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

Peter in Mk vs Mt

Expand Messages
  • Thomas A. Kopecek
    ... in ... I ... the ... than ... offered ... scholarship ... *** Stephen Carlson and I had a conversation on Synoptic-L that developed from another
    Message 1 of 23 , Jan 9, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In crosstalk2@egroups.com, Bob Schacht <r_schacht@y...> wrote:

      > >BTW: Stephen Carlson and I had a very interesting exchange on
      > >Synoptic-L about Stephen's belief that the portrait of Peter in Mt
      > >is, in important respects, more negative than the portrait of Peter
      in
      > >Mk. Stephen was his usual lucid and careful self, but after awhile
      I
      > >simply faded on him, not having the time necessary to do all the
      > >required research and not being particularly expert in NT criticism
      > >to begin with. Unfortunately, no one else on Synoptic-L joined in
      the
      > >fray, and I was very much wanting to have someone who knows more
      than
      > >I do come in and seek to adjudicate between my defense of what I
      > >consider to be the standard position in scholarship and Stephen's
      > >challenge to it.
      > >
      > >Since Stephen originally offered his view a few years ago on
      > >Crosstalk (and it was not taken up), would any be interested in
      > >Stephen or me putting together a synopsis of the arguments we
      offered
      > >on either side (mine were very tentative indeed, since NT
      scholarship
      > >isn't my professional field) and then joining in?
      >
      > Yes! Please do!
      >
      > Bob

      ***

      Stephen Carlson and I had a conversation on Synoptic-L that developed
      from
      another conversation. The first concerned the extent to which Peter
      can
      justifiably be considered a "source" for the Gospel of Mark. In that
      conversation I raised the topic of the negative portrait of Peter in
      Mark,
      which Stephen claimed, in turn, "is oversold." The conversation went
      from there.

      I hope others join in this, for initially I thought I could stay with
      Stephen, but
      For various reasons, including his superior abilities in NT
      scholarship, I could
      not. So here comes a slighted edited version of what transpired.

      Tom

      ***
      I. FIRST EXCHANGE:

      {Tom]
      >>I was struck, however, by your comment that "Mark's negative
      portrayal is
      >>oversold (in many respects it is less negative than Matthew's)."
      Since I'm
      >>less dedicated to keeping up with the flood of material on NT
      scholarship
      >>than I'm dedicated to trying to follow the Patristic scholarship in
      which
      >>I'm interested. . . , I'm curious about why
      >>you (and others on the list as well, if there are others) think
      Matthew's
      >>portrayal of Peter is more "negative" than Matthew's.

      [Stephen]
      > I outlined this provocative position of mine in a post I made to
      > Crosstalk on July 18, 1997 but did not receive any response,
      > favorable or critical. Maybe this time will be different. Here
      > is a revised version:

      > Although many would wonder how can a gospel that has Peter called
      > the rock (Mt16:18) and Peter walking on water (Mt14:28) be more
      > negative than Mark, I think a comparison of the two Gospels bears
      > it out. In these two examples in Matthew, Peter's success is
      > quickly followed by failure. Peter walks on water and sink. Peter
      > is called the "Rock" and then the stumbling block (Mt16:23 SKANDALON
      > *not in Mk* cf. 13:41). The literary effect is to highlight Peter's
      > failure (in Mt compared to Mk).

      [Tom]
      Let me begin by again reminding Synoptic-L readers that I make no
      claim to
      be a NT scholar. The NT is simply a presupposition for the work I do,
      such
      as it is these days, in the Fathers. But with that disclaimer, let me
      plunge
      into the deep waters nonetheless.

      I think the real literary effect of the sinking and skandalon
      is to try to explain the data that occur in Mark. But such an
      interpretation
      depends on my view of the rest of your evidence. So to it.

      [Stephen]
      > In general, this pattern is consistent between the gospels. Matthew
      > lacks Mark's vignette of Peter finding Jesus praying (Mk1:36ff).
      > Matthew lacks Mark's passage in which Peter with James and John are
      > allowed to see the healing of Jairus daughter (Mk5:37).

      [Tom]
      Mk 5:37 comes between (1) 4:34-41, especially 40-41 (where Jesus says
      to his
      disciples, "Have you still no faith," and they respond, "Who is this .
      . .?")
      and 6:1-6a, especially 6a (where Jesus is amazed by the lack of faith
      of
      his kin) and (2) the story of the outsider woman with the hemorrhages
      in 5:34
      who-- unlike the insider three disciples Peter, James, and John at the
      raising of
      Jairus' daughter (along with the rest of the 12 to whom the secret of
      the
      Kingdom of God had been revealed)--explicitly is portrayed as having
      faith.
      Thus, Mk 5:37, in context, is negative in its portrayal of Peter,
      James, and
      John.

      I think Mt omits it precisely because the reference to the three
      disciples
      in Mark is negative. Finally, the presence in Mark of Peter, James,
      and John
      at the raising of Jairus' daughter is a foreshadowing of the
      transfiguration
      scene in Mark 9:2-13, which is very negative toward the inner core of
      the
      Three, just as 9:14-29 and 48-41 are negative toward the rest of the
      disciples. Matthew obviously softens Mk's transfiguration story's
      negative
      portrait of the three.

      [Stephen]
      > In fact, Mark
      ÿ at 11:21 (withered fig tree),

      [Tom]
      The presence in Mark 11:21 of Peter is, in my opinion, negative, for
      after
      Peter says, "Rabbi, look: the fig tree that you cursed has withered,"
      Jesus
      answers in 11:22, "Have faith in God." Jesus then goes on to talk
      about not
      doubting and having faith in prayer, which Peter, like the rest of the
      12
      mentioned back in 9:27 in a comparable passage, never does in Mark, at
      least
      as far as I can see (while Jesus prays later on, Peter sleeps, for
      instance). This passage in 11:22 also echoes, as I see it, the
      stilling of
      the storm passage, "Have you still no faith?"

      [Stephen]
      >13:3 (private apocalypse),

      [Tom]
      Yes, Peter is present, but the point of chapter 13 is "Keep awake!"
      This
      immediately foreshadows 14:32-34, where Peter, James, and John
      don't--but
      rather fall asleep. Of course Mt would eliminate the reference to
      Peter in
      the parallel to Mark 13, precisely to eliminate some of the negative
      portrayal of Peter in Mk--and thus to speak better of him.

      [Stephen]
      > and 16:7
      > (resurrection to Peter and the disciples) point out Peter by name,
      > but the Matthean parallels lack Peter's name in preference to the
      > disciples. Thus, Mark accords an inner circle status to Peter that
      > is attenuated in Matthew. The last example is important for Peter's
      > credentials as an apostle according to 1 Cor. qualifications of
      > witnessing the risen Christ. Matthew could have added a
      resurrection
      > story to Peter first as hinted by Mk16:7, but chose to recount an
      > appearance to the Eleven instead.

      [Tom, being imprecise]
      I don't see anything in chapter 16 of Mk to be a hint of a
      resurrection
      appearance to Peter, for the women "said notin' to nobody." It is,
      rather, a
      very emphatic statement that Jesus' message that he was "leading" the
      11,
      especially Peter, to Galilee (14:26ff)--as reported by the young man
      at the
      tomb (16:7)--never got to Peter and the rest. Mt omits the reference
      to
      Peter precisely to speak more positively of Peter and the Eleven than
      Mark,
      I think.

      [Stephen]
      > In one case, however, the situation (one gospel has "Peter," the
      other
      > "disciples") is reversed: at Mt15:15 Peter does not understand the
      parable
      > about what defiles, but in Mk7:17 the disciples as a whole, without
      naming
      > Peter, do not. In a special-Matthew parable (or Matthean redaction
      of
      > Q), Peter is told to forgive 77 times (18:21), followed by the
      parable of
      > the unmerciful servant. There are also curiously pro-Judaic
      teachings
      > delivered to Peter in Mt but not in Mk: 17:24f. Peter and the Temple
      > Tax, after Mt19:27, those who follow Jesus sit on 12 thrones.

      [Tom]
      The more positive portrayal of Peter in Mt agrees with with the Temple
      Tax
      story in 17:24ff and the eschatological judgment verse in 19:28, in my
      opinion.

      I know I haven't dealt with all of your passages, Stephen, but I'm no
      NT
      scholar. I'd have to give the others further thought.

      [Stephen]
      ÿ I hope this helped.

      [Tom]
      Not yet. Keep going at me, and maybe you'll be able to convince me.
      I've
      certainly got an open mind about the matter.

      II. SECOND EXCHANGE

      [Stephen]
      Thank you very much for your response. In this message, it is
      important to keep in mind that my thesis is that Mark's portrayal
      of Peter is in many respects less negative than Matthew. That
      is not to say that Mark is never negative about Peter, only that
      I think on balance that views of Mark's negativity toward Peter
      are overexaggerated. I am using Matthew, which few think is negative
      toward Peter, as a basis for comparison: if Mark is indeed less
      negative than Matthew over Peter, then Mark's remaining negativity
      to Peter should not be considered out of place in the first century,
      before the tendency toward hagiography became more pronounced.

      [Tom]
      >I think the real literary effect of the sinking and skandalon
      >is to try to explain the data that occur in Mark. But such an
      interpretation
      >depends on my view of the rest of Stephen's evidence. So to it.

      [Stephen]
      If I wanted to lessen the negativity of Peter in this passage, I
      would omit Jesus' calling Peter "Satan." Matthew did not do that.
      Rather, Matthew called Peter a stumbling block, a reproach lacking
      in Mark. Perhaps this is explaining Mark, or perhaps it is adding
      insult to injury.

      [Tom]
      >Mk 5:37 comes (1) between 4:34-41, especially 40-41 (where Jesus says
      to his
      >disciples, "Have you still no faith," and they respond, "Who is this
      . . .
      >?") and 6:1-6a, especially 6a (where Jesus is amazed by the lack of
      faith of
      >his kin) and (2) it is the outsider woman with the hemorrhages in
      5:34 who--
      >unlike the insider three disciples Peter, James, and John at the
      raising of
      >Jairus' daughter (along with the rest of the 12 to whom the secret of
      the
      >Kingdom of God had been revealed)--explicitly is portrayed as having
      faith.
      >Thus, Mk 5:37, in context, is negative in its portrayal of Peter,
      James, and
      >John.

      [Stephen]
      Mark 4:34-41 is not a passage that singles out Peter in any way. It
      is more negative toward the disciples generally than Matthew, but I
      never denied that. Indeed, both are somewhat are negative (cf. Matt
      8:26 "Why are you afraid, you of little faith?"). Thus, Mark 4:34-41
      is not an example of Peter specifically being portrayed more
      negatively.
      Yes, the woman with the hemorrhages is explicitly portrayed as having
      faith in Mark 5:34, but also in Matt 9:22. In both gospels, the
      disciples come out less favorably by comparison than the woman.
      Still,
      Peter is not mentioned by name until afterwards at Mark 5:37 where
      Jesus
      "allowed no one to follow him except Peter, James, and John." The
      Matthean
      parallel at 9:19 merely says the "disciples" before (not after as in
      Mark) Jesus's praising of the woman. Thus, whatever force may be
      given
      to the comparison of the woman's faith and the disciples, Matthew
      comes
      out a bit more negative in that the disciple were mentioned
      immediately
      before the praise of the woman's faith, whereas the disciple were last
      mentioned 26 verses earlier -- quite a removal from the context.
      The specific naming of Peter, James, and John after the woman's
      healing
      in this sandwiched story play no other role than to be named as a
      group
      of people selected by Jesus. Thus, I don't how their mentioning is in
      any way negative.

      [Tom]
      >I think Mt omits it precisely because the reference to the three
      disciples
      >in Mark is negative. Finally, the presence in Mark of Peter, James,
      and John
      >at the raising of Jairus' daughter is a foreshadowing of the
      transfiguration
      >scene in Mark 9:2-13, which is very negative toward the inner core of
      the
      >Three, just as 9:14-29 and 48-41 are negative toward the rest of the
      >disciples. Matthew obviously softens Mk's transfiguration story's
      negative
      >portrait of the three.

      [Stephen]
      Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see what is "very negative"
      in
      the Transfiguration and how Matthew "obviously softens" the "negative
      portrait" of Peter. Both Matthew and Mark state that Peter was afraid
      (Mark 9:6, Matt 17:6) -- I don't think that would be viewed negatively
      under the circumstances.

      [Tom]
      >The presence in Mark 11:21 of Peter is, in my opinion, negative, for
      after
      >Peter says, "Rabbi, look: the fig tree that you cursed has withered,"
      Jesus
      >answers in 11:22, "Have faith in God." Jesus then goes on to talk
      about not
      >doubting and having faith in prayer, which Peter, like the rest of
      the 12
      >mentioned back in 9:27 in a comparable passage, never does in Mark,
      at least
      >as far as I can see (while Jesus prays later on, Peter sleeps, for
      >instance). This passage in 11:22 also echoes, as I see it, the
      stilling of
      >the storm passage, "Have you still no faith?"

      [Stephen]
      At Mark 11:21, Peter remember about the fig tree and pointed it out to
      Jesus -- and Jesus answer *them* (KAI APOKRIQEIS hO IHSOUS LEGEI
      *AUTOIS*),
      referring to the disciples (cf. Mark 11:14). However one might view
      Jesus's answer as a rebuke (I don't; I see it as instruction), it is
      done to the disciples generally not to Peter specifically. Matthew,
      on the other hand, has the disciples, not Peter specifically, ask a
      question, which Jesus answered. Thus, I see Mark's mention of Peter
      here as taking a leadership role that is lacking in Matthew.

      [Tom]
      > . . . the point of chapter 13 of Mark is "Keep awake!" This
      >immediately foreshadows 14:32-34, where Peter, James, and John
      don't--but
      >rather fall asleep. Of course Mt would eliminate the reference to
      Peter in
      >the parallel to Mark 13, precisely to eliminate some of the negative
      >portrayal of Peter in Mk--and thus to speak better of him.

      [Stephen]
      At Mark 13:3, Jesus predicts the Temple's destruction to Peter, James,
      John, Andrew. In the Matthean parallel (24:3) it is to the disciples
      generally. If Matthew wanted to eliminate the negative protrayal of
      Peter falling asleep, would it be more effective to eliminate Matt
      26:40 where that event occurs or to water down Peter's insider status
      37 verses earlier? I think the purpose you have proposed for Matthew
      is just subtle to be realistic.

      [Tom, being imprecise J]
      >I don't see anything in chapter 16 of Mk to be a hint of a
      resurrection
      >appearance to Peter, for the women "said notin' to nobody." It is,
      rather, a
      >very emphatic statement that Jesus' message that he was "leading" the
      11,
      >especially Peter, to Galilee (14:26ff)--as reported by the young man
      at the
      >tomb (16:7)--never got to Peter and the rest. Mt omits the reference
      to
      >Peter precisely to speak more positively of Peter and the Eleven than
      Mark,
      >I think.

      [Stephen]
      What about: "there you will see him, just as he told" in 16:7? That
      has to be a hint of a resurrection appearance. At any rate, the
      women's silence is Markan irony, because everybody knows (and knew
      in Mark's audience) that Jesus did indeed appear to Peter and the
      disciples. Thus, the women's failure of silence does not imply
      that Peter and the disciples never got the word and missed out on
      Jesus's resurrection appearance. Matthew improves the matter by
      explicitly reciting a resurrection appear, but I can't see Matthew's
      omission of "Peter" in favor of the disciples as a group to be
      more positive to Peter specifically than Mark.

      [Tom]
      >The more positive portrayal of Peter in Mt agrees with the Temple Tax
      >story in 17:24ff and the eschatological judgment verse in 19:28, in
      my
      >opinion.

      [Stephen]
      In Matt 17:24-27, Peter's misunderstanding of Jesus's obligation to
      pay
      the tax is corrected by a miracle. Positive or negative? Beat me.
      The
      judgment verse in 19:28 is more positive of the 12 disciples, but, as
      to
      Peter specifically, nope.

      III. THIRD EXCHANGE

      "Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson@...> wrote:
      > In this message, it is
      > important to keep in mind that my thesis is that Mark's portrayal
      > of Peter is in many respects less negative than Matthew. That
      > is not to say that Mark is never negative about Peter, only that
      > I think on balance that views of Mark's negativity toward Peter
      > are overexaggerated. I am using Matthew, which few think is
      negative
      > toward Peter, as a basis for comparison: if Mark is indeed less
      > negative than Matthew over Peter, then Mark's remaining negativity
      > to Peter should not be considered out of place in the first century,
      ÿ before the tendency toward hagiography became more pronounced.

      [Tom]
      Thank you, Stephen, for your careful statement of what you are trying
      to
      accomplish. As for the rest of your present post, I'm beginning better
      to
      understand the overall drift of your argument and find it ingenious.
      While
      not yet convinced by your case, you've certainly gotten me to look at
      the
      passages in new ways.

      On the other hand, I feel myself, like Peter, beginning to sink and
      wanting
      to cry out, unlike Peter, Synoptic-Lers, save me. I've been a lurker
      on this
      list, since professionally I read the gospels through the eyes of the
      Fathers, and almost to a man they didn't see much negativity regarding
      the
      Eleven in the Synoptics at all. So the debate in which I'm now engaged
      is
      not my cup of tea--and a tempest in a teapot to boot.

      But, of course, I'm responsible for trying to tease your position out
      of
      you, Stephen. I just wish that some people more expert than I am in Mk
      and
      Mt would join the fray. Please!!! (Or is this not the kind of issue
      that
      Synoptic-Lers consider to be a central focus of the list?)

      I'll try to keep up my courage a little bit longer.

      [Stephen]
      > If I wanted to lessen the negativity of Peter in this passage, I
      > would omit Jesus' calling Peter "Satan." Matthew did not do that.
      > Rather, Matthew called Peter a stumbling block, a reproach lacking
      > in Mark. Perhaps this is explaining Mark, or perhaps it is adding
      > insult to injury.

      [Tom}
      I agree with you that Peter's walking on the water and Peter's
      confession
      are intimately related. But for the time being I'll stick with viewing
      Mt's
      expansions as attempts to explain Mark. After all the stumbling block
      statement comes after Mt's addition: "God forbid it, Lord. This must
      never
      happen to you." That appears to me to soften Mark's portrait of Peter
      considerably--and intentionally.

      [Stephen]
      > Mark 4:34-41 is not a passage that singles out Peter in any way. It
      > is more negative toward the disciples generally than Matthew, but I
      > never denied that. Indeed, both are somewhat are negative (cf. Matt
      > 8:26 "Why are you afraid, you of little faith?"). Thus, Mark
      4:34-41
      > is not an example of Peter specifically being portrayed more
      negatively.

      [Tom]
      No, of course not, but I don't think, as you apparently do, that Peter
      can
      be so sharply distinguished from the rest of the disciples, and
      especially
      not James and John.

      [Stephen]
      > Yes, the woman with the hemorrhages is explicitly portrayed as
      having
      > faith in Mark 5:34, but also in Matt 9:22. [snip]
      > The specific naming of Peter, James, and John after the woman's
      healing
      > in this sandwiched story play no other role than to be named as a
      group
      > of people selected by Jesus. Thus, I don't how their mentioning is
      in
      >any way negative.

      [Tom]
      I don't agree, obviously, for I (as I've said) see the mentioning
      together
      of Peter, James, and John in 5:37 as an anticipation or foreshadowing
      of the
      Transfiguration, which I continue to view as more negative in its
      portrait
      of Peter in Mk than in Mt--on which, see below.

      [Stephen]
      > Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see what is "very negative"
      in
      > the Transfiguration and how Matthew "obviously softens" the
      "negative
      > portrait" of Peter. Both Matthew and Mark state that Peter was
      afraid
      > (Mark 9:6, Matt 17:6) -- I don't think that would be viewed
      negatively
      > under the circumstances.

      The issue is the order of the sayings, in my opinion, and some of the
      particulars of the sayings. Mk has in 9:6 the words, "For Peter did
      not know
      what to say." That isn't in Mt, and Mt adds Peter's words to Jesus in
      Mt
      17:4 "if you wish." These points seem to me to support the traditional
      case
      against your revisionist case. Furthermore, the terror of the Three is
      less
      tightly connected in Mt with Peter, since it is displaced from Mt
      17:4 to
      Mt 17:6 (following Mt's verses). This takes the negative focus off of
      Peter
      which is present in Mark 9:6.

      [Stephen]
      > At Mark 11:21, Peter remember about the fig tree and pointed it out
      to
      > Jesus -- and Jesus answer *them* (KAI APOKRIQEIS hO IHSOUS LEGEI
      *AUTOIS*),
      > referring to the disciples (cf. Mark 11:14). However one might view
      > Jesus's answer as a rebuke (I don't; I see it as instruction), it is
      > done to the disciples generally not to Peter specifically. Matthew,
      > on the other hand, has the disciples, not Peter specifically, ask a
      > question, which Jesus answered. Thus, I see Mark's mention of Peter
      >here as taking a leadership role that is lacking in Matthew.

      [Tom]
      It is precisely Mk's attribution of a leadership role to Peter that
      highlights Peter's lack of faith, just his leadership role was
      highlighted
      when *he* spoke in the Transfiguration account in Mk and we were told
      by Mk
      that he didn't have a clue about what was going on: that is, he is the
      leader of those to whom Jesus earlier said (and continues to say
      throughout
      the gospel), "Have you no faith?"--which in Matthew is changed, of
      course,
      to "men of little faith." At least Peter got out of the boat and tried
      to
      employ that little faith before he began to sink and needed to call
      upon the
      name of the Lord, as it were.

      [Stephen]
      > At Mark 13:3, Jesus predicts the Temple's destruction to Peter,
      James,
      > John, Andrew. In the Matthean parallel (24:3) it is to the
      disciples
      > generally. If Matthew wanted to eliminate the negative protrayal of
      > Peter falling asleep, would it be more effective to eliminate Matt
      > 26:40 where that event occurs or to water down Peter's insider
      status
      > 37 verses earlier? I think the purpose you have proposed for
      Matthew
      >is just subtle to be realistic.

      [Tom]
      Not too subtle in my opinion. The end of Mark 13 and the falling
      asleep in
      Mk 14 are very close together. Mt 24:42 and Mt 26:40 are nicely
      separated,
      and Peter's falling asleep in Mt is immediately qualified by
      juxtaposing it
      to the person with the "real" lack of faith, Judas, whose suicide is
      added
      in Mt 27 right after Peter's falling asleep and denial in Mt 26. Peter
      seems
      to me to be coming off better in Mt than in Mk--rather consistently.

      [Tom]
      >>I don't see anything in chapter 16 of Mk to be a hint of a
      resurrection
      >>appearance to Peter, for the women "said notin' to nobody." It is,
      rather, a
      >>very emphatic statement that Jesus' message that he was "leading"
      the 11,
      >>especially Peter, to Galilee (14:26ff)--as reported by the young man
      at the
      >>tomb (16:7)--never got to Peter and the rest. Mt omits the reference
      to
      >>Peter precisely to speak more positively of Peter and the Eleven
      than Mark,
      >>I think.

      [Stephen]
      > What about: "there you will see him, just as he told" in 16:7? That
      > has to be a hint of a resurrection appearance. At any rate, the
      > women's silence is Markan irony, because everybody knows (and knew
      > in Mark's audience) that Jesus did indeed appear to Peter and the
      > disciples. Thus, the women's failure of silence does not imply
      > that Peter and the disciples never got the word and missed out on
      > Jesus's resurrection appearance. Matthew improves the matter by
      > explicitly reciting a resurrection appear, but I can't see Matthew's
      > omission of "Peter" in favor of the disciples as a group to be
      > more positive to Peter specifically than Mark.

      [Tom]
      I wasn't making myself clear. What I meant to say was that I see no
      hint in
      Mk of Peter ever going *to Galilee* to experience a resurrection
      appearance:
      that's where Jesus said he was leading the disciples, especially
      Peter,
      according to Mk 14:28 and 16:7. Did "everybody know" that Jesus "did
      indeed
      appear to Peter and the disciples" *there*? On this point I'm, of
      course,
      following a position laid out years ago by Norman Perrin, though I'm
      not as
      sure as he seemed to be about the significance of Galilee in the
      scheme of
      Markan things.

      [Stephen]
      > In Matt 17:24-27, Peter's misunderstanding of Jesus's obligation to
      pay
      > the tax is corrected by a miracle. Positive or negative? Beat me.
      The
      > judgment verse in 19:28 is more positive of the 12 disciples, but,
      as to
      >Peter specifically, nope.

      [Tom]
      Your logic is losing me, Stephen. If a passage is in Mt but not Mk,
      and the
      passage is positive toward all
    • Thomas A. Kopecek
      I post to Crosstalk using the web-based reply function on eGroups. Unfortunately I ve always had some parts of my posts cut off at the end--for reasons I don t
      Message 2 of 23 , Jan 9, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        I post to Crosstalk using the web-based reply function on eGroups.
        Unfortunately I've always had some parts of my posts cut off at the
        end--for reasons I don't understand.

        At Bob Schacht's request I'll re-post the last couple of paragraphs
        and hope they too are not cut off :-).

        ***

        [Stephen]
        > In Matt 17:24-27, Peter's misunderstanding of Jesus's obligation to
        pay
        > the tax is corrected by a miracle. Positive or negative? Beat me.

        The
        > judgment verse in 19:28 is more positive of the 12 disciples, but,
        as to
        >Peter specifically, nope.

        [Tom]
        Your logic is losing me, Stephen. If a passage is in Mt but not Mk,
        and the
        passage is positive toward all the 12, how can the net effect of its
        presence in Mt and not Mk not also be more positive toward the man
        always
        listed as the first of the disciples? Am I being dense?


        Tom

        ___
        Thomas A. Kopecek
        Professor of Religion
        Central College, Pella, IA 50219
        kopecekt@...
      • Bob Schacht
        ... Many thanks! First, a question: What was the date of these exchanges? Perhaps simply the month and year would suffice. Second, Stephen, assuming that this
        Message 3 of 23 , Jan 9, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          At 05:30 PM 1/9/01 +0000, Thomas A. Kopecek wrote:
          >***
          >
          >Stephen Carlson and I had a conversation on Synoptic-L that developed
          >from another conversation. The first concerned the extent to which Peter
          >can justifiably be considered a "source" for the Gospel of Mark. In that
          >conversation I raised the topic of the negative portrait of Peter in
          >Mark, which Stephen claimed, in turn, "is oversold." The conversation went
          >from there.
          >
          >I hope others join in this, for initially I thought I could stay with
          >Stephen, but For various reasons, including his superior abilities in NT
          >scholarship, I could not. So here comes a slighted edited version of what
          >transpired.
          >
          >Tom

          Many thanks!
          First, a question: What was the date of these exchanges? Perhaps simply the
          month and year would suffice.

          Second, Stephen, assuming that this exchange occurred before the Ted Weeden
          posts on GMark (mainly posted during May 2000 to XTalk), have his posts
          changed any of your views in what follows?
          To summarize Weeden's argument, I'll quote this epitome from his post dated
          5/25/2000:

          >Many of you know from my _Mark-Traditions in Conflict_ (1971,1979) that I
          >am convinced that Mark is dramatizing his own vendetta against opponents
          >in his community who advocate a christology radically different from
          >Mark’s own suffering-servant christology.
          >
          >Mark’s opponents claim their view on christology is grounded in the
          >tradition passed down by Peter and the Twelve. Thus Peter and the Twelve
          >are the opponents’ authorities. Since Mark does not possess the apostolic
          >stature that Peter and the Twelve do, the only way that he can "out trump"
          >his opponents is to compose a drama in which (1) Jesus, the most revered
          >and exalted authority of all, is presented as advocating Mark’s
          >christology and (2) Peter and the Twelve are portrayed as advocating the
          >christology of Mark’s opponents. Thus in the course of the narrative, Mark
          >presents the disciples, dramatic surrogates for Mark’s opponents, as
          >dense, non-comprehending "insiders" who, when they finally "get" the true
          >christological view proclaimed by Jesus at Caesarea Philippi (8:31) and
          >thereafter (9:31; 10:33f), oppose Jesus’ christology and finally betray,
          >forsake and deny him.


          I have a few quick preliminary questions below:


          >***
          >I. FIRST EXCHANGE:
          >
          >{Tom]
          > >>I was struck, however, by your comment that "Mark's negative
          >portrayal is
          > >>oversold (in many respects it is less negative than Matthew's)."
          >Since I'm
          > >>less dedicated to keeping up with the flood of material on NT
          >scholarship
          > >>than I'm dedicated to trying to follow the Patristic scholarship in
          >which
          > >>I'm interested. . . , I'm curious about why
          > >>you (and others on the list as well, if there are others) think
          >Matthew's
          > >>portrayal of Peter is more "negative" than Matthew's.
          >
          >[Stephen]
          > > I outlined this provocative position of mine in a post I made to
          > > Crosstalk on July 18, 1997 but did not receive any response,
          > > favorable or critical. Maybe this time will be different. Here
          > > is a revised version:

          [snip]

          >[Tom]
          >Mk 5:37 comes between (1) 4:34-41, especially 40-41 (where Jesus says
          >to his disciples, "Have you still no faith," and they respond, "Who is
          >this . . .?") and 6:1-6a, especially 6a (where Jesus is amazed by the lack
          >of faith of his kin) and (2) the story of the outsider woman with the
          >hemorrhages in 5:34 who-- unlike the insider three disciples Peter, James,
          >and John at the raising of Jairus' daughter (along with the rest of the 12
          >to whom the secret of the Kingdom of God had been revealed)--explicitly is
          >portrayed as having faith. Thus, Mk 5:37, in context, is negative in its
          >portrayal of Peter, James, and John.
          >
          >I think Mt omits it precisely because the reference to the three
          >disciples in Mark is negative. Finally, the presence in Mark of Peter,
          >James, and John at the raising of Jairus' daughter is a foreshadowing of
          >the transfiguration scene in Mark 9:2-13, which is very negative toward
          >the inner core of the Three, just as 9:14-29 and 48-41 are negative toward
          >the rest of the disciples. Matthew obviously softens Mk's transfiguration
          >story's negative portrait of the three.
          >
          >[Stephen]
          > > In fact, Mark
          >ÿ at 11:21 (withered fig tree),

          Tom or Stephen,
          Does this last comment of Stephen's need to be restored? Or are you only
          citing here Stephen's introduction of Mark 11:21 in evidence, and the "ÿ"
          is simply an extraneous character?

          >[Tom]
          >The presence in Mark 11:21 of Peter is, in my opinion, negative, for
          >after Peter says, "Rabbi, look: the fig tree that you cursed has
          >withered," Jesus answers in 11:22, "Have faith in God." Jesus then goes on
          >to talk about not doubting and having faith in prayer, which Peter, like
          >the rest of the 12 mentioned back in 9:27 in a comparable passage, never
          >does in Mark, at least as far as I can see (while Jesus prays later on,
          >Peter sleeps, for instance). This passage in 11:22 also echoes, as I see
          >it, the stilling of the storm passage, "Have you still no faith?"
          >
          >[Stephen]
          > >13:3 (private apocalypse),
          >
          >[Tom]
          >Yes, Peter is present, but the point of chapter 13 is "Keep awake!"...

          [snip]

          >[Tom]
          >...I know I haven't dealt with all of your passages, Stephen, but I'm no
          >NT scholar. I'd have to give the others further thought.
          >
          >[Stephen]
          >ÿ I hope this helped.

          Once again, is there text that needs to be restored here, or is the pesky
          "ÿ" simply extraneous?

          >II. SECOND EXCHANGE
          >
          >[Stephen]
          >Thank you very much for your response. In this message, it is
          >important to keep in mind that my thesis is that Mark's portrayal
          >of Peter is in many respects less negative than Matthew. That
          >is not to say that Mark is never negative about Peter, only that
          >I think on balance that views of Mark's negativity toward Peter
          >are overexaggerated. I am using Matthew, which few think is negative
          >toward Peter, as a basis for comparison: if Mark is indeed less
          >negative than Matthew over Peter, then Mark's remaining negativity
          >to Peter should not be considered out of place in the first century,
          >before the tendency toward hagiography became more pronounced.

          Stephen, do you have any explanation for this Matthean negativity towards
          Peter? In light of Weeden's analysis of Mark's anti-petrine Christology, do
          you think that, like Mark, Matthew has a bone to pick with Peter's
          Christology? If so, do you think it is the same bone, or a different one?

          [Remainder of Second Exchange snipped]

          >III. THIRD EXCHANGE
          >
          >"Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson@...> wrote:
          > > In this message, it is
          > > important to keep in mind that my thesis is that Mark's portrayal
          > > of Peter is in many respects less negative than Matthew. That
          > > is not to say that Mark is never negative about Peter, only that
          > > I think on balance that views of Mark's negativity toward Peter
          > > are overexaggerated. I am using Matthew, which few think is
          >negative
          > > toward Peter, as a basis for comparison: if Mark is indeed less
          > > negative than Matthew over Peter, then Mark's remaining negativity
          > > to Peter should not be considered out of place in the first century,
          >ÿ before the tendency toward hagiography became more pronounced.
          >
          >[Tom]
          >... I read the gospels through the eyes of the Fathers, and almost to a
          >man they didn't see much negativity regarding the Eleven in the Synoptics
          >at all.

          Can the same be said about GMark (contra Weeden)?

          [Much snipped]


          >[Stephen]
          > > In Matt 17:24-27, Peter's misunderstanding of Jesus's obligation to
          >pay
          > > the tax is corrected by a miracle. Positive or negative? Beat me.
          >The
          > > judgment verse in 19:28 is more positive of the 12 disciples, but,
          >as to
          > >Peter specifically, nope.
          >
          >[Tom]
          >Your logic is losing me, Stephen. If a passage is in Mt but not Mk,
          >and the passage is positive toward all

          Tom,
          Your summary seems to be cut off at this point; would you please supply the
          remainder?

          Anyway, many thanks for this dialogue. Let's see what we can do to sort
          this out!

          Thanks,
          Bob


          Robert M. Schacht, Ph.D.
          Northern Arizona University
          Flagstaff, AZ


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Thomas A. Kopecek
          ... simply the ... The exchange occurred just a few days ago in January. ... only ... the ÿ ... The strange y is actually a in what I tried to send, so
          Message 4 of 23 , Jan 10, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In crosstalk2@egroups.com, Bob Schacht <r_schacht@y...> wrote:

            > Many thanks!
            > First, a question: What was the date of these exchanges? Perhaps
            simply the
            > month and year would suffice.

            The exchange occurred just a few days ago in January.


            > > > In fact, Mark
            > >ÿ at 11:21 (withered fig tree),
            >
            > Tom or Stephen,
            > Does this last comment of Stephen's need to be restored? Or are you
            only
            > citing here Stephen's introduction of Mark 11:21 in evidence, and
            the "ÿ"
            > is simply an extraneous character?

            The strange "y" is actually a > in what I tried to send, so it isn't
            important. I was just citing the beginning of Stephen's sentence,
            which I think was reproduced totally earlier.

            > >[Tom]
            > >Your logic is losing me, Stephen. If a passage is in Mt but not Mk,
            > >and the passage is positive toward all
            >
            > Tom,
            > Your summary seems to be cut off at this point; would you please
            supply the
            > remainder?
            >
            > Anyway, many thanks for this dialogue. Let's see what we can do to
            sort
            > this out!

            I tried to supply the remainder in a Pt 2 post. Did it come through on
            others' machines? All but my email address is visible on the archives
            as I have access to them.

            I hope this helps clear the underbrush.

            And I do want to thank Mark for his interesting methodological
            comment: he is, indeed, correct about one thing. That is, when I was
            taught as an undergraduate, seminary student, and graduate student, I
            don't think I ever heard the expression 'narrative criticism'. Then I
            went on to other things, and it may well be that I'm about 45 years
            behind the thrust of NT scholarship :-).

            Tom

            ___
            Thomas A. Kopecek
            Professor of Religion
            Central College, Pella, IA 50219
            kopecekt@...

            This sentence is being typed just to test something about the way the
            eGroup web-based system cuts things off
          • Thomas A. Kopecek
            ... to a ... Synoptics ... What I meant by my comment, Bob, is that as a person who works generally with ancient Greek Catholic orthodox texts I don t tend to
            Message 5 of 23 , Jan 10, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In crosstalk2@egroups.com, Bob Schacht <r_schacht@y...> wrote:

              > >[Tom]
              > >... I read the gospels through the eyes of the Fathers, and almost
              to a
              > >man they didn't see much negativity regarding the Eleven in the
              Synoptics
              > >at all.
              >
              > Can the same be said about GMark (contra Weeden)?

              What I meant by my comment, Bob, is that as a person who works
              generally with ancient Greek Catholic orthodox texts I don't tend to
              raise issues about the New Testament that the Fathers who wrote those
              later orthodox texts didn't raise themselves. In other words, I "pull
              a Sanders" :-). When I was speaking about the Fathers, I was not at
              all pronouncing on my own belief regarding Mark's portrait of Peter
              and the rest of the Eleven. Indeed, the entire thrust of my responses
              to Stephen Carlson was to contend that Mk's portrait is uniformly
              negative and that Mt seeks to make it more positive. This is what I
              always thought was the "standard" scholarly position, and Mark
              Goodacre's recent post appears to confirm that judgment.

              When it comes to Ted's specific position on the issue of Christology
              and GosMark's negative portrait of the disciples, I confess I don't
              know. I read Weeden's book ages ago, I remember having problems with
              the explication of--if I brain is not failing me--Mark 13. But i can't
              recall what those problems were!

              When Mark Goodacre posted his recent email about the portrait of
              Peter in Mk and Mt, it reminded me that he once constructed an
              argument on Crosstalk (maybe around 1996-1998) to the effect that
              Gospel of Mark is Pauline and that the negativity toward Peter and,
              indeed, James in the gospel can be explained in that way. I happen to
              agree with that position. However, Mark sought also to correct what he
              believed to be my error in seeing I Cor 1-4 as directed against
              Apollos rather than Peter.

              I'm consequently glad this whole subject has come up, for I recall
              digging out and copying an article by Michael Goulder on I Cor 1-4 to
              which Mark pointed me but then never getting around to reading it.
              Given the exchange I had on Synoptic-L with Carlson, I hope to make
              time to do this soon, for I've found Goulder's article in my files on
              I Cor.

              Tom

              ___
              Thomas A. Kopecek
              Professor of Religion
              Central College, Pella, IA
              kopecekt@central
            • Bob Schacht
              ... Tom, I m sorry; I m obviously confused. Your original post on this thread on January 7 stated ... I made the false assumption that your synopsis was based
              Message 6 of 23 , Jan 10, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                At 03:11 PM 1/10/01 +0000, Thomas A. Kopecek wrote:
                >--- In crosstalk2@egroups.com, Bob Schacht <r_schacht@y...> wrote:
                >
                > > Many thanks!
                > > First, a question: What was the date of these exchanges? Perhaps
                >simply the
                > > month and year would suffice.
                >
                >The exchange occurred just a few days ago in January.

                Tom,
                I'm sorry; I'm obviously confused. Your original post on this thread on
                January 7 stated

                >Since Stephen originally offered his view a few years ago on
                >Crosstalk (and it was not taken up), would any be interested in
                >Stephen or me putting together a synopsis of the arguments we offered
                >on either side (mine were very tentative indeed, since NT scholarship
                >isn't my professional field) and then joining in?

                I made the false assumption that your synopsis was based on the old
                CrossTalk correspondence, rather than the more recent correspondence on
                Synoptic-L that you had referred to in the preceding paragraph of your
                January 7 post. Since I am not subscribed to Synoptic-L, I didn't know if
                that more recent exchange covered the ground sufficiently that your
                synopsis would be based only on the Synoptic-L posts. Thanks for the
                clarification.

                [snip]
                Later you quoted me:

                > > Tom,
                > > Your summary seems to be cut off at this point; would you please
                >supply the
                > > remainder?...

                And you replied:
                >I tried to supply the remainder in a Pt 2 post. Did it come through on
                >others' machines? All but my email address is visible on the archives
                >as I have access to them.

                Yes; all came through but your email address at the end of your "signature".


                >I hope this helps clear the underbrush.

                Yes, it does. Thanks!

                [remainder snipped.]

                Bob


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Stephen C. Carlson
                ... As you are now aware, this exchange occurred last week, and it turns out that the focus on my views are on Matthew s view of Peter, with comparison to
                Message 7 of 23 , Jan 10, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 09:00 PM 1/9/01 -0800, Bob Schacht wrote:
                  >Second, Stephen, assuming that this exchange occurred before the Ted Weeden
                  >posts on GMark (mainly posted during May 2000 to XTalk), have his posts
                  >changed any of your views in what follows?

                  As you are now aware, this exchange occurred last week, and it
                  turns out that the focus on my views are on Matthew's view of
                  Peter, with comparison to Mark. It is interesting to me that
                  a gospel usually thought of as being pro-Petrine because of the
                  "Blessed are you Peter!" passage, fails to improve Mark's portrait
                  of Peter at many important points, omits some Peter favorable
                  material in Mark, and reduces Peter's insider status by changing
                  Mark's mentioning of Peter by name into a broader "disciples."
                  There is something going on in Matthew's gospel and I'm not sure
                  what it is. It is almost as if Matthew is siding with the 12
                  disciples (= Jerusalem church?) against Peter, but the real target
                  may be Paul, whom Peter accommodated.

                  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
                • Thomas A. Kopecek
                  ... If you are right (and you may be), Paul indeed may be the real target. There is a string of things that may support this, and I m just brain-storming here,
                  Message 8 of 23 , Jan 11, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In crosstalk2@egroups.com, "Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson@m...>
                    wrote:

                    > There is something going on in Matthew's gospel and I'm not sure
                    > what it is. It is almost as if Matthew is siding with the 12
                    > disciples (= Jerusalem church?) against Peter, but the real target
                    > may be Paul, whom Peter accommodated.

                    If you are right (and you may be), Paul indeed may be the real
                    target.

                    There is a string of things that may support this, and I'm just
                    brain-storming here, not doing anything very systematic. (1) The Great
                    Commission comes immediately to mind, where the risen Jesus sends the
                    disciples out to teach everything he has commanded, which surely is
                    connected with Jesus' interpretation of Torah in Matthew, a Torah
                    which Paul undermined: Mt earlier has omitted Mk's "Jesus declared all
                    foods clean." (2) Paul calls the Corinthian church God's "temple,"
                    whereas Mt includes a story which has Jesus pay his tax to the actual,
                    physical Jewish temple while it still stood--granted Jesus' prediction
                    of its fall (and Peter's tax was paid as well: I wonder what the
                    historical Peter was doing about this tax?). (3) Toward the end of the
                    Sermon on the Mount in 7:21 Jesus says, "Not every one who says to me,
                    'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the
                    will of my Father who is in heaven." This seems to be countering the
                    thought-world of Romans 10:9-13: "If you confess with your lips that
                    Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the
                    dead, you will be saved . . . . For 'everyone who calls upon the name
                    of the Lord will be saved.' " (4) And even Mt 7:22-23 may be aimed at
                    claims such as those forwarded by Paul in Galatians 3:5 (within the
                    context of Gal 3:1-5 and the whole thrust of Galatians).

                    Thus, though you've not convinced me yet about the portrait of Peter
                    in Matthew, Stephen, you've certainly begun to get me to think through
                    not only your thesis but its possible implications: a pro-Paul gospel
                    (Mark) and a pro-Jerusalem/'anti-Peter who accommodated Paul' gospel
                    (Matthew).

                    I guess it is time to add to this investivation a look at precisely
                    how James is handled in Mark and Matthew. I recall Goodacre giving a
                    list of anti-James passages in Mark some years ago on Crosstalk. What
                    does Mt do with them--and James in general?

                    Certainly in the later Ebionite literature buried in the
                    Pseudo-Clementina James comes off extremely well. And Jerome quotes a
                    passage about a resurrection appearance of Jesus which is very
                    favorable to James (who is the one who swore the oath sworn by Jesus
                    in canonical Mk and Mt, though regarding the bread, not the wine)--yet
                    which is quite in contrast to the ending of canonical Matthew. But
                    this resurrection appearance story may be Nazorean rather than
                    Ebionite, or there may have been all sorts of branches of these
                    movements that developed as the centuries progressed.

                    "The Gospel called 'according to the Hebrews', which was recently
                    translated by me into Greek and Latin, which Origen frequently uses,
                    records after the resurrection of the Savior these words: 'And when
                    the Lord had given the linen cloth to the servant of the priest
                    [apparently this was the cloth in which he was embalmed] , he went to
                    James and appeared to him. For James had sworn that he would not eat
                    bread from that hour in which he had drunk the cup of the Lord until
                    he should see him risen from among them that sleep [= those who are
                    dead]. And shortly thereafter the Lord said, "Bring a table and
                    bread!" ' And immediately it is added, 'Jesus took the bread, blessed
                    it, and broke it, and gave it to James the Just and said to him, "My
                    brother, eat your bread, for the Son of Man is risen from among them
                    that sleep." ' Jerome, De Vir. Ill. 2.


                    I thank you very much for a most stimulating set of suggestions,
                    Stephen.

                    Tom

                    ---
                    Thomas A. Kopecek
                    Professor of Religion
                    Central Col
                  • Ted Weeden
                    The recent exchanges on Xtalk ( between Tom Kopecek, Stephen Carlson, Bob Schacht and Mark Goodacre) concerning the Matthean portrait of Peter vs. the Markan
                    Message 9 of 23 , Jan 11, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      The recent exchanges on Xtalk ( between Tom Kopecek, Stephen Carlson, Bob
                      Schacht and Mark Goodacre) concerning the Matthean portrait of Peter vs. the
                      Markan portrait of Peter has caught my eye, particularly since my view of
                      the way in which Mark and Matthew treat Peter has entered the discussion.
                      Thus, I break my silence of some time in the on-going discussion on Xtalk
                      addressing the issue of the evangelists' portrayal of Peter to offer my take
                      on the issue.

                      Before I do so I want to explain my long absence as a participant in the
                      stimulating discussions on this very fine list. As many of you know, I am
                      working on a commentary on Mark, and have from time to time floated some
                      theses I am working on for response from members of the list. Members have
                      been very helpful to me in raising issues which I find I must address with
                      greater supportive evidence and cogent argumentation. In this regard I
                      still owe Mahlon Smith a response to my position that Mark's provenance
                      cannot have been Judea, as Mahlon argues, but Caesarea Philippi. I also
                      still owe Stephen Carlson a response to his challenge of my position that
                      Mark created de novo the Petrine denial. I have been delayed in mounting
                      arguments for my positions to be sent to both Mahlon and Stephen. The
                      delays are caused by several factors: problems with my health, professional
                      responsibilities, my ailing mother (who at almost 91 by sheer will power
                      continues to escape the throes of death), and finally the nature of my work
                      on the commentary.

                      On the latter I have been working on a number of fronts at one time, trying
                      to piece together the many facets of Mark in a wholistic way, with what I
                      think are new and, hopefully, convincing understandings concerning the
                      gospel. In this regard, I have been working on a long piece (perhaps too
                      long for this list) detailing carefully an argument for Johannine dependency
                      upon Mark for his passion narrative and other features of his gospel (as
                      part of my response to Stephen). I think now that I can show that John
                      transforms Mark's suffering-servant, Son-of-Man christology into his own
                      glorious and triumphant Son-of-Man christology. John does so as a
                      corrective to Mark. I think John got his "hour" motif from Mark (14:41),
                      transvalued its Markan features and used it as a supportive theme for his
                      own christological drama and point of view.

                      Moreover, since the Caesarea Philippi incident has just recently come under
                      discussion, I think I can show that John borrowed Mk. 8:27-29 and adapted
                      it for his own purposes to create the dialogue between John the Baptist and
                      the Pharisees in John's opening scene of his gospel (1:19-22). John takes
                      the "question" motif of Mk. 8:27-9 ("who do men/you say I am?"), slightly
                      rephrases it ("who are you?"), uses the same personnel Mark supplies with
                      the answers to Jesus' questions (namely, "John the Baptist," "Elijah," "one
                      of the prophets" [Jn= "the prophet"], "the Messiah," to construct his
                      narrative. He turns John the Baptist (vs. Mark's disciples) into the
                      respondent, reverses the climactic end of the Markan narrative by turning
                      Peter's "confession" that Jesus is "the Messiah" into JB's Messianic
                      disavowing confession ("He confessed, did not deny it (allusion to Petrine
                      denial?) but confessed, 'I am not the Messiah,'" 1:20), and leads off with
                      it in the dialogue he created between JB and the Pharisees. He then
                      continues with the original Markan order of Markan identity suggestions,
                      Elijah, the prophet, which the Pharisees continue to pose to JB. Following
                      that John draws upon the introduction to Mark's gospel to complete his
                      opening scene (1:19-28) following his prologue (1:1-18). John adopts the
                      the Isaianic quote of Mk. 1:3 and the Markan material on JB (1:5, 7-8) and
                      interweaves it with his previous identity-questioning motif (1:23-28).

                      I have been further delayed in completing this project because
                      Kloppenborg-Verbun's _Excavating Q_, along with the recent dialogue with
                      Bill Arnal on this list, has caused me to give another look at Q and its
                      relation to Mark. I am now convinced that Mark knew and drew upon passages
                      and motifs in 2Q and 3Q to as material for the developing of his
                      introduction which is created using the Isaianic template of a new exodus to
                      the promised land (in Mark's case, Galilee: see my Xtalk post of last
                      spring). Specifically, Mk appropriated Q 7:27 (Lk 7:27) and intercalated
                      it (common Markan compositional practice) between the citation of the
                      Isaianic prophet (1:2) and his prophecy (1:3). He then adopted and adapted
                      Q 3:16 (Lk 3:16) for his profile of JB, as Jesus' precursor (so already
                      established by Q 7:27), with the idea to describe JB's dress as Elijah
                      suggested by the allusion to John's dress in Q 7:25 (Lk, 7:25) and Q's
                      identification of JB with Elijah (so Q 7:27 vis-a-vis Mal. 3:1, 4:5; see K-V
                      [EQ]).

                      I share all of this to indicate where my thinking is taking me and explain
                      my absence from the Xtalk dialogue. I hope to be able to refine and fully
                      develop these directions of my thinking and share with the rest of you for
                      your critical and helpful assessment. It may be a while before I can do
                      that.

                      In the meantime, to return to the question as to whether Matthew has a more
                      positive or negative presentation of Peter than Mark. As already noted by
                      others in the current discussion, I hold to the position that Matthew
                      reworks Mark's negative profile into one that treats Peter more positively.
                      I have provided the arguments for that in my _Mark_, 1971/79: 23-51. I
                      still stand by the arguments I made there. Unfortunately, I have not had an
                      opportunity to access Stephen Carlson full argument, contrary to my view of
                      Matthew's portait of Peter and have only seen recent snippets provided by
                      Tom Kopecek. So until I do see Stephen's argument in full,I will limit my
                      discussion in support of my thesis that Matthew gives a more positive
                      profile of Peter than Mark to one of the key texts which has served as a
                      focus for the debate on the list, namely the Caesarea Philippi episode (Mt.
                      16:13-23/Mk 8:27-33). I use it now as a case in point to support my thesis.

                      Let me begin with a look at the Caesrea-Philippi narrative as it unfolds in
                      Mark and Matthew through Mk. 8:29 and Mt. 1620. No one that I know of would
                      deny that the investiture of Peter by Jesus in Mt. 16:17-19 far exceeds any
                      approbation given to Peter in this specific text or anywhere else in Mark.
                      So up to that point in the narrative, Peter fares better at the hands of
                      Matthew. What about following the investiture?

                      It has been argued by Stephen Carlson and Mark Goodacre that Peter fares
                      poorly in Matthew, more so than Mark, after the investiture. Mark argues,
                      if I understand him corrrectly, that narrative criticism gives us a
                      different slant on the portrait of Peter (more positive) in the Matthean CP
                      episode when we take narrative criticism more seriously and free ourselves
                      from slavish dependency upon redaction criticism. So let me follow Mark
                      Goodacre's urging and address the texts from a narrative-critical following
                      Mt. 16:19 and Mk. 8:29. I begin with the Markan text. Narrative
                      criticism argues, among other things, that an author essentially influences
                      the hearers/readers by setting up certain topoi, themes or motifs in advance
                      of a point at which those topoi, motifs or themes will shape the
                      interpertation at critical points in the narrative. And that is exactly
                      what Mark has done with the motif of "rebuke" (EPITIMAW) in his narrative
                      prior to the Petrine confession. The word EPITIMAW is used three times
                      (1:25; 3:12; 4:39) prior to Mk. 8:30 and in each case it is used exclusively
                      with respect to rebuking demons or demonic forces (the wind in 4:39) in the
                      course of exorcism. No other meaning of EPITIMAW is given to the
                      hearers/readers than one which is directly related to exorcising demons.
                      It is true that the word can be translated as "charge" or "sternly order," a
                      more "limpish" use of the word. But that is not the case in the first eight
                      chapters in Mark. After the Caesarea Philippi the word is used again in
                      the context of exorcism (9:25), though admittedly it has the more "limpish"
                      meaning of "sternly ordered" as it is found in 10:13 and 10:48, the only
                      other occurrences in the last half of the gospel. But if that is the
                      intent of the meaning in those passages, the hearers/readers from the point
                      of view of narrative criticism have not been offered that meaning of the
                      word by the Markan story at the point they are introduced to the Caesarea
                      Philippi episode.

                      My contention is that Mark's use of the word EPITIMAW three times (rather
                      surprising concentration of the use of the word in two verses, compared to
                      its use throughout the gospel) in the CP episode has been intentionally
                      nuanced by him with an exorcism interpretation. What he wants the
                      hearers/readers to conclude is that the exchange between Peter in 8:32f. is
                      analogous to a contest between exorcists. Peter tries to exorcise Jesus of
                      the "demon" that would cause him to accept for himself the path of a
                      suffering servant who would be killed by his religious adversaries. And
                      Jesus turns, as a result of Peter's attempted exorcism of him, upon Peter
                      and rebukes the demon in Peter, whom Jesus identifies as Satan himself. I
                      would argue that the same "exorcistic" meaning of EPITIMAW is intended by
                      Mark 8:30 where Jesus silences the disciples and Peter from being tempted to
                      accept Peter's false (demonically inspired?) confession. Peter is then
                      rejected by Jesus as Satanic, possessed by Satan, who leads Peter to think
                      like human beings and not like God (8:33).

                      Now let us look at how Matthew treats this exchange between Peter and Jesus.
                      And here I draw upon redaction criticism, too, specifically with the way
                      Matthew redacts Mark Note that Jesus only partially corrects the Petrine
                      confession in Matthew, unlike Mark, where I think it is totally rejected by
                      Jesus. For in Matthew, Peter's confession is not only that Jesus is the
                      Messiah but also "the Son of the Living God (16:16). Note that following
                      the investiture of Peter in Matthew, Jesus only rejects the "Messiah"
                      christology, not the "Son of God" christology when Jesus commands the
                      disciples not to tell about him. Thus Peter in Matthew is more nearly
                      correct in his christological insight than he is in Mark- a more positive
                      spin on Peter's perspicacity.

                      Note also that Matthew has significantly altered the wording in which he
                      denotes Jesus silencing the "Messiah" part of Peter's confession. Instead
                      of following Mark and using Mark's "exorcism-laden" word EPITIMAW, Matthew
                      (16:20) chooses to use in its place a more neutral, as far as exorcism is
                      concerned, less heavily freighted word, DIASTELLW ("charge," "command").
                      [Matthew uses EPITIMAW only once prior to the CP episode, namely, he follows
                      Mark in using it to cite Jesus rebuking the wind, 8:26. Matthew does not
                      narrate the Markan story of Jesus exorcising the unclean spirit in the
                      Capernaum synagogue (Mk. 1:21-28, nor the Markan summary of 1:32-34]
                      Matthew does follow Mark in using EPITIMAW when he cites Peter's rebuke of
                      Jesus. But, curiously, he does not follow Mark in using EPITIMAW to
                      describe Jesus' rebuke (exorcism) of Peter's satanic possession. Thus,
                      Matthew takes the sting out of the strident exchange between Peter and Jesus
                      in Mark. By substituting DIASTELLW for EPITIMAW in 16:20 he nuances Mark's
                      EPITIMAW in his account toward the meaning of "sternly order" or "command"
                      as is the meaning of DIASTELLW. Moreover, by not using EPITIMAW in his
                      depiction of Jesus' rebuke of Peter, as is the case in Mark, Matthew changes
                      Jesus' "exorcistic" attack on Peter to a reprimand of Peter for "tempting"
                      (SKANDALON) Jesus to turn from his course set forth by God (16:23). Peter
                      fares better at the hands of Matthew in this case.

                      One final note, unlike Mark, Matthew depicts Peter as rebuking Jesus because
                      he cannot conceive of the fact that the things which Jesus predicts will
                      actually happen to Jesus. And he protests, unlike Mark, with a title of
                      reverence and deference when he addresses his concern to Jesus. Namely, he
                      calls him KURIE (16:22). Thus, while Peter in Matthew certainly does not
                      end up in the CP episode with the same glowing depiction as in the
                      investiture, he still fares more positively, even in his darker moments at
                      the end of the Matthean CP episode than he does in Mark.

                      I apologize for the length of this post. Unforrtunately I am now in haste
                      to depart for almost a week, as I visit my ailing mother in Florida. I
                      will be back by next Wednesday and will reply then should there be any
                      responses to this post, and also pick up on Stephen's arguments.

                      Ted Weeden
                    • Jan Sammer
                      From: Thomas A. Kopecek ... One place where Mark wields the axe against James is in 3:31-55. (Matthew renders this passage almost
                      Message 10 of 23 , Jan 13, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        From: "Thomas A. Kopecek" <kopecekt@...>
                        >
                        > I guess it is time to add to this investivation a look at precisely
                        > how James is handled in Mark and Matthew. I recall Goodacre giving a
                        > list of anti-James passages in Mark some years ago on Crosstalk. What
                        > does Mt do with them--and James in general?

                        One place where Mark wields the axe against James is in 3:31-55. (Matthew
                        renders this passage almost verbatim in 12:46-50, with one significant
                        difference.). In Mark, Jesus rejects his natural family and looks at the
                        people around him who believe in him and calls them his family. In Matthew
                        Jesus rejects his natural family and looks at the twelve and calls them his
                        family. My contention is that the purpose of this passage was to undercut
                        the power wielded by Jesus' relatives in the Jerusalem Church, the most
                        notable among whom was his brother James. However, while Mark seeks to
                        substitute the family's authority with the authority of believers, in a
                        spirit consistent with Paul's interests, Matthew reserves this honor for the
                        twelve. This is consistent with Tom Kopecek's and Stephen Carlson's
                        contention (if I understand it correctly) that Mark is more pro-Pauline than
                        Matthew. While Mark rejects both the family and the twelve as sources of
                        authority, Matthew is more accommodating towards the twelve, while still
                        rejecting the family.

                        The hostility ascribed to Jesus towards his family could be explained if at
                        the time of the writing of these gospels James were still in a position of
                        power, i.e., the head of the Jerusalem Church. If, as Ted Weeden contends,
                        Mark's gospel was written to oppose the Christology (I would say,
                        "traditional authority") of Peter and the twelve, the evidence on James
                        further suggests that it was written in opposition to the leadership of the
                        Jerusalem Church. Last May Mark Cameron suggested that James was the
                        unidentified disciple in Luke's story of the Walk to Emmaus. The suppression
                        of James in this gospel would reinforce the idea that "cutting James down to
                        size" was among the purposes of all three synoptics. Encounters with the
                        resurrected Jesus served as a source of authority in the post-resurrection
                        period; thus passing over a tradition that James met with the resurrected
                        Jesus could be seen as an attempt to undercut that authority. Of course this
                        implies that James was still alive and in a position of power at the time
                        that these gospels were written. Paul, too, derived his authority from an
                        encounter with the resurrected Jesus, as did Peter. But Paul was never one
                        of the twelve. That is why the difference in the Matthean and Markan
                        rendering of the episode of the rejection of the family is so telling.
                        >
                        > Certainly in the later Ebionite literature buried in the
                        > Pseudo-Clementina James comes off extremely well. And Jerome quotes a
                        > passage about a resurrection appearance of Jesus which is very
                        > favorable to James (who is the one who swore the oath sworn by Jesus
                        > in canonical Mk and Mt, though regarding the bread, not the wine)--yet
                        > which is quite in contrast to the ending of canonical Matthew. But
                        > this resurrection appearance story may be Nazorean rather than
                        > Ebionite, or there may have been all sorts of branches of these
                        > movements that developed as the centuries progressed.
                        >
                        > "The Gospel called 'according to the Hebrews', which was recently
                        > translated by me into Greek and Latin, which Origen frequently uses,
                        > records after the resurrection of the Savior these words: 'And when
                        > the Lord had given the linen cloth to the servant of the priest
                        > [apparently this was the cloth in which he was embalmed] , he went to
                        > James and appeared to him. For James had sworn that he would not eat
                        > bread from that hour in which he had drunk the cup of the Lord until
                        > he should see him risen from among them that sleep [= those who are
                        > dead]. And shortly thereafter the Lord said, "Bring a table and
                        > bread!" ' And immediately it is added, 'Jesus took the bread, blessed
                        > it, and broke it, and gave it to James the Just and said to him, "My
                        > brother, eat your bread, for the Son of Man is risen from among them
                        > that sleep." ' Jerome, De Vir. Ill. 2.
                        >
                        This is a most interesting parallel to the Luke's Walk to Emmaus and
                        reinforces Mark Cameron's thesis, referred to above, that the unidentified
                        disciple in that episode is James. It would seem that there were accounts in
                        circulation at the time of the writing of the gospels of James' encounter
                        with the resurrected Jesus, and that these stories served as the source of
                        James' authority as head of the Jerusalem church. If one wanted to undercut
                        this authority, the best way would be to suppress these stories and this is
                        what the canonical gospels attempt to do.

                        Jan
                      • Thomas A. Kopecek
                        ... explained if at ... position of ... contends, ... James ... leadership of the ... suppression ... James down to ... with the ... post-resurrection ...
                        Message 11 of 23 , Jan 13, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In crosstalk2@egroups.com, "Jan Sammer" <sammer@i...> wrote:

                          > The hostility ascribed to Jesus towards his family could be
                          explained if at
                          > the time of the writing of these gospels James were still in a
                          position of
                          > power, i.e., the head of the Jerusalem Church. If, as Ted Weeden
                          contends,
                          > Mark's gospel was written to oppose the Christology (I would say,
                          > "traditional authority") of Peter and the twelve, the evidence on
                          James
                          > further suggests that it was written in opposition to the
                          leadership
                          of the
                          > Jerusalem Church. Last May Mark Cameron suggested that James was the
                          > unidentified disciple in Luke's story of the Walk to Emmaus. The
                          suppression
                          > of James in this gospel would reinforce the idea that "cutting
                          James
                          down to
                          > size" was among the purposes of all three synoptics. Encounters
                          with
                          the
                          > resurrected Jesus served as a source of authority in the
                          post-resurrection
                          > period; thus passing over a tradition that James met with the
                          resurrected
                          > Jesus could be seen as an attempt to undercut that authority. Of
                          course this
                          > implies that James was still alive and in a position of power at
                          the
                          time
                          > that these gospels were written. Paul, too, derived his authority
                          from an
                          > encounter with the resurrected Jesus, as did Peter. But Paul was
                          never one
                          > of the twelve. That is why the difference in the Matthean and Markan
                          > rendering of the episode of the rejection of the family is so
                          telling.
                          > >
                          > > Certainly in the later Ebionite literature buried in the
                          > > Pseudo-Clementina James comes off extremely well. And Jerome
                          quotes a
                          > > passage about a resurrection appearance of Jesus which is very
                          > > favorable to James (who is the one who swore the oath sworn by
                          Jesus
                          > > in canonical Mk and Mt, though regarding the bread, not the
                          wine)--yet
                          > > which is quite in contrast to the ending of canonical Matthew. But
                          > > this resurrection appearance story may be Nazorean rather than
                          > > Ebionite, or there may have been all sorts of branches of these
                          > > movements that developed as the centuries progressed.
                          > >
                          > > "The Gospel called 'according to the Hebrews', which was recently
                          > > translated by me into Greek and Latin, which Origen frequently
                          uses,
                          > > records after the resurrection of the Savior these words: 'And
                          when
                          > > the Lord had given the linen cloth to the servant of the priest
                          > > [apparently this was the cloth in which he was embalmed] , he
                          went
                          to
                          > > James and appeared to him. For James had sworn that he would not
                          eat
                          > > bread from that hour in which he had drunk the cup of the Lord
                          until
                          > > he should see him risen from among them that sleep [= those who
                          are
                          > > dead]. And shortly thereafter the Lord said, "Bring a table and
                          > > bread!" ' And immediately it is added, 'Jesus took the bread,
                          blessed
                          > > it, and broke it, and gave it to James the Just and said to him,
                          "My
                          > > brother, eat your bread, for the Son of Man is risen from among
                          them
                          > > that sleep." ' Jerome, De Vir. Ill. 2.
                          > >
                          > This is a most interesting parallel to the Luke's Walk to Emmaus and
                          > reinforces Mark Cameron's thesis, referred to above, that the
                          unidentified
                          > disciple in that episode is James. It would seem that there were
                          accounts in
                          > circulation at the time of the writing of the gospels of James'
                          encounter
                          > with the resurrected Jesus, and that these stories served as the
                          source of
                          > James' authority as head of the Jerusalem church. If one wanted to
                          undercut
                          > this authority, the best way would be to suppress these stories
                          and
                          this is
                          > what the canonical gospels attempt to do.

                          Thank you, Jan, for this reference to Mark Cameron's lengthy post in
                          May of 2000. I wasn't reading Crosstalk then. But now I've just found
                          and read the post in the archives and find it very stimulating.

                          Tom

                          ___
                          Thomas A. Kopecek
                          Professor of Religion
                          Central College, Pella, IA 50219
                          kopecekt@...

                          *****

                          *****

                          *****
                        • Bob Schacht
                          ... In what way? The chief(?) difference is that Mark says the three were terrified , whereas in Matthew they fell to the ground and were overcome by fear.
                          Message 12 of 23 , Jan 13, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            At 05:30 PM 1/9/01 +0000, Thomas A. Kopecek wrote:
                            >[snip]
                            >***
                            >I. FIRST EXCHANGE:
                            >
                            >... Finally, the presence in Mark of Peter, James, and John
                            >at the raising of Jairus' daughter is a foreshadowing of the
                            >transfiguration scene in Mark 9:2-13, which is very negative toward the
                            >inner core of the Three, just as 9:14-29 and 48-41 are negative toward the
                            >rest of the disciples. Matthew obviously softens Mk's transfiguration
                            >story's negative portrait of the three.

                            In what way? The chief(?) difference is that Mark says the three were
                            "terrified", whereas in Matthew they "fell to the ground and were overcome
                            by fear." What am I missing? Stephen also wonders, quoting from the second
                            exchange:
                            >[Stephen]
                            >Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see what is "very negative"
                            >in the Transfiguration and how Matthew "obviously softens" the "negative
                            >portrait" of Peter. Both Matthew and Mark state that Peter was afraid
                            >(Mark 9:6, Matt 17:6) -- I don't think that would be viewed negatively
                            >under the circumstances.

                            Tom answered in the Third Exchange:
                            >...[Tom]
                            >
                            >The issue is the order of the sayings, in my opinion, and some of the
                            >particulars of the sayings. Mk has in 9:6 the words, "For Peter did
                            >not know what to say." That isn't in Mt...

                            This is an interesting point. Maybe the only time in the NT where Peter was
                            at a loss for words? :-)

                            Resuming from the first exchange:

                            >[Stephen]
                            > > In fact, Mark at 11:21 (withered fig tree),
                            >
                            >[Tom]
                            >...Jesus then goes on to talk about not doubting and having faith in
                            >prayer, which Peter, like the rest of the 12 mentioned back in 9:27 in a
                            >comparable passage, never does in Mark, at least as far as I can see
                            >(while Jesus prays later on, Peter sleeps, for instance).

                            Peter sleeps in Mk14:37//Mt26:40, both equally negative, so far as I can see.

                            > This passage in 11:22 also echoes, as I see it, the stilling of the
                            > storm passage, "Have you still no faith?"

                            Mk4:36f//Mt8:23f. But Peter is not mentioned by name.


                            >[Stephen]
                            > >13:3 (private apocalypse),
                            >
                            >[Tom]
                            >Yes, Peter is present,

                            But is only named explicitly in Mark (along with James, John & Andrew.)

                            >[Stephen]
                            > > ... In a special-Matthew parable (or Matthean redaction of
                            > > Q), Peter is told to forgive 77 times (18:21),

                            //Luke 17:4. Alternatively, Luke redaction of Q because he is generally
                            more favorable to Peter?

                            >...[Tom]
                            >The more positive portrayal of Peter in Mt agrees with the Temple
                            >Tax story in 17:24ff and the eschatological judgment verse in 19:28, in my
                            >opinion. ...

                            I think you mean 19:27 (no parallels), quoting Peter, with 19:28f// giving
                            the favorable interpretation.


                            >II. SECOND EXCHANGE
                            >
                            >[Stephen]
                            >Thank you very much for your response. In this message, it is
                            >important to keep in mind that my thesis is that Mark's portrayal
                            >of Peter is in many respects less negative than Matthew. ...

                            Then how do you account for
                            Mt 17:24ff
                            Mt 19:27ff
                            which, as Tom has pointed out, seem more favorable to Peter?

                            >...
                            >
                            >III. THIRD EXCHANGE
                            > ...
                            >
                            >[Tom]
                            >It is precisely Mk's attribution of a leadership role to Peter that
                            >highlights Peter's lack of faith, just his leadership role was
                            >highlighted when *he* spoke in the Transfiguration account in Mk and we
                            >were told by Mk that he didn't have a clue about what was going on: that
                            >is, he is the leader of those to whom Jesus earlier said (and continues to
                            >say throughout the gospel), "Have you no faith?"--which in Matthew is
                            >changed, of course, to "men of little faith." At least Peter got out of
                            >the boat and tried to employ that little faith before he began to sink and
                            >needed to call upon the name of the Lord, as it were.

                            I wonder if we need to distinguish here between Peter's tendency to talk
                            (or act) first and think later, and any hypothetical role of "leader,"
                            which might be anachronistic. Just because someone is impulsive doesn't
                            necessarily make him a leader. Nevertheless, your general point about
                            whether or not Peter is being singled out by either Mark or Matthew as
                            having (or not having) faith is worth pursuing.

                            >...[Tom, re Mark 16:7]
                            >I wasn't making myself clear. What I meant to say was that I see no
                            >hint in Mk of Peter ever going *to Galilee* to experience a resurrection
                            >appearance: that's where Jesus said he was leading the disciples,
                            >especially Peter, according to Mk 14:28 and 16:7....

                            Given the short ending of Mark, is this probative? Aren't you relying
                            essentially on negative evidence?

                            I am grateful to Tom for assembling the Three Exchanges, to share with XTalk.

                            Generally, Stephen has made a good case for Matthew putting a negative spin
                            on Peter.
                            Peter doesn't emerge unscathed from *any* of the gospels. But we need to
                            differentiate a number of factors:
                            1. If the actual historical Peter was a bungler-- impulsive, outspoken,
                            etc.-- then a negative portrayal is not necessarily "spin"-- it could be
                            historical.
                            2. If the actual historical Peter was impulsive and outspoken, then the
                            observation that Matthew and/or Mark portray Peter as the one asking
                            questions, etc. doesn't necessarily mean that Peter was regarded as a
                            leader. We should be wary of retrojecting the later propaganda of the
                            church into the gospel narratives. Leaders are measured by followers, and
                            Peter's primary "followers" seem to have been the Boanerges brothers-- even
                            in Acts. But this is a topic that merits more extensive study than I can
                            give it here.
                            3. If a gospel source seems to be putting a negative spin on Peter, we need
                            to look for the connecting thread. Weeden has attempted to do this for
                            GMark by connecting the negative spin to different Christologies. What is
                            the connecting thread in GMatthew?
                            4. I appreciate the attempts to evaluate the apparent spin in any
                            particular passage in terms of the narrative frame and wider context.

                            Thanks,
                            Bob

                            Bob


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Stephen C. Carlson
                            ... For Mt 17:24ff (the Temple Tax), Peter is asked about Jesus s position on the Temple Tax, which he answers without checking with Jesus. When Peter does
                            Message 13 of 23 , Jan 14, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              At 11:15 PM 1/13/01 -0800, Bob Schacht wrote:
                              >>II. SECOND EXCHANGE
                              >>[Stephen]
                              >>Thank you very much for your response. In this message, it is
                              >>important to keep in mind that my thesis is that Mark's portrayal
                              >>of Peter is in many respects less negative than Matthew. ...
                              >
                              >Then how do you account for
                              >Mt 17:24ff
                              >Mt 19:27ff
                              >which, as Tom has pointed out, seem more favorable to Peter?

                              For Mt 17:24ff (the Temple Tax), Peter is asked about Jesus's
                              position on the Temple Tax, which he answers without checking
                              with Jesus. When Peter does so, he turns out to be wrong (kings
                              don't tax their children), but Jesus saves his face with a
                              miracle. Not entirely negative of Peter, but not really
                              positive of Peter either.

                              At Mt18:27ff, both Matt and Mark give Peter the same prominence
                              in asking the question, but Matt has additional matter about the
                              "12 thrones." Rather than highlighting Peter in specific compared
                              to Mark, Matt instead highlights the disciples generally (i.e.
                              12 thrones for 12 apostles). Matt's common choice to pump up the
                              disciples generally (even if Peter is understood to be a member)
                              does not affect my thesis. There are many examples of that.

                              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
                            • Sean du Toit
                              Greetings. I ve been doing a lot of reading lately on historical method and what constitutes a valid method for studying the historical Jesus. [I notice this
                              Message 14 of 23 , Nov 18, 2002
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Greetings.

                                I've been doing a lot of reading lately on historical method and what
                                constitutes a valid method for studying the historical Jesus. [I notice
                                this was briefly mentioned in another post] I'm well aware of the works by
                                Meier, Crossan & Wright on method, but was wondering if there were any other
                                specifically historical Jesus scholars who had worked on or proposed a
                                method of study? Or if there are any other books on historical method that
                                are *must* reads?

                                Any recommendations on articles, books or links would be much appreciated.

                                Kind Regards, sean du Toit

                                _________________________________________________________________
                                Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
                                http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
                              • William Arnal
                                ... Two in particular, that are definitely MUST-reads: Jonathan Smith, _Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianities and the Religions of Late
                                Message 15 of 23 , Nov 18, 2002
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Sean du Toit wrote:

                                  >method of study? Or if there are any other books on historical method
                                  > >that
                                  >are *must* reads?
                                  >
                                  >Any recommendations on articles, books or links would be much >apreciated.

                                  Two in particular, that are definitely MUST-reads:

                                  Jonathan Smith, _Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianities
                                  and the Religions of Late Antiquity._ U of Chicago, 1990.

                                  Burton L. Mack, "The Historical Jesus Hoopla," in Mack, _The Christian
                                  Myth._ Continuum, 2001.

                                  Bill
                                  ___________________________
                                  William Arnal
                                  Department of Religious Studies
                                  University of Regina
                                  Regina, Saskatchewan S4S 0A2



                                  _________________________________________________________________
                                  MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
                                  http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.