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

Re: [XTalk] Re: Peter in Mk vs Mt

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