A summary of the Funky Hatina's
argument that 9:1 is primarily intended to be taken as negative (threat):
Thomas R. Hatina, Who Will See "The Kingdom of God Coming with Power" in Mark 9,1 — Protagonists or Antagonists?, Vol. 86 (2005) 20-34
Regarding the offending verse:
|Strong's ||Transliteration ||Greek ||English ||Morphology|
|2532 [e] ||kai ||καὶ ||And ||Conj|
|3004 [e] ||elegen ||ἔλεγεν ||he said ||V-IIA-3S|
|846 [e] ||autois ||αὐτοῖς ||to them, ||PPro-DM3P|
|281 [e] ||Amēn ||Ἀμὴν ||Truly ||Heb|
|3004 [e] ||legō ||λέγω ||I say ||V-PIA-1S|
|4771 [e] ||hymin ||ὑμῖν ||to you, ||PPro-D2P|
|3754 [e] ||hoti ||ὅτι ||That ||Conj|
|1510 [e] ||eisin ||εἰσίν ||there are ||V-PIA-3P|
|5100 [e] ||tines ||τινες ||some ||IPro-NMP|
|5602 [e] ||hōde ||ὧδε ⇔ ||here ||Adv|
|3588 [e] ||tōn ||τῶν ||of those ||Art-GMP|
|2476 [e] ||hestēkotōn ||ἑστηκότων ||standing, ||V-RPA-GMP|
|3748 [e] ||hoitines ||οἵτινες ||who ||RelPro-NMP|
|3756 [e] ||ou ||οὐ ||no ||Adv|
|3361 [e] ||mē ||μὴ ||not ||Adv|
|1089 [e] ||geusōntai ||γεύσωνται ||shall taste ||V-ASM-3P|
|2288 [e] ||thanatou ||θανάτου ||of death, ||N-GMS|
|2193 [e] ||heōs ||ἕως ||until ||Conj|
|302 [e] ||an ||ἂν ||anyhow ||Prtcl|
|3708 [e]||idōsin ||ἴδωσιν ||they see ||V-ASA-3P|
|3588 [e] ||tēn ||τὴν ||the ||Art-AFS|
|932 [e] ||basileian ||βασιλείαν ||kingdom ||N-AFS|
|3588 [e] ||tou ||τοῦ ||- ||Art-GMS|
|2316 [e] ||Theou ||Θεοῦ||of God ||N-GMS|
|2064 [e] ||elēlythuian ||ἐληλυθυῖαν ||having come ||V-RPA-AFS|
|1722 [e] ||en ||ἐν ||with ||Prep|
|1411 [e] ||dynamei ||δυνάμει. ||power. ||N-DFS|
A summary of Hatina's argument:
The basic question Hatina asks is who
is 9:1 directed to? Hatina gives two choices, Antagonists and Protagonists (of course I appreciate the Greek Tragedy terminology). The bulk of Hatina's article presents evidence that the Antagonists are being spoken to, and this is Hatina's conclusion of course. As has been noted here, to some extent 9:1 refers to both, but Hatina's argument is a one or the other.
Hatina's primary points:
1) In general, pre-existing belief is that Jesus' supposed predictions of return have a context of reward rather than judgment and therefore refer mainly to Protagonists (believers) rather than Antagonists (non-believers).
2) 9:1 connects structurally to the end of Chapter 8:
8:34 And he called unto him the multitude with his disciples, and said unto them, If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
35 For whosoever would save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel`s shall save it.
36 For what doth it profit a man, to gain the whole world, and forfeit his life?
37 For what should a man give in exchange for his life?
38 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of man also shall be ashamed of him, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.
9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There are some here of them that stand [by], who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God come with power.
Support for this conclusion:
- 1 – The wording in 9:1 is typical of Markan wording ending a pericope
2 – The wording in 9:2 is typical of Markan wording beginning a pericope
The Legendary Vorkosigan also notes that 9:1 is a better chiastic fit with the end of Chapter 8.
3) The pericope is primarily about choosing/contrast between Antagonist and Protagonist but is more negative than positive.
4) The language indicates it is Jesus' supposed audience that is being addressed in 9:1 and not the author's audience (note especially "this adulterous and sinful generation" of 8:38).
5) The two other instances of apocalyptic language in GMark, 13:26 and 14:62, clearly refer to Antagonists.
6) Apocalyptic language in external contemporary writings is more likely to refer to Antagonists.
7) The context of the pericope as a whole is to followers/believers (rather than opponents) and what the broad definition of failure and success is. So the emphasis is on disloyalty to Jesus which is a negative and thus fits Antagonists. The clearer explanation of 9:1 is that Antagonists refuse to be martyrs so they can see the Kingdom come with power (thus the typical Markan irony that because they lived to see it, they will die seeing it).
8) “Taste death” in Jewish literature normally refers to dying rather than not dying.
9) The apocalyptic language of 9:1 is used 3 times in total (13:26 and 14:62, clearly refer to Antagonists) and 3 time repetition of the same
theme is a common style of GMark.
Getting to the specific issue of this Thread, "Mark's" negative casting of Peter, Hatina concludes that 9:1 refers to the "Outsiders", opponents of Jesus rather than followers/believers, rather than the Insiders, because 13:26 and 14:62 refer to outsiders. This implies that he does not think 9:1 refers to Peter as an Antagonist. I think Hatina is proof-texting though because all of the other evidence that Hatina presents indicates that Peter is being referred to:
- 1) The wording is clear that Peter is in the audience being addressed.
2) Immediately before the pericope in question Peter has been used as the formulaic fulfillment of an antagonist definition in the pericope.
3) The language indicates the audience is primarily followers/believers and not opponents.
4) The largest emphasis is on disloyalty of followers/believers.
5) Peter explicitly opposes Jesus' suffering and death in what precedes.
Perhaps Hatina just suffered Goodacre fatigue by finishing up with proof-texting to avoid presenting the evidence that Peter was intended to be referred to in 9:1 or was just afraid to go where some are standing with Gundry.