Is there anything behind Mk 8:31-33 which is historical?
I make the following assumptions:[31] And he began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.
[32] And he said this plainly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him.
[33] But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter, and said, "Get behind me, Satan! For you are not on the side of God, but of men."
Jesus existed as a person within time and space
Peter also existed in time and space and was a follower of Jesus
That Christians were interested in passing on events and sayings of Jesus made during his lifetime.
Christians and the gospel writers redacted tradition that were passed on to them.
Christians and the gospel writers could create new stories about Jesus.
If any of the first three are not true then nothing in Mk 8:31-33 can be historical.
If any of the last two are not true then everything in Mk 8:31-33 is historical.
We can see from how Luke (9:22) and Matthew (16:21) that “after three days” was problematic to them as they both changed it to “on the third day”.
Matthew has a saying about the son of man being three days and three days in the heart of the earth – Mt 12:40
Luke has a different version (Lk 11:30)For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
I think it is more likely that the Lucan version was the one in Q as it fits the context better. Matthew often groups sayings together therefore it is possible that he has replaced the Q version with a saying he had from another tradition. It is unlikely that Matthew would have created it because he always changes Marks “after three days” to “on the third day.”For as Jonah became a sign to the men of Nin'eveh, so will the Son of man be to this generation.
It is therefore possible that both Matthew and Mark are presenting us with an earlier tradition regarding the length of time between Jesus’ death and his resurrection than the one given in Mark.
It is possible to conclude that before we have the tradition we have in Mark there was an older one where Jesus was dead for three days and nights before anyone saw him.
I remember reading somewhere that in Judaism the soul remains with the body for three days after death. Therefore the story that disciples only started to see Jesus after three days and nights would make sense within this context especially if they see him in heaven. (Maurice Casey suggests that the Aramaic behind the word “rise” could mean going to heaven.)
Unfortunately none of this means that “after three days” goes back to Jesus.
Maurice Casey in Jesus of Nazareth states that “both Matthew and Luke edited the predictions of Jesus’ death and Resurrection which they inherited from Mark to make them seem more convincingly accurate because of their increasing details” (p378). From this Casey concludes that “by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes” should be removed as Mark’s editorial work. Casey however keeps “suffer, rejected and die”.
It is possible that Jesus could have predicted his own death especially if the Wisdom sayings of prophets being rejected and killed in the past goes back to Jesus. Such sayings as:
Lk 13:34-35 (Q Mt 23:37-39)
Q (Lk 11:49 Mt 23:34)[34] O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!
[35] Behold, your house is forsaken. And I tell you, you will not see me until you say, `Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!'"
It is often suggested that Mark sees Jesus as the suffer servant of Isaiah 53. Therefore Mark could have added “suffer” here as part of this motif.Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, “I send you prophets and …, some of whom you will kill … and persecute …
Maurice Casey emphasises the importance of the second part of this section. He declares “that the early church would have no reason to invent” Peter’s reaction (p 377). He then goes on to state, “Neither Peter rebuking Jesus, nor this serious criticism of Peter would be found in Mark’s Gospel if this did not represent approximately what happened”. He concludes both are authentic.
I think there is an alternative position, that Mark has a negative view of the disciples and often presents them in a negative light. It has been suggested that there is a progress for this presentation. They fail to understand Jesus, they lack faith, Peter is rebuked, one of them Judas betrays Jesus, the other disciples flee and Peter denies knowing Jesus.
According to Jonas D. Christal “there are three passion predictions (8:31; 9:30-31; 10:32-34) followed by the disciples’ inability to understand their meaning (respectively 8:32; 9:32-33; 10:35-37), and Jesus’ further clarifications about the meaning of his passion and what it means to follow him (8:34-38; 9:35-37; 10:38-45). Here, for sure, the literary device of repetition, employed by the author, serves to emphasize the theme of Jesus’ passion, and the disciples’ failures give Jesus the opportunity for further teaching to the disciples and audience” (https://dlib.bc.edu/islandora/object/bc ... m/PDF/view).
It is therefore quite possible that Peter’s rebuke and Jesus’ rebuke of Peter are literary devises of Mark.
The title “Son of Man” is used by Jesus in both Mark and Q and therefore it is extremely likely to go back to Jesus. The question is which one? It is not normal today to refer to oneself in the third person and therefore I think it is unlikely that Jesus used the term “Son of Man” to refer to himself.
Therefore I think the section about Peter rebuking Jesus and Jesus rebuking Peter are not historical but a creation of Mark. There is a strong possibility that Jesus did predict that he would be killed in Jerusalem, but the wording of Mk 8:31 contains very little of what is likely to be historical and it is impossible to recover from it much that is historical accept the general concept.
