"The Simontic Problem". "Mark's" Negative Casting of Peter

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1389
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: "The Simontic Problem". "Mark's" Negative Casting of Pet

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin » Mon Dec 16, 2013 6:00 am

I love the author of Acts. You can count on him :mrgreen:
Acts 19.13-16
"Then some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists undertook to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had evil spirits, saying, 'I adjure you by the Jesus whom Paul proclaims.' Seven sons of a Jewish high priest named Sceva were doing this. But the evil spirit answered them, 'Jesus I know, and Paul I recognize, but who are you?' And the man in whom was the evil spirit leaped on them, mastered all of them and overpowered them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded."

Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1389
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: "The Simontic Problem". "Mark's" Negative Casting of Pet

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin » Tue Dec 17, 2013 5:12 am

stephan happy huller wrote:I am not sure he was mocking the pillars. Mark is more likely subtly implying they weren't perfect ( cf the consistent reporting of this idea in the early heretics from Irenaeus and Tertullian). Mark however attained perfection with his second gospel
I wouldn't say that the mocking is the main function of the misunderstanding of the disciples. But a few verses are really harsh, for example Mark 9.14-29 (Jesus heals a boy with an unclean spirit - I would assume that the "mute and deaf spirit" should mirror the spirit of the disciples that "can only be driven out by prayer")

I think a little bit that the readers of the gospel should learn through the mistakes of the disciples ("I will make you become fishers of men.") and that the gospel of Mark isn't just perfect, it´s also a guide to perfection.

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1316
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: "The Simontic Problem". "Mark's" Negative Casting of Pet

Post by JoeWallack » Tue Dec 31, 2013 9:47 pm

JW:
In the current JBL issue Joel Williams has written a reMarkable article about foreshadowing in "Mark". One of Williams related impressive tables is titled "Echoes Highlighting the Failure of the Disciples". One of the rows of this table is for "Mark's" use of the word "watch". The table illustrates how "Mark" uses a key word to link a general formula for disciple success to a later specific narrative of disciple failure.

I've used the terms of Williams for the column headings:

Verbal Link Foreshadowing Verses Final Echo
γρηγορῇ (watch) (1) 13:34 [It is] as [when] a man, sojourning in another country, having left his house, and given authority to his servants, to each one his work, commanded also the porter to watch. 14:33-34 And he taketh with him Peter and James and John, and began to be greatly amazed, and sore troubled. And he saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful even unto death: abide ye here, and watch.
γρηγορεῖτε (watch) (2)13:35 Watch therefore: for ye know not when the lord of the house cometh, whether at even, or at midnight, or at cockcrowing, or in the morning; 14:37 And he cometh, and findeth them sleeping, and saith unto Peter, Simon, sleepest thou? couldest thou not watch one hour?
γρηγορεῖτε (watch) (3) 13:37 And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch 14:38 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

JW:
Going (way) beyond Williams, note the fantastic contrivance:
  • 1) The key word in the formula for disciple success is used the formulaic three times.

    2) The key word in the related narrative for disciple failure is used the formulaic three times.

    3) "Mark" is careful to never use this key word anywhere else in the Gospel in order not to dilute the connection.

    4) Peter's name is invoked in the related narrative of his failure the formulaic three times.

    5) Bonus material for Solo = The third time his name is invoked, Jesus uses his pre promotion name of Simon to address him (signifying his demotion).

    6) Anti-climactic at this point but Jesus also "takes the three" with him (they're with him but not "with him").

    7) The three also fall asleep three times.

    8) Jesus prays three times. Alright, it's too easy, enough for now (but watch for more).
For those Skeptics who impugn the survived integrity of "Mark", this type (so to speak) of extant contrivance is evidence that Christianity has unwittingly transmitted "Mark" well (if ever there was a back-handed compliment...).


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1389
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: "The Simontic Problem". "Mark's" Negative Casting of Pet

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin » Wed Jan 01, 2014 3:11 pm

thanks

Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1389
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: "The Simontic Problem". "Mark's" Negative Casting of Pet

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin » Thu Jan 02, 2014 8:15 am

JoeWallack wrote:
Verbal Link Foreshadowing Verses Final Echo
γρηγορῇ (watch) (1) 13:34 [It is] as [when] a man, sojourning in another country, having left his house, and given authority to his servants, to each one his work, commanded also the porter to watch. 14:33-34 And he taketh with him Peter and James and John, and began to be greatly amazed, and sore troubled. And he saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful even unto death: abide ye here, and watch.
γρηγορεῖτε (watch) (2)13:35 Watch therefore: for ye know not when the lord of the house cometh, whether at even, or at midnight, or at cockcrowing, or in the morning; 14:37 And he cometh, and findeth them sleeping, and saith unto Peter, Simon, sleepest thou? couldest thou not watch one hour?
γρηγορεῖτε (watch) (3) 13:37 And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch 14:38 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

another textual disruption of Mark 13: Mark speaks again through Jesus to the readers

Mk 13.3 "And as he sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately ..."

Mk 13.37 "And what I say to you I say to all: Stay awake."

beowulf
Posts: 498
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:09 am

Re: "The Simontic Problem". "Mark's" Negative Casting of Pet

Post by beowulf » Thu Jan 02, 2014 8:36 am

The Oxford Classical Greek Dictionary translates γρηγορεῖτε as, to be awake, live.

What is the significance of “watch?

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1316
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: "The Simontic Problem". "Mark's" Negative Casting of Pet

Post by JoeWallack » Fri Jan 03, 2014 9:55 am

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:I doubt a little bit that your conclusion is right. If I want then I´m able to read Mark' s gospel in a allegorical way. In this point of view I can understand the figure of Simon as a literary character. The same goes for James and John. No problem here. But if it's true that Mark was mocking the pillars then there must be a historical context.

Was Mark discrediting the pillars? It seems so. I share your understanding about the negative castings listed above and it´s an important point to me that Mark mocked only the pillars in an individual case and not for example Andreas or an other disciple. Therefore Mark is one of the best witnesses for the pillars.
JW:
An astute observation on your part and as Dennis said in the classic Spongebob movie Uh, perhaps I've said too much.. Regarding the original Gospel narrative dissing supposed historical witness, in the context of model, this category supports MJ/AJ because the movement (inter-Gospels) is definitely towards supposed historical witness.

Looking at this phenomenon (dissing of supposed historical witness) intra-Gospel ("Mark"), I agree that it is evidence for HJ. This phenomenon also agrees with the best potential witness to HJ, Paul, (which is just enough to make me HJ). The important distinction here though in the context of MJ/AJ/HJ is that while Paul is Source Criticism evidence, "Mark" is not because "Mark" is anonymous. "Mark" drops way down to Literary Criticism evidence. You don't prove anything positive with Literary Criticism, you need Source Criticism to do that. So while I accept that "Mark" is Literary Criticism evidence for HJ (the main attribute is scope as the entire narrative has a primary theme of discrediting supposed historical witness which does imply that there was historical witness and makes sense as those who did not know Jesus attributed the reMarkable to him compared to those who did know Possible Jesus) this only makes me think HJ is more likely but not that it is proven.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1316
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: "The Simontic Problem". "Mark's" Negative Casting of Pet

Post by JoeWallack » Fri Jan 03, 2014 8:21 pm

JW:
Another example from the same table is for the offending (so to speak) word "indignant". Table as follows:

Verbal Link Foreshadowing Verses Final Echo Commentary
ἠγανάκτησεν (indignant) 10:13-14 And they were bringing unto him little children, that he should touch them: and the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw it, he was moved with (1) indignation, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me; forbid them not: for to such belongeth the kingdom of God. 14:3-4 And while he was in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster cruse of ointment of pure nard very costly; [and] she brake the cruse, and poured it over his head. But there were some that had (2) indignation among themselves, [saying], To what purpose hath this waste of the ointment been made? In the foreshadow Jesus has a negative reaction (indignant) in response to the Disciples' negative reaction (rebuked). In the final scene the reactions are shifted. The disciples (presumably they would have been most of the audience) have a negative reaction (indignant) to an anonymous positive reaction to Jesus.
10:35 And there come near unto him James and John, the sons of Zebedee, saying unto him, Teacher, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall ask of thee...10:41 And when the ten heard it, they began to be moved with (3)indignation concerning James and John. Here "Mark" switches the hook to who the disciples are reacting to. James and John have just shown negative disciple behavior. Jesus reacts by explaining what the positive disciple behavior should be. Instead of reacting to Jesus' positive disciple behavior, the disciples react negatively to James and John's negative behavior. But for the wrong reason.

JW
Notes:
  • 1) The key word is used the formulaic three times.

    2) "Mark" is careful to never use this key word anywhere else in the Gospel in order not to dilute the connection.

    3) The reactions of Jesus verses the disciples are polar opposites, positive/negative, and often a reaction to a reaction.

    4) Peter's name is once again invoked ("Simon" = pre-promotion name).

    5) Bonus material for Solo = Once again there is sickness in Simon's house (not in my house). Let the Reader understand, do you often have meat in a Leper's house?
For those Skeptics who impugn the survived integrity of "Mark", this type (so to speak) of extant contrivance is evidence that Christianity has unwittingly transmitted "Mark" well (if ever there was a back-handed compliment...).


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1389
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: "The Simontic Problem". "Mark's" Negative Casting of Pet

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin » Sat Jan 04, 2014 2:53 pm

JoeWallack wrote:in the context of model, this category supports MJ/AJ because the movement (inter-Gospels) is definitely towards supposed historical witness.
yes, no doubt

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1316
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: "The Simontic Problem". "Mark's" Negative Casting of Pet

Post by JoeWallack » Sun Jan 05, 2014 8:56 am

Peter Kirby wrote:
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:I doubt a little bit that your conclusion is right. If I want then I´m able to read Mark' s gospel in a allegorical way. In this point of view I can understand the figure of Simon as a literary character. The same goes for James and John. No problem here. But if it's true that Mark was mocking the pillars then there must be a historical context.

Was Mark discrediting the pillars? It seems so. I share your understanding about the negative castings listed above and it´s an important point to me that Mark mocked only the pillars in an individual case and not for example Andreas or an other disciple. Therefore Mark is one of the best witnesses for the pillars.
Perhaps the pillars could be mocked as a stand-in for a group that claimed them as founders, figureheads, or important characters in the allegory.

(If as founders, perhaps they had not yet been integrated into the story of Jesus before the writing of the Gospels. For example, is it possible that Simon Peter in the Gospel was based on a 2nd century leader named Symeon, son of Clopas?)

Similarly, Ebion (a fictional person?) and Cerinthus (another fictional person?) can be mocked by the heresiologists as stand-ins for Ebionites and Cerinthians.

Or, in the Gospel of John, Thomas is made into the doubter and converted to Johannine Christianity in a resurrection story because there are rival groups claiming Thomas as their fountain of wisdom (and, to judge from the Gospel of Thomas, they don't seem to regard Jesus as God or even as Christ). None of this requires that either GJohn or GThomas are presented as more than fiction.
JW:
The lack of Source Criticism evidence for "Mark" opens up the possibilities based on Literary Criticism of "Mark". The only known significant Christian author before "Mark" is Paul. Strangely, CBS (Christian Bible Scholarship) tries to avoid using Paul as a source for "Mark", even though Paul is known and instead tries to use sources that are unknown. As Granny Wallack used to say, if you keep looking for something everywhere and just can't seem to find it anywhere, it may mean it does not exist (seriously, of course CBS is starting with the conclusion that "Mark" had Christian sources other than Paul and than looking for the evidence to support it).

Paul seems to indicate that Cephas and James were competitors to him in promoting Jesus, to some extent. "Mark" has a primary theme of discrediting Peter and James as witnesses to Jesus. There is a range of possibilities for "Mark's" primary theme:

Possible Primary ThemeDescriptionEvidenceCommentary
Religious"Mark" is written as pre-quelle to PaulExternal Christian claims"Mark" follows Paul since Paul is the only significant Christian writing before. "Mark" explains that historical witness failed Jesus by emphasizing the teaching and healing ministry and therefore needed Paul's revelation to properly explain that what was important was Jesus' supposed passion
Literary"Mark" is written as Literature by a master author"Mark's" style is Irony which everything is subject to including Jesus and God. Relatively few authors of the time would have had the skill to write such a story and known authors of the 1st century with this level of skill were not Christian."Mark" writes a classic where the subject is Paul's successor Christianity
Religious/Literary Combination"Mark" is written as a combination of a Religious and Literary work by a master authorThis is the location where the Truth usually lies"Mark" is written by a Master who is either sympathetic to the irony of Paul's Christianity or at least finds it interesting. Paul has the same type of ironic contrasting theme in his letters, just not to the extent of "Mark". The Jewish Bible also has this style in limited areas

JW:
The author of "Mark" would have been known to Christians at some point. When Christians asked the author if he knew anyone who knew Jesus and he said "no", they decided that he could not have been the author. In the 1st century you would need about two generations to write what ever you wanted without significant dispute since there would be few who would than know someone who knew someone to contradict. The timetable for "Mark" fits this. "Mark" writes about 70 years after the events he writes about and Christianity claims an identity of "Mark" about 70 years after it is written.

Again, none of this is based on Source Criticism, just Literary Criticism, so it is just possible, not proven.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Post Reply