Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Synoptic-L] Mk 16:7

Expand Messages
  • Chuck Jones
    Bruce,   Excellent thoughts, well communicated.  I comment on one brief passage.   Bruce wrote:  ...the fact of Jesus having *previously predicted* that
    Message 1 of 10 , Oct 15, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Bruce,
       
      Excellent thoughts, well communicated.  I comment on one brief passage.
       
      Bruce wrote:  "...the fact of Jesus having *previously predicted*
      that appearance...., like all the other predictions in Mark (the Denial of
      Peter is predicted in precisely the context around Mk 14:28), is meant to
      show, not what happened, and not even that it was somehow cosmically
      foreseen (as the OT echoes here and there in Mark are probably meant to
      suggest), but that Jesus himself was aware of it all in advance. This
      increases the stature of Jesus as a prophet. It also adds to the
      authenticity of the Appearance to Peter, which might otherwise be felt as an
      irrelevant addendum to previous tradition. It avoids the possible objection
      that Christianity, in the sense of the Risen Jesus, was an invention of
      Peter. I would interpret thus: a new element in Christianity which in fact
      may have gone back to a post-Crucifixion vision of Peter has here been more
      firmly incorporated in Christianity by being brought within the
      foreknowledge of Jesus."
       
      I agree with this analysis of the purpose of the prediction passages in Mk.
       
      I believe that Peter and others experienced unexpected visions of Jesus post-death.  I believe these experiences caused them to conclude Jesus was the Messiah after all.  They then went tanakh spelunking to authenticate the view.  And they also created scenes like the ones you describe because it would be pretty implausible for the Messiah to be surprised by his own (long-predicted) resurrection to glory!

      Rev. Chuck Jones
      Atlanta, Georgia




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • E Bruce Brooks
      To: Synoptic Cc: GPG, WSW In Response To: Chuck Jones On: Peter and Resurrection Theory From: Bruce Chuck had begun, and I hope I may be forgiven for repeating
      Message 2 of 10 , Oct 15, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        To: Synoptic
        Cc: GPG, WSW
        In Response To: Chuck Jones
        On: Peter and Resurrection Theory
        From: Bruce

        Chuck had begun, and I hope I may be forgiven for repeating it to our other
        list:

        CHUCK: Excellent thoughts, well communicated. I comment on one brief
        passage.

        BRUCE: The passage in question was my suggestion that the Predictions of
        Jesus in Mk are meant to "increase his stature as a prophet," as well as to
        "add to the authenticity of the Appearance to Peter."

        And I concluded: ". . . I would interpret thus: a new element in
        Christianity which in fact may have gone back to a post-Crucifixion vision
        of Peter has here been more firmly incorporated in Christianity by being
        brought within the foreknowledge of Jesus."

        CHUCK: I agree with this analysis of the purpose of the prediction passages
        in Mk.

        I believe that Peter and others experienced unexpected visions of Jesus
        post-death. I believe these experiences caused them to conclude Jesus was
        the Messiah after all. They then went tanakh spelunking to authenticate the
        view. And they also created scenes like the ones you describe because it
        would be pretty implausible for the Messiah to be surprised by his own
        (long-predicted) resurrection to glory!

        BRUCE: This seems a convincing account of the scenario I have mentioned:
        prevention of embarrassment. And I think the is also a larger dimension.
        Those who know the Dzwo Jwan (a world-famous Chinese text, but perhaps not
        equally famous in all worlds) will see there the same mix of narratively
        fulfilled and prospectively unfulfilled predictions. The fulfilled ones are
        to establish the higher knowledge of the text, and lend weight to what turn
        out to be its unfilled ones (predictions about the future course of the
        Unification wars, then vigorously in progress). They validate it as a
        political oracle. So the first function of the Markan and other predictions
        may well be to incorporate post-Crucifixion experiences into the
        pre-Crucifixion narrative. But the second function is to validate Jesus
        himself as a predictor; in this case, a predictor of his own second coming.
        As many of the canonical texts show us, the continually retreating "horizon
        of fulfilment" of this prediction, which was the one they really cared
        about, greatly disheartened the early Christians. So the reinforcement of
        faith in Jesus as a predictor would have been a welcome second effect of
        these other narrative closures.

        The same problem of delayed vindication continually bedevils the Psalms, and
        it was evidently to the Psalms that the early Christians turned, among other
        places, for justification of the timetable they were actually experiencing.

        EXCURSUS ON PETER

        To me, the role of Peter before and after the Crucifixion is still one of
        the riddles of the record as we have it (including the Petrine apocrypha). I
        hope it will get a little clearer as the reconstruction of Markan
        stratigraphy proceeds. The problem at present seems to be that some layers
        of Mark are pro-Petrine, and others anti-Petrine. But next week is another
        week, and perhaps we shall see, in a little more detail than at right this
        minute.

        Bruce

        E Bruce Brooks
        Warring States Project
        University of Massachusetts at Amherst
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.