The restoration of the disciples in Mark.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: The restoration of the disciples in Mark.

Post by JoeWallack »

Ben C. Smith wrote: The overall force of these passages is that the disciples will, after Jesus' departure, still be participating in the Jesus movement, both in its rituals (fasting) and in its practices (preaching/fishing for humans), and to such a degree that it invites persecution (being dragged before the authorities) and even martyrdom (drinking the cup and being baptized with the baptism). These dominical predictions apply at least to Peter, Andrew, James, and John, and probably also to many of the other disciples. These observations imply that the abandonment of which they are guilty at Jesus' arrest and crucifixion will be remedied; they will be forgiven and restored.

Again, my mind is still open, but this position is the one I currently hold, and I have seen nothing yet which has argued away to my own satisfaction the combined force of the above passages.
Ben.
Actually it's More of a Guideline than a Rule

JW:
My Award winning contra Thread:

"The Simontic Problem". "Mark's" Negative Casting of Peter

still [understatement]more than offsets your claimed points here[/understatement] regarding the fate (so to speak) of Peter and the Disciples as to quality and quantity:
Major Negative Casting:

1) 4:15 The Parable of the Sower specifically refers to Peter as in the category of Disciple Failure.

2) 8:32 Peter is presented as the Opposition to the Passion.

3) 14:30 Jesus predicts that Peter will Deny him Three times.

4) 14:53-72 Peter Denies Jesus Three times.

Minor Negative Casting:

1) 1:29-31 Sickness in Simon's house.

2) 3:16 Jesus gives Simon an extra name, "Peter".

3) 6:3 The name "Simon" is assigned to a brother of Jesus who is presented unfavorably.

4) 14:1-9 A Simon is presented as a Leper.

5) 14:37 Jesus demotes Peter by using his pre-Disciple name, "Simon" to address him.

6) 14:34-42 Peter Fails to Watch out for Jesus.

7) 14:72 Peter mourns the loss of his life for Denying Jesus.

8) 15:21 Peter Simon is figuratively replaced as Leader of Jesus' followers.
The cruncher as the Brits would say is the ending which typically is the author's own summary of what she wrote;
And they went out, and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them: and they said nothing to any one; for they were afraid.
In general you would even agree that "Mark's" (author) general tone is condemnation/discrediting of the Disciples. The negative attitude towards the Disciples is more often, more extreme, more specific and more formulaic. In such a situation the Textual Critic should try to interpret the minority based on the majority and not verses-vices.

Again, there is potential salvation for your observations. "Mark" is an extremely stylish author making extremely stylish points. Often these points will interSect with one another. So:
  • 1) "Mark" may have accepted that Peter/Disciples were promoting Jesus after his death.

    2) "Mark's" related point was how they were promoting Jesus. Either no or at least insufficient promoting of his supposed resurrection just like Christ Walking who's gotta have more cross-bells.
Joseph

Figures Don't Lie But Liars Figure. A Proportionate Response to the Disproportionate Response Claim (Gaza)
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The restoration of the disciples in Mark.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

JoeWallack wrote:My Award winning contra Thread:

"The Simontic Problem". "Mark's" Negative Casting of Peter

still [understatement]more than offsets your claimed points here[/understatement] regarding the fate (so to speak) of Peter and the Disciples as to quality and quantity.
I do not think so. I think I agree with every item on your list, but they still all apply to the "before" time period. You cannot rule out an Unshackled-style rehabilitation story from the outset; you have to look for clues either way. If rehabilitation is the end goal, then the worse you can make it (as an author), before the moment of rehabilitation, the better. Only if rehabilitation is not the end goal does making it worse for the past also make it worse for the present or the future.

As for the ending of Mark is concerned, of course all of this is slowly driving toward a fuller consideration of that issue.
"Mark" may have accepted that Peter/Disciples were promoting Jesus after his death.
I think those predictions show that he did accept this.
"Mark's" related point was how they were promoting Jesus. Either no or at least insufficient promoting of his supposed resurrection just like Christ Walking who's gotta have more cross-bells.
The last part of your second sentence is too obscure for me, sorry. But where do you find evidence in Mark, which mostly covers the time period before the resurrection, that the disciples did not properly appreciate the resurrection after the resurrection? When Mark is describing their suffering at the hands of kings and governors, when he is describing martyrdom and listening to the Holy Spirit, where is he simultaneously mitigating those activities by pointing out the deficiency of their understanding at that time?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Benny, Benny, Benny. Benny and the Jews

Post by JoeWallack »

Ben C. Smith wrote:I think that the gospel of Mark in several distinct places makes it very clear that the disciples are going to be restored.

First, there is Mark 1.16-17:

1.16 As He was going along by the Sea of Galilee, He saw Simon and Andrew, the brother of Simon, casting a net in the sea; for they were fishermen. 17 And Jesus said to them, “Follow Me, and I will make you become fishers of men.”

It is possible that this promise to turn (at least) Simon and Andrew into fishers of men (a metaphor, obvious though somewhat creepy, for preachers in the nascent movement) is meant to be fulfilled fully in Mark 6.7-13, but I am not sure that a single preaching tour is really what is promised. No matter: there are other indicators, should this one seem insufficient.
JW:
Again, "Mark" (author) has a primary thematic distinction that it's not just important if you promote Jesus but how you promote Jesus. Same as the only significant extant Christian author before him, Paul. At the risk of sounding like Obi won Kanobi, you will agree that the quote above works very well as a set-up for a textbook (so to speak) formulaic example of Disciple failure with the critical Parable of the Sower =

4
4:16 And these in like manner are they that are sown upon the rocky [places], who, when they have heard the word, straightway receive it with joy;
17 and they have no root in themselves, but endure for a while; then, when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, straightway they stumble.
The primary point here is speed. Those quick to follow are also quick to abandon. "Mark" doesn't lay it all out here because that would not be stylish. But the point within the entire narrative is the motivation is desire for reward and avoidance of punishment (suffering). Hence, these Disciples get on early because they see reward. But they also leave early because they see punishment. So in typical Markan style, they follow quickly but for the wrong reason. So I think your example here is already better evidence against restoration than for but there is even more:

9
42 And whosoever shall cause one of these little ones that believe on me to
stumble, [σκανδαλίσῃ, fail in a religious context, same word in the Parable of the Sower]
it were better for him if a
great millstone [reference to Peter/Petros? I think so]
were hanged about his neck, and he were
cast into the sea [βέβληται εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν, same four (root) words].
As is "Mark's" wont I have faith that he has deliberately/jewdiciously used key words from your quote, "fishermen", "casting in the sea", in order to tie these fishermen to negative/discrediting descriptions. Note that in order to make "casting into the sea" an even better parallel "Mark" has exorcised "nets" from the first use.

By the Way, let's already consider a secondary observation. Assume you are correct that "Mark" intended an implication that the Disciples had full restoration. If GMark was intended to be an evangelistic tool, why wouldn't the author, presumably writing after Peter's career, make explicit that Peter was restored?


Joseph

Figures Don't Lie But Liars Figure. A Proportionate Response to the Disproportionate Response Claim (Gaza)
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Benny, Benny, Benny. Benny and the Jews

Post by Ben C. Smith »

JoeWallack wrote:
Ben C. Smith wrote:I think that the gospel of Mark in several distinct places makes it very clear that the disciples are going to be restored.

First, there is Mark 1.16-17:

1.16 As He was going along by the Sea of Galilee, He saw Simon and Andrew, the brother of Simon, casting a net in the sea; for they were fishermen. 17 And Jesus said to them, “Follow Me, and I will make you become fishers of men.”

It is possible that this promise to turn (at least) Simon and Andrew into fishers of men (a metaphor, obvious though somewhat creepy, for preachers in the nascent movement) is meant to be fulfilled fully in Mark 6.7-13, but I am not sure that a single preaching tour is really what is promised. No matter: there are other indicators, should this one seem insufficient.
JW:
Again, "Mark" (author) has a primary thematic distinction that it's not just important if you promote Jesus but how you promote Jesus. Same as the only significant extant Christian author before him, Paul. At the risk of sounding like Obi won Kanobi, you will agree that the quote above works very well as a set-up for a textbook (so to speak) formulaic example of Disciple failure with the critical Parable of the Sower =

4
4:16 And these in like manner are they that are sown upon the rocky [places], who, when they have heard the word, straightway receive it with joy;
17 and they have no root in themselves, but endure for a while; then, when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, straightway they stumble.
The primary point here is speed. Those quick to follow are also quick to abandon. "Mark" doesn't lay it all out here because that would not be stylish. But the point within the entire narrative is the motivation is desire for reward and avoidance of punishment (suffering). Hence, these Disciples get on early because they see reward. But they also leave early because they see punishment. So in typical Markan style, they follow quickly but for the wrong reason.
Once again, I accept at least most of this, at least provisionally; and yet it still applies only to Jesus earthly tenure. When did the disciples accept the word fully? During Jesus' time in Galilee. When did they face trouble and stumble? At his arrest. Yes, I think their failure here was total and complete.

But when we get to those predictions, which apply to the time period after Jesus' death and resurrection, they are not only staying the course to the point where they are being led before earthly leaders; they are even being martyred. Where once they could not go 10 minutes into tribulation without running for cover, now they are boldly standing up to kings. Something seems to have changed. I think that, for Mark, the disciples were given a second chance, completely undeserved and at Jesus' full discretion, and they took it.
So I think your example here is already better evidence against restoration than for but there is even more:

9
42 And whosoever shall cause one of these little ones that believe on me to
stumble, [σκανδαλίσῃ, fail in a religious context, same word in the Parable of the Sower]
it were better for him if a
great millstone [reference to Peter/Petros? I think so]
were hanged about his neck, and he were
cast into the sea [βέβληται εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν, same four (root) words].
As is "Mark's" wont I have faith that he has deliberately/jewdiciously used key words from your quote, "fishermen", "casting in the sea", in order to tie these fishermen to negative/discrediting descriptions. Note that in order to make "casting into the sea" an even better parallel "Mark" has exorcised "nets" from the first use.
This one I am not so sure about. I will think about it before responding.
By the Way, let's already consider a secondary observation. Assume you are correct that "Mark" intended an implication that the Disciples had full restoration. If GMark was intended to be an evangelistic tool, why wouldn't the author, presumably writing after Peter's career, make explicit that Peter was restored?
I think he did, after 16.8, and the ending was lost.

(In all of this I am driving, very slowly, toward a consideration of the ending of Mark.)
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The restoration of the disciples in Mark.

Post by Giuseppe »

I remember that Ben agrees that the high priest is never forgiven, because he did committ blasphemy against the Saint Spirit, by tearing his dress before the Jesus possessed by the Spirit in 14:62-63.

Now, Peter outside the high priest's home is the perfect mirror of the high priest himself inside his home (Caiaphas, even if he is not named ''Caiaphas'' in Mark, but the reader would realize the irony behind ''Cephas''=''Caiaphas''). Therefore the High Priest tearing his dress is mirrored by the Peter's dolor after his betrayal.

Therefore, by pure and simple similarity in the guilt, the condemnation of Caiaphas forever is also the condemnation of Peter forever.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The restoration of the disciples in Mark.

Post by Giuseppe »

Note also that the blasphemy made by the high priest (inside his home) happens after a lot of time: all the time necessary to move Jesus to talk at least a word.

Note also that the blasphemy made by Peter (outside his home) happens after a lot of time: all the time necessary to move the roaster to sing for three times.

Therefore Mark is really condemning both the high priest and Peter in the same equal way: they will be never, never, never forgiven.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The restoration of the disciples in Mark.

Post by Giuseppe »


Peterthe high priest
Peter denies that he knows Jesusthe high priest denies that Jesus is who he claims to be
the roaster sings for three times (before that his song is very understand by Peter)Jesus is accused for three times (before that his silence ends and the real accusation is understand by the high priest):
Mark 14:55-59New King James Version (NKJV)
[FIRST TIME]
55 Now the chief priests and all the council sought testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, but found none.

[SECOND TIME]
56 For many bore false witness against Him, but their testimonies did not agree.

[THIRD TIME]
57 Then some rose up and bore false witness against Him, saying, 58 “We heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.’” 59 But not even then did their testimony agree.
the roaster is symbol of resurrectionJesus will rise
Peter is outside the homethe high priest (meant to be Caiaphas?) is inside the home
Peter weeps after that he has realized the meaning of the roasterthe high priest tears his dress after that he has realized the true accusation against Jesus.

Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The restoration of the disciples in Mark.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Giuseppe wrote:I remember that Ben agrees that the high priest is never forgiven, because he did committ blasphemy against the Saint Spirit, by tearing his dress before the Jesus possessed by the Spirit in 14:62-63.

Now, Peter outside the high priest's home is the perfect mirror of the high priest himself inside his home (Caiaphas, even if he is not named ''Caiaphas'' in Mark, but the reader would realize the irony behind ''Cephas''=''Caiaphas''). Therefore the High Priest tearing his dress is mirrored by the Peter's dolor after his betrayal.
Mark never mentions either Cephas or Caiaphas. That limb you are standing on is a twig.

And the high priest committed actual blasphemy. Peter did not. Just because two episodes are paralleled in order to draw out the similarities does not mean that every single thing you can spin out of your fertile imagination counts as a similarity.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The restoration of the disciples in Mark.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

By the way, it is "rooster", not "roaster", though (coincidentally) any fowl fit for roasting can be called a roaster in English.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The restoration of the disciples in Mark.

Post by Giuseppe »

But to deny the own knowledge of x

and

to deny that x is who claims to be

is a real similarity. Don't you agree at least with it?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply