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

Gospel of Peter and the MAs

Expand Messages
  • Mark Goodacre
    I wonder if anyone has done any work on the Gospel of Peter and the Minor Agreements? I have been struck by one or two things while reading the text recently.
    Message 1 of 2 , Mar 2, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      I wonder if anyone has done any work on the Gospel of Peter and the Minor
      Agreements? I have been struck by one or two things while reading the text
      recently. One of these is 3.9:

      KAI hETEROI ESTWTES ENEPTUON AUTOU TAIS OYESI KAI ALLOI TAS SIAGONAS AUTOU
      ERAPISAN . . .

      I thought of that notorious MA at Mark 14.65 (TIS ESTIN hO PAISAS SE;) and to
      explain its relevance, let me summarise what I see the current situation to be.
      Neirynck and Tuckett base their conjectural emendation of the text of Matthew
      here on the notion that it does not make good sense. Unlike Mark and Luke,
      Matthew has no blindfolding but like Luke has the taunt TIS ESTIN hO PAISAS SE;
      (for synopsis see http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/q/ten.htm#tisestin). They
      argue that this is adequate grounds for the proposed conjectural emendation of
      Matthew. It seems to me that the grounds here for conjectural emendation are
      weak: we do not conjecturally emend the text everywhere else where we see an
      anomaly of this kind and it is clear that the move is simply prompted by the
      need to remove the MA that is so difficult for the thesis of Luke's
      independence from Matthew.

      But the point about the anomaly in Matthew remains. Why do they say "Who is it
      who smote you" when Jesus is not blindfolded? Goulder suggests that this is
      Matthean muddle and that he often does this kind of thing, omitting to mention
      the blindfold by accident. Farmer, on the other hand, points out that Matthew
      says "they spat in his face" (Matt. 26.67) before "they struck him" -- this
      brings about temporary blindness and the question "Who is it who smote you?" is
      then coherent (_The Synoptic Problem_, p. 149). I have never been quite sure
      how far to follow Farmer here, but the quotation above from the Gospel of Peter
      may be illuminating, for here we have the claim that they spat "in his eyes",
      though without the subsequent "Who is who smote you?". It seems that there is
      a parallel available, then, from early on, for the gist of Farmer's proposed
      scenario, and that if we take it seriously this diminishes still further the
      impressiveness of Neirynck and Tuckett's case for conjectural emendation to
      remove this MA.

      Mark
      --------------------------------------
      Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
      Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
      University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
      Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom

      http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
      Aseneth Home Page
      Recommended New Testament Web Resources
      World Without Q
    • Jim Deardorff
      ... Mark, One shouldn t place much credence in GPeter, in my opinion, because it shows every sign of having been written later than Matthew. In particular, the
      Message 2 of 2 , Mar 2, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        At 04:11 PM 3/2/99 GMT, Mark Goodacre wrote:
        >I wonder if anyone has done any work on the Gospel of Peter and the Minor
        >Agreements? I have been struck by one or two things while reading the text
        >recently. One of these is 3.9:
        >
        >KAI hETEROI ESTWTES ENEPTUON AUTOU TAIS OYESI KAI ALLOI TAS SIAGONAS AUTOU
        >ERAPISAN . . .

        Mark,

        One shouldn't place much credence in GPeter, in my opinion, because it shows
        every sign of having been written later than Matthew. In particular, the
        above verse refers to where Jesus was being abused by the soldiers after
        having faced Pilate, as the episode includes the purple robe and the crown
        of thorns. So it does not refer to his earlier trial before the Sanhedrin,
        which involved the query of "Who was it who smote you?" In the incident with
        the soldiers (Mt 27:30), to which GPeter refers, the spat was "at him" in
        Matthew and thus not necessarily into the eyes. (It's curious, though, that
        GPeter has Joseph of A request permission from Pilate to bury the body
        before Jesus' abuse by the soldiers is related -- forcing this latter to be
        a flashback.)

        >But the point about the anomaly in Matthew remains. Why do they say "Who
        is it
        >who smote you" when Jesus is not blindfolded? ...

        As you know, I find the candidate document for Papias' Logia and Matthew's
        source to have been authentic, as set forth in my web site. It indicates a
        simple solution to this problem. Matthew's source in the vicinity of Mt
        26:67-68 involved some of the Council hitting Jesus from behind and then
        taunting him to prophesy who had done it (as well as including the
        spatting). The act of hitting him from behind was edited out by AMt,
        apparently because this behavior for a Council member was just too, too
        sordid and could be omitted. However, AMt then overlooked the problem caused
        by this omission.

        Jim Deardorff
        Corvallis, Oregon
        E-mail: deardorj@...
        Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.