The restoration of the disciples in Mark.

[Giuseppe]

The two thieves being hung next to Jesus is not a fulfillment of any prediction that two people would sit next to Jesus in his glory. The two things are connected, yes. But the one does not fulfill the other without remainder.

Here I disagree strongly. It is everywhere clear in Mark - read with pauline eyes - that the death of Jesus represents the maximum ''of the his glory'' (even the moment, per Tom Dykstra, when the Messianic Secret is revealed). Therefore insofar the Golgotha is the glory of Jesus, the two thieves are sharing the same glory relative to be ''on his left and right''.

Therefore the value of the martyrdom of the sons of Zebedee is virtually less than the value of the ''martyrdom'' of the two thieves: entirely vain, completely zero.

No, I do not. I do not see any substantive connection between thorns and a thirst for glory.

Not even when Jesus himself explains that the ''thorns'' represent ''thirst for glory'' in Mark 4:19 ?

[Ben C. Smith]

I have long toyed with the idea, sometimes put forth on this forum (among other venues), that the gospel of Mark means to imply that the disciples, Jesus' inner circle of followers, not only abandoned him at his arrest crucifixion but were also abandoned by him (and by God), never to be restored to any kind of position of authority in the movement which Jesus consciously and deliberately sets in motion throughout the gospel.

But I no longer really toy with that idea. My mind is still open, but I am now very much on the other side of that issue. Simply put, I think that the gospel of Mark in several distinct places makes it very clear that the disciples are going to be restored.

"To be restored" and "not to be abandoned" could be two different things. Mark 10:31 (But many who are first will be last, and the last first) may also point to the assumption that they are not completely abandoned.

Maybe. But martyrdom and the kind of suffering associated with furthering the Jesus movement to me imply a restoration of some kind. Not being abandoned is an understatement of what I think is actually the case.

First, there is Mark 1.16-17:

1.16 As He was going along by the Sea of Galilee, He saw Simon and Andrew, the brother of Simon, casting a net in the sea; for they were fishermen. 17 And Jesus said to them, “Follow Me, and I will make you become fishers of men.”

It is possible that this promise to turn (at least) Simon and Andrew into fishers of men (a metaphor, obvious though somewhat creepy, for preachers in the nascent movement) is meant to be fulfilled fully in Mark 6.7-13, but I am not sure that a single preaching tour is really what is promised. No matter: there are other indicators, should this one seem insufficient.

I think the text points to the first option.

Mark 1:17 ποιήσω ὑμᾶς γενέσθαι ἁλιεῖς ἀνθρώπων
Mark 1:17 I will make you become fishers of men.

Mark 3:13 καὶ ἐποίησεν δώδεκα
Mark 3:13 and he made twelve
Mark 3:16 καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς δώδεκα
Mark 3:16 and he made the twelve

Mark 6:7 And he called the twelve and began to send them out two by two,
Mark 6:30 The apostles returned to Jesus and told him all that they had done and taught.

This seems to be a perfect fulfillment of the promise "to be made" und to become different one's

That is a very good point.

[Ben C. Smith]

No, I do not. I do not see any substantive connection between thorns and a thirst for glory.

Not even when Jesus himself explains that the ''thorns'' represent ''thirst for glory'' in Mark 4:19 ?

Mark 4.19:

...but the worries of the world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful.

I suppose glory must be one of the "other things", but so would be pretty much anything else, as well. It is one of those connections that would be true of practically anyone; therefore that it is true of James and John means nothing. Had their fault been gluttony in chapter 10, "other things" could have included food. Had their fault been drunkenness, "other things" could have included liquor. Had their fault been gambling... well, you get the idea, I hope.

The two thieves being hung next to Jesus is not a fulfillment of any prediction that two people would sit next to Jesus in his glory. The two things are connected, yes. But the one does not fulfill the other without remainder.

Here I disagree strongly. It is everywhere clear in Mark - read with pauline eyes - that the death of Jesus represents the maximum ''of the his glory'' (even the moment, per Tom Dykstra, when the Messianic Secret is revealed). Therefore insofar the Golgotha is the glory of Jesus, the two thieves are sharing the same glory relative to be ''on his left and right''.

Giuseppe, I have no idea what you are talking about. When posters like Kunigunde respond to me, I understand them pretty completely, I think. When I disagree with them, I know what it is I am disagreeing with, and why. But at least half of the time, with you, I do not even know where to begin.

[davidbrainerd]

Giuseppe, you just convinced me of historicity. Unless James and John were really martyred, what point would there be in devaluing their martyrdom with the two thieves stealing (pun intended) their glory? In fact the two thieves aren't just stealing their glory, but...dun dun dun...stealing their thunder. (Did that expression exist back then? Is this maybe its origin?) To treat two purely fictional characters this way seems too passive aggressive, although not impossible. Its such a puzzle.

[Ben C. Smith]

Giuseppe, you just convinced me of historicity. Unless James and John were really martyred, what point would there be in devaluing their martyrdom with the two thieves stealing (pun intended) their glory? In fact the two thieves aren't just stealing their glory, but...dun dun dun...stealing their thunder. (Did that expression exist back then? Is this maybe its origin?) To treat two purely fictional characters this way seems too passive aggressive, although not impossible. Its such a puzzle.

Some time ago on this forum John posted about MacDonald's position on James and John: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2282.

I responded: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2282&start=10.

Just FYI, possibly of interest....

[Ben C. Smith]

I want to add here that in early Christianity there is literally no greater honor to pay to someone than that they died a martyr's death. Look at how the martyrs are treated in the apocalypse of John. Look at how Paul extols obedience to the point of death in Philippians and in other contexts. Look at how Ignatius yearns for martyrdom (whatever else is going on in those weird epistles, there is a longing for martyrdom).

An author would have to work pretty hard to acknowledge that the disciples were martyrs for Jesus, or even that they suffered for his sake (as predicted in Mark 13), and yet denigrate them in that very action. An author would have to work pretty hard to nullify the martyrdom, and I do not think Mark has even begun to do so.

To speak of a "vain" martyrdom, with no effort put into an explanation, makes as much sense as to call a treasure worthless. Treasures are by definition very worthwhile, and in early Christianity (as in Maccabean times) martyrdom is by definition supremely honorable.

[davidbrainerd]

I want to add here that in early Christianity there is literally no greater honor to pay to someone than that they died a martyr's death. Look at how the martyrs are treated in the apocalypse of John. Look at how Paul extols obedience to the point of death in Philippians and in other contexts. Look at how Ignatius yearns for martyrdom (whatever else is going on in those weird epistles, there is a longing for martyrdom).

An author would have to work pretty hard to acknowledge that the disciples were martyrs for Jesus, or even that they suffered for his sake (as predicted in Mark 13), and yet denigrate them in that very action. An author would have to work pretty hard to nullify the martyrdom, and I do not think Mark has even begun to do so.

To speak of a "vain" martyrdom, with no effort put into an explanation, makes as much sense as to call a treasure worthless. Treasures are by definition very worthwhile, and in early Christianity (as in Maccabean times) martyrdom is by definition supremely honorable.

But Mark doesn't say they were martyred. It can be read as denying they were but having someone else take the place they wanted, the right and left hand. If Mark explicitely mrntioned them being martyred I'd agree with you, but it only mentions sn intention nowhere carried out in Mark.

[Ben C. Smith]

I want to add here that in early Christianity there is literally no greater honor to pay to someone than that they died a martyr's death. Look at how the martyrs are treated in the apocalypse of John. Look at how Paul extols obedience to the point of death in Philippians and in other contexts. Look at how Ignatius yearns for martyrdom (whatever else is going on in those weird epistles, there is a longing for martyrdom).

An author would have to work pretty hard to acknowledge that the disciples were martyrs for Jesus, or even that they suffered for his sake (as predicted in Mark 13), and yet denigrate them in that very action. An author would have to work pretty hard to nullify the martyrdom, and I do not think Mark has even begun to do so.

To speak of a "vain" martyrdom, with no effort put into an explanation, makes as much sense as to call a treasure worthless. Treasures are by definition very worthwhile, and in early Christianity (as in Maccabean times) martyrdom is by definition supremely honorable.

But Mark doesn't say they were martyred.

I think that is exactly what Mark's Jesus is saying: "The cup that I drink you shall drink; and you shall be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized."

It can be read as denying they were....

By what verbal alchemy do you turn "you shall" into "you shall not"?

[davidbrainerd]

I want to add here that in early Christianity there is literally no greater honor to pay to someone than that they died a martyr's death. Look at how the martyrs are treated in the apocalypse of John. Look at how Paul extols obedience to the point of death in Philippians and in other contexts. Look at how Ignatius yearns for martyrdom (whatever else is going on in those weird epistles, there is a longing for martyrdom).

An author would have to work pretty hard to acknowledge that the disciples were martyrs for Jesus, or even that they suffered for his sake (as predicted in Mark 13), and yet denigrate them in that very action. An author would have to work pretty hard to nullify the martyrdom, and I do not think Mark has even begun to do so.

To speak of a "vain" martyrdom, with no effort put into an explanation, makes as much sense as to call a treasure worthless. Treasures are by definition very worthwhile, and in early Christianity (as in Maccabean times) martyrdom is by definition supremely honorable.

But Mark doesn't say they were martyred.

I think that is exactly what Mark's Jesus is saying: "The cup that I drink you shall drink; and you shall be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized."

It can be read as denying they were....

By what verbal alchemy do you turn "you shall" into "you shall not"?

The ole cup switcheroo. It could be interpreted so that: When he asked the question he was talking about martyrdom, but when he says "you shall indeed...." he's talking about the eucharist. Because there are two baptisms of Jesus, two cups he drinks.

[Ben C. Smith]

That is exactly the sort of exegesis that can get one anywhere one wishes to go, the sort that relies upon sleight of hand and "switcheroos", as you charmingly call them. I asked this question of Giuseppe once long ago: if Jesus' second cup in Mark is the eucharistic cup, what is Jesus' second baptism in Mark?