Michael BG wrote: ↑
Tue Jun 12, 2018 7:41 am
I think you need to compare John and Mark if as it appears you think there is a common source used by both. I don’t think an appeal to Luke is useful. Also you should compare the whole of the story.
Thank you, MBG. As is obvious, I am a "Source Person". In Mark, "Jesus" walks on water - "They shrieked as if they had seen a ghost...". SO MUCH IN THIS ONE SENTENCE! This doesn't appear (...to me...) to be a "simple miracle story". Then, Matthew picks up the Story:
 And Peter answered him, "Lord, if it is you, bid me come to you on the water."
"...IF IT IS YOU..."!?!! This is one teeny-tiny fragment in an ocean of fragments imply (...to me...) that there is something else going on. This Story comes from a Source and it is easier to follow if you accept that: "From the fact that there the "Jesus stories" are written from Sources, it does not follow that the Source Stories were written about "Jesus". We could disagree about everything here from full-scale Apologetix to simply a different POV. Each and every one (almost) of these views may be made complete and consistent. We can ask for no more except to ask for a Reality that allows these Systems to exist. Space Aliens won't work. A "Jesus" who "suddenly" appears and "Therefore always existed and by whom all was created" has so many Logic problems it'll make your head hurt. The world's greatest Time Warp Tale. Nonetheless, this World View is seen by many as OK.
Onto Mark and John. There is at least one Thread on this Site that asks if John was written as a refutation of Mark. I do not know if I can go that far. I could even see John as written simultaneously or within a few weeks/months of Mark. John uses the same Source/Sources as Mark (See Jay Raskin, Christs and Christianities
). John has a different World View than Mark. The Synoptics have a different "Day of Preparation" than John and that one difference is HUGE to the understanding of the NT. Here, I have the Apologetix, seeing no contradiction AT ALL since they describe Two different Stories.
Which leads to Peter's Denial. Like the Empty Tomb, the descriptions given may lead to Contradiction if taken at face value. If taken as descriptions from another Story that has been rewritten, it is possible to re-construct a PLAUSIBLE Story that leaves no Contradictions. NOTE: If you believe that the story given is already without contradiction then go for it, be my guest. It all happened at the High Priest's house, in his front yard. No problem.
If you can accept that "Peter" is from a Story written long before any "Jesus" appearance, then you must look for the supporting Story. Peter is from a Priestly Group ("Immer", as it turns out) and in the Original, he is around the Temple area, for some reason
. There is a place where people sit and stand that is Priestly in nature and where people there warm themselves at a common fire:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... literature
Edit: See 3rd diagram and Chamber of the Hearth portion.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... service-of
(See: "Priestly Guard")
In order for Peter to get into the area where people must stand, he must first get to the area where people may sit. Thus, Mark is telling of the "People may sit" part. This would be first (Not in Authorship but in the telling the Story). John is not repudiating Mark, he is adding to the understanding of the Story, which is a Jewish Priestly Story. Together, the two fragments complete the Tableau surrounding the PRIESTLY conditions. With either/or, you get only part of the Story. Even with BOTH, you lose the entirety of the Priestly Motif.
BTW, Peter gets into the Sacred Area, establishing his credentials. He is probably a child in this Scene, the son of a Priest.
Two things that gum this thing up: You-Know-Who and "Simon Peter". BTW, if we place Mark first in the two passages, does it make sense?
And they led Jesus to the high priest; and all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes were assembled.
 And Peter had followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest; and he was sitting with the guards, and warming himself at the fire.
 Now the chief priests and the whole council sought testimony against Jesus to put him to death; but they found none.
And as Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the maids of the high priest came;
 and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him, and said, "You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus."
 But he denied it, saying, "I neither know nor understand what you mean." And he went out into the gateway.
 And the maid saw him, and began again to say to the bystanders, "This man is one of them."
 But again he denied it. And after a little while again the bystanders said to Peter, "Certainly you are one of them; for you are a Galilean."
 But he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, "I do not know this man of whom you speak."
 And immediately the cock crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how Jesus had said to him, "Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times." And he broke down and wept.
Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They said to him, "Are not you also one of his disciples?" He denied it and said, "I am not."
 One of the servants of the high priest, a kinsman of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, asked, "Did I not see you in the garden with him?"
 Peter again denied it; and at once the cock crowed.
John has Peter standing by the door to the courtyard. He then enters and is questioned by the maid. After this he goes to stand by the fire with the servants and officers. Peter is then questioned by a group and then by a servant. All this happens while he is standing by the fire.
The order in Mark is Peter enters the courtyard and sits with the guards round the fire. He is questioned by a maid. He then moves to the gateway. It is implied to stand with “bystanders”. The maid points him out to the bystanders. Then the bystanders question him.
No contradiction. You are certainly allowed to stand in the "Chamber of the Hearth". You must, however, stand while you are in the Chamber of the Flames and the door is, by implication, frequently opened and closed. You may also warm yourself by the same fire if you are inside the Chamber of the Flames. Taken together, these ideas point to another explanation of Peter's Denial. It is not the denial that is important. It is the fact that, in spite of all the "Hiding", Mark and John together tell of Real Place, a place separate from the savior/god piece.
I don’t think an appeal to Luke is useful
I disagree with this.
Matthew 26: 73 (RSV):
 After a little while the bystanders came up and said to Peter, "Certainly you are also one of them, for your accent betrays you."
This is absolutely exquisite. Peter is identified by his accent
. "I'll have a Co'Cola". "I'll have a soda". "I'll have a pop". By their signs you shall know them. Peter Sellers could pull off a role as "President Muffley Merkin" in Dr. Strangelove but in real life, it's difficult. As J L Austin once said, "Deception rides on the back of non-deception". One more:
Luke 19: 39 - 40 (RSV):
 And some of the Pharisees in the multitude said to him, "Teacher, rebuke your disciples."
 He answered, "I tell you, if these were silent, the very stones would cry out."
Is this "as it appears"? I don't think so. I believe that it points of the Original Story.
There does not seem to be much agreement (three sets of questions and the denials). Peter at the door or standing in the gateway takes place at different times. He is by the fire at different times. Therefore what criteria do you use to select which bits form Mark and which bits from John to include in your source?
There is not much agreement if, as in the Empty Tomb, you read the variations as telling the same story
. What is needed is to look at the Story as a unified whole. The Empty Tomb may be ordered into a story without contradiction *IF* you use the sun an as "Objective Measure" to order the comings and goings of the people and the events. This works even if you think that Joe Atwill is a horrible person.
So you believe that everything is OK with Peter's Denial as is? S'OK by me.
If you are hit over the head with constant reminders that "Little things keep appearing" that do not make sense concerning a savior/god who appears suddenly on the scene then perhaps a different look may generate an understanding that covers all of the facts with a consistent System. Andrew Criddle does not want to go this far. You, Michael, have voiced objections in the past. That's all OK.
Sometimes, however, as when Peter sits at a door in the Synoptics yet stands in John, you find a situation that points to something in the Judaic Culture - RILLY points to something other than a savior/god story - and you follow it and leads you once again
to the idea that something was taken and rewritten for another purpose..
Thanx, and much more if necessary,