Ben wrote:
But ask yourself: does Mark intend us to understand that the disciples remembered Jesus' words and thus either sought him out or actively waited for him in Galilee? Or does Mark intend us to understand that they forgot, returned to their old lives, and were then surprised by his appearance to them?
I would guess the former. After all, if Jesus' other words were remembered (which one assumes was the case at least in Mark, for how else would anything he said be in Mark, from Mark's point of view?), why wouldn't they remember these too?
Also, does Mark intend us to understand that Jesus appeared to Peter first and only then to the Eleven? Or is it all one composite appearance?
Peter is at least the first one to answer Jesus after he says "But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee,” followed by "all the others," which is similar to the ordering in 1 Cor. 15:5 ("he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve").
But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee. Peter declared, “Even if all fall away, I will not” ... Peter insisted emphatically, “Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you.” And all the others said the same.
Finally, when Jesus calls them "the disciples and Peter" in 16.7, does he mean to say that Peter is no longer a disciple? If not, why this wording? If so, however, is he now a graduate (= more than a disciple), as Stefan has suggested on this board, or is he an apostate (= less than a disciple)? Does Mark even attempt to answer these questions which most naturally arise about his abrupt ending?
I guess I see two ways of looking at it. Peter is not part of the Twelve in Paul, right? ("He appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve"). And Paul says Peter is an apostle in Gal. 1:18-19 and 2:8:
Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.
For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles
So I suppose one could argue that Peter as not a "disciple" but an apostle (or he had become an apostle by Paul's time). But Mark has Peter as part of the Twelve in 3:14-16:
He appointed twelve that they might be with him and that he might send them out to preach and to have authority to drive out demons. These are the twelve he appointed: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter) ...
But I'm not sure what the distinction is between a disciple and an apostle anyway. Could Peter not have been a disciple
and an apostle? Also, I've seen 16:7 translated as "Go and tell the disciples,
even Peter ..." This is one of the definitions I see for kai, anyway.
Could 16:7 mean, "tell the disciples, even [or namely/specifically/especially/including] Peter"?
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.