[Synoptic-L] New GMark article from Ted Weeden now available
- List Members may wish to be aware that on Xtalk and Kata Markon Ted
Weeden, author of _Mark: Traditions in Conflict_, has "published" (in a
series of installments) an extended essay, long in the making, entitled
"Markan Fabrications: the Petrine Denial" -- an outline and abstract of
which is enclosed below.
Please feel free to peruse what Ted has written. And, if you feel so
inclined, do not hesitate to send in you comments and critiques of any
portion of Ted's thesis. Since the essay is intended to be published
along with others in a book on Mark (which will be something of a
scholarly companion to a commentary on GMark which Ted has been asked to
write), he looks forward to critical responses.
So that you may have in advance some idea of what Ted has written, here
are the essay's subheadings and divisions.
II. Lack of Evidence for Petrine Denial Prior to Mark
III. Mark's Leitmotiv and Human Lack of Awareness
IV. The Outsiders' Breakthrough, Disciples Still "Missing the Boat"
V. The Disciples Breakthrough: the Petrine Revelation
VI. The "Snake in the Grass:" Christology
VII. The Petrine Denial and the Fall of Peter
And here is the abstract:
This essay is written as a contribution to the recent discussions on the
Markan portrayal of Peter and the question as to whether Mark is
The essay takes the position that Mark is not only "anti-Peter," but
Mark alone created the denigrating picture of Peter, including the
fabrication of the Petrine denial, the Petrine confession and Jesus
denouncing of Peter as Satan. Mark created these fictitious
stories about Peter, along with the denigrating picture of the rest of
the disciples, in an effort to defend his own christological view of
Jesus against his opponents christology and the authority of their
tradition. The essay begins by mounting support for the
position that there was no Petrine denial tradition prior to Mark. The
essay then builds a case to show how Mark carefully and skillfully
composed his gospel, using his leitmotiv (a christological identity
motif), to create a parabolic drama that finally leads to an ad hoc
"trial" of Peter. At the peak moment of Peters ad hoc trial, with
Jesus affirmation of his own christology before the high priest still
echoing, Peter denies Jesus and in so doing rejects both Jesus and
Jesus self-defined christology. As the curtain falls on Peters trial,
a fallen Peter awaits the judgment of the Son of the Human
One in the eschatological court of the end-time. Of course, none of this
is true of the historical Peter. But it is true of Marks narrative
Peter, who with the rest of the Twelve, serves dramatically as the
surrogate for Marks opponents and their authorities whom Marks drama
List Members who might wish to see the "undivided" version of the essay
should note that it will also be uploaded shortly in its entirety to
both the XTalk and Kata Markon "articles for review" pages.
Jeffrey B. Gibson
7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
Chicago, Illinois 60626
> From: Jeffrey B. Gibson <jgibson000@...>Dear Ted and others,
> To: Synoptic-L <Synoptic-L@...>
> Subject: [Synoptic-L] New GMark article from Ted Weeden now available
> Date: Friday, May 26, 2000 2:07 PM
> List Members may wish to be aware that on Xtalk and Kata Markon Ted
> Weeden, author of _Mark: Traditions in Conflict_, has "published" (in a
> series of installments) an extended essay, long in the making, entitled
> "Markan Fabrications: the Petrine Denial" -- an outline and abstract of
> which is enclosed below.
I have read Ted's paper, available at the following URL,
and I think it's quite good overall. I can certainly agree with most of his
The reason I'm writing is to offer some additional apparent support for one
of his conclusions. Ted says this at the end of his paper,
"There is no convincing evidence that the historical Peter ever denied
Jesus. Nor is there any convincing evidence that the historical Peter ever
proclaimed the historical Jesus as "the Christ.""
Yes, I agree that Peter did not proclaim Jesus as the Christ. And I would
like to point your attention to a couple of important seemingly quite early
(but unfortunately mostly neglected) documents that seem to support this.
One is the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, as translated and published by George
Howard. In this gospel, in the passage parallel to the canonical Mt 16:16,
where Peter says,
"You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God"
the HMt seemed to omit "the Messiah" (as evidenced in the comment by Shem
But I need to caution that this passage in HMt is disputed, because there's
a difference in what the actual text says, and what Shem Tob's comment that
follows indicates. (As Howard notes, Shem Tob's comments often preserve the
earlier version in such cases.)
Recently (as opposed to what he indicated in his 1995 book), Prof. Howard
said that he is, himself, now inclining towards accepting that in this
passage Peter _did_ call Jesus "the Messiah". (This is based on his more
recent published article, as well as personal communication.) I guess bad
luck for me, but I still tend to agree with the earlier Howard's opinion,
rather than with the later Howard opinion. <g>
And the second source of support is the Pepysian Harmony (PG). This time
the testimony seems quite clear, Peter did not call Jesus "the Messiah".
Here's the passage from PG parallel to Mt 16:16,
"And seint Peter ansuered and seide: "Thou arte Goddes son, al hol[y]
lyueande." (Par 60, line 30)
"The Messiah" is absent here.
The interpretation of "al hol[y] lyueande", though, presents a bit of a
problem. I've tried to look up "lyueande" in various dictionaries, but it
is not attested. This probably simply means "land", but the spelling is
unusual for the Middle English.
Also I give "hol[y]" as it is found in the published text. This seems to
indicate that in the manuscript only "hol" is found, and "y" is an
emendation by Margery Goates who edited the ms for publication.
The whole expression probably just means "of the Holy Land", but I would
welcome different opinions about this.
Much more info about both the HMt and PG can be found on my webpage. I'm no
longer a poster to Crosstalk, so I'm posting this info here, and emailing
it to Ted.
Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm
Biblical history list http://www.egroups.com/group/loisy - unmoderated
The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian