Association of Mark with Peter and "John" with John Z

[Secret Alias]

I don't know if any of you have written a manuscript that was poorly conceived from the outset.
Then you attempted a second rewrite. It starts out well but then that starts getting bogged down in the weeds.
Then you try and rewrite that manuscript and you end up with something incomprehensible.
That's what I think happened with the gospel(s) but with different authors.

[John2]

...
I don't think I said what I meant to say clearly enough. I agree with you that Peter was loyal and obedient to Jesus, but he didn't understand Jesus' dying and rising philosophy and denied knowing him at the end...

And you don't hear the irony in that? From the pen of an author famous for his love of irony, that his only character who ever gave the right answer to the recurring question of "who is this guy?" denied knowing that guy in the end? And hearing it, you don't find that too literary to be true, too literary for the author to intend it seriously to be mistaken for a fact claim? OK. Difference of opinion is what makes horse races.

I do see (or hear) what you mean. I also like MacDonald's idea that Mark's gospel is modeled on Homer and figure Peter's characterization could have been shaped by that (as MacDonald puts it: "Mark's Simon Peter plays a role reminiscent of Eurylochus, Odysseus' second-in-command"). So I guess for me there is a "literary" Peter in Mark and a historical Peter in Galatians (and 1 Peter, which I think is genuine) and perhaps also in Josephus (as Simon) and I combine the two in my mind.

I appreciate your desire to see the "other side" regarding Peter being a waffler in Galatians (and possibly in Josephus and James' letter), but I'm comfortable with that characterization. Nobody's perfect, as James says.

But I suppose that even if the historical Peter was a waffler, it could have nothing to do with Mark's presentation of him. That could all be Mark's literary invention, I guess, whether it was based on Homer or not. And maybe that had something to do with Peter's initial disinterest in Mark's gospel.

[rgprice]

Sorry, I just figured more people were on-board with my reading of Mark, but I guess that was a bad assumption on my part, which is understandable. As I just expanded upon in another thread:

Mark 1:
32 Now when evening came, after the sun had set, they began bringing to Him all who were ill and those who were demon-possessed. 33 And the whole city had gathered at the door. 34 And He healed many who were ill with various diseases, and cast out many demons; and He would not permit the demons to speak, because they knew who He was.

Mark 8:
27 Jesus went out, along with His disciples, to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way He questioned His disciples, saying to them, “Who do people say that I am?” 28 They told Him, saying, “John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; and others, one of the prophets.” 29 And He continued questioning them: “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered and *said to Him, “You are the Christ.” 30 And He warned them to tell no one about Him.

31 And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise from the dead. 32 And He was stating the matter plainly. And Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. 33 But turning around and seeing His disciples, He rebuked Peter and *said, “Get behind Me, Satan; for you are not setting your mind on God’s purposes, but on man’s.”

2 Cor 11:
13 For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15 It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.

Peter's actions in the end are to deny and abandon Jesus.

At every step of the way in the Gospel of Mark, in each scene with Peter, we are given clues that Peter is not good.

[John2]

At every step of the way in the Gospel of Mark, in each scene with Peter, we are given clues that Peter is not good.

Well, as far as 2 Cor. 11:13-15 goes, I don't think Paul is talking about Peter, since he goes on to ask, "Are they Hebrews? ... Are they Israelites? ... Are they descendants of Abraham? ... Are they servants of Christ?" So Paul has more than one person in mind here.

And in Gal. 2:9 he says that "James, Cephas, and John ... gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship," and in 1 Cor. 15:11 (which I think is genuine), he includes Peter (or Cephas) among those who shared the gospel that he had preached to the Corinthians ("Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed).

And since Paul directs his invective at multiple Jewish Christians in 2 Cor. 11 (those he says proclaimed "a Jesus other than the One we proclaimed ... or a different gospel than the one you accepted"), my guess is that he is referring to the "false brothers" he mentions in Gal. 2:4-5, who "had come in under false pretenses to spy on our freedom in Christ Jesus, in order to enslave us. We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you."

Paul may have been unhappy that Peter didn't agree with his teaching against the necessity of Jewish Torah observance, but Peter was okay with what Paul taught Gentiles, in accordance with the deal he had made with him in Gal. 2:9. It was the "false brothers" who insisted that Gentiles be circumcised and Torah observant, not Peter or any other Jewish Christian leader. If anything, Peter went the other way by eating with them for a period of time.

That doesn't mean that the author of Mark didn't see it that way, of course, but no matter how bad he makes Peter look, the gospel implies that he will see the resurrected Jesus in Galilee and presumably understand his dying and rising teaching and become the pillar who gave Paul the right hand of fellowship.

[Paul the Uncertain]

Sorry, I just figured more people were on-board with my reading of Mark, but I guess that was a bad assumption on my part, which is understandable....

Peter's actions in the end are to deny and abandon Jesus.

It may be helpful to explain your reading of Mark. I infer that by "in the end," you refer to the courtyard-courtroom "sandwich" 14:53-72. What concrete action do you propose Peter ought to have performed instead?

[rgprice]

I agree that the Pauline letter is not talking about Peter in 2 Cor 11, but the writer of Mark is using the passage to refer to Peter.

[John2]

I agree that the Pauline letter is not talking about Peter in 2 Cor 11, but the writer of Mark is using the passage to refer to Peter.

But Jesus is pro-Jewish Torah observance in Mark and that's Peter's position and not Paul's (though the latter was willing to pretend to be, as per 1 Cor. 9:20 and Acts 21).

[John2]

I just think that Mark (maybe even via Peter) is bound to the idea that Jesus "fulfilled" the OT so all the disciples had to "fall away" because "as it is written: ‘I will strike the Shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered" (to which Jesus adds, "But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee").

And I think this addition is more significant than Peter's "scattering," because it makes his story in Mark like Paul's (I once was lost but now I am found, as the song goes). To hold the "scattering" against Peter would be like holding Paul's time as a persecutor against him. Why would it be any different for Peter to tell a story like that about himself than it was for Paul?

[davidlau17]

The emerging catholics selected Peter as their leading figure, perhaps based on the author of Matthew identifying Peter as the rock on which the church will be built via the words of Jesus.

I wonder if one need look no further than 1 Peter for the association of Mark with Peter. 1 Peter is an apparently Paulinist letter presented in a Petrine package. It’s not entirely clear if the intention of the author was to present Mark as a biological son or as a spiritual son of “Peter” ---

She in Babylon elected with you greets you, and my son Mark. (1 Peter 5:13)

1 Peter 5:13 could help to explain how a legend developed that Mark was Peter's interpreter. It still does beg the question as to how GMark came to be associated with the name 'Mark' in the first place though.

I think the author of GMark may have intended to imply the forgiveness of Peter with the mysterious young man at the empty tomb telling the women ---

He is not here! Behold the place where they laid Him. But go, say to His disciples and to Peter that He goes before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, as He said to you.” (Mark 16:6-7)

Of the disciples, only Peter is named here.

I think this is true, but even so, I'm not sure if Jesus' implicit forgiveness serves to fully redeem Peter.

Imagine if the mysterious young man at the empty tomb instead said: "But go, tell his disciples and Judas Iscariot that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you.”

Would Judas have been implicitly forgiven here? Maybe. Would Christians' views of the Judas character be any less harsh than they are today? I'm not sure.

[Paul the Uncertain]

I just think that Mark (maybe even via Peter) is bound to the idea that Jesus "fulfilled" the OT so all the disciples had to "fall away" because "as it is written: ‘I will strike the Shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered" (to which Jesus adds, "But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee").

And I think this addition is more significant than Peter's "scattering," because it makes his story in Mark like Paul's (I once was lost but now I am found, as the song goes). To hold the "scattering" against Peter would be like holding Paul's time as a persecutor against him. Why would it be any different for Peter to tell a story like that about himself than it was for Paul?

I think Paul's self-reproach is an excellent counterexample to the hypothesis that a mature leader wouldn't acknowledge their own earlier failings. Thank you for that.

I think the contrast between Mark's Peter's behavior and Paul's self-reported behavior is also interesting. Analysis of Peter rightly begins where you place it: in the dialog between Jesus and Peter, where each predicts how the night will play out.

Jesus is correct that the sheep will be scattered. They are all separated from one another. When Peter denies this, he may well be saying that he will not be separated from Jesus, and hypothetically concedes that all the others may behave differently than he does (thus, Peter allows that Jesus may be correct about "scattering" in one possible sense, but not in another possible sense). In the event, Peter is separated from Jesus by force of arms and then by imprisonment under guard. Peter errs in his prediction, but not on account of his own dereliction.

Peter goes too far in saying that if necessary, he will die with Jesus. It is not at all clear that nascent Christian ethics in the 30's CE excludes the concept of Taqiyya, to use the Muslim word for justifiable deception about religious beliefs to preserve life. Or, if you prefer "western" concepts, the mission comes first, and the simultaneous death of the "Shepherd" and the Shepherd's right-hand clearly jeopardizes the success of Jesus's mission.

Apart from the absence of a good solution (Peter will betray Jesus personally if he survives Jesus, and Peter will betray Jesus as mission leader if he doesn't), Mark more than other canonical authors ups the ante. Peter in the courtyard doesn't know what's happening in the Sanhedrin. Peter has a reasonable expectation that any "provocative" behavior in the courtyard (perhaps proclaiming Jesus as the Christ, which he is forbidden to do, or revealing himself as having covertly infiltrated the courtyard - almost anything except what Peter does - that is, escape) jeopardizes Jesus.

This is reasonable management of uncertainty by Peter. Recall that Mark's Jesus has always been able to talk his way out of trouble, including accusations of capital crime (e.g. being in league with Beelzebul). Peter doesn't know that Jesus has already orchestrated his death sentence in Mark.

It is one thing to die for your faith, but something else to kill another person for it (think of the novel and film Silence by Shusaku Endo). Peter's best chance to be helpful is to remove himself from the scene. It was a tactical error to infiltrate the courtyard in the first place (however necessary it was to keep his word).

In contrast, Paul offers nothing to justify his earlier behavior except the suggestion that he was too zealous at the time. So, Paul's misdeed is arguably more egregious that Peter's "betrayal" of Jesus.

Finally as to the plausibility of Peter being the source of information about his misdeed, then equally Peter would be the source of the many mitigating factors which appear in Mark's telling of that misdeed. "I regret having done wrong, but tell me how I could have done right - without the benefit of hindsight" is an entirely plausible self-presentation, IMO.

At a minimum, it imposes the moral obligation on whoever would condemn Peter to make an answer to the query, "What concrete action do you propose Peter ought to have performed instead?" Perhaps the OP has an answer.