"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.
Post Reply
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

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

Post by iskander »

Bernard Muller wrote:to iskander,
The apostles are ordinary men responding in a confused manner to the extraordinary.
That shows you did not bother to read my blog post at http://historical-jesus.info/28.html.

Cordially, Bernard
I read it.

The Gospels tell the story of a man with a dream and his ordinary companions. His companions continually struggle to understand the new world being created for them by the teacher. The contrast between the man possessed by a pioneering spirit and those victims of passive tolerance evokes uplifting images of what it may be possible.
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

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

Post by iskander »

Mathew 16.16-18
16Simon answered, ‘You are the Messiah,* the Son of the living God.’ 17And Jesus answered him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you, you are Peter,* and on this rock* I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.

In verse 16 Simon answers, " You are the Massiah, Son of the living God
In verse 18, the name of Simon is changed to Peter. In the Old Testament Abram, Sarai, Jacob were all given new names to signify that they had become a new person.
This new name is the Aramaic name Kepha, "stone" or " rock". So on this rock Jesus will build his church and it will be forever secure. As in Deuteronomy 32.4
The Rock --- perfect is His work, for all his paths are justice; a God of faith without iniquity, righteous and fair is He.
The Stone Chumash, ArtScroll.


Eventually power politics made it necessary to bring order to the church and verse 18 was interpreted as also saying that Peter had been appointed the undisputed leader of the church by Jesus.
Last edited by iskander on Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

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

Post by Bernard Muller »

to iskander,
The Gospels tell the story of a man with a dream and his ordinary companions. His companions continually struggle to understand the new world being created for them by the teacher.
Gee, I never heard of that before.
What new world was being created by Jesus for his companions?

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

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

Post by iskander »

Bernard Muller wrote:to iskander,
The Gospels tell the story of a man with a dream and his ordinary companions. His companions continually struggle to understand the new world being created for them by the teacher.
Gee, I never heard of that before.
What new world was being created by Jesus for his companions?

Cordially, Bernard

According to your five points the disciples are,
Solution 1: Disciples getting gag order from Jesus
Solution 2: Disciples being ignorant or kept in ignorance.
Solution 3: Disciples being too dumb to notice extraordinary events
Solution 4: Damage control on witnessed failure & objectionable conduct/saying:
http://historical-jesus.info/28.html
Good night
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8018
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

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

Post by Peter Kirby »

JoeWallack wrote:The "rock" though in "on this the rock" ("petra") is feminine. Also, the grammar is not second person ("you").
This must be the so-called "internal evidence" that Gundry leans on? And you really trust that it is sound argumentation for the conclusion, Joe?
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

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

Post by JoeWallack »

Peter Kirby wrote:
JoeWallack wrote:The "rock" though in "on this the rock" ("petra") is feminine. Also, the grammar is not second person ("you").
This must be the so-called "internal evidence" that Gundry leans on? And you really trust that it is sound argumentation for the conclusion, Joe?
JW:
Just the start. Get behind me Peter for thou thinkest the thoughts of (Christian) men. Gundry points out that "Matthew" does indeed use the feminine form elsewhere to not only refer to something other than Peter, but in likely contrast to Peter. Peter is in "Matthew's" mind here, just not the way you think.

The ICC, which I think is the best known commentary on GMatthew, points out that Jesus' identification of Simon as "Petros" is meant to be paired with Simon's identification of Jesus as Christ and therefore assumes it is positive. I think though that it is more sophisticated than that. Just as the significance of Peter identifying Jesus as the Christ is that Peter does not understand what that means, so too Jesus' identification of Simon as "Petros" is something that Simon does not understand. There seem to be two important rocks in GMatthew. Which one is Simon?

Like I said, I'll expand on Gundry specifically on the feminine rock (unless KK beats me to it).


Joseph

ErrancyWiki
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

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

Post by iskander »

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.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8018
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

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

Post by Peter Kirby »

iskander wrote: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 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.
This was my thought exactly. The features ("internal evidence") noted about the passage seem very telling only if someone is determined to find it very telling.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

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

Post by Michael BG »

Bernard Muller wrote:to JoeWallack,
While GMark wants to discredit supposed historical witness as promoting a resurrected Jesus,
Actually, there is no evidence in GMark that "Mark" "historical witness" promoted a RESURRECTED Jesus. However there are clues in the same gospel suggesting the "historical witness" did not believe in the Resurrection & future resurrections: http://historical-jesus.info/8.html

Cordially, Bernard
When looking at your evidence I can’t see that you have removed the Marcan additions to recover the tradition he was using.

The transfiguration Mk 9:2-10 seems to be an early Christian creation to move the adoption of Jesus from his resurrection to his transfiguration. It has all the hallmarks of an angelic appearance like the resurrection stories – “glistening and intensely white garments” (v. 3 par 16:5 Lk 24:4) “they were exceedingly afraid” (v.6 par. Mk 16:8).

Behind the transfiguration there could be an early Christian tradition of a resurrection appearance of Jesus to Peter, James and John where they also saw Elijah and Moses. It is in the angelic appearance tradition. It is possible that “And after six days” refers to after the crucifixion. This possible early Christian tradition that Jesus appeared with Elijah and Moses to Peter, James and John, might link to Paul’s “James and Cephus and John the supposed pillars” - (Gal 2:9). However I think it is likely that Mark inherited this as a transfiguration story not a resurrection one and while it is possible to detach verse 7 it is much harder to recover what the original wording of verses 2-3 might have been.

Mark 9:9 is a Marcan creation – Messianic Secret motif. As is verse 10. This is not because Peter didn’t see Jesus or believe in the resurrection.

The Marcan Messianic Secret motif applies also to Mk 8:30 the first passion prediction, and Mk 9:32 the second passion prediction. It first appears in Jesus’ miracles “he would not permit the demons to speak’” (Mk 1:34c), “said to him, ‘See that you say nothing to anyone” (Mk 1:44a), and “he strictly ordered them not to make him known” (Mk 3:12).

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.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

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

Post by Bernard Muller »

According to your five points the disciples are,
Solution 1: Disciples getting gag order from Jesus
Solution 2: Disciples being ignorant or kept in ignorance.
Solution 3: Disciples being too dumb to notice extraordinary events
Solution 4: Damage control on witnessed failure & objectionable conduct/saying:
http://historical-jesus.info/28.html
Yes these solutions are the answers to the problem that "Mark" had to face:
How to deal with the mundane eyewitness(es) testimonies which were against (or deficient about) Christian tenets, more so about Jesus on earth being Divine and with extraordinary powers or privileges.

Solution 1: Disciples getting gag order from Jesus:
a) NOT saying Jairus' daughter was resurrected (5:43)
b) NOT claiming Jesus was Christ (8:30)
c) NOT telling about the events on the high mountain, which included transfiguration, God saying Jesus is his Son and Moses & Elijah alive in bodily forms (9:9-10)

Solution 2: Disciples being ignorant or kept in ignorance:
a) NOT aware of the (Christian) meaning of Jesus' future passion (8:33)
b) NOT understanding what "rising from the dead" meant (right after seeing Moses & Elijah!) (9:10)
c) NOT asking about the meaning of (among other things) Jesus' future rising (9:32b)
d) NOT told about the Empty Tomb (16:8)

Solution 3: Disciples being too dumb to notice extraordinary events:
a) NOT "seeing" the miraculous feeding(s) (6:52, 8:4, 17-21)
b) NOT considering "walking on the sea" or/and the following stoppage of the wind as divine miracle(s) (6:52)

Solution 4: Damage control on witnessed failure & objectionable conduct/saying:
a) Jairus' daughter not resurrected (damage control: 5:42).
b) Rejection of Jesus in his hometown and his failure to heal people there (damage control: 6:4, 5b).
c) Near-impossibility for wealthy to enter the Kingdom of God (damage control: 10:27).
d) Disturbance in the temple (damage control: 11:17).
e) Peter saying Jesus cursed at a fig tree which withered later (damage control: 11:22-25).
f) Disciples falling away after Jesus' arrest (damage control: 14:27b).

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Post Reply