"The Simontic Problem". "Mark's" Negative Casting of Peter
Re: "The Simontic Problem". "Mark's" Negative Casting of Pet
^Yes. My view as well Mr. Kirby. I'm with Gundry on most of his points, only I see interpolation as a better explanation for the "on this rock" passages, which I read at face value as pro-Peter.
My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208
-
- Posts: 3964
- Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
- Contact:
Re: "The Simontic Problem". "Mark's" Negative Casting of Pet
I come rather late on that thread, but I have to say I somewhat agree and then somewhat disagree on this statement in the OP."Mark's" Negative Casting of Peter, where I demonstrate, and than some, that a primary literary objective of "Mark" was to discredit Peter as supposed witness to Jesus.
"Mark" did not like Peter as a witness of Jesus because Peter's testimony was only about a lower class prophet who died. No Son of God, no Christ, no extraordinary miracles, no Resurrection and future resurrections. "Mark" had to deal with that mundane Peter's testimony, because known by his audience, but against a divine earthly Jesus that "Mark" tried very hard to "prove". That would explain many elements in gMark, including the so-called messianic secret.
http://historical-jesus.info/28.html
and
http://historical-jesus.info/108.html
Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Re: "The Simontic Problem". "Mark's" Negative Casting of Pet
Bernard Muller wrote:I come rather late on that thread, but I have to say I somewhat agree and then somewhat disagree on this statement in the OP."Mark's" Negative Casting of Peter, where I demonstrate, and than some, that a primary literary objective of "Mark" was to discredit Peter as supposed witness to Jesus.
"Mark" did not like Peter as a witness of Jesus because Peter's testimony was only about a lower class prophet who died. No Son of God, no Christ, no extraordinary miracles, no Resurrection and future resurrections. "Mark" had to deal with that mundane Peter's testimony, because known by his audience, but against a divine earthly Jesus that "Mark" tried very hard to "prove". That would explain many elements in gMark, including the so-called messianic secret.
http://historical-jesus.info/28.html
and
http://historical-jesus.info/108.html
Cordially, Bernard
The apostles are ordinary men responding in a confused manner to the extraordinary.
Regarding the "rock", the ancient Roman liturgy uses the following collect for the vigil of the Apostles Ss. Peter and Paul:
Grant, we beseech You, almighty God, that we, whom You have made firm upon the rock of apostolic faith, may not be shaken by any distresses.
And the Latin: Præsta, quaesumus, omnípotens Deus: ut nullis nos permíttas perturbatiónibus cóncuti; quos in apostólicæ confessiónis petra solidásti.
So one of the oldest collects in the Roman liturgy shows us that the "rock" is the apostolic faith.
http://brewiarz.pl/latin/2202/sexta.php3
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zVl ... ti&f=false
Re: "The Simontic Problem". "Mark's" Negative Casting of Pet
Although it's quite clear I know nothing of any consequence and understand even less, I'll state a view (not necessarily mine) for argument's sake.
It has always seemed notable that Peter's apostolic performance is trashed in a Gospel that has traditionally been regarded as derived from and endorsed by himself.
Mark is Peter's "interpreter". Mark's knowledge of the Gospel comes (primarily) from Peter's preaching. Mark likes poetry and long walks along the beach. In the aftermath of Jesus' life on earth, Peter is ashamed of the quality of his discipleship, and his failure to recognize what was now obvious, that Jesus was the Son of God. His preaching at all junctures acknowledges the disciples' collective failure to recognize who they were following, not least of all his own.
It has always seemed notable that Peter's apostolic performance is trashed in a Gospel that has traditionally been regarded as derived from and endorsed by himself.
Mark is Peter's "interpreter". Mark's knowledge of the Gospel comes (primarily) from Peter's preaching. Mark likes poetry and long walks along the beach. In the aftermath of Jesus' life on earth, Peter is ashamed of the quality of his discipleship, and his failure to recognize what was now obvious, that Jesus was the Son of God. His preaching at all junctures acknowledges the disciples' collective failure to recognize who they were following, not least of all his own.
I saw a Naked girl ,Slowly emerge in front of me,Greek hairstyle,Very beautiful,She has a beautiful [fine] profile.; She is fine in profile. the view of profile,hard to tell.
Re: "The Simontic Problem". "Mark's" Negative Casting of Pet
^Yes, this is a view that is often overlooked - that Peter's aloofness has evangelistic value - "See! Even Jesus' right-hand man had moments of doubt and lacked understanding - and he came through in the end! So you can too!!". As Gundry discusses briefly in the video, many Christians see Peter as someone they can relate to, in contrast to the more serious and confident Jesus and Paul. So the negative portrayal of Peter might not be smear after all, but serves apologetic interests - and/or maybe it does trace to a guilt-ridden historical Peter?
I personally don't buy the Peter -> Mark connection myself though.
I personally don't buy the Peter -> Mark connection myself though.
My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208
- JoeWallack
- Posts: 1608
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
- Contact:
Re: "The Simontic Problem". "Mark's" Negative Casting of Pet
JW:
The offending verse:
Matthew 16:18
JW:
The Interpretation principle to always keep in mind is:
Prefer interpreting the minority based on the majority
and don't
Prefer interpreting the majority based on the minority.
Clearly the majority of GMatthew is negative on Peter. On the other hand, we do have an usual relationship between GMatthew and its source GMark. While GMark wants to discredit supposed historical witness as promoting a resurrected Jesus, GMatthew wants to credit supposed historical witness as promoting a resurrected Jesus. Since GMatthew inherited than a base for a Gospel narrative that discredited here, it's possible that "Matthew" (author) did add a key verse or two trying to undo the discrediting and while leaving us a story still majority negative to Peter, did intend to rehabilitate him, at least post supposed resurrection.
Note for starters though that the above language refers to Peter ("Petros") with the usual male construction. The "rock" though in "on this the rock" ("petra") is feminine. Also, the grammar is not second person ("you"). Grammatically than, Peter is not the rock being referred to. With a majority narrative that discredits Peter, if "Matthew" wanted to rehabilitate than you would expect a clear statement crediting Peter and you would also expect it at or near the end of the narrative indicating it undid the previous discrediting.
More on the above to follow. There is other support in GMatthew for thinking "Matthew" did intend to ultimately credit Peter but the offending verse above is the main one used to proof-text that "Matthew" did intend to ultimately credit Peter.
Joseph
ErrancyWiki
The offending verse:
Matthew 16:18
Strong's | Transliteration | Greek | English | Morphology |
2504 [e] | kagō | κἀγὼ | I also | PPro-N1S |
1161 [e] | de | δέ | moreover | Conj |
4771 [e] | soi | σοι | to you | PPro-D2S |
3004 [e] | legō | λέγω | say, | V-PIA-1S |
3754 [e] | hoti | ὅτι | That | Conj |
4771 [e] | sy | σὺ | you | PPro-N2S |
1510 [e] | ei | εἶ | are | V-PIA-2S |
4074 [e] | Petros | Πέτρος, | Peter, | N-NMS |
2532 [e] | kai | καὶ | and | Conj |
1909 [e] | epi | ἐπὶ | on | Prep |
3778 [e] | tautē | ταύτῃ | this | DPro-DFS |
3588 [e] | tē | τῇ | the | Art-DFS |
4073 [e] | petra | πέτρᾳ | rock | N-DFS |
3618 [e] | oikodomēsō | οἰκοδομήσω | I will build | V-FIA-1S |
1473 [e] | mou | μου | my | PPro-G1S |
3588 [e] | tēn | τὴν | - | Art-AFS |
1577 [e] | ekklēsian | ἐκκλησίαν, | church, | N-AFS |
2532 [e] | kai | καὶ | and | Conj |
4439 [e] | pylai | πύλαι | [the] gates | N-NFP |
86 [e] | hadou | ᾅδου* | of hades | N-GMS |
3756 [e] | ou | οὐ | not | Adv |
2729 [e] | katischysousin | κατισχύσουσιν | will prevail against | V-FIA-3P |
846 [e] | autēs | αὐτῆς. | it. | PPro-GF3S |
JW:
The Interpretation principle to always keep in mind is:
Prefer interpreting the minority based on the majority
and don't
Prefer interpreting the majority based on the minority.
Clearly the majority of GMatthew is negative on Peter. On the other hand, we do have an usual relationship between GMatthew and its source GMark. While GMark wants to discredit supposed historical witness as promoting a resurrected Jesus, GMatthew wants to credit supposed historical witness as promoting a resurrected Jesus. Since GMatthew inherited than a base for a Gospel narrative that discredited here, it's possible that "Matthew" (author) did add a key verse or two trying to undo the discrediting and while leaving us a story still majority negative to Peter, did intend to rehabilitate him, at least post supposed resurrection.
Note for starters though that the above language refers to Peter ("Petros") with the usual male construction. The "rock" though in "on this the rock" ("petra") is feminine. Also, the grammar is not second person ("you"). Grammatically than, Peter is not the rock being referred to. With a majority narrative that discredits Peter, if "Matthew" wanted to rehabilitate than you would expect a clear statement crediting Peter and you would also expect it at or near the end of the narrative indicating it undid the previous discrediting.
More on the above to follow. There is other support in GMatthew for thinking "Matthew" did intend to ultimately credit Peter but the offending verse above is the main one used to proof-text that "Matthew" did intend to ultimately credit Peter.
Joseph
ErrancyWiki
-
- Posts: 3964
- Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
- Contact:
Re: "The Simontic Problem". "Mark's" Negative Casting of Pet
to iskander,
Cordially, Bernard
That shows you did not bother to read my blog post at http://historical-jesus.info/28.html.The apostles are ordinary men responding in a confused manner to the extraordinary.
Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Re: "The Simontic Problem". "Mark's" Negative Casting of Pet
Its my opinion, all of the attributed real followers by these later authors, were just rhetorical divinity building by using the importance of the first members names.Peter Kirby wrote: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.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.
(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.
I think your on to something with fictional names, but rhetorical prose describes it for me a bit more accurate then just possible fictional characters.
Re: "The Simontic Problem". "Mark's" Negative Casting of Pet
Here's the deal. It is one that addresses historicity of the martyrdom.
These authors were writing about an event they perceived true. They were dealing with traditions that arose, and like it or not they had to deal with the good and bad, and that is what you see here. It only makes sense if it actually happened.
So when a group of any size has their leader crucified, the group with the status of less then peasants, runs for their lives. Take John the Baptist as an example, did Jesus step up to the plate after his death and start drawing large crowds to the Jordan to continue his movement as it was? Hell no. He kept the movement alive by doing what had to be done, and that was to have a small group take the message to small poor Aramaic villages where large crowds would not be noticed by the Antipas Hellenist.
In this case at Passover, the real followers fled in fear for their lives by all my belief. Advance 40 years in the future, you also have Jesus being made as "one with god" in Hellenistic communities, who were also rhetorically attributing authority as coming from these first followers as they were viewed as important first members.
So these later authors combined both events as they HAD to, to rhetorically create Jesus divinity.
You have Paul who was going against the Aramaic movement that failed with Jesus death at Passover. Paul took the movement where it never belonged, and your noticing Pauls arguments with those who wish to keep the movement more Jewish then Gentile.
Its my opinion there was never a house or group in Jerusalem that ever had any original followers. Juts a house of Hellenist that wanted to keep the movement more Jewish which makes sense in light of its geographic location. Paul wrote a long time after the crucifixion, and I don't see the real followers being anywhere near Jerusalem.
These authors were writing about an event they perceived true. They were dealing with traditions that arose, and like it or not they had to deal with the good and bad, and that is what you see here. It only makes sense if it actually happened.
So when a group of any size has their leader crucified, the group with the status of less then peasants, runs for their lives. Take John the Baptist as an example, did Jesus step up to the plate after his death and start drawing large crowds to the Jordan to continue his movement as it was? Hell no. He kept the movement alive by doing what had to be done, and that was to have a small group take the message to small poor Aramaic villages where large crowds would not be noticed by the Antipas Hellenist.
In this case at Passover, the real followers fled in fear for their lives by all my belief. Advance 40 years in the future, you also have Jesus being made as "one with god" in Hellenistic communities, who were also rhetorically attributing authority as coming from these first followers as they were viewed as important first members.
So these later authors combined both events as they HAD to, to rhetorically create Jesus divinity.
You have Paul who was going against the Aramaic movement that failed with Jesus death at Passover. Paul took the movement where it never belonged, and your noticing Pauls arguments with those who wish to keep the movement more Jewish then Gentile.
Its my opinion there was never a house or group in Jerusalem that ever had any original followers. Juts a house of Hellenist that wanted to keep the movement more Jewish which makes sense in light of its geographic location. Paul wrote a long time after the crucifixion, and I don't see the real followers being anywhere near Jerusalem.
-
- Posts: 3964
- Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
- Contact:
Re: "The Simontic Problem". "Mark's" Negative Casting of Pet
to JoeWallack,
Cordially, Bernard
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.htmlWhile GMark wants to discredit supposed historical witness as promoting a resurrected Jesus,
Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed