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

Re: [XTalk] Peter in Mk vs Mt

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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.