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

[Synoptic-L] New GMark article from Ted Weeden now available

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
    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
    Message 1 of 2 , May 26 11:07 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      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.

      I. Introduction
      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
      "anti-Peter."

      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 Peter’s 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 Peter’s 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 Mark’s narrative
      Peter, who with the rest of the Twelve, serves dramatically as the
      surrogate for Mark’s opponents and their authorities whom Mark’s drama
      discredits.

      *******

      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.


      Yours,

      Jeffrey
      --
      Jeffrey B. Gibson
      7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
      Chicago, Illinois 60626
      e-mail jgibson000@...
    • Yuri Kuchinsky
      ... Dear Ted and others, I have read Ted s paper, available at the following URL, http://www.egroups.com/files/crosstalk2/Articles+for+Review/MarkFab.htm and I
      Message 2 of 2 , Jun 6, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        ----------
        > From: Jeffrey B. Gibson <jgibson000@...>
        > 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.

        Dear Ted and others,

        I have read Ted's paper, available at the following URL,

        http://www.egroups.com/files/crosstalk2/Articles+for+Review/MarkFab.htm

        and I think it's quite good overall. I can certainly agree with most of his
        conclusions.

        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
        Tob).

        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.

        Best wishes,

        Yuri.

        PS:
        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
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.