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

[Blood]

Was Josephus used as a source by Mark?

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

a nice book by a little Brodie (full pdf)

Thomas Nelligan, The Quest for Mark's sources: An exploration of the case for Mark's use of first Corinthians., 2012

[Adam]

Excellent book, the whole of it available for free on the internet.
The first half summarizes in thorough scholarly fashion especially the newest research on the nature of Mark. Then makes the case that I Corinthians ch. 1, 2, and 11 (with 8 left as possible in an appendix) was the pattern for most of Mark 1:1-28 and 14:1-25 (and assumes Paul's epistle was available for this particularly Pauline gospel). Weak points were explained away as where Mark used I Kings and II Kings as the pattern. Does not accept MacDonald's Odyssey theory, but allows some classical allusions.
Too much rests on Marcan priority, not allowing for Q preceding Mark

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

I was a little surprised that Mark used in some typical cases for "word" logos, although Paul rhema selected. Finally, I noticed that rhema is parked in GMark for one of these simontic jokes.

There are just two rhema in GMark, but Peter called in Mark 14:72 the false rhema in mind. He should think about the resurrection, but think about Jesus "great" prophesy. Therefore he wept (used only in Mark 5:38,39 and Mark 14:72) like the people in the house of Jairus, who do not believe in the "sleeping" of the girl.

Mark 5:38-39 And he cometh to the house of the ruler of the synagogue, and seeth the tumult, and them that wept (κλαίοντας - klaiontas) and wailed greatly. And when he was come in, he saith unto them, Why make ye this ado, and weep (κλαίετε - klaiete)? the damsel is not dead, but sleepeth.

Mark 9:31-32 For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day. But they understood not that saying (ῥῆμα - rhêma), and were afraid to ask him.

Mark 14:72 And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word (ῥῆμα - rhêma) that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept (ἔκλαιεν - eklaien).

[JoeWallack]

I was a little surprised that Mark used in some typical cases for "word" logos, although Paul rhema selected. Finally, I noticed that rhema is parked in GMark for one of these simontic jokes.

There are just two rhema in GMark, but Peter called in Mark 14:72 the false rhema in mind. He should think about the resurrection, but think about Jesus "great" prophesy. Therefore he wept (used only in Mark 5:38,39 and Mark 14:72) like the people in the house of Jairus, who do not believe in the "sleeping" of the girl.

Mark 5:38-39 And he cometh to the house of the ruler of the synagogue, and seeth the tumult, and them that wept (κλαίοντας - klaiontas) and wailed greatly. And when he was come in, he saith unto them, Why make ye this ado, and weep (κλαίετε - klaiete)? the damsel is not dead, but sleepeth.

Mark 9:31-32 For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day. But they understood not that saying (ῥῆμα - rhêma), and were afraid to ask him.

Mark 14:72 And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word (ῥῆμα - rhêma) that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept (ἔκλαιεν - eklaien).

JW:
Good X-Uh-Jesus should be rewarded:

Mark 1

1:16 And passing along by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon casting a net in the sea; for they were fishers.

17 And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men.

18 And straightway they left the nets, and followed him.

The clever connection between fisherman and fishers of men has been well noted. "Mark" has a general theme of spiritual/figurative meaning = good and physical/literal meaning = bad. Here we have Peter physically/literally as a fisher man. Per "Mark" (that is original "Mark") does Peter ever become a spiritual/figurative fisher of men? I don't think so.

"Mark's" come after/follow is used the same way. The physical/literal meaning is not necessarily bad but does not achieve goodness by itself and is contrasted with the spiritual/figurative meaning that is clearly good. I have faith that 1:17 is conditional, if Peter follows Jesus in a spiritual/figurative meaning than Peter will become a fisher of men. As it stands Peter has been type cast (so to speak) as a disciple who was physically/literally a disciple but not spiritually just as he was physically/literally a fisherman but not spiritually.

• Pilate: Is this guy with you?
  
  Jesus: He's with me but not "with me".

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[JoeWallack]

JW:
The very critical Bible scholar Bart Ehrman recently posted:

Women at the Tomb

Mark makes a special point throughout his narrative that the male disciples never do understand who Jesus is. Despite all his miracles, despite all his teachings, despite everything they see him do and say, they never do get it. And so at the end of the Gospel, who is it who learns that Jesus has not stayed dead but has been raised? It is the women. Not the male disciples. The women never tell. As a result, the male disciples never do come to understand. That is all consistent with Mark’s view.

JW:
Quite a confession that the/one of the top Bible scholars now accepts that the original Gospel narrative shows the supposed disciples as never properly understanding Jesus. Generally CBS postures that 14:28 and 16:7 imply that the disciples do come to understand Jesus post narrative. Kelber, Fowler and Watts would be some exceptions.

So good for BE as he accepts what "Mark" meant regarding the disciples never understanding Jesus. Maybe the next step in his journey towards Logic will be to question his current assumption that these same disciples who he accepts as being discredited by "Mark" should be credited as witnesses for "Mark" (without any extant evidence for doing so).

When I asked BE if he changed his mind on this issue (the disciples never understanding Jesus) he answered with a question (is he now turning Jewish?) and asked where he had ever said otherwise. I guess it has been awhile since he has re-read his own:

Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene: The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend

Actually, looking through BE's career, there seem to be mixed reviews on the subject just like Raoul Jewlia's presentation to Richard Dreyfuss in the classic Moon Over Parador:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShzQmAOYhyU


Joseph


ErrancyWiki

[Bernard Muller]

There is a lot of thruth about BE & JW statements:

Mark makes a special point throughout his narrative that the male disciples never do understand who Jesus is. Despite all his miracles, despite all his teachings, despite everything they see him do and say, they never do get it. And so at the end of the Gospel, who is it who learns that Jesus has not stayed dead but has been raised? It is the women. Not the male disciples. The women never tell. As a result, the male disciples never do come to understand. That is all consistent with Mark’s view.

JW:
Quite a confession that the/one of the top Bible scholars now accepts that the original Gospel narrative shows the supposed disciples as never properly understanding Jesus. Generally CBS postures that 14:28 and 16:7 imply that the disciples do come to understand Jesus post narrative. Kelber, Fowler and Watts would be some exceptions.

So good for BE as he accepts what "Mark" meant regarding the disciples never understanding Jesus. Maybe the next step in his journey towards Logic will be to question his current assumption that these same disciples who he accepts as being discredited by "Mark" should be credited as witnesses for "Mark" (without any extant evidence for doing so).

However, that can be explained by "Mark" dealing with a Peter who was known not to have heard, seen, believed and witnessed many items that "Mark" will put later in his gospel (embellishments and outright fiction). Even if the gospel has bits of authentic stuff (not involving anything divine or extraordinary), that stuff got mixed, diluted and almost buried with/by/under Mark's effort to divinize Jesus and to offer answers to pressing issues to a confused, doubting and somewhat disbelieving Christian community in a time of crisis.
And the main reason Peter would not tell what "Mark" would have want him to say, is that Peter and other eyewitnesses (and James) never became Christians, because they had no reason to.
I explained all that here:
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p31.htm

Cordially, Bernard

[JoeWallack]

JW:

Mark 4

14 The sower soweth the word.

15 And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; and when they have heard, straightway cometh Satan, and taketh away the word which hath been sown in them.

16 And these in like manner are they that are sown upon the rocky [places], who, when they have heard the word, straightway receive it with joy;

17 and they have no root in themselves, but endure for a while; then, when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, straightway they stumble.

CBS (Christian Bible Scholarship) is increasingly accepting that it is likely that the "sown upon the rocky" above was meant to refer at least in part to Peter Simon. For those who need points sharply explained (like Outhouse) the following helps illustrate the parallels:

;

Prescription for Disciple Failure	Narrative Fulfilling Prescription	Commentary
4:14 The sower soweth the word (λόγον)	8:32 And he spake the saying (λόγον) openly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him	The same Greek word (λόγον) (so to speak) is used figuratively
4:15 And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; and when they have heard, straightway cometh Satan, and taketh away the word which hath been sown in them.	8:33 But he turning about, and seeing his disciples, rebuked Peter (Πέτρῳ), and saith, Get thee behind me, Satan; for thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men.	Same special word
4:16 And these in like manner are they that are sown upon the rocky (πετρώδη) [places], who, when they have heard the word, straightway receive it with joy	1:17 And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men. 18 And straightway they left the nets, and followed him.	Note that where the "word" is placed, "upon the rocky" (πετρώδη), bears a reMarkable similarity to Jesus placing the "word" upon Peter (Πέτρῳ). Also, formula and narrative stress immediately (straightway).
4:17 and they have no root in themselves, but endure for a while; then, when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, straightway they stumble.	14:72 And straightway the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word, how that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.	The first time that Peter is faced by "persecution" (questioned by a maid) he immediately falls away ("stumbles").

And in a wonderful irony that I think the author of GMark would really like, just like his Peter understands that his Jesus was the Messiah but his Peter did not understand what that meant, so too CBS now understands that The Parable of the Sower was meant to discredit Peter but still does not understand what that means.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[JoeWallack]

JW:
In another Thread here:

Is Matthew portraying Peter as false disciple and apostate?

The Jammer points out that Robert Gundry has recently argued that GMatthew portrayed Peter as a false disciple and apostate:

Peter -- False Disciple and Apostate according to Saint Matthew



This issue has relevance here as "Matthew" (author) is the first known user of GMark. For those who need points sharply explained (like outhouse), to the extent "Matthew" wanted to discredit Peter as a witness to Jesus, that is evidence that "Matthew" understood his base of GMark as likewise discrediting Peter.

I previously provided a link to a video of the brave and truthful Gundry presenting a summary of his argument here:

"Peter: False Disciple and Apostate According to St. Matthew," Bob Gundry, Oct. 6, 2014

The main points of Gundry's argument are as follows:

• 1) If you read GMatthew by itself, as it was intended to be read, instead of as part of the Christian Bible, the evidence is much better that "Matthew" intended to present Peter as a failure.
  
  2) "Matthew" consistently edits the negative casting of Peter inherited from GMark to worsen Peter's supposed character and guilt.
  
  3) "Matthew" parallels the failures of Judas and Peter during the Passion.
  
  4) All resurrection/post resurrection instructions notoriously exorcise the name "Peter". Contrast to all the pre-resurrection negative press of the disciples and the effort "Matthew" made to not only identify Peter by name but place him first.
  
  5) "Matthew" clearly and repeatedly says the judgement of the disciples will be when he returns and until than there will be false apostles promoting Jesus along with the true ones.
  
  6) Judas and Peter generally receive the same promises from Jesus. Clearly Judas fails despite these promises. Why not Peter too?
  
  7) The proof-text used against the above is the "on this rock" saying. The Internal evidence though indicates that rock is the believer who properly promotes Jesus.
  
  8) Other miscellaneous arguments.
  
  9) The other main argument used against the above is that no one else in the 2,000 years elapsed has made this argument. Gundry points out that the majority of Bible scholars in this time period were Christians who were heavily invested religiously in believing in general and specifically that GMatthew credited Peter as a good witness to the supposed historical Jesus. Of course the elephant in the confessional is that Gundry was forced out of the ETS because of this book.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

[Peter Kirby]

Summary of Gundry:

7) The proof-text used against the above is the "on this rock" saying. The Internal evidence though indicates that rock is the believer who properly promotes Jesus.

The Protestant reformation did a lot of good to shake up interpretation of the Bible, but it has its own excesses as well. This conclusion may have some "internal evidence," but that is not the real reason that Protestants and Catholics line up on opposite sides of the aisle when interpreting this verse.

Another conclusion, unpalatable to both, might be that this part of Matthew has received editing by a later hand, which reflected (later) second century sensibilities about the importance of the role of Peter as the member of the Twelve who established the church at Rome (and the equal to Paul).