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

[JoeWallack]

Greek nouns can belong to two gender classes, masculine and feminine, These do not correspond to the division between male and female. Nevertheless, most nouns denoting humans are masculine if the person is male, and feminine if the person is female. Thus the noun Petros is masculine.

Nouns denoting inanimate objects may be masculine or feminine thus the noun petra is feminine. The gender of a noun has to be learned at the same time as the noun.


Articles and adjectives that agree with a noun in the same noun phrase do so with the gender of the noun rather than the sex of the pronouns and person denoted.

JW:
I'll go beyond that to note that Greek items with a context of nature, such as a rock, are normally feminine. I believe that "Mark" and "Matthew" always present "rock", in the context of nature, as feminine. My first point is that in the offending verse, the two instances of the word are literally different, with one having a male construction and one having a female construction. Another difference is one refers to a name and one refers to a rock. I also pointed out that the second use of "rock" is not in the second person. Beyond that I said that "Matthew" uses one, the feminine one, elsewhere, and that I would present the other use, which I think is applicable, in a subsequent post.

Just for the record, even though I think Gundry is right that the second use does not refer to Peter, this is all Literary Criticism, which is not going to prove anything. It's not even going to make Gundry's/my conclusion probable. I just think there are enough problems with taking the "rock" as referring to Peter that in connection with the majority of evidence in GMatthew, the second "rock" likely does not refer to Peter. On the other hand, interpreting that the second use does refer to Peter, is reasonable, maybe more likely, since the two uses are close together, the use of "rock" is clearly symbolic, and what follows is in the second person singular. But again, I'm not finished.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[Bernard Muller]

On the way to Gethsemane Jesus tells his disciples that they will see him after he has been resurrected in Galilee “But after I am raised up, I will go before you to Galilee” (Mk 14:28), then again Mark has his angel telling the women to tell the disciples and Peter that they need to go to Galilee to see the resurrected Jesus – “But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you.”

It is therefore clear than Mark wants his readers to understand that the disciples including Peter saw the resurrected Jesus in Galilee even though he does not give his readers the story.

I am quite certain the whole empty tomb story was added later, as also 14:28. Explanations at http://historical-jesus.info/79.html. Therefore the original gMark did not have Jesus planning to see his disciples in Galilee.
Furthermore if they were not aware of the Resurrection and, as prophesied by (allegedly) Jesus (who could not be wrong ), they dispersed and forgot about him (Mk 14:27 And Jesus said to them, "You will all fall away; for it is written, 'I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.'). They did not have any reasons for expecting to see (a dead) Jesus somewhere in Galilee.

Cordially, Bernard

[outhouse]

It is therefore clear than Mark wants his readers to understand that the disciples including Peter saw the resurrected Jesus in Galilee even though he does not give his readers the story.

Not really bud.


I think your more correct then our friend Bernard here, as it was not all later in the context of promoted.


But the fact is, Mark if having thought this was a real event would have rhetorically expanded on it greatly. This community was basically addressing the traditions in place without making a stand on it one way or the other. It was included but almost as if second thought or having little to no importance compared to the rest of the theology they were addressing in full.

They sure as hell were not so astonished with this miracle that it was all they could talk about. I mean having your master back from the dead and its not really that important?

[outhouse]

They did not have any reasons for expecting to see (a dead) Jesus somewhere in Galilee.

Cordially, Bernard

Your bringing up two different points here.


The real followers yes, they ran and had no reason at all as pious Aramaic Jews who did not look at the man as god in any way.


But were dealing with a community far removed from these events who belonged to a different culture and different version of what many call perverted Judaism. And these people had very varied views on resurrection from one geographic location to the next with different levels of importance.


Thus, were not really dealing with any tradition going back to the possible real followers. we are dealing with the beginning stages of the evolution of the mythological resurrection concept that obviously existed, but not wide spread or as important as it would soon become.


For me, what was important for Marks community, was to compile the previous written and oral traditions as they knew them, as the loss of the temple meant loss of sharing traditions in the usual way they were used to at these yearly gatherings.

[Bernard Muller]

to outhouse,

The real followers yes, they ran and had no reason at all as pious Aramaic Jews who did not look at the man as god in any way.

But were dealing with a community far removed from these events who belonged to a different culture and different version of what many call perverted Judaism. And these people had very varied views on resurrection from one geographic location to the next with different levels of importance.

Yes, I agree. The real followers (eyewitnesses of Jesus in Galilee) did not see Jesus as divine, but these beliefs started among others, first in Jerusalem (among Hellenistic & Judean Jews), then farther away with more elaboration, as such:
The "king" could not have died before he rules => So he will come back => to do so, first his spirit had to be saved & alive in heaven.
Then came the focus on Jesus having been raised from the dead (with all kinds of grand implications, mainly fabricated for Gentiles).

I explained the beginning of Christianity here: http://historical-jesus.info/hjes3x.html.
How did Jesus come to be seen as the future king of the kingdom of God?
Recapitulated here in a very abbreviated form:
http://historical-jesus.info/digest.html

Cordially, Bernard

[toejam]

^I'm becoming less and less convinced that we can say that Jesus wasn't viewed as divine by his immediate followers. Certainly I do not think that Jesus went around teaching his followers that he was the 3rd member of the triune Godhead, but I do believe Jesus had a very high view of himself, and that his followers believed him to be some sort of mouthpiece of Yahweh. So the question 'what sense of mouthpiece?' then arises. If it was believed that God was speaking through Jesus - as in Jesus was occasionally possessed by the spirit of Yahweh - then I don't think it's that big a leap going from that to believing that Jesus himself was the incarnation of Yahweh. I find Christologists too often want to make this transition take place over generations, but I see no reason to think it could not have happened, or even that it is unlikely to have happened, very early.

[iskander]

Matthew 16.18
You are petros ( such as a small stone found along a pathway- masculine) and on this petra ( on this boulder- feminine) I will build my church.

In this translation the meaning is ,
there is petros ---(petros, the pebble , this mustard seed, Matthew 17:20 -masculine)
and on this petra ---(that will grow into a mighty boulder-feminine)
I will build the Kingdom of God ( as in Deuteronomy 32.4).

4074 Pétros (a masculine noun) – properly, a stone (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway. 4074 /Pétros ("small stone") then stands in contrast to 4073 /pétra ("cliff, boulder," Abbott-Smith).

"4074 (Pétros) is an isolated rock and 4073 (pétra) is a cliff" (TDNT, 3, 100). "4074 (Pétros) always means a stone . . . such as a man may throw, . . . versus 4073 (pétra), a projecting rock, cliff" (S. Zodhiates, Dict).

http://biblehub.com/greek/4074.htm

[JoeWallack]

JW:

Matthew 7:24

Strong's	Transliteration	Greek	English	Morphology
3956 [e]	Pas	Πᾶς	Every one	Adj-NMS
3767 [e]	oun	οὖν	therefore,	Conj
3748 [e]	hostis	ὅστις	whoever	RelPro-NMS
191 [e]	akouei	ἀκούει	hears	V-PIA-3S
1473 [e]	mou	μου	my	PPro-G1S
3588 [e]	tous	τοὺς	-	Art-AMP
3056 [e]	logous	λόγους	words	N-AMP
3778 [e]	toutous	τούτους	these,	DPro-AMP
2532 [e]	kai	καὶ	and	Conj
4160 [e]	poiei	ποιεῖ	does	V-PIA-3S
846 [e]	autous	αὐτούς,	them,	PPro-AM3P
3666 [e]	homoiōthēsetai	ὁμοιωθήσεται	will be like	V-FIP-3S
435 [e]	andri	ἀνδρὶ	a man	N-DMS
5429 [e]	phronimō	φρονίμῳ,	wise,	Adj-DMS
3748 [e]	hostis	ὅστις	who	RelPro-NMS
3618 [e]	ōkodomēsen	ᾠκοδόμησεν	built	V-AIA-3S
846 [e]	autou	αὐτοῦ	his	PPro-GM3S
3588 [e]	tēn	τὴν	-	Art-AFS
3614 [e]	oikian	οἰκίαν	house	N-AFS
1909 [e]	epi	ἐπὶ	upon	Prep
3588 [e]	tēn	τὴν	the	Art-AFS
4073 [e]	petran	πέτραν.	rock.	N-AFS

JW:
Here's the offending word again in feminine form, in a previous story in GMatthew that explains its significance, with several matching words to the 16:18 story. What does the "rock" mean here? Someone, anyone, Bemueller?


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[Bernard Muller]

"rock" = 'petra' (feminine) appears in Mk 15:45, Mt 7:24 & 25, 16:18, 27:51 & 60, Lk 6:48, 8:6, 8:13, Ro 9:33, 1 Cor 10:4, 1 Pet 2:8 and Rev 6:15 &16.

Cordially, Bernard

[outhouse]

, first in Jerusalem (among Hellenistic & Judean Jews


Cordially, Bernard

Factually unsubstantiated.

You have a bad guess here and nothing more. Jerusalem was "first" for nothing that we know of. it was not the starting point or center of origin for this Hellenistic movement.


Its why we have no writing that originated there.