The restoration of the disciples in Mark.

[rakovsky]

Ben, can you please summarize in two or three sentences what is your main point in this thread?

[Giuseppe]

Ben, frankly, I wonder where's the problem with my suggestive interpretation (modesty apart):

You argue that the martyrdom deserves a redemption, even if a minor redemption.

I don't think so. Paul said somewhere that even if one had a lot of attributes, and he had not the charity, he is nothing.

Mark is not different. The Pillars wanted the first places: this is their Original Sin.

The desire of first places makes their value less than the value of the two thieves on the cross.

Idem for Peter. He wants to be the best disciple of Jesus (it is implicit in his name, after all).

In order to be the best disciple, Peter has to take the cross and follow Jesus.

But Simon of Cyrene takes the cross and follows Jesus, and Simon of Cyrene is NOT a disciple.

I think Mark is indulging in very ironic hyperbole: if to realize the Jesus's ''conditio sine qua non'' are not even disciples of Jesus (the two thieves + Symon of Cyrene), how much more should not be considered really as such (''disciples of Jesus'') the alleged disciples of Jesus?

To think that the martyrdom of J&J serves to something means to think that the discipleship of Peter serves to something, but this has a little problem: it destroyes the superb ironic hyperbole of Mark.

[Giuseppe]

Not only this, but I think that Mark is promising de facto, via Mark 10:39, a future vain death to the Pillars.

While the dramatic fate that awaits Peter is already all there, in Mark 14:17.

[Ben C. Smith]

Ben, frankly, I wonder where's the problem with my suggestive interpretation (modesty apart):

You argue that the martyrdom deserves a redemption, even if a minor redemption.

I don't think so. Paul said somewhere that even if one had a lot of attributes, and he had not the charity, he is nothing.

I wrote:

An author would have to work pretty hard to acknowledge that the disciples were martyrs for Jesus, or even that they suffered for his sake (as predicted in Mark 13), and yet denigrate them in that very action. An author would have to work pretty hard to nullify the martyrdom, and I do not think Mark has even begun to do so.

In 1 Corinthians 13, Paul has done that work of denigrating suffering or martyrdom. I do not see where Mark has.

Mark is not different. The Pillars wanted the first places: this is their Original Sin.

The desire of first places makes their value less than the value of the two thieves on the cross.

Idem for Peter. He wants to be the best disciple of Jesus (it is implicit in his name, after all).

In order to be the best disciple, Peter has to take the cross and follow Jesus.

But Simon of Cyrene takes the cross and follows Jesus, and Simon of Cyrene is NOT a disciple.

I think Mark is indulging in very ironic hyperbole: if to realize the Jesus's ''conditio sine qua non'' are not even disciples of Jesus (the two thieves + Symon of Cyrene), how much more should not be considered really as such (''disciples of Jesus'') the alleged disciples of Jesus?

All of this may well be true of the disciples' apostolic careers during Jesus' lifetime, culminating with their ignominious abandonment of him at his arrest.

[Ben C. Smith]

Ben, can you please summarize in two or three sentences what is your main point in this thread?

What part of the OP was not clear enough for you?

[Giuseppe]

And here Ben, I see a great contradiction in your answer.

Before you say that ''the author'' (but I would have liked that you wrote ''a reader'') ''would have to work pretty hard to acknowledge that the disciples were martyrs for Jesus, or even that they suffered for his sake (as predicted in Mark 13), and yet denigrate them in that very action''

...therefore confirming an assumption a priori that the author/the reader didn't know nothing, in the real History, about the fate of the Pillars

...and after you write:

All of this may well be true of the disciples' apostolic careers during Jesus' lifetime, culminating with their ignominious abandonment of him at his arrest.

...betraying an assumption a priori that the reader/the author did know that the Pillars were redeemed, after, by their martyrdom in the real History.

My scenario is that:

''Mark'' (author) and the readers of Mark knew that the Pillars died by martyrdom IN THE REAL HISTORY.

Therefore the original reader of Mark was able to recognize the irony of Jesus's words in Mark 10:39.

Viceversa, if the Pillars didn't die by martyrdom and if the readers of Mark (and Mark himself) didn't know nothing about their fate, then I may start to suspect that you are right, Ben: that Mark's goal was rather pacifist with the Pillars, forgiving their sins.

But I cannot imagine a Mark FIRST GOSPEL that is friendly about the Pillars. That would be an argument AGAINST Markan priority, frankly.

[Ben C. Smith]

And here Ben, I see a great contradiction in your answer.

Before you say that ''the author'' (but I would have liked that you wrote ''a reader'') ''would have to work pretty hard to acknowledge that the disciples were martyrs for Jesus, or even that they suffered for his sake (as predicted in Mark 13), and yet denigrate them in that very action''

...therefore confirming an assumption a priori that the author/the reader didn't know nothing, in the real History, about the fate of the Pillars

...and after you write:

All of this may well be true of the disciples' apostolic careers during Jesus' lifetime, culminating with their ignominious abandonment of him at his arrest.

...betraying an assumption a priori that the reader/the author did know that the Pillars were redeemed, after, by their martyrdom in the real History.

It is simply not true that describing what happens during their time with Jesus in Mark betrays any such assumption. Saying that their time with Jesus ended in abject failure says nothing about what happened after their time with Jesus, whether good or bad. Whatever contradiction you think you see is actually impossible, since I have kept the two time periods (during Jesus' ministry and after Jesus' ministry) completely separate. You may accuse me of missing the irony that you are certain you find here, but that is not the same thing as me actually contradicting myself.

But I cannot imagine a Mark FIRST GOSPEL that is friendly about the Pillars. That would be an argument AGAINST Markan priority, frankly.

Why does the first gospel have to be dismissive of the Pillars? Who made up that rule?

[Giuseppe]

Why does the first gospel have to be dismissive of the Pillars? Who made up that rule?

1) because what is more embarrassing is surely more old.
2) At the light of the proto-Catholic desire to harmonize the various contrasts and reasons of conflict between the sects.

[Giuseppe]

You may accuse me of missing the irony that you are certain you find here, but that is not the same thing as me actually contradicting myself.

Talking for myself only, it seems that the irony has to be assumed in Mark 10:39, for the only reason that Jesus seems too much enigmatic and a genuine Sphinx in that answer.

[Ben C. Smith]

Why does the first gospel have to be dismissive of the Pillars? Who made up that rule?

1) because what is more embarrassing is surely more old.
2) At the light of the proto-Catholic desire to harmonize the various contrasts and reasons of conflict between the sects.

Embarrassing to whom? A negative book about the Pillars is not going to embarrass someone who dislikes the Pillars, and a positive book about the Pillars is not going to embarrass someone who likes the Pillars. The criterion of embarrassment is sometimes thought to hold some water when it comes to Jesus because it is assumed that no Christian would ever invent something negative about Jesus. But when it comes to the Pillars? Come now. And sure, the Catholic church will harmonize stuff later on, but that says nothing about which of the elements they are harmonizing came first and which came second.

The criterion of embarrassment is riddled with issues which you have not even begun to address here. And I cannot even begin to imagine the assumptions you would have to import here to make it work in this case. Giuseppe, sorry, but your approach to the entire enterprise of early Christian studies is so far from mine that it feels like little can be gained by debating. From my perspective the sheer number and weirdness of the assumptions you bring to the debate is baffling; perhaps my approach seems the same to you from your perspective.

You may accuse me of missing the irony that you are certain you find here, but that is not the same thing as me actually contradicting myself.

Talking for myself only, it seems that the irony has to be assumed in Mark 10:39, for the only reason that Jesus seems too much enigmatic and a genuine Sphinx in that answer.

It does not in any way have to be assumed. You are assuming it, but you do not have to. This is what I was talking about when it comes to importing assumptions. Not everything Jesus says is ironic, no matter how enigmatic he is.