Magdalenbrother
January 6th 2005, 07:09 AM
In Mark 10: 28, Peter in the name of the Twelve claims to have left everything behind to follow Jesus. And Jesus apparently aknowledges the disciples' sacrifice of wives, mothers, sisters , brothers, fields and houses. In another episode, he asks a rich young man to do precisely that: to abandon everything to follow him.
But wait, did the disciples really abandon everything?
In "John", chapter 21, we find the apostles busy fishing in the Sea of Galilee with a boat that was obviously theirs. The mother of the sons of Zebedee is also mentioned solliciting supreme cabinet positions for her common, uneducated offspring in the company of her sons. According to "John", who here flatly contradicts the Synoptists, who portray Jesus' family as hostile, the Master was followed by his own brothers and mother. In one of Paul's epistles we hear of apostles going on their preaching tours with their wives.
This shows that the disciples had not made any vows of perpetual chastity and poverty on following Jesus' call and that they had not turned their backs on their families. IMHO, Peter and the others regurlarly went back home to take care of their own business and family. Maybe they went back home every evening when Jesus had preached in the vicinity of their own village or town. When they had less work to do, they probably accompanied Jesus on his wanderings for longer periods of time. And of course they went with him on pilgrimage to Jerusalem thrice a year. But then they had always done so since pilgrimages are an obligation for all Jews.
The fishing episode is particularly interesting because it shows that according to "John" at least, after the Resurrection, far from launching daring Evangelization forays in infidel lands, the disciples quietly went back home and resumed their normal life of fishing and tilling the land. In fact, if my thesis is correct, they may never have completely abandoned it! To remind them of their urgent preaching duties to "all creation" (Mark 16:15), a special apparition of the resurrected Lord was needed. Nothing less. Note how John 21 clashes with other accounts in which Jesus urges his disciples to go and preach the Gospel while they were still in Jerusalem.
Let us finally think of the utter immorality of wrenching a young healthy male away from his wife and children. Could Jesus have done such a thing? If he did, he is not my Master.
Briefly, I think there is a lot of idealization going on in Mark 10 and other Gospel passages. Radical actions and heroic choices do enhance the flavor of a narrative and can serve as edifying examples for posterity, but real life is often less colorful and extreme. I think this particular aspect of the disciples' story was much more down-to-earth than what the Gospels would have us believe.
I also suspect that Jews, like all Middle-eastern people, like to use hyperboles. Peter knew he had not abandoned everything, that his house was still there, that he still owned a boat or two, that his wife was expecting him for supper that night, but in typical Oriental fashion he must say that he had made something incredibly heroic.
For me there is only one possibility that would justify Peter's words in Mark 10: that Jesus' career was indeed extremely short, lasting less than a year (and not three years as John would have it), and that he had categorically promised his followers an immediate end of the existing order on his arrival in the Holy City. Only such a fantastic prospect, I think, could have motivated the disciples to break sacred family ties and abandon their jobs. Anyway, they knew that they were going to get everything back shortly. That is probably how they must have justified themselves both before their own conscience and before their disconsolate relatives:"We are going to take part in the great cosmic events of the Last Days. After a short tribulation, we will come back rich and powerful."
Poor Peter...
There is one more detail that is intriguing in Mark 10:29:
Jesus promises a hundredfold houses and lands and relatives "with persecutions". For me this is quite unbelievable because, if a group of people are persecuted, it is materially impossible for them to enjoy lands and houses and the warm company of mothers, sisters, brothers and sons. Persecuted people are in prison or they die stoned or crucified. Their lands and houses are burnt down or confiscated by the authorities.
Briefly, this "with persecutions" is like a handful of ashes on a gorgeous dish of Peking roastduck. It is hard for me to believe that such an announcement could have given comfort to the disciples and fired their zeal for conversion and Evangelization.
The Greek preposition is meta, which means either "with", "after" or "among". It seems to me that the whole passage would make much more sense if we translated meta as "after":"You will receive a hundredfold in lands, houses, mothers, sisters, brothers and children after persecution." If Jesus used meta diogmon at all, this is what it must have meant.
But somehow I think that "with persecutions" is also possible.
The writers of "Mark" needed to make Jesus promise of the coming Kingdom with its immense, yeah boundless possibilities and rewards into a description of normal church life. At the time these people were writing and rewriting the second Gospel there were persecutions. So the all too idyllic presentation of Jesus was rendered somewhat more plausible and realistic by adding the sinister "with persecutions". Thereby they completely obscured the fact that Jesus had promised an earthly Kingdom to his disciples in the very near future in which they would live like Indian Pashas.
But wait, did the disciples really abandon everything?
In "John", chapter 21, we find the apostles busy fishing in the Sea of Galilee with a boat that was obviously theirs. The mother of the sons of Zebedee is also mentioned solliciting supreme cabinet positions for her common, uneducated offspring in the company of her sons. According to "John", who here flatly contradicts the Synoptists, who portray Jesus' family as hostile, the Master was followed by his own brothers and mother. In one of Paul's epistles we hear of apostles going on their preaching tours with their wives.
This shows that the disciples had not made any vows of perpetual chastity and poverty on following Jesus' call and that they had not turned their backs on their families. IMHO, Peter and the others regurlarly went back home to take care of their own business and family. Maybe they went back home every evening when Jesus had preached in the vicinity of their own village or town. When they had less work to do, they probably accompanied Jesus on his wanderings for longer periods of time. And of course they went with him on pilgrimage to Jerusalem thrice a year. But then they had always done so since pilgrimages are an obligation for all Jews.
The fishing episode is particularly interesting because it shows that according to "John" at least, after the Resurrection, far from launching daring Evangelization forays in infidel lands, the disciples quietly went back home and resumed their normal life of fishing and tilling the land. In fact, if my thesis is correct, they may never have completely abandoned it! To remind them of their urgent preaching duties to "all creation" (Mark 16:15), a special apparition of the resurrected Lord was needed. Nothing less. Note how John 21 clashes with other accounts in which Jesus urges his disciples to go and preach the Gospel while they were still in Jerusalem.
Let us finally think of the utter immorality of wrenching a young healthy male away from his wife and children. Could Jesus have done such a thing? If he did, he is not my Master.
Briefly, I think there is a lot of idealization going on in Mark 10 and other Gospel passages. Radical actions and heroic choices do enhance the flavor of a narrative and can serve as edifying examples for posterity, but real life is often less colorful and extreme. I think this particular aspect of the disciples' story was much more down-to-earth than what the Gospels would have us believe.
I also suspect that Jews, like all Middle-eastern people, like to use hyperboles. Peter knew he had not abandoned everything, that his house was still there, that he still owned a boat or two, that his wife was expecting him for supper that night, but in typical Oriental fashion he must say that he had made something incredibly heroic.
For me there is only one possibility that would justify Peter's words in Mark 10: that Jesus' career was indeed extremely short, lasting less than a year (and not three years as John would have it), and that he had categorically promised his followers an immediate end of the existing order on his arrival in the Holy City. Only such a fantastic prospect, I think, could have motivated the disciples to break sacred family ties and abandon their jobs. Anyway, they knew that they were going to get everything back shortly. That is probably how they must have justified themselves both before their own conscience and before their disconsolate relatives:"We are going to take part in the great cosmic events of the Last Days. After a short tribulation, we will come back rich and powerful."
Poor Peter...
There is one more detail that is intriguing in Mark 10:29:
Jesus promises a hundredfold houses and lands and relatives "with persecutions". For me this is quite unbelievable because, if a group of people are persecuted, it is materially impossible for them to enjoy lands and houses and the warm company of mothers, sisters, brothers and sons. Persecuted people are in prison or they die stoned or crucified. Their lands and houses are burnt down or confiscated by the authorities.
Briefly, this "with persecutions" is like a handful of ashes on a gorgeous dish of Peking roastduck. It is hard for me to believe that such an announcement could have given comfort to the disciples and fired their zeal for conversion and Evangelization.
The Greek preposition is meta, which means either "with", "after" or "among". It seems to me that the whole passage would make much more sense if we translated meta as "after":"You will receive a hundredfold in lands, houses, mothers, sisters, brothers and children after persecution." If Jesus used meta diogmon at all, this is what it must have meant.
But somehow I think that "with persecutions" is also possible.
The writers of "Mark" needed to make Jesus promise of the coming Kingdom with its immense, yeah boundless possibilities and rewards into a description of normal church life. At the time these people were writing and rewriting the second Gospel there were persecutions. So the all too idyllic presentation of Jesus was rendered somewhat more plausible and realistic by adding the sinister "with persecutions". Thereby they completely obscured the fact that Jesus had promised an earthly Kingdom to his disciples in the very near future in which they would live like Indian Pashas.