The restoration of the disciples in Mark.

[davidbrainerd]

That is exactly the sort of exegesis that can get one anywhere one wishes to go, the sort that relies upon sleight of hand and "switcheroos", as you charmingly call them. I asked this question of Giuseppe once long ago: if Jesus' second cup in Mark is the eucharistic cup, what is Jesus' second baptism in Mark?

He has 3 baptisms: water, spirit, cross.

[Ben C. Smith]

That is exactly the sort of exegesis that can get one anywhere one wishes to go, the sort that relies upon sleight of hand and "switcheroos", as you charmingly call them. I asked this question of Giuseppe once long ago: if Jesus' second cup in Mark is the eucharistic cup, what is Jesus' second baptism in Mark?

He has 3 baptisms: water, spirit, cross.

So the "second" baptism of which you spoke is baptism in the spirit?

ETA: IOW, which one is the one you think is mentioned in 10.39? (I presume the one in 10.38 is the cross, in your view.)

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

"To be restored" and "not to be abandoned" could be two different things. Mark 10:31 (But many who are first will be last, and the last first) may also point to the assumption that they are not completely abandoned.

Maybe. But martyrdom and the kind of suffering associated with furthering the Jesus movement to me imply a restoration of some kind. Not being abandoned is an understatement of what I think is actually the case.

Okay, I see it.

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.

Maybe there are a few problems to distinguish between the historical situation and what Mark’s story implies.

If there was in Mark’s time some knowledge or stories and legends about a historical Cephas/Peter as a leading apostle and a group who accepted Cephas as the greatest authority then Mark’s Gospel could have the function to discredit this authority or this group. But that would not mean that Cephas wasn’t an apostle, only that his authority should be a bit questionable and that “his way” was in Mark’s view not “Jesus’ way”.

I think your best points are Mark 10:39 and Mark 13. But to assume that “Mark” restored Peter and friends in his story we need to assume that Mark always distinguished very carefully between the historical situation and what his story implies. It could be that Mark alluds in future prediction (as in Mark 10.39 and Mark 13) rather to the historical situation or legends about it or claims of the Cephas group. (Just to be clear. I think Mark's main principle is inclusion and this applies also to Cephas and his followers).

[Ben C. Smith]

"To be restored" and "not to be abandoned" could be two different things. Mark 10:31 (But many who are first will be last, and the last first) may also point to the assumption that they are not completely abandoned.

Maybe. But martyrdom and the kind of suffering associated with furthering the Jesus movement to me imply a restoration of some kind. Not being abandoned is an understatement of what I think is actually the case.

Okay, I see it.

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.

Maybe there are a few problems to distinguish between the historical situation and what Mark’s story implies.

If there was in Mark’s time some knowledge or stories and legends about a historical Cephas/Peter as a leading apostle and a group who accepted Cephas as the greatest authority then Mark’s Gospel could have the function to discredit this authority or this group. But that would not mean that Cephas wasn’t an apostle, only that his authority should be a bit questionable and that “his way” was in Mark’s view not “Jesus’ way”.

(This is tangential, perhaps, but I think it is important to keep straight that Mark never calls Peter/Simon "Cephas" — that is something that John does.)

Peter's authority is extremely questionable, his way not Jesus' way at all, during Jesus' lifetime. What happens between Jesus' death and whatever inspired those predictions about Peter (and James and John, and even Andrew) is the question. During Jesus' life one can find scarcely a decent thing to say about Peter in Mark; even his good moments (8.29) feel like set-ups for much worse moments (8.33); but everything predicted for after Jesus' resurrection seems to come across as archetypically apostolic and martyrological. Mark could have easily avoided this contrast (or explained it away somehow), but he did not; and I simply think that the best explanation is that Mark either knew of or envisioned a restoration of some kind.

When I was a child (growing up in an evangelical household), my parents used to listen to a Christian radio program called Unshackled. Each week featured the story of a Christian who had come out of ("been saved from") severe criminalities, addictions, perversions, and other difficulties. The whole point of the program was that even the life that seems most irredeemable in God's eyes can still be redeemed. With such an approach, there is no way to paint the person as beyond divine help. Every crime committed, every dollar gambled away, every prostitute visited just makes the story better: wow, God saved this person from all that.

This is similar, I think, to what we find in Mark. In the time frame of the story itself, Peter and company look hopeless. On its own merits, this could easily be an attempt to discredit them and their approach. (As you say, they can still be apostles, but their authority can be undermined.) But then why is Mark content to suggest nothing at all unseemly about their future after the resurrection? Why do they come across as suffering saints in those dominical predictions? This pattern fits the Unshackled style of redeeming a character a lot better than it fits some vendetta against the post-resurrection Petrine apostleship, IMHO.

I think your best points are Mark 10:39 and Mark 13.

I agree.

But to assume that “Mark” restored Peter and friends in his story we need to assume that Mark always distinguished very carefully between the historical situation and what his story implies.

If Mark intended to cast doubt on Peter's apostolic commission, style, or emphases, but did not take the trouble to rewrite the historical situation accordingly (instead merely importing it wholesale), then he was undermining his own case, I think, and pretty severely. More than that, however, he seems to have deliberately cast the inner circle of 4 in a (future) good light, especially in chapter 13. He could easily have made Jesus address those words to "the disciples" in general (which is exactly what Matthew does in 24.3), thus leaving room for the reader to suppose that perhaps Peter and the other dunderheads are not the main recipients; but no, Mark instead specifies four disciples, the entire first rank of the twelve (3.13-19), as the protases of all those pronominal references throughout the rest of the chapter. This does not seem like merely importing the historical (or legendary) situation (in which these four are well-known apostles) without properly distinguishing it from his purpose in discrediting these same four; this seems like an intentional singling out of precisely these disciples as the ones who most suitably symbolize the suffering that the Jesus movement will have undergone.

Ben.

[perseusomega9]

Second, there is Mark 2.18-20:

2.18 John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting; and they come and say to Him, “Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but Your disciples do not fast?” 19 And Jesus said to them, “While the bridegroom is with them, the attendants of the bridegroom cannot fast, can they? So long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. 20 But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day.

This instance, too, allows some wriggle room, since Mark makes clear that there are more disciples than merely the twelve (who are not officially summoned as a body until 3.13-19); nevertheless, Jesus is presuming in this saying that his disciples will be minding the rituals of the movement (fasting, in this case) after his departure.

Isn't this to be read as an inter-Christian argument, e.g. why do some Christians fast but others don't?

[Ben C. Smith]

Second, there is Mark 2.18-20:

2.18 John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting; and they come and say to Him, “Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but Your disciples do not fast?” 19 And Jesus said to them, “While the bridegroom is with them, the attendants of the bridegroom cannot fast, can they? So long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. 20 But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day.

This instance, too, allows some wriggle room, since Mark makes clear that there are more disciples than merely the twelve (who are not officially summoned as a body until 3.13-19); nevertheless, Jesus is presuming in this saying that his disciples will be minding the rituals of the movement (fasting, in this case) after his departure.

Isn't this to be read as an inter-Christian argument, e.g. why do some Christians fast but others don't?

How so? The distinction is longitudinal (not fasting while Jesus is around versus fasting after he departs), not lateral (fasting versus not fasting after he departs).

ETA: Actually, I can see some Christians fasting and others not fasting, with the fasting contingent alleging that not fasting was acceptable only while Jesus was still around. So, if that is what you mean, then I can see your point; it is a possible reconstruction. What does said reconstruction have in favor of it that would make it probable, in your opinion?

[DCHindley]

The [fasting vs. not fasting] distinction is longitudinal (not fasting while Jesus is around versus fasting after he departs), not lateral (fasting versus not fasting after he departs).

ETA: Actually, I can see some Christians fasting and others not fasting, with the fasting contingent alleging that not fasting was acceptable only while Jesus was still around. So, if that is what you mean, then I can see your point; it is a possible reconstruction. What does said reconstruction have in favor of it that would make it probable, in your opinion?

What would you think of fasting and non fasting to relate to the "ultimate fate" of Jews and Jesus-believing gentiles? As a result of the rebellion of 66 CE Judeans were ultimately humiliated by the Romans, so they fast. Jesus' true followers (believing gentiles), on account of the suppression of Judeophiles among gentiles after the war, became the safer alternative for those gentiles involved in the early Jesus movement, which increased their numbers. They could safely feast, at least metaphorically.

DCH

[Ben C. Smith]

The [fasting vs. not fasting] distinction is longitudinal (not fasting while Jesus is around versus fasting after he departs), not lateral (fasting versus not fasting after he departs).

ETA: Actually, I can see some Christians fasting and others not fasting, with the fasting contingent alleging that not fasting was acceptable only while Jesus was still around. So, if that is what you mean, then I can see your point; it is a possible reconstruction. What does said reconstruction have in favor of it that would make it probable, in your opinion?

What would you think of fasting and non fasting to relate to the "ultimate fate" of Jews and Jesus-believing gentiles? As a result of the rebellion of 66 CE Judeans were ultimately humiliated by the Romans, so they fast. Jesus' true followers (believing gentiles), on account of the suppression of Judeophiles among gentiles after the war, became the safer alternative for those gentiles involved in the early Jesus movement, which increased their numbers. They could safely feast, at least metaphorically.

How would Jesus' prediction that they would feast only while he was still around convey the information that they would/could feast after the fall of Jerusalem? How does that correspondence set itself up or suggest itself to the reader?

[outhouse]

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.
Ben.

The authors in the Diaspora despite not ever knowing any of these figures in any way, they were made authority figures since they were his inner circle. They imagined them doing the same thing as Paul. but they did not know enough to be specific.

Its my opinion they fled to Galilee after arrest, and that is the end of their historicity. Its always been my opinion the Jerusalem sect mentioned in Pauline text, either used the names James and Peter in rhetorical prose to build authority, or the Jerusalem ecclesia sect used their names to build authority to Paul. I just do not see Aramaic Galilean peasants going along with this new Hellenistic perversion of Judaism that grew off the martyrdom mythology.

[outhouse]

.
and I simply think that the best explanation is that Mark either knew of or envisioned a restoration of some kind.

Ben.

The foundation was apocalyptic Judaism, and when the crap hit the fan there was a rank they expected would exist afterwards. So I would say you are correct.