Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [XTalk] Markan "Fabrications"-the Petrine Denial

Expand Messages
  • Evgeni Pavlov
    ... Tom, Yes, many people think that Mark s gospel was first, but I think Stephen s argument is not about that. Other gospel writers were not simple copying
    Message 1 of 10 , Jun 7, 2000
      > Isn't Mark's gospel one of the earliest gospels written? If that is
      > true, one could claim that the others used Mark's gospel as a guide and
      > would not even question the authenticity of the Petrine denial.

      Tom,
      Yes, many people think that Mark's gospel was first, but I think Stephen's
      argument is not about that. Other gospel writers were not simple copying
      there sources, I think, but theologically constructing their own gospels
      using some sources, and not using others. As I see the point of Stephen's
      argument (correct me if I am wrong) - if Mark fabricated Peret's story, then
      it would be very new material for others, if Mark fabricated it with a
      purpose why Matthew couldn't get omit it with his own purpose? what made him
      include it? Matthew's 16:17-19 do not look anti-Peterine at all - why add
      these words and keep shameful account of denial?
      I am not trying to say that Mark could not fabricate story, but I think
      Stephen's questions need to be answered in order to prove Mark fabrication.

      > Stephen C. Carlson wrote (30.05.2000)
      >
      > > I also would have preferred to see some kind of explanation for the
      > > fact that the other three canonical gospels chose to include the story
      > > of Peter's denial. One effect of a fabrication is that it would be
      > > new to any community that received Mark's gospel -- including those
      > > which favored Peter. Why isn't there any dispute or controversy in
      > > the record about the Petrine denial? For example, it is often noted
      > > that Matthew has edited out many of Mark's negative comments on the
      > > disciples. If Matthew has a much more pro-Petrine position (cf. Matt
      > > 16:17-19), why didn't Matthew just edit out the "fabrication" from
      > > his gospel? Wouldn't Matthew's pro-Petrine's first reaction to
      > > listening the Gospel of Mark be to condemn the story of Peter's
      > > denial as a fabrication, especially, ex hypothesi, it was the first
      > > time they ever hear about such a scandalous event? I would have
      > > preferred these questions to be addressed if the intent is to argue
      > > that the Petrine denial was fabricated by Mark.

      Evgeni Pavlov
    • Stephen C. Carlson
      ... I don t consider the delay in any way to be an act of rudeness or a violation of netiquette. When the discussion is a content-rich as this discussion has
      Message 2 of 10 , Jun 7, 2000
        At 09:54 AM 6/6/00 -0500, Ted Weeden wrote:
        >Welcome to the discussion, Evgeni. I am working on a reply to Stephen's
        >critique. I recognize that it has been over a week since Stephen sent his
        >post. If my delay in responding is violating some etiquette, I apologize.
        >I am trying to reply with the most cogent argument for my position and it is
        >taking time to do so. I stopped in the midst of my response to Stephen to
        >respond to the "divine-man" issue, since it is central to my Markan thesis.
        >And I did not want the references in various posts to scholars' dismissal of
        >the "theios aner" orientation and the dismissal of my theory with respect to
        >the "divine man" orientation of the Markan opponents to go unanswered.

        I don't consider the delay in any way to be an act of rudeness or a
        violation of netiquette. When the discussion is a content-rich as
        this discussion has been, it naturally takes some time to reply. In
        fact, it took me about three days of thinking to formulate my reply.
        (Even after all that, Evgeni was able to articulate my point better
        than I did.)

        Certainly, I look forward to your response, as I do to all of your
        messages, including your most recent messages about the "divine
        man" topic. I certainly understand with vagaries of the Internet
        and the pressing needs we all have to face in our daily lives that
        sometimes a message just becomes too stale to reply to when we
        finally get more time. I'm afraid that happened on my part with
        your last message in the provenance of Mark thread.

        Stephen Carlson
        --
        Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
        Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
        "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
      • Ted Weeden
        ... I am afraid the pressing needs of my daily life continue to delay my response to you, for which I apologize. In retirement I serve essentially
        Message 3 of 10 , Jun 10, 2000
          Stephen Carlson wrote 6/7/00:

          > I certainly understand with vagaries of the Internet
          > and the pressing needs we all have to face in our daily lives that
          > sometimes a message just becomes too stale to reply to when we
          > finally get more time.

          I am afraid "the pressing needs" of my daily life continue to delay my
          response to you, for which I apologize. In "retirement" I serve essentially
          half-time on the pastoral staff of the First United Methodist Church here in
          Appleton, WI. Our lead pastor retired from the church several weeks ago and
          moved away. In the interim until the end of this month, I have had to help
          out with additional responsibilities. Last week and this week I have had
          to plan and preach at six worship services and assume hospital visitation,
          in addition to my contracted responsibilities. And now I have a funeral to
          prepare for on Monday. And who knows what next week will bring. So
          regretfully, the preparation of my response to you has been delayed
          further.

          Let me here indicate quite briefly the direction of my response is taking.
          I will be addressing the issue of how methodologically I am led tothe
          position that Mark created the Petrine denial de novo. As I work on my
          argument, I am expanding my focus to include Mk. 14:27-72. My working
          hypothesis is that Mark, following the last supper, created the predictions
          and exchange between Peter and Jesus in 14:27-31 as a prelude to the
          Gethsamene prayer/betrayal/flight story and the Petrine-denial story. My
          working hypothesis also includes the very strong probability that Mark
          created de novo the Gethsamene story, the Petrine denial and the Sanhedrin
          trial.

          Throw into this hypothesis also Judas as a Markan creation. To put it
          succinctly Mark created the character of Judas as the "insider" who betrayed
          Jesus. That character has nothing to do with any "real world" disciple of
          Jesus. He has a lot to do with the narrative world and his surrogate role
          in Mark's polemic.

          I am taking seriously your question of how you separate truth from fiction,
          as well as how you separate Markan fiction from pre-Markan fiction. Since
          we lack the "smoking gun" of incontrovertible evidence for or against the
          historical occurrence of the Petrine denial and the Sanhedrin trial of
          Jesus, and since we lack the "smoking gun" of incontrovertible evidence for
          the historical occurrence of the betrayal and the historical existence of
          the betrayer, we are left to arguments based upon circumstantial evidence to
          determine what is historical fact and what is narrative fiction. If we
          dismiss unsubstantiated "hearsay" claims, I think a strong case can be made
          for circumstanial evidence "finguring" Mark as the "culprit" who created the
          Petrine denial, the Sanhedrin trial, the betrayal and the betrayal.

          Thus the irreducible kernel of truth behind the traditions found in Mk.
          14:27-72 is, namely, Jesus was apprehended by the Jewish authorities and
          charged with a "crime" against the temple establishment of sufficient
          consequence to cause the Romans subsequently, and upon Pilate's decree, to
          crucify Jesus. Beyond that bedrock of historical fact, we venture out on
          shaky ground if we claim anything else in the said traditions of 14:27-72
          has incontestable historical certitude.

          The question then remains, who created the traditions which were developed
          from this bedrock and why? Methodologically, the "who" and "why" can only
          be determined when solid circumstantial evidence (both internal and external
          to the Markan drama) reveals the most likely motive for the creation of
          these traditions and the mostly likely historical context out of which these
          traditions were generated.

          Ted
        • Robert M. Schacht
          ... Ted, I appreciate your sense of priorities. One of the most touching things I heard about Phil Lewis from his son, when I asked about his resume and
          Message 4 of 10 , Jun 11, 2000
            At 06:08 PM 06/10/00 , Ted Weeden wrote In response to Stephen Carlson:
            ... In "retirement" I serve essentially
            half-time on the pastoral staff of the First United Methodist Church here in
            Appleton, WI.  Our lead pastor retired from the church several weeks ago and
            moved away.  In the interim until the end of this month, I have had to help
            out with additional responsibilities.   Last week and this week I have had
            to plan and preach at six worship services and assume hospital visitation,
            in addition to my contracted responsibilities.  And now I have a funeral to
            prepare for on Monday.  And who knows what next week will bring.   So
            regretfully,  the preparation of my response to you has been delayed
            further.

            Ted,
            I appreciate your sense of priorities. One of the most touching things I heard about Phil Lewis from his son, when I asked about his resume and publications, was that Phil's "publications" were in the minds and hearts of the people to whom he devoted his pastoral care. I look forward to your response, as your time permits.

            Let me here indicate quite briefly the direction of my response is taking.
            I will be addressing the issue of how methodologically I am led tothe
            position that Mark created the Petrine denial de novo. ...  My
            working hypothesis also includes the very strong probability that Mark
            created de novo the Gethsamene story, the Petrine denial and the Sanhedrin
            trial.
            ...I am taking seriously your question of how you separate truth from fiction,
            as well as how you separate Markan fiction from pre-Markan fiction. ...

            Ted,
            I also hope that you will take seriously Stephen's source-critical analysis of the Petrine denial in GJohn and the evidence he offers for it being independent of GMark. I am also wondering how it is that you can make a case for "pre-Markan fiction."

            Best regards,
            Bob

            **************
            Bob Schacht
            On the Road again
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.