“. I think the intention is that they fled from the tomb saying nothing to no-one for they were afraid of the authorities. And that they would instead run and tell the disciples and Peter.”
It is matthew who adds in joy, mark has them flee with fear. where is indication that there is a recovery from there fearful fleeing state? None exist.
Since the meetings with peter would be in private, why worry for private correspondence?
jesus naming peter rocky is no different than jewish women at that time naming their kids isaiah . naming is one thing, living up to your name is another.
brenmcg said
Where is peter identified as rock in g mark?
In Mark 3:16 “So he appointed the twelve: Simon to whom he gave the name Petros“
All of my translations give Peter here, not Petros. The Harper Collins Study Bible at least notes that it is “perhaps from the Greek for ‘stone’ or ‘rock.'” That hardly seems the same as the Matthew reference.
Robert said
How much later? You just added that part. You yourself know it’s clear contradiction because in your previous imagined version you changed 16,8: “they fled from the tomb and said nothing to no-one for they were afraid of the guards/high priests.”
I’m adding to 16:8 in a way that avoids a contradiction with Peter being told by the women. Just to show its possible.
Please refrain from falsely characterizing my motives. You should be well aware of the fact that I frequently point out to you where Matthew or Luke improve upon Mark’s writing style. Jake and I were merely trying to help you understand what Mark’s Greek actually says, as opposed to your limited English rendition.
How do you translate Mark 8:16 in a way which is consistent with Mark 8:14?
What safe house? Judas has just betrayed them to the authorities. You’re just making up stuff out of whole cloth.
Just possibilities, to show we can’t just assume Mark thought they’d all head home to Galilee.
jakejones said
jesus naming peter rocky is no different than jewish women at that time naming their kids isaiah . naming is one thing, living up to your name is another.
Yes but Mark has Jesus, who he believes is lord of the cosmos, name him petros. And Mark’s Jesus can’t be wrong.
brenmcg said
jakejones said
jesus naming peter rocky is no different than jewish women at that time naming their kids isaiah . naming is one thing, living up to your name is another.
Yes but Mark has Jesus, who he believes is lord of the cosmos, name him petros. And Mark’s Jesus can’t be wrong.
JAS said
All of my translations give Peter here, not Petros. The Harper Collins Study Bible at least notes that it is “perhaps from the Greek for ‘stone’ or ‘rock.'” That hardly seems the same as the Matthew reference.
Yes but two first century greek speaking christians tell you the name means rock – so you should go with them.
so when i asked about how i thought you understood the verse, i rendered the verse in the following way ,
“They said nothing to anyone , except peter , because they were afraid”
You said that your way of reading is that the women spoke only after they were no longer afraid
So then how is marks “nothing to anyone” relevant in your bread example?
he gives the reason for why they were afraid, you have to think that they spoke only after they were no longer afraid.
“Yes but Mark has Jesus, who he believes is lord of the cosmos, name him petros.”
Naming is no evidence that ppl live up to their name. even peter did not think the messiah lived up to his name. I dont think mark thinks that jesus is “lord of cosmos”
mark thinks that jesus is dependant on the spirit which casts him into the wilderness.
brenmcg said
JAS said
Possibly, but neither of those two is Mark, or perhaps I should say whoever wrote Mark.
Mark confirms Jesus named him Petros. You don’t need to stick with Mark to find the meaning of words.
It is true that you do not need to stick with Mark to find the meaning of the words used . . . as long as you are looking to extend those meanings for purposes that may well be beyond what the writer intended. We necessarily lapse from what the writer says to what we think the writer says. Some of that is inherent in the complicated process of communication. There is nothing particularly wrong in doing so, but it must be kept in mind that it is what we are doing, and a warning to tread lightly and to be careful about making pronouncements too boldly. It is the difference between asking questions, looking at and discussing various possibilities, and insisting on a particular interpretation as the answer.
jakejones said
so when i asked about how i thought you understood the verse, i rendered the verse in the following way ,“They said nothing to anyone , except peter , because they were afraid”
You said that your way of reading is that the women spoke only after they were no longer afraid
So then how is marks “nothing to anyone” relevant in your bread example?
he gives the reason for why they were afraid, you have to think that they spoke only after they were no longer afraid.
I think the verse is not intended to end where it does, and the intention is that peter will eventually be told.
One counterargument to that claim is that Peter being told is seemingly contradictory to “they said nothing to no-one”.
I would counter that counterargument by giving the example of the bread, where Mark is happy making seemingly contradictory statements so close together, “they had one loaf … is it because we do not have bread”.
Naming is no evidence that ppl live up to their name. even peter did not think the messiah lived up to his name. I dont think mark thinks that jesus is “lord of cosmos”
mark thinks that jesus is dependant on the spirit which casts him into the wilderness.
Mark’s Jesus is the Lord of Isaiah 40:3, he is Lord even of the Sabbath, he is the Lord of the end-times who will cut those days short for the elect whom he has chosen. He is the son and heir of the owner of the vineyard Mark 12 (Isaiah 5).
Truly I tell you, people will be forgiven for their sins and whatever blasphemies they utter; 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit can never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”— 30 for they had said, “He has an unclean spirit
Like i said, jesus has no authority but is given it through the spirit. The spirit is able to help jesus read minds and even make power flow out of jesus without jesus’ knowledge.
“They said nothing to anyone , for they were afraid”
u are forcing in to the text, “they did say something to someone” so they werent afraid ?
They were afraid and not afraid?
if they did report after they were no longer afraid, your bread example becomes irrelavant.
jakejones said
Truly I tell you, people will be forgiven for their sins and whatever blasphemies they utter; 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit can never have forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”— 30 for they had said, “He has an unclean spirit
Like i said, jesus has no authority but is given it through the spirit. The spirit is able to help jesus read minds and even make power flow out of jesus without jesus’ knowledge.
“They said nothing to anyone , for they were afraid”
u are forcing in to the text, “they did say something to someone” so they werent afraid ?
They were afraid and not afraid?
if they did report after they were no longer afraid, your bread example becomes irrelavant.
I’m lost.
The disciples didn’t bring bread with them but had a loaf in the boat in Mark 8.
How does that tie to the women discovering the empty tomb and saying nothing?
I tried to follow the posts, but I just couldn’t.
Maybe I’m still recovering from drinking too much at Robert’s Super Bowl party, eh?
I think this will be my final post here, a person called brojangles explained it like this :
Ok, Mark 8:14 says, “they had brought no bread with them, neither did they have more than one loaf in the boat.” 8:16 says “It is because we have no loaves.” What’s in between these verses has significance: “And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the leaven of Herod.” Removing the middle part removes the set up for the punchline of a joke. The disciples forgot to bring bread and they don’t have more than a loaf with them in the boat. As they are going across the lake, they are about to go into Pharisee country. Jesus tells them “Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the leaven of Herod.” Leaven was used as a metaphor for corruption and Jesus is talking philosphically but the disciples take it literally and ask “why did he say that?” “It’s because we have no bread.” They are taking it literally and thinking he’s really talking about bread. This is typical of how Mark always tries to portray the disciples as idiots to an unrealistic degree. Having them say to themselves “we have no bread” because they have “no more than one loaf” in the boat is simply how natural speech works when everybody already knows the relevant information. Are they supposed to say, “it’s because we have no more than one loaf?” Is there a substantive difference between, “no loaves” and “no more than one,” especially within the context of the joke? The reason you know there was maybe one loaf is that Mark already told you that. Mark says the women ran away from the tomb and “didn’t tell anybody because they were so afraid,” he doesn’t say “except for the disciples.” How would the reader be expected to know it if there was an exception? You know about the loaf because Mark told you. Can you give an example of Mark saying “none” but leaving something out without tell you? Why would he bother saying “And they said not one thing to anyone at all [kai oudeni ouden eipon “And not one thing and to not one man they spoke”]” and then leave out,”except for the people they ran right to and told?” If Mark had wanted to say the women ran away and didn’t tell anybody at all, how would he say that differently than Mark 16:8? What is the argument that the reader would have understood Mark to have been saying the women ran to the disciples if the reader had no prior knowledge of Jesus outside of Mark’s Gospel?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)