in sheep's clothing, but as martyrs for the cause). But this knowledge entails a necessary restoration of some kind between their defection and their return to their apostleship.
Another line of inquiry. Mark actually calls the disciples "apostles" when they return from the preaching tour in chapter 6. Now, I recognize that this word need mean no more than "the ones who had been sent out"; it does not have to be a technical term. But we have to wonder, does Mark know that the first waves of preachers after Jesus' death were called apostles? It is hard for me to imagine that he does not. (And, if your own theory that Mark was cribbing from Paul is correct, he had to have known the terminology.) But, if Mark knew the terminology, then what does his using it here, during Jesus' ministry, mean to you? What is Mark saying here?
Okay, so you are saying that Peter's remembrance of the prediction about his three denials also made him remember that other, more positive things were predicted by Jesus about him? And this gave him the confidence to continue with the movement rather than abandoning it? So, on this view, there is no resurrection appearance necessary? Peter already has all the pieces of the puzzle of his life at hand, and has only to put them together? (And, for the record, I would still call this a restoration; it would simply be one that does not involve a resurrection appearance, if that is the point you are making.)My impression is that GMark does not focus on a “psychological development” of the characters, but such a thing may be not completely absent. The betrayal and abandonment by the disciples seems to be the result of a long line of misunderstanding and little disagreements in a situation under pressure. But that raises the logical question why the disciples (and especially Peter) are engaged in a Jesus-mission after the death of Jesus. Why they do not go home to their fishing nets? I think that Peter understood in Mark 14:72 the cock crows as the exact fulfillment of the prophecy of Jesus and came to the conclusion that not all was bad and that at least Jesus was able to make true prophecies.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
-
- Posts: 18362
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: The restoration of the disciples in Mark.
I am not sure what to make of this reference in Origen's Against Celsus but it might be the earliest (albeit indirect) evidence of the short ending of Mark:
And besides this, one may well wonder how it happened that the disciples— if, as the calumniators of Jesus say, they did not see Him after His resurrection from the dead, and were not persuaded of His divinity — were not afraid to endure the same sufferings with their Master, and to expose themselves to danger, and to leave their native country to teach, according to the desire of Jesus, the doctrine delivered to them by Him. (1.30)
And besides this, one may well wonder how it happened that the disciples— if, as the calumniators of Jesus say, they did not see Him after His resurrection from the dead, and were not persuaded of His divinity — were not afraid to endure the same sufferings with their Master, and to expose themselves to danger, and to leave their native country to teach, according to the desire of Jesus, the doctrine delivered to them by Him. (1.30)
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Re: The restoration of the disciples in Mark.
If the Pillars ask power and glory to Jesus but they don't know what they are asking, then they will obtain just what they don't know that they are asking, without never to know that they will obtain just it: a vain martyrdom.
What makes that martyrdom a VAIN martyrdom is that the Pillars will die without to know never why.
What makes that martyrdom a VAIN martyrdom is that the Pillars will die without to know never why.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
-
- Posts: 319
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:37 pm
Re: The restoration of the disciples in Mark.
Chapter 31 not 30.Secret Alias wrote:I am not sure what to make of this reference in Origen's Against Celsus but it might be the earliest (albeit indirect) evidence of the short ending of Mark:
And besides this, one may well wonder how it happened that the disciples— if, as the calumniators of Jesus say, they did not see Him after His resurrection from the dead, and were not persuaded of His divinity — were not afraid to endure the same sufferings with their Master, and to expose themselves to danger, and to leave their native country to teach, according to the desire of Jesus, the doctrine delivered to them by Him. (1.30)