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

Re: Peter in Mk vs Mt

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