Thinking aloud re my Questions, — dialogues? post: If part of Mark’s opposition to Peter and the 12 included opposition to the legend of Peter and co going out from Jerusalem (Justin Martyr appears to have known of the latter — without addressing here why he would be a factor in a question about the canonicals….) — If Mark was challenging the Petrine/Jerusalem tradition, then he would need to somehow be able to explain why the apostles themselves were reputed to have founded the eucharist (Justin Martyr says they were given this trad by Jesus after his resurrection — again this is not making much sense to those who date the gospels early. Much of my approach is in synch with Mack’s approach, but my details and conclusions I am sure are not Mack’s — all this is for another post.)
But by placing the eucharist BEFORE the death of Jesus, Mark informs his readers why it was that those he opposes also knew of a eucharist rite, (and also why they presumably got it wrong in some ways?).
Matthew tries to outsmart Mark by having the disciples report to Jesus in Galilee anyway, while conceding a few doubted.
Luke restores the Jerusalem/Petrine foundation while still incorporating the Pauline-Mark without a Galilee appearance. (Does he redo John’s postresurrection seaside catch to a pre-passion anecdote tied up with the first call? — following Matson’s argument that Luke follows John.)
N
Neil Godfrey
Latest posts by Neil Godfrey (see all)
- Is Everything a Question of Probability? - 2024-12-15 03:04:03 GMT+0000
- The Folly of Bayesian Probability in “Doing History” - 2024-12-13 05:51:46 GMT+0000
- Jesus Mythicism and Historical Knowledge, Part 4: Did Jesus Exist? - 2024-11-27 08:20:47 GMT+0000
If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!
Hello Neil,
FWIW: have you considered the possibility that the Eucharist is Mark’s very own symbolism ? Paul’s looks very suspicious and dependent on (the longer version of) Luke. The twelve in Acts 6:3 know nothing about a liturgical function of Eucharist when franchising out the communal feeding to the Hellenists. The Didache knows nothing of the covenant made through God’s “servant” Jesus.
In Mark’s polemic against the Petrine psychics, however, the Eucharist seems to have a very special function. Jesus symbolically gives away – distributes, as it were – his physical self prior to the passion. In my reading of Mark, this complements the mystery of the empty tomb. After the passion the “psychic” women come looking for the body of Jesus: their reference is : σομα (corpse !) του Ιησου Ναζαρηνου. They are intercepted by the messenger who tells them that Jesus has risen. Jesus, in the transfigured glory (2 Cr 3:18 ) is leading the faithful to Galilee. Mark’s reference: σομα του Χριστου. The women frighten and never tell anything to Peter & co. The disciples never go anywhere. The truth is revealed to the Petrine succession by the gospel,…as a spiritualist pun. The game is on.
Best,
Jiri
Hi Jiri,
It may be. I don’t know. My thoughts on Mark’s gospel are always in flux.
I’m likely to express quite different thoughts on this gospel, or at least modifications of earlier posts, in the future. Most recently I am wondering if “the mystery” of the feeding of the 5000 and the walking on water contains more of an explanation of the ending of the gospel than I had suspected till now. At least it seems that’s how the final redactor/author of Luke-Acts may have understood those scenes. But still thinking this one through. Ideas like the ones you have offered here are also worth thinking about and bringing in to the picture. Thanks.
By the way, how did you manage to get those nifty Greek fonts into a comment box here?? Please tell!!