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

Re: Peter in Mk vs Mt (Pt 2)

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 23 , Jan 9, 2001
      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 2 of 23 , Jan 9, 2001
        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 3 of 23 , Jan 10, 2001
          --- 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 4 of 23 , Jan 10, 2001
            --- 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 5 of 23 , Jan 10, 2001
              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 6 of 23 , Jan 10, 2001
                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 7 of 23 , Jan 11, 2001
                  --- 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 8 of 23 , Jan 11, 2001
                    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 9 of 23 , Jan 13, 2001
                      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 10 of 23 , Jan 13, 2001
                        --- 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 11 of 23 , Jan 13, 2001
                          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 12 of 23 , Jan 14, 2001
                            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 13 of 23 , Nov 18, 2002
                              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 14 of 23 , Nov 18, 2002
                                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.