The restoration of the disciples in Mark.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The restoration of the disciples in Mark.

Post by Giuseppe »

It seems that the your reasons to think that the martyrdom of the Pillars deserves (even a minor) redention for Mark is that basically you interpret Mark 10:39 as a positive answer, an approval, an endorsement by Jesus, without no irony or sarcasm in it.

Well, I confess I am perplexed about that view. But at least we agree that it is basically the interpretation of Mark 10:39 what divides our views.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The restoration of the disciples in Mark.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

I would like to run through a scenario close to what I think Joe and Kunigunde are suggesting, one which does not involve a reconciliation between Jesus and the disciples from Mark's perspective:
  • The disciples are known, not only by Mark but also by his readers, to preach a gospel that does not involve the resurrection (it is a healing and teaching gospel, as Joe says). This pretty much has to be known by Mark's readers, I think, because Mark himself takes no pains to point it out in the gospel; the predictions he puts on Jesus' lips about their careers after Jesus' death lack any mention of what kind of gospel they preach, so without this knowledge it would be too easy to assume that they are reconciled to a resurrected Jesus, not just to a healing and teaching Jesus.
  • Mark incorporates the history of or legends surrounding those disciples into those dominical predictions. These include the martyrdoms of James and John and the conflicts with the authorities by the four core disciples (Peter, Andrew, James, and John). He does not take the trouble to emphasize that they suffered for an incomplete gospel because, again, presumably his readers already know the contents of their gospel.
  • The gospel they preached is incomplete specifically in comparison to the gospel preached by Paul. I say that the gospel is incomplete instead of simply wrong because (A) Paul himself was not against healing and teaching and (B) Jesus himself is the one who gave the disciples this healing and teaching ministry in the first place; they may have missed a turn along the way, but they did not start off with the wrong information.
Now, such a scenario requires us to suppose that the readers of Mark are meant to fill in the gaps of the gospel with the information that the disciples, after fleeing at Jesus' arrest, eventually come back to their calling (sans knowledge of or interest in the resurrection, however) and begin to preach again. My main issue here is simple: this scenario pretty much forces us to regard Mark 14.28 and 16.7 as interpolations, correct? I deliberately left those verses out of the OP in order to handle them separately, but they combine to provide the disciples with a promised resurrection appearance. (I reject out of hand those proposals I occasionally see to the effect that the young man in the tomb was lying or misinformed or being in any other way less than forthright and accurate. If Mark's intentions are that obscurely written, then we have no shot at understanding him.) If 14.28 and 16.7 are allowed to stand, then I think the information Mark has given us (in the form of those predictions by Jesus) will lead us to assume that the disciples meet the risen Lord and are later persecuted and martyred for him. If we are assuming, as per above, that Mark's readers know they did not preach a resurrection, then questions will inevitably arise for those readers. How did they manage to meet the risen Lord and then not include that in their preaching? When Jesus told them to heal, they healed; they may not have been great apostles, but they at least understood what they were told to do. Alternately, if the meeting was negative, why did they continue to preach at all?

More importantly, since our assumption above that the readers already knew the disciples preached a gospel without a resurrection is just that, an assumption, it makes me wonder whether other assumptions might not be just as likely, if not more so. For example, if we assume rather that the readers of Mark's gospel knew that the disciples did preach a resurrection, then 14.28 and 16.7 make perfect sense, and we are not forced to regard them as interpolations. (This "knowledge" on their part need not be accurate, incidentally. We know that the disciples were credited with preaching the resurrection at some point anyway, whether early or late, and we need only imagine that Mark's readers knew this much.)

I personally think that Mark could safely assume his readers already know about Simon Peter, at least. I base this on the way in which Simon is introduced in the narrative, without a descriptor: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2551&p=57573. It is much less clear to me that Mark was assuming they knew James and John already; his prediction of their martyrdom in chapter 10 I can see in either light, really: either as affirming what they already knew, to wit, that James and John were martyrs, or as filling them in on the fact for the first time. That James and John are introduced with a descriptor may imply that the second option is better, but I am not married to that outcome. Andrew is more of a wild card, and I do not see any reason to suspect that Mark assumed his readers knew much or anything about Andrew. At any rate, while I think it likely that the Marcan readership already knew about Simon Peter, and therefore may well have known about what kind of gospel he preached, this does not tell us anything about that gospel itself. It could have been a resurrection gospel, or it could have lacked the resurrection.

This post is a bit rambly, I think, but my main point here is to sketch out the possibilities as they relate to Mark 14.28 and 16.7. With those verses intact, a scenario such as the one I sketched out above becomes unlikely, right? We have to assume that those verses are interpolations, right?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The restoration of the disciples in Mark.

Post by Secret Alias »

There is another obvious scenario. Mark as we have it is not ur-Mark but a specific orthodox version of the original text. Irenaeus's report that Luke 10:22 was a part of Mark is a possible confirmation that "other Marks" existed.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: The restoration of the disciples in Mark.

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Ben C. Smith wrote:but everything predicted for after Jesus' resurrection seems to come across as archetypically apostolic and martyrological.
This thread is getting more and more interesting. I’m open to follow some of your suggestions, but there are also a few points I tend to disagree. Mark 10.39 may be good example.

I agree that Mark’s Jesus spoke about a martyr's death in 10:39, but it seems to me that James and John did not understand that (“You do not know what you are asking”). I have always understand this story as a misunderstanding. In my view James and John ask for a “real” glory and not the glory of cross and suffering and they do not understand what Jesus meant with “Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” Therefore in Mark’s story they get from Jesus a martyr's death, but against their actual wishes and against what they think to get.

I think that there is a similar type of explanation for Peter’s future. The intended reason in GMark why Cephas/Peter was an apostle after Jesus’ death seems to me the fulfillment of the private prophecy to Peter (Mark 14:72 And Peter remembered how Jesus had said to him, “Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times.”) But I think that in Mark’s view Peter remembered the false and unimportant of the two ῥῆμα in GMark and not the important one (Mark 9:32) that was spoken in Mark 9:31 (The Son of Man will be delivered into the hands of men. They will kill Him, and after three days He will rise.” 32 But they did not understand this statement, ...)

Btw in Mark isn’t an instruction of Jesus to his disciples to spread the message. The Gospel “must be preached” and the Gospel “will be preached” (Mark 14:9). There seems to be no special need for the four disciples in Mark 13.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The restoration of the disciples in Mark.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:
Ben C. Smith wrote:but everything predicted for after Jesus' resurrection seems to come across as archetypically apostolic and martyrological.
This thread is getting more and more interesting. I’m open to follow some of your suggestions, but there are also a few points I tend to disagree. Mark 10.39 may be good example.

I agree that Mark’s Jesus spoke about a martyr's death in 10:39, but it seems to me that James and John did not understand that (“You do not know what you are asking”). I have always understand this story as a misunderstanding. In my view James and John ask for a “real” glory and not the glory of cross and suffering and they do not understand what Jesus meant with “Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” Therefore in Mark’s story they get from Jesus a martyr's death, but against their actual wishes and against what they think to get.
I actually agree with this (and am not sure why you thought I might not). This is my preferred reading of the passage. James and John wanted glory without realizing that the path to that glory lay through suffering and even martyrdom. I am not sure exactly what they are supposed to have understood drinking the cup and being baptized with the baptism to mean, but I do not think they understood it as what Jesus had in mind.
I think that there is a similar type of explanation for Peter’s future. The intended reason in GMark why Cephas/Peter was an apostle after Jesus’ death seems to me the fulfillment of the private prophecy to Peter (Mark 14:72 And Peter remembered how Jesus had said to him, “Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times.”) But I think that in Mark’s view Peter remembered the false and unimportant of the two ῥῆμα in GMark and not the important one (Mark 9:32) that was spoken in Mark 9:31 (The Son of Man will be delivered into the hands of men. They will kill Him, and after three days He will rise.” 32 But they did not understand this statement, ...)
I think I understand most of this, and I love your identification of the two ῥήματα in Mark, but I am missing why you think Peter becoming an apostle is a fulfillment of Mark 14.72.

Also, is there a reason you keep writing Cephas/Peter? I understand that Peter is most often viewed as a Greek translation of an Aramaic word transliterated as Cephas (a view which I question), but Mark nowhere calls him Cephas, so is there something important to you in the equation that I am not recognizing?
Btw in Mark isn’t an instruction of Jesus to his disciples to spread the message. The Gospel “must be preached” and the Gospel “will be preached” (Mark 14:9). There seems to be no special need for the four disciples in Mark 13.
Well, I think such an instruction is implied for the mission trip in Mark 6.7-13, at least. The instruction is not explicit on Jesus' lips, but seems implicit in the mention of people listening to the disciples in verse 11, as well as in their immediate reaction to it in verse 12: they go out and preach. Are you saying that Jesus meant (in Mark) this instruction to expire? It is also very easy, maybe too easy, to imagine that preaching is the cause of them being hauled in before governors and kings in the first place. Maybe that is just a matter of me importing ideas from Acts and other legendary accounts into the picture, but the juxtaposition of them being brought before rulers (and told what to say by the Spirit) and the mention of preaching the gospel seems telling to me.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: The restoration of the disciples in Mark.

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Ben C. Smith wrote:I actually agree with this (and am not sure why you thought I might not). This is my preferred reading of the passage. James and John wanted glory without realizing that the path to that glory lay through suffering and even martyrdom. I am not sure exactly what they are supposed to have understood drinking the cup and being baptized with the baptism to mean, but I do not think they understood it as what Jesus had in mind.
I thought that you disagree because I can’t see a „restoration“ in this story. That they will have the honor of a martyr’s death seems to be the result of a funny misunderstanding (a honor by unbelievable grace and not by works – so to speak).
Ben C. Smith wrote:I think I understand most of this, and I love your identification of the two ῥήματα in Mark, but I am missing why you think Peter becoming an apostle is a fulfillment of Mark 14.72.

Also, is there a reason you keep writing Cephas/Peter? I understand that Peter is most often viewed as a Greek translation of an Aramaic word transliterated as Cephas (a view which I question), but Mark nowhere calls him Cephas, so is there something important to you in the equation that I am not recognizing?
I simply assume that Mark’s Peter is Paul’s Cephas but I know that I can’t proove the point.

My impression is that GMark does not focus on a “psychological development” of the characters, but such a thing may be not completely absent. The betrayal and abandonment by the disciples seems to be the result of a long line of misunderstanding and little disagreements in a situation under pressure. But that raises the logical question why the disciples (and especially Peter) are engaged in a Jesus-mission after the death of Jesus. Why they do not go home to their fishing nets? I think that Peter understood in Mark 14:72 the cock crows as the exact fulfillment of the prophecy of Jesus and came to the conclusion that not all was bad and that at least Jesus was able to make true prophecies.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The restoration of the disciples in Mark.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:
Ben C. Smith wrote:I actually agree with this (and am not sure why you thought I might not). This is my preferred reading of the passage. James and John wanted glory without realizing that the path to that glory lay through suffering and even martyrdom. I am not sure exactly what they are supposed to have understood drinking the cup and being baptized with the baptism to mean, but I do not think they understood it as what Jesus had in mind.
I thought that you disagree because I can’t see a „restoration“ in this story. That they will have the honor of a martyr’s death seems to be the result of a funny misunderstanding (a honor by unbelievable grace and not by works – so to speak).
Ah, so there is a slight difference between our views. For me, there is a misunderstanding, but it is not the cause of their martyrdom. Rather, Jesus already knows the future (as he seems to know throughout the rest of the gospel, with the exception of things that he says only his Father knows), and he already knows that they will fall away from him, then be restored, and then die martyr's deaths. He is, from their perspective, granting their wish, but in reality he is just predicting their future, and he asked that leading question ("can you drink this cup?") in order to get them to accept that fate, however unwittingly at first.

But even in your scenario I see a restoration. Even if their martyrdom is the direct result of their request here, and Jesus is in fact granting their wish, they do not have to be martyrs in order to be restored. I do not think the sense of Mark is necessarily that all four of the inner disciples will die that way (we are not told Andrew's specific fate, at any rate; nor Peter's, for that matter); but at least those inner four will be brought before kings and such. Had James and John not made the request, in other words, they would still have been given the opportunity to be restored (and Jesus is predicting in chapter 13 that they will take that opportunity), but not necessarily die as martyrs.

The restoration, for me, depends only on comparing the predictions with the disciples' defection. My question is whether Mark envisions their defection (at Jesus' arrest) as the disciples' last true action in the Jesus movement, and my answer is that he does not: he knows that they will come back to the movement in a positive capacity (not simply as hypocritical preachers or wolves in sheep's clothing, but as martyrs for the cause). But this knowledge entails a necessary restoration of some kind between their defection and their return to their apostleship.

Another line of inquiry. Mark actually calls the disciples "apostles" when they return from the preaching tour in chapter 6. Now, I recognize that this word need mean no more than "the ones who had been sent out"; it does not have to be a technical term. But we have to wonder, does Mark know that the first waves of preachers after Jesus' death were called apostles? It is hard for me to imagine that he does not. (And, if your own theory that Mark was cribbing from Paul is correct, he had to have known the terminology.) But, if Mark knew the terminology, then what does his using it here, during Jesus' ministry, mean to you? What is Mark saying here?
My impression is that GMark does not focus on a “psychological development” of the characters, but such a thing may be not completely absent. The betrayal and abandonment by the disciples seems to be the result of a long line of misunderstanding and little disagreements in a situation under pressure. But that raises the logical question why the disciples (and especially Peter) are engaged in a Jesus-mission after the death of Jesus. Why they do not go home to their fishing nets? I think that Peter understood in Mark 14:72 the cock crows as the exact fulfillment of the prophecy of Jesus and came to the conclusion that not all was bad and that at least Jesus was able to make true prophecies.
Okay, so you are saying that Peter's remembrance of the prediction about his three denials also made him remember that other, more positive things were predicted by Jesus about him? And this gave him the confidence to continue with the movement rather than abandoning it? So, on this view, there is no resurrection appearance necessary? Peter already has all the pieces of the puzzle of his life at hand, and has only to put them together? (And, for the record, I would still call this a restoration; it would simply be one that does not involve a resurrection appearance, if that is the point you are making.)
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The restoration of the disciples in Mark.

Post by Secret Alias »

I am not sure what to make of this reference in Origen's Against Celsus but it might be the earliest (albeit indirect) evidence of the short ending of Mark:

And besides this, one may well wonder how it happened that the disciples— if, as the calumniators of Jesus say, they did not see Him after His resurrection from the dead, and were not persuaded of His divinity — were not afraid to endure the same sufferings with their Master, and to expose themselves to danger, and to leave their native country to teach, according to the desire of Jesus, the doctrine delivered to them by Him. (1.30)
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The restoration of the disciples in Mark.

Post by Giuseppe »

If the Pillars ask power and glory to Jesus but they don't know what they are asking, then they will obtain just what they don't know that they are asking, without never to know that they will obtain just it: a vain martyrdom.

What makes that martyrdom a VAIN martyrdom is that the Pillars will die without to know never why.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
davidbrainerd
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:37 pm

Re: The restoration of the disciples in Mark.

Post by davidbrainerd »

Secret Alias wrote:I am not sure what to make of this reference in Origen's Against Celsus but it might be the earliest (albeit indirect) evidence of the short ending of Mark:

And besides this, one may well wonder how it happened that the disciples— if, as the calumniators of Jesus say, they did not see Him after His resurrection from the dead, and were not persuaded of His divinity — were not afraid to endure the same sufferings with their Master, and to expose themselves to danger, and to leave their native country to teach, according to the desire of Jesus, the doctrine delivered to them by Him. (1.30)
Chapter 31 not 30.
Post Reply