What?Giuseppe wrote:But to deny the own knowledge of x
and
to deny that x is who claims to be
is a real similarity. Don't you agree at least with it?
The restoration of the disciples in Mark.
- Ben C. Smith
- Posts: 8994
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: The restoration of the disciples in Mark.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Re: The restoration of the disciples in Mark.
Peter has claimed that Jesus is Christ, previously.
Denying his knowledge of Jesus, he denies that Jesus is the Christ.
Why would be this negation different from that of the high priest?
For example, so Price:
Denying his knowledge of Jesus, he denies that Jesus is the Christ.
Why would be this negation different from that of the high priest?
For example, so Price:
(extract from Deconstructing Jesus)But I am urging a comparison between Caiaphas inside and Cephas outside. Just as
Caiaphas condemns Jesus to death, so does Cephas: "I do not know the man!" Do we not
here catch an echo of Jesus' own sentence of doom upon his enemies? "Depart from me; ye
cursed; I never knew you!"
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Re: The restoration of the disciples in Mark.
But I see that the words :
...are in Matthew and Luke, not in Mark. Therefore I can't use it in this thread as evidence."Depart from me; ye
cursed; I never knew you!"
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
- Ben C. Smith
- Posts: 8994
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Re: The restoration of the disciples in Mark.
Also, as I mentioned, neither Cephas nor Caiaphas appears by name in the gospel of Mark. And Price was summarizing the gospel passion narratives as a whole, not the Marcan in particular, in that section of his book.Giuseppe wrote:But I see that the words :
...are in Matthew and Luke, not in Mark. Therefore I can't use it in this thread as evidence."Depart from me; ye
cursed; I never knew you!"
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Re: The restoration of the disciples in Mark.
At any way, Peter may be saved in the eyes of a Pauline. After all, was not Peter more open to Paul in comparison to John and James? Surely the latter could be remembered not just in a positive light, seen their radical opposition against Paul in Gal 2...
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Re: Benny, Benny, Benny. Benny and the Jews
Dear Joe,JoeWallack wrote:
JW:
...."Mark" (author) has a primary thematic distinction that it's not just important if you promote Jesus but how you promote Jesus. Same as the only significant extant Christian author before him, Paul. At the risk of sounding like Obi won Kanobi, you will agree that the quote above works very well as a set-up for a textbook (so to speak) formulaic example of Disciple failure with the critical Parable of the Sower =
4
The primary point here is speed. Those quick to follow are also quick to abandon. "Mark" doesn't lay it all out here because that would not be stylish. But the point within the entire narrative is the motivation is desire for reward and avoidance of punishment (suffering). Hence, these Disciples get on early because they see reward. But they also leave early because they see punishment. So in typical Markan style, they follow quickly but for the wrong reason. So I think your example here is already better evidence against restoration than for but there is even more:4:16 And these in like manner are they that are sown upon the rocky [places], who, when they have heard the word, straightway receive it with joy;
17 and they have no root in themselves, but endure for a while; then, when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, straightway they stumble.
9
a lot in Mark has to do with style, but the thing that distinguishes Mark most from the later recensions of the gospel is that in his time and place there was a near absolute division between faith (in Christ crucified) and un-faith. Reader beware, unless you have faith you cannot receive the "gnosis" of the gospel, and the meaning of resurrection. This is why I am very, very, very skeptical of any notion of an intent on the part of Mark to restore the disciples. He left the issue open (for the followers of Peter) and and made it contingent on their acceptance of the cross (which they evidently did not accept when Jesus was around and not even when Mark was writing). So the ending (16:8) is a challenge to the Jewish followers of Peter & Co. to repent and be forgiven (as per 4:10-13). And, yes of course they were eventually forgiven, actually forgave themselves through Matthew, but that is not Mark's doing. That's simply reading Matthew's (and Luke's) intents into Mark.
Just a small note, especially for you, Joe: The verses 4:10-13 which are key to grasping the gospel "are incomprehensible" (said the great Heikki Räisänen, not I) but I would qualify it by saying they are incomprehensible without observing that they are addressing two audiences:
Now, which parable is Mark talking about? The sower? Nope! He is turning to the disciples to talk to them about the "parable" in 4:11-12 . This re-referencing of Jesus and parables is a technique known as "recursion" and Mark's gospel uses it in several places. Here, look at the sly bugger setting up the ruse in 4:10 in making some impossible entities around him and the twelve "when he is alone" ask him to explain "about the parables". The parables he refers to are "hoi parabolas tou Iesou" which of course can be read as "parables of Jesus" or "parables about Jesus". See? So, IOW unless you understand that Mark uses the figure of Jesus as both the narrator of parables and as a figure in Mark's parables you will be lost in a dense1st address (to those who "are with him when he is alone", i.e. true believers, or Mark's community) 4:11-12 And he said to them (καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς), "To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables; so that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand; lest they should turn again, and be forgiven."
2nd address (to his incomprehending disciples who followed Jesus because they bvelieve he would be enthroned in Jerusalem and make them big dignitaries) 4:13 And he said to them (καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς), "Do you not understand this parable? How then will you understand all the parables?"
fog.
But you don't believe me, do you ?
Best,
Jiri
Re: Benny, Benny, Benny. Benny and the Jews
Oh yeah, almost forgot. You are on side with my view of "the stumbling" (εὐθὲως σκανδαλίζονται ) Peter, aren't you? I once explained that it was none other than Mark who renamed Cephas into the hellenized Petros to ridicule him. Verses 4:16-17 are a big clue, but I certainly was not the first one who noted the connection to Peter in πετρώδης (and the stumbling) prefiguring Peter's cowardice in Jerusalem. But I did make a new connection (whether anyone has done that before I don't know) which ties petra & skandalon to the "shame of the faithlessess in Zion". It's a play on Paul in Rom 9:33JoeWallack wrote:
4
4:16 And these in like manner are they that are sown upon the rocky [places], who, when they have heard the word, straightway receive it with joy;
17 and they have no root in themselves, but endure for a while; then, when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, straightway they stumble.
as it is written, "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall; and he who believes in him will not be put to shame."
Naturally, in Paul "lithos proskommatos" and "petra skandalou" both refer to Jesus, but Mark imaginatively splits the reference to point to Peter's denial of Jesus in Jerusalem and the shame thereof. (I also believe that Matthew knew of "Petros" as slur and therefore he felt it necessary to build a rehab counter to it in "you are Peter and on this rock I will build my church". Also Matthew was likely lampooning the "split" reference of Mark in creating one of his own, in rehashing Zec 9:9 "an ass and a colt, the foal of an ass" in 21:5-7. Zechariah like Paul meant to rhetorically stress the figure by repeating, but Matthew has the disciples interpret it as reference to two animals. The subtext is to ridicule the two authors of the gospel, Paul and Mark, same as in the two beggars at Jericho, two demoniacs at Gadarenes, and finally the two robbers "co-crucified with" Jesus who revile him.).
Best,
Jiri