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

RE: [Synoptic-L] Papias & Mark (Again)

Expand Messages
  • Stephen C. Carlson
    ... I think it would be overreading the early patristic testimony as Jerome did (Ep. 120,11: Marcum, cuius evangelium Petro narrante et illo scribente
    Message 1 of 10 , Jan 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      At 04:16 PM 1/1/01 -0600, Thomas Kopecek wrote:
      >---I generally put more stock in patristic testimony than most NT scholars,
      >but I confess that the Gospel of Mark as it stands draws such a negative
      >portrait of Peter that I find it hard not to conclude that the gospel was
      >trying to discredit him and the rest of the 12 in a thorough-going, global
      >fashion. This doesn't comport well with the notion that Peter was the source
      >of the material in the gospel in the way Papias suggests, however it would
      >please me to be able to entertain the possibility that Papias' testimony is
      >to be taken as somehow "historical".

      I think it would be overreading the early patristic testimony as
      Jerome did (Ep. 120,11: Marcum, cuius evangelium Petro narrante et
      illo scribente compositum est; "Mark, whose gospel was composed with
      Peter narrating and him writing") to conclude that Peter was the
      immediate source of Mark's gospel. Rather, as we get earlier in time,
      the witnesses attenuate Peter's role in their attribution of the
      Second Gospel to one of Peter's associates.

      At the turn of the third century, Clement of Alexandria related the
      following etiology of Mark's gospel (Eus., HE 6.14.5-7):

      >He said that those gospels with genealogies were published openly, 6 but
      >Mark had this procedure: when Peter was in Rome preaching in public the word
      >and proclaiming the gospel by the spirit, those present, who were many,
      >entreated Mark, as one who followed him for a long time and remembered what
      >was said, to record what was spoken; but after he composed the gospel, he
      >shared it with anyone who wanted it; 7 when Peter found out about it, he
      >did not actively discourage or encourage it;

      Thus, Clement stated that Mark was asked to write a gospel because
      he was an associate of Peter and would remember what Peter preached.
      What was explicit in Jerome is only implicit in Clement. Clement's
      remarks did not expressly say that the contents of Mark's gospel
      comprised the preaching of Peter, only that Mark knew what Peter
      preached. Clement's apology for the limited publication of the
      Second gospel, in contrast to the wide publication of Matthew and
      Luke, however, requires that Mark's gospel did contain Peter's
      preaching. Even so, Clement's concession that Peter did not
      endorse Mark's gospel is significant: it presupposes a tradition
      in which the gospel of Mark was disconnected from Peter.

      What could that disconnect be? Probably, as Irenaeus related a
      generation earlier, Mark's gospel was composed after the death of
      Peter (Adv. Hear. 3.1.3, ap. Eus. H.E. 5.8.3 META DE THN TOUTWN
      EXODEN MARKOS, hO MAQHTHS KAI hERMHNEUTHS PETROU, KAI AUTOS TA
      hUPO PETROU KHRUSSOMENA EGGRAGWS hHMIN PARADEDWKEN "but after
      their departure Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, he
      too handed what was preached by Peter down to us in writing).

      Prior to Irenaeus was Papias, who explained the Elder's remarks
      on Mark as follows: OUTE GAR HKOUSEN TOU KURIOU OUTE PARHKOLOUQHSEN
      AUTWi, hUSTERON DE, hWS ELFHS, PETRWi: hOS PROS TAS CREIAS EPOIEITO
      TAS DIDASKALIAS, ALL' OUC hWSPER SUNTAXIN TWN KURIAKWN POIOUMENOS
      LOGIWN, hWSTE OUDEN hHARTEN MARKOS hOUTWS ELNIA GRAYAS hWS APEMNHMOSEUSEN.
      ENOS GAR EPOIHSATE PRONOIAN, TOU MHDEN hWN HKOUSEN hWN PARALIPEIN H
      YEUSASQAI TI EN AUTOIS. "For he [scil. Mark] neither heard the Lord
      nor followed him, but later, as I said, Peter, who as necessary
      would make his teachings but not exactly an arrangement of the
      Lord's reports, so that Mark did not fail by writing certain
      things as he recalled. For he had one purpose, not to omit what
      he heard or falsify them." (Eus., H.E. 3.39.15)

      Like Clement, Papias expressly informed us that (a) Mark was
      Peter's follower and that (b) Mark wrote something down. The
      contents of what Papias said Mark wrote down is unfortunately
      ambiguous: what Mark "recalled" or what Peter recalled. I
      favor the former, because Mark being the subject of APEMNHMOSEUSEN
      "HE recalled" would be consistent with the following "for he had
      one purpose" and "what he heard," both of which more clearly
      refers to Mark as the subject. With this choice, Peter need
      not be present when Mark "recalled" as he wrote; Mark's composition
      could have occured some time afterward, probably after Peter's
      death as Irenaeus later would tell us. Nevertheless for Papias's
      apology to work, Mark had to have written what he recalled from
      Peter. Thus, Papias implies that the source of Mark's gospel is
      Peter's disordered teachings.

      The Elder's remarks are interesting in terms of what they do not
      say: MARKOS MEN hERMHNEUTHS PETROU GENOMENOS, hOSA EMNHMONEUSEN,
      AKRIBUS EGRAYEN, OU MENTOI TAXEI TA hUPO KURIOU H LECQENTA H
      PRACQENTA. "Mark, who indeed had been Peter's interpreter,
      accurately wrote, yet not in order, as much as he remembered
      about that which was either said or did by the Lord." Eus. H.E.
      3.39.15.

      The Elder gives no source for Mark's information. The role of
      Peter is merely to identify the Mark that wrote the gospel. Also,
      I construe the aorist participle GENOMENOS to set up a sequence of
      tenses, in which Mark had been Peter's interpreter, but no longer
      was, probably, as Irenaeus later informs us, due to Peter's death.
      Thus, the Elder indicates that some time after Peter's death, after
      his relationship as interpreter with Peter ended, Mark wrote a gospel
      what he (again Mark, not Peter, to be consistent with Papias's remarks)
      remembered. While Papias attempted to attribute the lack of order
      to Mark's accurate memory of Peter, the Elder directly blamed Mark
      for not writing in order.

      It is easy to see how later Christians, being less than
      completely satisfied with the Elder's testimony, expanded upon
      that information, making Mark's gospel more and more apostolic.
      First, Papias implied that Mark got his content from Peter.
      This became explicit later in the second century with Irenaeus.
      Clement moved the time of Mark's writing earlier to Peter's
      lifetime, but concedes that Peter never endorsed it. Jerome
      completes this trajectory, making Mark merely the secretary
      recording Peter's dictation.

      So, all we have of the earliest tradition is that someone named
      Mark who worked with Peter wrote a gospel some time after the
      working relationship ended, probably due to Peter's death. Should
      we be skeptical because Mark is less than flattering of Peter? I
      don't think so, not just because Mark's negative portrayal is
      oversold (in many respects it is less negative than Matthew's), but
      also because many people are critical about former associates. Now,
      I'm not calling Mark a disgrunted employee, but I see no necessary
      link between the mere fact of a relationship (that's all we really
      have) and how one person would view the other in the relationship,
      especially after the relationship has ended.

      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

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Thomas Kopecek
      ... Stephen: It seems I m too old to learn how to read the transliterated Greek you have cited, so I ll have to dig out the Greek texts and look them over in
      Message 2 of 10 , Jan 2, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Stephen C. Carlson wrote:

        >So, all we have of the earliest tradition is that someone named
        >Mark who worked with Peter wrote a gospel some time after the
        >working relationship ended, probably due to Peter's death. Should
        >we be skeptical because Mark is less than flattering of Peter? I
        >don't think so, not just because Mark's negative portrayal is
        >oversold (in many respects it is less negative than Matthew's), but
        >also because many people are critical about former associates. Now,
        >I'm not calling Mark a disgrunted employee, but I see no necessary
        >link between the mere fact of a relationship (that's all we really
        >have) and how one person would view the other in the relationship,
        >especially after the relationship has ended.

        Stephen: It seems I'm too old to learn how to read the transliterated Greek
        you have cited, so I'll have to dig out the Greek texts and look them over
        in light of your interpretations, which I find very interesting.

        I was struck, however, by your comment that "Mark's negative portrayal is
        oversold (in many respects it is less negative than Matthew's)." Since I'm
        less dedicated to keeping up with the flood of material on NT scholarship
        than I'm dedicated to trying to follow the Patristic scholarship in which
        I'm interested (for which I apologize to the list), I'm curious about why
        you (and others on the list as well, if there are others) think Matthew's
        portrayal of Peter is more "negative" than Matthew's.

        Would you extend this to the rest of the Eleven as well, for they appear to
        me rarely--if ever--to catch on to Jesus in Mark, whereas they do in
        Matthew. Moreover, at least Mt's Jesus promises to drink of the fruit of the
        vine with the Twelve in his "Father's kingdom,' and at least the Eleven "saw
        him" on the mountain in Galilee, though some doubted rather than paid
        homage.

        I guess I'm not following.

        Tom

        ___

        Thomas A. Kopecek
        Professor of Religion
        Central College
        Pella, IA 50219
        kopecekt@...

        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Stephen C. Carlson
        ... If you have a modern web browser, you can visit my site and look at the accented Greek text yourself (it requires the SPIonic font, which can be downloaded
        Message 3 of 10 , Jan 2, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          At 08:44 PM 1/2/01 -0600, Thomas Kopecek wrote:
          >Stephen: It seems I'm too old to learn how to read the transliterated Greek
          >you have cited, so I'll have to dig out the Greek texts and look them over
          >in light of your interpretations, which I find very interesting.

          If you have a modern web browser, you can visit my site and look
          at the accented Greek text yourself (it requires the SPIonic font,
          which can be downloaded from a link I provide).

          >I was struck, however, by your comment that "Mark's negative portrayal is
          >oversold (in many respects it is less negative than Matthew's)." Since I'm
          >less dedicated to keeping up with the flood of material on NT scholarship
          >than I'm dedicated to trying to follow the Patristic scholarship in which
          >I'm interested (for which I apologize to the list), I'm curious about why
          >you (and others on the list as well, if there are others) think Matthew's
          >portrayal of Peter is more "negative" than Matthew's.

          I outlined this provocative position of mine in a post I made to
          Crosstalk on July 18, 1997 but did not receive any response,
          favorable or critical. Maybe this time will be different. Here
          is a revised version:

          ----- snip -----
          Although many would wonder how can a gospel that has Peter called
          the rock (Mt16:18) and Peter walking on water (Mt14:28) be more
          negative than Mark, I think a comparison of the two Gospels bears
          it out. In these two examples in Matthew, Peter's success is
          quickly followed by failure. Peter walks on water and sink. Peter
          is called the "Rock" and then the stumbling block (Mt16:23 SKANDALON
          *not in Mk* cf. 13:41). The literary effect is to highlight Peter's
          failure (in Mt compared to Mk).

          In general, this pattern is consistent between the gospels. Matthew
          lacks Mark's vignette of Peter finding Jesus praying (Mk1:36ff).
          Matthew lacks Mark's passage in which Peter with James and John are
          allowed to see the healing of Jairus daughter (Mk5:37). In fact, Mark
          at 11:21 (withered fig tree), 13:3 (private apocalypse), and 16:7
          (resurrection to Peter and the disciples) point out Peter by name,
          but the Matthean parallels lack Peter's name in preference to the
          disciples. Thus, Mark accords an inner circle status to Peter that
          is attenuated in Matthew. The last example is important for Peter's
          credentials as an apostle according to 1 Cor. qualifications of
          witnessing the risen Christ. Matthew could have added a resurrection
          story to Peter first as hinted by Mk16:7, but chose to recount an
          appearance to the Eleven instead.

          In one case, however, the situation (one gospel has "Peter," the other
          "disciples") is reversed: at Mt15:15 Peter does not understand the parable
          about what defiles, but in Mk7:17 the disciples as a whole, without naming
          Peter, do not. In a special-Matthew parable (or Matthean redaction of
          Q), Peter is told to forgive 77 times (18:21), followed by the parable of
          the unmerciful servant. There are also curiously pro-Judaic teachings
          delivered to Peter in Mt but not in Mk: 17:24f. Peter and the Temple
          Tax, after Mt19:27, those who follow Jesus sit on 12 thrones.

          In sum, Matthew describes a Peter with spectacular successes, followed
          by equally spectacular failures. Matthew is less prone to assign
          Peter an inner circle role. Matthew lacks Mark's good story about
          Peter seeking Jesus. This is why I think that Matthew is more negative
          about Peter than Mark.
          ----- snip -----

          >Would you extend this to the rest of the Eleven as well, for they appear to
          >me rarely--if ever--to catch on to Jesus in Mark, whereas they do in
          >Matthew. Moreover, at least Mt's Jesus promises to drink of the fruit of the
          >vine with the Twelve in his "Father's kingdom,' and at least the Eleven "saw
          >him" on the mountain in Galilee, though some doubted rather than paid
          >homage.

          No, I would not extend this to the rest of the Eleven. Matthew clearly
          is more positive about this group of disciples as a whole than Mark.

          >I guess I'm not following.

          I hope this helped.

          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

          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Thomas A. Kopecek
          Stephen C. Carlson wrote in response to the ... Let me begin by again reminding Synoptic-L readers that I make no claim to be a NT
          Message 4 of 10 , Jan 3, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            "Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson@...> wrote in response to the
            following question I posed:

            >>I was struck, however, by your comment that "Mark's negative portrayal is
            >>oversold (in many respects it is less negative than Matthew's)." Since I'm
            >>less dedicated to keeping up with the flood of material on NT scholarship
            >>than I'm dedicated to trying to follow the Patristic scholarship in which
            >>I'm interested (for which I apologize to the list), I'm curious about why
            >>you (and others on the list as well, if there are others) think Matthew's
            >>portrayal of Peter is more "negative" than Matthew's.
            >
            > I outlined this provocative position of mine in a post I made to
            > Crosstalk on July 18, 1997 but did not receive any response,
            > favorable or critical. Maybe this time will be different. Here
            > is a revised version:
            >
            > ----- snip -----
            > Although many would wonder how can a gospel that has Peter called
            > the rock (Mt16:18) and Peter walking on water (Mt14:28) be more
            > negative than Mark, I think a comparison of the two Gospels bears
            > it out. In these two examples in Matthew, Peter's success is
            > quickly followed by failure. Peter walks on water and sink. Peter
            > is called the "Rock" and then the stumbling block (Mt16:23 SKANDALON
            > *not in Mk* cf. 13:41). The literary effect is to highlight Peter's
            > failure (in Mt compared to Mk).

            Let me begin by again reminding Synoptic-L readers that I make no claim to
            be a NT scholar. The NT is simply a presupposition for the work I do, such
            as it is these days, in the Fathers. But with that disclaimer, let me plunge
            into the deep waters nonetheless.

            I think the real effect of the literary effect of the sinking and skandalon
            is to try to explain the data that occur in Mark. But such an interpretation
            depends on my view of the rest of Stephen's evidence. So to it.

            >
            > In general, this pattern is consistent between the gospels. Matthew
            > lacks Mark's vignette of Peter finding Jesus praying (Mk1:36ff).
            > Matthew lacks Mark's passage in which Peter with James and John are
            > allowed to see the healing of Jairus daughter (Mk5:37).

            Mk 5:37 comes (1) between 4:34-41, especially 40-41 (where Jesus says to his
            disciples, "Have you still no faith," and they respond, "Who is this . . .
            ?") and 6:1-6a, especially 6a (where Jesus is amazed by the lack of faith of
            his kin) and (2) it is the outsider woman with the hemorrhages in 5:34 who--
            unlike the insider three disciples Peter, James, and John at the raising of
            Jairus' daughter (along with the rest of the 12 to whom the secret of the
            Kingdom of God had been revealed)--explicitly is portrayed as having faith.
            Thus, Mk 5:37, in context, is negative in its portrayal of Peter, James, and
            John.

            I think Mt omits it precisely because the reference to the three disciples
            in Mark is negative. 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 fact, Mark
            > at 11:21 (withered fig tree),

            The presence in Mark 11:21 of Peter is, in my opinion, negative, for after
            Peter says, "Rabbi, look: the fig tree that you cursed has withered," Jesus
            answers in 11:22, "Have faith in God." 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). This passage in 11:22 also echoes, as I see it, the stilling of
            the storm passage, "Have you still no faith?"


            >13:3 (private apocalypse),

            Yes, Peter is present, but the point of chapter 13 is "Keep awake!" This
            immediately foreshadows 14:32-34, where Peter, James, and John don't--but
            rather fall asleep. Of course Mt would eliminate the reference to Peter in
            the parallel to Mark 13, precisely to eliminate some of the negative
            portrayal of Peter in Mk--and thus to speak better of him.

            > and 16:7
            > (resurrection to Peter and the disciples) point out Peter by name,
            > but the Matthean parallels lack Peter's name in preference to the
            > disciples. Thus, Mark accords an inner circle status to Peter that
            > is attenuated in Matthew. The last example is important for Peter's
            > credentials as an apostle according to 1 Cor. qualifications of
            > witnessing the risen Christ. Matthew could have added a resurrection
            > story to Peter first as hinted by Mk16:7, but chose to recount an
            > appearance to the Eleven instead.

            I don't see anything in chapter 16 of Mk to be a hint of a resurrection
            appearance to Peter, for the women "said notin' to nobody." It is, rather, a
            very emphatic statement that Jesus' message that he was "leading" the 11,
            especially Peter, to Galilee (14:26ff)--as reported by the young man at the
            tomb (16:7)--never got to Peter and the rest. Mt omits the reference to
            Peter precisely to speak more positively of Peter and the Eleven than Mark,
            I think.


            >
            > In one case, however, the situation (one gospel has "Peter," the other
            > "disciples") is reversed: at Mt15:15 Peter does not understand the parable
            > about what defiles, but in Mk7:17 the disciples as a whole, without naming
            > Peter, do not. In a special-Matthew parable (or Matthean redaction of
            > Q), Peter is told to forgive 77 times (18:21), followed by the parable of
            > the unmerciful servant. There are also curiously pro-Judaic teachings
            > delivered to Peter in Mt but not in Mk: 17:24f. Peter and the Temple
            > Tax, after Mt19:27, those who follow Jesus sit on 12 thrones.

            The more positive portrayal of Peter in Mt agrees with with the Temple Tax
            story in 17:24ff and the eschatological judgment verse in 19:28, in my
            opinion.

            I know I haven't dealt with all of your passages, Stephen, but I'm no NT
            scholar. I'd have to give the others further thought.

            >
            > I hope this helped.

            Not yet. Keep going at me, and maybe you'll be able to convince me. I've
            certainly got an open mind about the matter.

            Tom

            ___
            Thomas A. Kopecek
            Professor of Religion
            Central College, Pella, Iowa 50219
            kopecekt@...

            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • Stephen C. Carlson
            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
            Message 5 of 10 , Jan 3, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              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. That
              is not to say that Mark is never negative about Peter, only that
              I think on balance that views of Mark's negativity toward Peter
              are overexaggerated. I am using Matthew, which few think is negative
              toward Peter, as a basis for comparison: if Mark is indeed less
              negative than Matthew over Peter, then Mark's remaining negativity
              to Peter should not be considered out of place in the first century,
              before the tendency toward hagiography became more pronounced.

              Now, onto the particular points:

              At 07:39 PM 1/3/01 -0600, Thomas A. Kopecek wrote:
              >"Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson@...> wrote in response to the
              >following question I posed:
              >> Although many would wonder how can a gospel that has Peter called
              >> the rock (Mt16:18) and Peter walking on water (Mt14:28) be more
              >> negative than Mark, I think a comparison of the two Gospels bears
              >> it out. In these two examples in Matthew, Peter's success is
              >> quickly followed by failure. Peter walks on water and sink. Peter
              >> is called the "Rock" and then the stumbling block (Mt16:23 SKANDALON
              >> *not in Mk* cf. 13:41). The literary effect is to highlight Peter's
              >> failure (in Mt compared to Mk).
              >
              >I think the real effect of the literary effect of the sinking and skandalon
              >is to try to explain the data that occur in Mark. But such an interpretation
              >depends on my view of the rest of Stephen's evidence. So to it.

              If I wanted to lessen the negativity of Peter in this passage, I
              would omit Jesus' calling Peter "Satan." Matthew did not do that.
              Rather, Matthew called Peter a stumbling block, a reproach lacking
              in Mark. Perhaps this is explaining Mark, or perhaps it is adding
              insult to injury.

              >> In general, this pattern is consistent between the gospels. Matthew
              >> lacks Mark's vignette of Peter finding Jesus praying (Mk1:36ff).
              >> Matthew lacks Mark's passage in which Peter with James and John are
              >> allowed to see the healing of Jairus daughter (Mk5:37).
              >
              >Mk 5:37 comes (1) between 4:34-41, especially 40-41 (where Jesus says to his
              >disciples, "Have you still no faith," and they respond, "Who is this . . .
              >?") and 6:1-6a, especially 6a (where Jesus is amazed by the lack of faith of
              >his kin) and (2) it is the outsider woman with the hemorrhages in 5:34 who--
              >unlike the insider three disciples Peter, James, and John at the raising of
              >Jairus' daughter (along with the rest of the 12 to whom the secret of the
              >Kingdom of God had been revealed)--explicitly is portrayed as having faith.
              >Thus, Mk 5:37, in context, is negative in its portrayal of Peter, James, and
              >John.

              Mark 4:34-41 is not a passage that singles out Peter in any way. It
              is more negative toward the disciples generally than Matthew, but I
              never denied that. Indeed, both are somewhat are negative (cf. Matt
              8:26 "Why are you afraid, you of little faith?"). Thus, Mark 4:34-41
              is not an example of Peter specifically being portrayed more negatively.

              Yes, the woman with the hemorrhages is explicitly portrayed as having
              faith in Mark 5:34, but also in Matt 9:22. In both gospels, the
              disciples come out less favorably by comparison than the woman. Still,
              Peter is not mentioned by name until afterwards at Mark 5:37 where Jesus
              "allowed no one to follow him except Peter, James, and John." The Matthean
              parallel at 9:19 merely says the "disciples" before (not after as in
              Mark) Jesus's praising of the woman. Thus, whatever force may be given
              to the comparison of the woman's faith and the disciples, Matthew comes
              out a bit more negative in that the disciple were mentioned immediately
              before the praise of the woman's faith, whereas the disciple were last
              mentioned 26 verses earlier -- quite a removal from the context.

              The specific naming of Peter, James, and John after the woman's healing
              in this sandwiched story play no other role than to be named as a group
              of people selected by Jesus. Thus, I don't how their mentioning is in
              any way negative.

              >I think Mt omits it precisely because the reference to the three disciples
              >in Mark is negative. 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.

              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.

              >> In fact, Mark
              >> at 11:21 (withered fig tree),
              >
              >The presence in Mark 11:21 of Peter is, in my opinion, negative, for after
              >Peter says, "Rabbi, look: the fig tree that you cursed has withered," Jesus
              >answers in 11:22, "Have faith in God." 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). This passage in 11:22 also echoes, as I see it, the stilling of
              >the storm passage, "Have you still no faith?"

              At Mark 11:21, Peter remember about the fig tree and pointed it out to
              Jesus -- and Jesus answer *them* (KAI APOKRIQEIS hO IHSOUS LEGEI *AUTOIS*),
              referring to the disciples (cf. Mark 11:14). However one might view
              Jesus's answer as a rebuke (I don't; I see it as instruction), it is
              done to the disciples generally not to Peter specifically. Matthew,
              on the other hand, has the disciples, not Peter specifically, ask a
              question, which Jesus answered. Thus, I see Mark's mention of Peter
              here as taking a leadership role that is lacking in Matthew.

              >>13:3 (private apocalypse),
              >
              >Yes, Peter is present, but the point of chapter 13 is "Keep awake!" This
              >immediately foreshadows 14:32-34, where Peter, James, and John don't--but
              >rather fall asleep. Of course Mt would eliminate the reference to Peter in
              >the parallel to Mark 13, precisely to eliminate some of the negative
              >portrayal of Peter in Mk--and thus to speak better of him.

              At Mark 13:3, Jesus predicts the Temple's destruction to Peter, James,
              John, Andrew. In the Matthean parallel (24:3) it is to the disciples
              generally. If Matthew wanted to eliminate the negative protrayal of
              Peter falling asleep, would it be more effective to eliminate Matt
              26:40 where that event occurs or to water down Peter's insider status
              37 verses earlier? I think the purpose you have proposed for Matthew
              is just subtle to be realistic.

              >> and 16:7
              >> (resurrection to Peter and the disciples) point out Peter by name,
              >> but the Matthean parallels lack Peter's name in preference to the
              >> disciples. Thus, Mark accords an inner circle status to Peter that
              >> is attenuated in Matthew. The last example is important for Peter's
              >> credentials as an apostle according to 1 Cor. qualifications of
              >> witnessing the risen Christ. Matthew could have added a resurrection
              >> story to Peter first as hinted by Mk16:7, but chose to recount an
              >> appearance to the Eleven instead.
              >
              >I don't see anything in chapter 16 of Mk to be a hint of a resurrection
              >appearance to Peter, for the women "said notin' to nobody." It is, rather, a
              >very emphatic statement that Jesus' message that he was "leading" the 11,
              >especially Peter, to Galilee (14:26ff)--as reported by the young man at the
              >tomb (16:7)--never got to Peter and the rest. Mt omits the reference to
              >Peter precisely to speak more positively of Peter and the Eleven than Mark,
              >I think.

              What about: "there you will see him, just as he told" in 16:7? That
              has to be a hint of a resurrection appearance. At any rate, the
              women's silence is Markan irony, because everybody knows (and knew
              in Mark's audience) that Jesus did indeed appear to Peter and the
              disciples. Thus, the women's failure of silence does not imply
              that Peter and the disciples never got the word and missed out on
              Jesus's resurrection appearance. Matthew improves the matter by
              explicitly reciting a resurrection appear, but I can't see Matthew's
              omission of "Peter" in favor of the disciples as a group to be
              more positive to Peter specifically than Mark.

              >> In one case, however, the situation (one gospel has "Peter," the other
              >> "disciples") is reversed: at Mt15:15 Peter does not understand the parable
              >> about what defiles, but in Mk7:17 the disciples as a whole, without naming
              >> Peter, do not. In a special-Matthew parable (or Matthean redaction of
              >> Q), Peter is told to forgive 77 times (18:21), followed by the parable of
              >> the unmerciful servant. There are also curiously pro-Judaic teachings
              >> delivered to Peter in Mt but not in Mk: 17:24f. Peter and the Temple
              >> Tax, after Mt19:27, those who follow Jesus sit on 12 thrones.
              >
              >The more positive portrayal of Peter in Mt agrees with with the Temple Tax
              >story in 17:24ff and the eschatological judgment verse in 19:28, in my
              >opinion.

              In Matt 17:24-27, Peter's misunderstanding of Jesus's obligation to pay
              the tax is corrected by a miracle. Positive or negative? Beat me. The
              judgment verse in 19:28 is more positive of the 12 disciples, but, as to
              Peter specifically, nope.

              >I know I haven't dealt with all of your passages, Stephen, but I'm no NT
              >scholar. I'd have to give the others further thought.

              Please do, I'm looking forward to it.

              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

              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            • Thomas A. Kopecek
              ... I ve just begun to work on your analysis of the Patristic or external evidence for the authorship of the second gospel, Stephen. What you call Clement s
              Message 6 of 10 , Jan 11, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                "Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson@...> wrote:

                > At the turn of the third century, Clement of Alexandria related the
                > following etiology of Mark's gospel (Eus., HE 6.14.5-7):
                >
                >>He said that those gospels with genealogies were published openly, 6 but
                >>Mark had this procedure: when Peter was in Rome preaching in public the word
                >>and proclaiming the gospel by the spirit, those present, who were many,
                >>entreated Mark, as one who followed him for a long time and remembered what
                >>was said, to record what was spoken; but after he composed the gospel, he
                >>shared it with anyone who wanted it; 7 when Peter found out about it, he
                >>did not actively discourage or encourage it;
                >
                > Thus, Clement stated that Mark was asked to write a gospel because
                > he was an associate of Peter and would remember what Peter preached.
                > What was explicit in Jerome is only implicit in Clement. Clement's
                > remarks did not expressly say that the contents of Mark's gospel
                > comprised the preaching of Peter, only that Mark knew what Peter
                > preached. Clement's apology for the limited publication of the
                > Second gospel, in contrast to the wide publication of Matthew and
                > Luke, however, requires that Mark's gospel did contain Peter's
                > preaching. Even so, Clement's concession that Peter did not
                > endorse Mark's gospel is significant: it presupposes a tradition
                > in which the gospel of Mark was disconnected from Peter.

                I've just begun to work on your analysis of the Patristic or "external"
                evidence for the authorship of the second gospel, Stephen. What you call
                Clement's "concession" has me a bit puzzled. I suspect I'm not so puzzled
                with your reconstruction as I am with Clement's comment, so I need to look
                around a little more to see if I can make so more sense of it (and, thus,
                your interpretation of it).

                For while Clement is careful about the connection between Peter and Mark,
                Justin in Dialogus cum Tryphone 106:3--without mentioning Mark
                specifically--clearly thinks the second gospel is simply Peter's "memoirs."
                Surely the autou following apomnemoneumasin has Petron as its antecendent
                rather than auton (= Jesus), as the ANF has it. (Sorry: I don't know how to
                employ the fancy set of transliteration conventions I see on NT lists.) This
                is supported by the parallel reference to the "memoirs of the apostles" in
                106:1: 106:1 requires the autou in 106:3 to be a possessive genitive rather
                than an objective genitive. Since the data Justin cites in 106:3 are only in
                Mark's gospel and not in Mt and Lk, the apostle responsible for the data is,
                in Justin's mind, Peter--with no qualifications.

                This evidence from Justin obviously is neutral in deciding the topic we are
                discussing. Yet what it shows is that the connection between Peter and the
                second gospel wasn't nuanced in all circles ca. 165, as you are suggesting
                it was even by Clement later and by Irenaeus before him. So the trajectory
                may be a bit more messy than you suggested in your initial post which sorted
                out the external evidence. On the other hand, given the context in Justin's
                Dialogue, perhaps one ought not to expect any qualifications. Would that be
                the way you would argue?

                Tom

                ___
                Thomas A. Kopecek
                Professor of Religion
                Central College, Pella, IA 50219
                kopecekt@...


                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
              • Stephen C. Carlson
                ... I think it is a close call on whether the AUTOU in 106:3 is subjective ( his [scil. Peter s] memoirs ) or objective ( memoirs of him [scil. Jesus ). Both
                Message 7 of 10 , Jan 13, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 10:19 PM 1/11/01 -0600, Thomas A. Kopecek wrote:
                  >For while Clement is careful about the connection between Peter and Mark,
                  >Justin in Dialogus cum Tryphone 106:3--without mentioning Mark
                  >specifically--clearly thinks the second gospel is simply Peter's "memoirs."
                  >Surely the autou following apomnemoneumasin has Petron as its antecendent
                  >rather than auton (= Jesus), as the ANF has it. (Sorry: I don't know how to
                  >employ the fancy set of transliteration conventions I see on NT lists.) This
                  >is supported by the parallel reference to the "memoirs of the apostles" in
                  >106:1: 106:1 requires the autou in 106:3 to be a possessive genitive rather
                  >than an objective genitive. Since the data Justin cites in 106:3 are only in
                  >Mark's gospel and not in Mt and Lk, the apostle responsible for the data is,
                  >in Justin's mind, Peter--with no qualifications.

                  I think it is a close call on whether the AUTOU in 106:3 is subjective
                  ("his [scil. Peter's] memoirs") or objective ("memoirs of him [scil.
                  Jesus"). Both seem to fit the context. Justin does use the genitive
                  plural as a subjective genitive earlier, but, on the other hand, except
                  for 106:3, Justin never attributes a memoir to a single person. For
                  the remainder of this post, I'll assume that you are correct.

                  >This evidence from Justin obviously is neutral in deciding the topic we are
                  >discussing. Yet what it shows is that the connection between Peter and the
                  >second gospel wasn't nuanced in all circles ca. 165, as you are suggesting
                  >it was even by Clement later and by Irenaeus before him. So the trajectory
                  >may be a bit more messy than you suggested in your initial post which sorted
                  >out the external evidence. On the other hand, given the context in Justin's
                  >Dialogue, perhaps one ought not to expect any qualifications. Would that be
                  >the way you would argue?

                  As evident from 1 Apol. 66.3 (hOI ... APOSTOLOI EN TOIS GENOMENOIS hUP'
                  AUTWN APOMNHMONEUMASIN, hA KALEITAI EUAGGELIA "the ... apostles in the
                  memoirs by them, which are called gospels"), also Dial. 100.1, the
                  term "memoir" was adopted by Justin in his works, ostensibly to non-
                  Christians, probably because they would not be familiar with the use
                  of EUAGGELION ("gospel", "good news") to signify a genre.

                  Even apart from Dial. 106.3, Justin's usage in referring to "apostles"
                  is a fudge. He used Luke several times (so Massaux), who was not
                  an apostle. I don't Justin had an intention of getting into the fine
                  distinctions for Trypho over who wrote which memoir. Justin never
                  that I'm aware of explicitly attributed any of the memoirs for Trypho
                  or in his Apologies, and the implicit attribution at Dial. 106.3 is
                  the closest he got.

                  Even so, Justin may not mess the trajectory up too much. Papias
                  (I believe by inference) attributed the contents of Mark's gospel
                  to Mark's memory of what Peter remembered and said. Thus, Mark's
                  writing down (even if years laters) of what Peter said would
                  constitute in some sense Peter's memoirs, especially in an apology
                  where making the distinction would complicate things. I don't
                  think we can press Justin to assert, as Clement was the first to
                  indicate, that Peter was actually alive when Mark wrote down what
                  Peter remembered. So, Justin in fact gives us no more than what
                  Papias or Clement gives us.

                  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

                  Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                  List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.