robert j wrote:Solo wrote,
Either Mark knew that Jesus appeared to his followers a few days after his death (or they hallucinated his appearance) and he suppressed this information or he did not know about such traditions. I consider the likelihood of him writing falsehood minimal.
I grant that Mark suppressed the post-resurrection appearances to Peter and company --- Mark has the women afraid and not passing-on the message. That's in-line with Mark's denigration of the disciples, and especially Peter --- they didn't adequately grasp his message --- they fell asleep on him in the garden --- Peter denied him 3 times, etc. Perhaps Mark was loath to explicitly award a resurrection appearance to his version of an unworthy Peter --- his story is concluded before getting that far.
But the reason you think it gets that far is that the subsequent gospels - starting with Matthew - tell you it went that far. You do not have any "evidence" other than that, I imagine. From my vantage point, I see no evidence internally or externally that Mark intended to reverse the failure of the women to deliver the message and the disciples making it to Galilee where Jesus of the gospel directed them.
But the women didn't need to relay the message. Jesus, in Mark's tale, had already told Peter and company that he will be resurrected and will go ahead of them to the Galilee (Mark 14:28 and 16:7).
Well, my friend, I don't agree. First, I think you have granted that the disciples did not hear the the message of 16:7. It was not delivered. Now, if you go back to 14:28 and read on you will find that Peter ignores Jesus' words about him going to Galilee and reacts instead to the preceding statement about the stricken shepherd and the scattered sheep. Some temporary scholars want to argue that this is a clumsy Markan redaction but I see in Peter's not hearing Jesus on the Mount of Olives a pronounced intent following a consistent pattern. When Jesus reveals his earthly fate and that he would be resurrected at Caesarea Philippi, Peter grabs him. Jesus rebukes him but takes him and the inner core of his disciples to the mountain to do a demo of his resurrected glory. They don't get it. When he tells them not to tell anone what they had seen until Son of Man rises from the dead they "kept the matter secret arguing among themselves what the rising from the dead should mean" (9:10). Later, when Jesus repeats his teaching from Caesarea Philippi, the disciplies " did not understand the saying, and they wre afraid to ask" (9:32). In 10:37 the Zebs request seating next to Jesus when he sits on the throne of his messianic glory. He tells them "you don't know what you are asking". His throne will be the cross and the privilege of being seated next to him will be granted to two robbers.
So I see a significant POV written into Mark, which asserts that the disciples though apparently devoted to Jesus were idolators who did not have faith in his purpose and shrank from the cross. I have come to believe that the renaming of Cephas to the Greek 'Petros' was originally a clever pun by Mark, pointing to Romans 9:33 : "behold, I am lying in Zion a stone, a rock (petra) that will make them fall; and he who believes in him will not be disgraced ". Mark's gospel was evidently written for a community which did not yet include the other Jesus traditions, most notably the ones originating in the missions of James' church, in which Cephas, James and John figured prominently. If faith was the
sine qua non of receiving the gospel in Mark (see 4:12), then the Petrine traditions at that point did not yet accept the cross. I imagine that the gospel was something like an invitation for the Petrines to join in, unfortunately written up in an unnecessarily harsh and debasing manner which invited the Matthean backlash.
best,
Jiri
You seem to reject suppression in favor of Mark not knowing about traditions of appearances to Peter and company. For me, that's a bridge too far when Mark specifically names Peter and the disciples in relation to post-resurrection appearances.
robert j.
