Beloved Disciple and "Petrine Monopoly"
- Normally I'm just a "lurker" on the list, but Piet's comments have drawn me out
of the shadows enough to ask a question about Hengel's view --
Were there "normative" objections to "the growing Petrine monopoly," or was it
more a case of
the larger community wanting to welcome other views? If Hengel develops the
theme of substantive differences, I would like to explore his argument in more
detail (could you provide citations?).
Thanks for the interesting post...
Due West, SC
Piet van Veldhuizen wrote:
> In Hengel's view as I understand it, the FG is meant to break not a dominant
> position of Peter himself as a witness, but the monopoly of 'Petrine'
> written tradition, as the Gospels of Luke and Matthew draw for a substantial
> part on Mark who is (and was at a very early stage) thought of as a giving
> Peter's version of the Jesus story.
> Part of the theory is an awareness of the influence and rapid spreading of
> written texts in the early days of the church. You need not assume a
> personal dominance of, or reverence towards Peter himself, to acknowledge
> that the so-called Petrine witness could gain dominance in the church just
> because it was spread in writing. Even if Luke from his 'Pauline' viewpoint
> might not have been a strong supporter of Peter, he helped strengthen the
> 'Petrine' tradition by using Markan material, and doing so contributing to
> what is now called the synoptic tradition.