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

[Synoptic-L] Re: The Portrait of Peter in Mk and Mt

Expand Messages
  • Thomas A. Kopecek
    ... Thank you, Stephen, for your careful statement of what you are trying to accomplish. As for the rest of your present post, I m beginning better to
    Message 1 of 15 , Jan 4, 2001
      "Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson@...> wrote:

      > 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.

      Thank you, Stephen, for your careful statement of what you are trying to
      accomplish. As for the rest of your present post, I'm beginning better to
      understand the overall drift of your argument and find it ingenious. While
      not yet convinced by your case, you've certainly gotten me to look at the
      passages in new ways.

      On the other hand, I feel myself, like Peter, beginning to sink and wanting
      to cry out, unlike Peter, Synoptic-Lers, save me. I've been a lurker on this
      list, since professionally I read the gospels through the eyes of the
      Fathers, and almost to a man they didn't see much negativity regarding the
      Eleven in the Synoptics at all. So the debate in which I'm now engaged is
      not my cup of tea--and a tempest in a teapot to boot.

      But, of course, I'm responsible for trying to tease your position out of
      you, Stephen. I just wish that some people more expert than I am in Mk and
      Mt would join the fray. Please!!! (Or is this not the kind of issue that
      Synoptic-Lers consider to be a central focus of the list?)

      I'll try to keep up my courage a little bit longer.

      > 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.

      I agree with you that Peter's walking on the water and Peter's confession
      are intimately related. But for the time being I'll stick with viewing Mt's
      expansions as attempts to explain Mark. After all the stumbling block
      statement comes after Mt's addition: "God forbid it, Lord. This must never
      happen to you." That appears to me to soften Mark's portrait of Peter
      considerably--and intentionally.

      >
      > 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.

      No, of course not, but I don't think, as you apparently do, that Peter can
      be so sharply distinguished from the rest of the disciples, and especially
      not James and John.

      >
      > Yes, the woman with the hemorrhages is explicitly portrayed as having
      > faith in Mark 5:34, but also in Matt 9:22. [snip]
      > 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 don't agree, obviously, for I (as I've said) see the mentioning together
      of Peter, James, and John in 5:37 as an anticipation or foreshadowing of the
      Transfiguration, which I continue to view as more negative in its portrait
      of Peter in Mk than in Mt--on which, see below.

      > 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.

      The issue is the order of the sayings, in my opinion, and some of the
      particulars of the sayings. Mk has in 9:6 the words, "For Peter did not know
      what to say." That isn't in Mt, and Mt adds Peter's words to Jesus in Mt
      17:4 "if you wish." These points seem to me to support the traditional case
      against your revisionist case. Furthermore, the terror of the Three is less
      tightly connected in Mt with Peter, since it is displaced from Mt 17:4 to
      Mt 17:6 (following Mt's verses). This takes the negative focus off of Peter
      which is present in Mark 9:6.

      [Stephen]
      >>> In fact, Mark
      >>> at 11:21 (withered fig tree),

      [Doubting Thomas]
      >>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?"

      [Stephen again]
      > 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.

      It is precisely Mk's attribution of a leadership role to Peter that
      highlights Peter's lack of faith, just his leadership role was highlighted
      when *he* spoke in the Transfiguration account in Mk and we were told by Mk
      that he didn't have a clue about what was going on: that is, he is the
      leader of those to whom Jesus earlier said (and continues to say throughout
      the gospel), "Have you no faith?"--which in Matthew is changed, of course,
      to "men of little faith." At least Peter got out of the boat and tried to
      employ that little faith before he began to sink and needed to call upon the
      name of the Lord, as it were.

      [Stephen]
      >>>13:3 (private apocalypse),

      [me]
      >>
      >>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.

      [Stephen again]
      > 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.

      Not too subtle in my opinion. The end of Mark 13 and the falling asleep in
      Mk 14 are very close together. Mt 24:42 and Mt 26:40 are nicely separated,
      and Peter's falling asleep in Mt is immediately qualified by juxtaposing it
      to the person with the "real" lack of faith, Judas, whose suicide is added
      in Mt 27 right after Peter's falling asleep and denial in Mt 26. Peter seems
      to me to be coming off better in Mt than in Mk--rather consistently.

      [My comments]
      >>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.

      [Stephen]
      > 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.

      I wasn't making myself clear. What I meant to say was that I see no hint in
      Mk of Peter ever going *to Galilee* to experience a resurrection appearance:
      that's where Jesus said he was leading the disciples, especially Peter,
      according to Mk 14:28 and 16:7. Did "everybody know" that Jesus "did indeed
      appear to Peter and the disciples" *there*? On this point I'm, of course,
      following a position laid out years ago by Norman Perrin, though I'm not as
      sure as he seemed to be about the significance of Galilee in the scheme of
      Markan things.

      > 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.

      Your logic is losing me, Stephen. If a passage is in Mt but not Mk, and the
      passage is positive toward all the 12, how can the net effect of its
      presence in Mt and not Mk not also be more positive toward the man always
      listed as the first of the disciples? Am I being dense--or not fit material
      for being a lawyer? :-)

      >
      >>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.

      Me too: the issue is finding the time :-).

      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@...
    • Mark Goodacre
      I d like to thank Stephen for his interesting comments on the portrait of Peter in Mark and Matthew and would like to add one thought of my own. I suspect that
      Message 2 of 15 , Jan 10, 2001
        I'd like to thank Stephen for his interesting comments on the portrait of Peter in
        Mark and Matthew and would like to add one thought of my own.

        I suspect that one of the reasons we tend to see the picture of Peter in
        Matthew as so much more positive than it actually is is the over-emphasis on
        redaction-criticism standard in most New Testament scholarship. If we allow
        ourselves to leaven our source- / redaction-criticism a little with some insights
        from narrative-criticism (one of my hobby-horses, as some may know), we may
        end up with a more nuanced picture.

        The standard view over-stresses the Matthean redactional addition (assuming
        Marcan Priority, with apologies to adherents of other views) in 16.17-19,
        "Blessed are you Simon bar Jonah . . ." at the expense of the material Matthew
        shares with Mark in Matt. 16.22f, "Get thee behind me, Satan . . ." In terms of
        the development of the narrative, it is the goal of the section that is all important
        -- Matthew's discourse here concludes with Peter disgraced, not elevated.
        Indeed one might say that the disgrace is all the greater given his implicit
        rejection of Jesus' exalting of his status.

        Moreover, narrative-criticism encourages us not only to look at the goal of an
        individual section of text, avoiding undue obsession with source and redaction,
        but it also encourages us to look more broadly at the development of the overall
        narrative in the Gospel. What is so interesting about Matthew 16.17-19 is that
        the commendation to Peter appears to be democratised later on, in Chapter 18.
        Before getting rebuked by Jesus, Peter was told "Whatever you (sing) bind on
        earth will be bound in heaven . . .". But now, post-rebuke, the reader finds that
        this special charge has been extended to all the disciples, "Whatever you (pl.)
        bind on earth will be bound in heaven" (18.18).

        I have to admit that I had not thought about this until Stephen brought up this
        interesting topic. At first, I didn't think there was much in it, but on reflection I
        wonder if he is indeed putting his finger on something that over-obsession with
        redaction-criticism, in spite of its general usefulness as a tool, can all too
        easily obscure.

        [I'll copy this message to Xtalk since the topic has also come up now there.]

        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
        Homepage
        http://www.ntgateway.com
        The New Testament Gateway

        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • Maluflen@aol.com
        In a message dated 1/10/2001 8:22:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, ... In case this is what is here implied, I don t think there is much merit in viewing Matt
        Message 3 of 15 , Jan 10, 2001
          In a message dated 1/10/2001 8:22:25 AM Eastern Standard Time,
          M.S.Goodacre@... writes:


          Moreover, narrative-criticism encourages us not only to look at the goal of
          an
          individual section of text, avoiding undue obsession with source and
          redaction,
          but it also encourages us to look more broadly at the development of the
          overall
          narrative in the Gospel.  What is so interesting about Matthew 16.17-19 is
          that
          the commendation to Peter appears to be democratised later on, in Chapter
          18.
          Before getting rebuked by Jesus, Peter was told "Whatever you (sing) bind
          on
          earth will be bound in heaven . . .".  But now, post-rebuke, the reader
          finds that
          this special charge has been extended to all the disciples, "Whatever you
          (pl.)
          bind on earth will be bound in heaven" (18.18).



          In case this is what is here implied, I don't think there is much merit in
          viewing Matt 18:18, even in narrative-critical terms, as somehow a punishment
          of Peter for the dullness he exhibited in 16:22f. Perhaps this is just my
          instinctively "Catholic" reading, but chapter 16:18ff seems to speak of an
          authority over the church given to Peter alone among his brothers, which is
          never thereafter revoked by Jesus -- and significantly not in the immediate
          aftermath of 16:22ff. Chapter 18 is talking about a different, but analogous
          authority resident in the apostolic college as a whole, to use a somewhat
          anachronistic expression. One should probably not take this text as applying
          to all "disciples of Jesus" generically, since in Matthew the expression "the
          disciples" (hOI MAQHTAI [AUTOU]) always refers to some or all of the Twelve
          (and see 18:1). In Acts, Luke shows BOTH Peter acting with unique authority
          and initiative within the a! postolic college AND the apostles as a group
          acting as authoritative teachers and rulers of a renewed Israel. I believe
          Luke has properly understood Matt here. I think it is an overinterpretation
          of Matt 18:18 to see it as in any way abrogating the unique authority given
          to Peter in 16:18f. The keys of the kingdom of heaven given to him alone in
          this text are never subsequently taken away, and are in fact not bestowed at
          all on the other eleven even in chapter 18, where the latter are given the
          more limited authority, as a group, to formalize excommunication. The power
          to bind and loose given to Peter alone in chapter 16 also seems to have a
          broader reference-range, not limited by the context as in Matt 18, and
          probably alluding to general authority to interpret and apply specific Torah
          obligations.

          Leonard Maluf
        • Stephen C. Carlson
          ... Thank you for your kind words, and apologies for not having responded sooner (most of my weekend was taken up on a book review). It appears that the brunt
          Message 4 of 15 , Jan 10, 2001
            At 08:33 PM 1/4/01 -0600, Thomas A. Kopecek wrote:
            >Thank you, Stephen, for your careful statement of what you are trying to
            >accomplish. As for the rest of your present post, I'm beginning better to
            >understand the overall drift of your argument and find it ingenious. While
            >not yet convinced by your case, you've certainly gotten me to look at the
            >passages in new ways.
            >
            >On the other hand, I feel myself, like Peter, beginning to sink and wanting
            >to cry out, unlike Peter, Synoptic-Lers, save me. I've been a lurker on this
            >list, since professionally I read the gospels through the eyes of the
            >Fathers, and almost to a man they didn't see much negativity regarding the
            >Eleven in the Synoptics at all. So the debate in which I'm now engaged is
            >not my cup of tea--and a tempest in a teapot to boot.

            Thank you for your kind words, and apologies for not having responded
            sooner (most of my weekend was taken up on a book review). It appears
            that the brunt of my thesis is not so much what Mark is doing with
            Peter, but what Matthew is doing with Peter, and not finding Matthew
            as positive as one would assume.

            This particular point, though, is more of a side-issue on the topic
            I originally weighed in on, which is what tradition really tells us
            about the authorship of Mark and whether we can really believe that
            Peter is the source behind Mark's gospel. I offered a proposal that
            the earliest tradition merely asserts that someone who happened to
            have worked for Peter wrote Mark's gospel after Peter's death, and
            that the attribution of the contents of Mark's gospel to Peter was
            a natural inference to make in the later development of the tradition,
            but which was not orginally present.

            Now, Tom, you are much more used to analyzing tradition among the
            patristics, and I would appreciate your insights on the methodology
            of analyzing a tradition that spans the centuries. Does one move
            forwards or backwards through time? If so, how does one analyze
            the tradition at each stage? How do later forms of tradition
            inform our understandings of the earlier attestations of the
            tradition?

            Most of my interest has been in NT studies, where any analysis of
            the church's tradition is deprecated in favor of reading the texts
            to speak for themselves. As a result, I'm not sure I have the
            right methods to evaluate the various testimonies of the authorship
            of the Gospel according to Mark.

            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@...
          • Maluflen@aol.com
            In a message dated 1/10/2001 11:27:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, scarlson@mindspring.com writes:
            Message 5 of 15 , Jan 11, 2001
              In a message dated 1/10/2001 11:27:53 PM Eastern Standard Time,
              scarlson@... writes:

              << This particular point, though, is more of a side-issue on the topic
              I originally weighed in on, which is what tradition really tells us
              about the authorship of Mark and whether we can really believe that
              Peter is the source behind Mark's gospel. I offered a proposal that
              the earliest tradition merely asserts that someone who happened to
              have worked for Peter wrote Mark's gospel after Peter's death, and
              that the attribution of the contents of Mark's gospel to Peter was
              a natural inference to make in the later development of the tradition,
              but which was not originally present. >>

              I just wanted to mention, Stephen, that I found fascinating your extended
              post on this topic dated Jan 1, 2001. I had never read the Papias testimony
              in the "minimalist" way you suggest, but it makes altogether good sense to do
              so. And I found very convincing your demonstration of how the tradition about
              Mark and Peter developed later on. As a corollary of this discussion, from a
              Griesbach perspective, I would note that the earliest tradition on the
              writing of Mark (Papias), interpreted in accordance with your understanding,
              conflicts less stridently with the demands of the 2 GH than do the later
              embellishments and interpretations of this tradition.

              Leonard Maluf

              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            • Thomas A. Kopecek
              ... I understand, and, as you know, I ve responded recently to your approach on Crosstalk, where there seems to be somewhat more interest in the topic. ... I
              Message 6 of 15 , Jan 11, 2001
                "Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson@...> wrote:

                > Thank you for your kind words, and apologies for not having responded
                > sooner (most of my weekend was taken up on a book review). It appears
                > that the brunt of my thesis is not so much what Mark is doing with
                > Peter, but what Matthew is doing with Peter, and not finding Matthew
                > as positive as one would assume.

                I understand, and, as you know, I've responded recently to your approach on
                Crosstalk, where there seems to be somewhat more interest in the topic.

                >
                > This particular point, though, is more of a side-issue on the topic
                > I originally weighed in on, which is what tradition really tells us
                > about the authorship of Mark and whether we can really believe that
                > Peter is the source behind Mark's gospel. I offered a proposal that
                > the earliest tradition merely asserts that someone who happened to
                > have worked for Peter wrote Mark's gospel after Peter's death, and
                > that the attribution of the contents of Mark's gospel to Peter was
                > a natural inference to make in the later development of the tradition,
                > but which was not orginally present.
                >
                > Now, Tom, you are much more used to analyzing tradition among the
                > patristics, and I would appreciate your insights on the methodology
                > of analyzing a tradition that spans the centuries. Does one move
                > forwards or backwards through time? If so, how does one analyze
                > the tradition at each stage? How do later forms of tradition
                > inform our understandings of the earlier attestations of the
                > tradition?

                I personally do it exactly the same way you have done it. In fact, I teach
                my course on Christology and soteriology backwards. I start with the modern
                traditional orthodox perspective (including its roots in the 5th - 17th
                centuries) and challenges to it and only then move back into the Fathers of
                the second through the early fifth centuries and, finally, into the first
                100 years of Christianity. The only difference is that I rarely am
                interested in going all the way back to worry about the historical Jesus,
                the historical Peter, the historical Mark, the historical James, etc. Just
                as most Buddhists are content with the "legend" of the life of Gautama,
                which is religiously a very powerful story, so I normally am myself content
                with the general "picture" of the first 100 years of Christianity assumed by
                the Fathers. And I'm not using the term "legend" in any technical sense.

                But I *do* find myself very much at home with scholars like Richard
                Bauckham, who combine a solid grasp of the Patristic literature with NT
                sophistication. It may help you place my approach to know that my teacher's
                teacher was Robert M. Grant, and, indeed, all three of us were able to
                participate for a number of years in an on-going seminar in Patristics at
                the U of Chicago--before sickness made such participation impossible for me.
                The combination of NT scholarship and Patristic scholarship is something I
                wish I could combine in the way that Grant and my teacher, Bill Schoedel,
                have done.

                The reason I haven't responded to your analysis of the Patristic testimony
                regarding Mark and Peter is only that I've had some unexpected bureaucratic
                things on my plate, and the comments you made on the historical Mark and
                historical Peter are the kinds of things students often ask me about: they
                leave me in the uncomfortable position of having to respond to matters about
                which I don't know the literature and the arguments. Hence my giving
                priority to your side-issue. I hope others on Crosstalk pursue it.

                What I need to think more about in connection with your highly attractive
                reconstruction of the historical emergence of the Gospel of Mark is the
                attitude in general of the Fathers you cite to apostolic and New Testament
                authority. At first blush, all that you say makes very good sense as an
                analysis of the trajectory. I hope to find time to pursue it before Spring
                Semester starts up.

                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
                ... Thanks. I think one trouble for tradition-based approaches to the Synoptic Problem is that a strong of Mark to Peter conflicts with Mark s use of Matthew.
                Message 7 of 15 , Jan 13, 2001
                  At 06:06 AM 1/11/01 EST, Maluflen@... wrote:
                  >I just wanted to mention, Stephen, that I found fascinating your extended
                  >post on this topic dated Jan 1, 2001. I had never read the Papias testimony
                  >in the "minimalist" way you suggest, but it makes altogether good sense to do
                  >so. And I found very convincing your demonstration of how the tradition about
                  >Mark and Peter developed later on. As a corollary of this discussion, from a
                  >Griesbach perspective, I would note that the earliest tradition on the
                  >writing of Mark (Papias), interpreted in accordance with your understanding,
                  >conflicts less stridently with the demands of the 2 GH than do the later
                  >embellishments and interpretations of this tradition.

                  Thanks. I think one trouble for tradition-based approaches to the
                  Synoptic Problem is that a strong of Mark to Peter conflicts with
                  Mark's use of Matthew. Interestingly, the 2SH may be viewed as a
                  solution to this bind, by taking Matthew=Q, of which Mark could be
                  independent and hence more plausibly dependent on Peter. Of course,
                  few supporters of the 2SH now connect Mark to Peter or Q to Matthew.

                  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@...
                • Karel Hanhart
                  ... Mt 16,16-18 The passage is important for the synoptic quest. For it offers a prime argument in support of Markan priority, if indeed Mark 15,46 is, - as C
                  Message 8 of 15 , Jan 19, 2001
                     

                    Mark Goodacre wrote:

                    I'd like to thank Stephen for his interesting comments on the portrait of Peter in
                    Mark and Matthew and would like to add one thought of my own.

                    I suspect that one of the reasons we tend to see the picture of Peter in
                    Matthew as so much more positive than it actually is is the over-emphasis on
                    redaction-criticism standard in most New Testament scholarship.  If we allow
                    ourselves to leaven our source- / redaction-criticism a little with some insights
                    from narrative-criticism (one of my hobby-horses, as some may know), we may
                    end up with a more nuanced picture......Moreover, narrative-criticism encourages us not only to look at the goal of an individual section of text, avoiding undue obsession with source and redaction, but it also encourages us to look more broadly at the development of the overall  narrative in the Gospel.  What is so interesting about Matthew 16.17-19 is thatthe commendation to Peter appears to be democratised later on, in Chapter 18. Before getting rebuked by Jesus, Peter was told "Whatever you (sing) bind on earth will be bound in heaven . . .".  But now, post-rebuke, the reader finds that this special charge has been extended to all the disciples, "Whatever you (pl.) bind on earth will be bound in heaven" (18.18). I have to admit that I had not thought about this until Stephen brought up this interesting topic.  At first, I didn't think there was much in it, but on reflection I wonder if he is indeed putting his finger on something that over-obsession with redaction-criticism, in spite of its general usefulness as a tool, can all too easily obscure.

                    Mt 16,16-18 The passage is important for the synoptic quest. For it offers a prime argument in support of Markan priority,  if indeed Mark 15,46 is, - as C Montefiore and Loisy suggested -, is a midrash on LXX Isa 22,16; 33,16 and if indeed Mark was deeply influenced by Paul (Joel Marcus).
                     Before demonstrateing this under C. I want to summarize some comments on the passage itself.
                    1. The "keys of the kingdom" and "binding" and "loosing" refer to the same pericope in Isa 22, 15-25 (Isa 22,22).
                    2. The word "ekklesia" is used only In Mt 16,18 and 18,17  in the synoptics; and as such the passage appears to be more a later insertion in an existing text than  part of the original composition. I agree with Goodacre, however, that we should not rely too much on source/redaction criticism alone. We should also not  weaken the impact of 18,6 by defining 18,17 as a democratization of 16,18, as Maluflen also insists.
                    3, I would agree (with some reservations)  with the conclusion by Raymond Brown cum suis in "Peter in the New Testament" that Mark gives in 16,7 "implicit testimony to the tradition that.Peter had real importance for the church" (p.72) over against those who think Mk 16,7 refers to a parousia in Galilee Weeden). Mark is not anti-Petrine.
                     . .
                       B. I have worked out the ramifications of Montefiore's suggestion. In order to avoid parallellomania (S.Sandmel) assigning some gospel passage as a midrash to a partular text(s) in the Hebrew Bible, one should submit his/her exegesis to the rigorous test: "Did other synoptic authors show signs of having understood this new exegesis in the same way?"  To refresh one's memory::
                    1 Mk 15,46. Gr. "en mnemoneioi ho en lelatomemenmon ek petras" refers to Isa 22,16. In both passages the monumental tomb is a euphemism for the temple to be destroyed. This is quite probable in the LXX version, but also true for the Hb Isa 22,16 as Rasji indicates re. the Jerusalem Talmud .
                        (I find it astonishing that various Bible editions ACKNOWLEDGE that Mark in  4,12; ,18;   9,48;11,10; 13,14; 13,19; 13,24; 14,18; 14,62 (!!); 15,24; 15,29; 15,33; 15,36 (some 13 x) is referring to a passage in Tenach without naming the biblical author but that Mark would NOT have done so in 15,46. Here Mark uses THREEwords in a similar war and the expression occurs only once in Tenach!.)
                    2. In the narrative world the women receive - some 40 hours after Jesus expired - a vision of the future (Gr anablepsas, cf 6,41). The 40 HOURS in the narrative world between Jesus' death (15,33) and the vision (16,1.4) in this epilogue refer to the appr 40 YEARS after the crucifixion in the real world re. the complete destruction of the temple, including the Holy of Holies. Thus the angel says "Behold the PLACE " =  Behold the Maqom = the holy Place.
                    The women therefore would see the monumental tomb during the ravaging of Jerusalem in their vision - they are frightened  - they flee - they tell no one..
                    3. In Mk 15,43  Joseph (who "came from Ramah", the town where Rachel wept for her children). is depicted as a person hostile to the christian ecclesia and to Jesus. He was a member of the council that condemned Jesus (Schreiber). He broke the law, buying on a Sabbath.
                    4. In all translations the coarse wordplay "some-ptoma" (Mk 15,43.45) has been softened by the
                    words "Jesus' body" and "Jesus' dead body". The reason for this euphemism is obvious; we are dealing with the heart of the church's faith. However, the coarseness is essential for understanding the midrash.  As I see it, one should paraphrase as  follows: Joseph (that despicable person) had the guts to ask for Jesus "body", but :Pilate, a cruel Roman,  gave him only the corpse.
                    5. It is the corpse that the women in vain sought to anoint. For Jesus himself will prove to have disappeared - he as the "head of his body" already sits "at the right hand of the Power" (14,62) and he is leading his own (the ecclesia as his body - Peter mentioned separately-) into the Galil ha-goym.
                    Joseph wanted to imprison the "body" behind the door (of the Holy) and sealing the deed with a large stone. But his was a divinely frustrated burial.
                    C. I believe in 16,16-18 Mt shows every sign of having understood the epilogue in this sense .
                            MARK 15,42-16,8                                            MATTHEW 16,17-20
                    1. A play on the words  petras -Petros              A play on the words petrai-Petros
                        ( 15,46 - 6,7)                                                    (16,18)
                    2. Mnemeion = monumental tomb = Temple      Oikodomeso - his ecclesia on the Rockman
                        under threat to be destroyed (15,46)
                    3. A post-70 midrash on LXX Isa 22,16               A post-70 midrash establishinh Peter Peter
                        about a temple official (highpriest?) being           as foundation rock for the (judean) ecclesia
                       stripped of his function and 'whirled' into             in exile (16,18).
                       a wide land. Another taking his place.
                    4. Joseph paralleled with Shebna losing his             Peter paralleled with Eljakim: Peter receiving
                        accroputements (presumably also the                  the keys of the Rule of Heaven to 'bind or
                        office of the key of David to 'open and                loose' (16,19)
                        'shut' (15,45)
                    5. Joseph breaking the Sabbath on the eve              Whatever Peter 'looses' on earth will be
                        of an illicit first day of the harvest, Nisan               loosed in heaven.
                        16 (15,42.46), and vainly attempting to                (Prior to 70 the calendar festival the Boethusian
                         "bury" Jesus, rolling a stone before the                  date for the first day of the harvest was altered
                        monument, sealing off the entrance (thura)             from a Sunday to Nisan 16, as 'the first day')
                    6. Jesus 'going ahead) of Peter into Galilee                 Peter receiving at Caesarea (!) Philippi in
                        (the Galilee of the nations) where he would           Gentile territory, a revelation from heaven
                        appear (opsesthe) to Peter and the others.           (apekalupsen) concerning the sonship of Jesus
                    7. The promise of an appearance, namely, of             Jesus nuilding up his ecclesia.
                        his risen body.
                    8. A brazen Arimathea demanding the "body"            Them'gates of hell' (code name for pagan
                        of Jesus, but receiving the "corpse" from the           Rome not prevailing ( 'gates' = city Joel
                        Roman governor after he had learned from            Marcus) against the 'ecclesia'
                        centurion that he had died ;long ago (palai)

                    Conclusion. Matthew knew Mark. He inserted the 'keys' of Peter into Mark's story. In my view he
                    understood Mark's Gospel, allegedly written under the authority of Peter. With this insertion he
                    approved of Mark's rendition, including Peter's failings. But Matthew was more hesitant about Mark's bold assertions in a more Pauline sense (e.g. Mark 7, cf Mt 5 - 7, the Sermon on the Mount, thus correcting Mark.  At  any rate I believe Matthew was commenting on Mark's epilogue, thus meeting the rigiorous test mentioned above. Another passage is e.g. in John: "he spoke of the TEMPLE of his body" (2,21).

                    Karel Hanhart     K.Hanhart@....

                  • Karel Hanhart
                    ... My apologies to Synoptic-L. In my previous scrambled message the parallels to Mark 15, 42 - 16,8 and Matthew 16,17-19 did not appear in a readable manner.
                    Message 9 of 15 , Jan 20, 2001
                      Mark Goodacre wrote:

                      > I'd like to thank Stephen for his interesting comments on the portrait of Peter in
                      > Mark and Matthew and would like to add one thought of my own.
                      >
                      > I suspect that one of the reasons we tend to see the picture of Peter in
                      > Matthew as so much more positive than it actually is is the over-emphasis on
                      > redaction-criticism standard in most New Testament scholarship. If we allow
                      > ourselves to leaven our source- / redaction-criticism a little with some insights
                      > from narrative-criticism (one of my hobby-horses, as some may know), we may
                      > end up with a more nuanced picture.
                      >

                      My apologies to Synoptic-L. In my previous scrambled message the parallels to Mark 15, 42
                      - 16,8 and Matthew 16,17-19 did not appear in a readable manner. Below I will not show the
                      parallels side by side in two parallel columns but one below the other.

                      Mt 16,17-19 is highly important for the synoptic quest. For it offers a prime
                      argument in support of Markan priority, if indeed Mark 15,46 is, - as C Montefiore and
                      Loisy suggested -, a midrash on LXX Isa 22,16; 33,16 and if indeed Mark was deeply
                      influenced by Paul (Joel Marcus).
                      Before demonstrating this under C. I want to summarize some comments on the passage
                      itself.
                      1. The "keys of the kingdom" and "binding" and "loosing" also refer to the same pericope
                      in Isa
                      22, 15-25 (Isa 22,22).
                      2. The word "ekklesia" is used only in Mt 16,18 and 18,17 in the synoptics; and as such
                      the passage appears to be more of a later insertion in an existing text than part of the
                      original composition. I agree with Goodacre, however, that we should not rely too much on
                      source/redaction criticism alone. We should also not weaken the impact of 18,6 by
                      defining 18,17 as 'a democratization' of 16,18, as Maluflen rightly insists.
                      3, I would agree (with some reservations) with the conclusion by Raymond Brown cum suis
                      in "Peter in the New Testament" that Mark gives in 16,7 "implicit testimony to the
                      tradition that.Peter had real importance for the church" (p.72) over against those who
                      think Mk 16,7 refers to a parousia in Galilee (Weeden). Mark is not anti-Petrine.
                      . .
                      B. I have worked out the ramifications of Montefiore's suggestion. In order to avoid
                      parallellomania - for instance, when designating a gospel message as midrash to a
                      particular text(s) of Scripture (S. Sandmel) - one should submit his/her exegesis to the
                      rigorous test: "Did
                      other synoptic authors show signs of having understood that passage in the sense of this
                      new midrashic exegesis? I believe Matthew 16,17-19 was composed with this understanding
                      of
                      Mark's ending.
                      To refresh one's memory::
                      1 Mk 15,46. Gr. "en mnemoneioi ho en lelatomemenmon ek petras" refers to Isa 22,16. In
                      both passages the monumental tomb is a euphemism for the temple to be destroyed. This is
                      quite probable in the LXX version, but also true for the Hb Isa 22,16 as Rasji indicates
                      in a note
                      on the Jerusalem Talmud .
                      (I find it astonishing that various Bible editions ACKNOWLEDGE that Mark in 4,12;
                      8,18; 9,48;11,10; 13,14; 13,19; 13,24; 14,18; 14,62 (!!); 15,24; 15,29; 15,33; 15,36
                      (some 13 x) is referring to a passage in Tenach without naming the biblical author but
                      that in these same editions NO reference is made to Isa 22,16 in a note on Mk15,46. But
                      Mark
                      cites THREE words that occur also in LXX Isa 22,16 and the expression about the
                      'monumental tomb' occurs here in Tenach!.
                      2. In the narrative world the women receive - some 40 hours after Jesus expired - a vision

                      of the future (Gr anablepsasai, cf 6,41). The 40 HOURS in the narrative world between
                      Jesus'
                      death (15,33) and the vision (16,1.4) in this epilogue refer to the appr 40 YEARS after
                      the crucifixion in the real world re. the complete destruction of the temple, including
                      the Holy of Holies. Thus the angel says "Behold the PLACE " = Behold the Maqom = the holy

                      Place. The women therefore would see in their vision the destruction of the Temple during
                      the ravaging of Jerusalem. They are frightened - they flee - they tell no one..
                      3. In Mk 15,43 Joseph (who "came from Ramah", the town where Rachel wept for her
                      children). is depicted as a person hostile to the christian ecclesia and to Jesus. He was
                      a member of the council that condemned Jesus (Schreiber). He broke the law, buying on a
                      Sabbath.
                      4. In all translations the coarse wordplay "soma-ptoma" (Mk 15,43.45) has been softened by

                      the words "Jesus' body" and "Jesus' dead body". The reason for this euphemism is obvious.
                      We
                      are dealing with the attempted burial and resurrection of Jesus, the heart of the church's
                      faith. However, the coarseness is essential for understanding the midrash. As I see it,
                      one should paraphrase as follows: Joseph: "that despicable person had the guts to ask for
                      Jesus "body", but :Pilate, a cruel Roman, gave him only the corpse.
                      5. It is the corpse that the women in vain sought to anoint. For Jesus himself will prove
                      to have disappeared - he as the "head of his body" already sits "at the right hand of the
                      Power" (14,62) and he is leading his own (the ecclesia as his body into the Galil ha-goym.
                      Peter is here mentioned separately, the last named person in the Gospel. Joseph wanted to
                      imprison the "body" behind the door (of the Holy) and sealing the deed with a large stone.
                      But his was a divinely frustrated burial.

                      C. In Mt 16,16-18, Matthew shows every sign of having understood Mark's epilogue in this
                      sense. This becomes clear if we compare eight key features in the two passages.

                      MARK 15,42-16,8
                      1. A play on the words petras -Petros ( 15,46 - 6,7)
                      2. Mnemeion = monumental tomb = Temple under threat to be destroyed (15,46)
                      3. A post-70 midrash on LXX Isa 22,16 about a temple official (highpriest?) being
                      stripped of his function and 'whirled' into a wide land. Another official taking his
                      place.
                      4. Joseph paralleled with Shebna losing his accroutements (presumably also the
                      'binding or loosing" function of the key of David to 'open and 'shut' (15,45)
                      5. Joseph breaking the Sabbath on the eve of an illicit first day of the harvest,
                      Nisan .
                      16 in a vain attempt to "bury" Jesus. For Jesus already sits at the "right hand of
                      power"
                      and on the first day of Shabuot, (the Pentecostal harvest according to Lv 23,11.15)
                      the women will receive their vision and the angelic message that he is going before
                      his own into the Galil of the Gentiles. Arimathea therefore was attempting to "bury"
                      Jesus
                      in vain as if by rolling a stone before the monument (=Temple) and thus sealing off
                      the entrance (thura) (to the Holies) as if he could prevent the events on
                      the true First Day of the
                      Messianic harvest. Jesus was the "aparche", the "first fruits" of those who fell asleep.
                      ( this item 5 is obscure for those who have not studied the calendar dispute re. the
                      first day
                      of the fifty days of the Pentecostal harvest ( Easter Sunday). This first day of the
                      festival calendar
                      according to the "Boethusians" always falls on a Sunday (Lv 23,11.15). This dating was
                      altered
                      some time prior to 70 CE to the fixed date of Nisan 16. The Pharisees adopted this new
                      date and it
                      still is the official first day of the harvest in the synagogue, at the beginning of the
                      so-called 'counting
                      of the omer'. In the year Jesus died Nisan 16 fell on the sabbath between the
                      crucifixion and the Sunday of the vision of the women}
                      6. Jesus 'going ahead of Peter and the disciples into Galilee (the Galilee of the nations)

                      where Jesus would appear (opsesthe) to Peter and the others.
                      7. The promise of seeing the risen one, namely, the ecclesia, as the risen body of Jesus.

                      8. A brazen Arimathea demanding the "body" of Jesus, but receiving the "corpse" from the
                      Roman governor after he had learned from the centurion that he had died ;long ago
                      (palai)

                      MATTHEW 16,17-19
                      1. A play on the words petrai-Petros (16,18)
                      2. Oikodomeso - Jesus will build (!) his ecclesia on the Rockman
                      3. A post-70 midrash establishing Peter as the foundation rock for the (judean)
                      ecclesia. in exile (16,18).
                      .4. Peter paralleled with Eljakim of Isa 22 - with Peter receiving the keys of the Rule
                      of Heaven to
                      'bind or loose' (Mt 16,19)
                      5. Whatever Peter 'looses' on earth 'will be loosed in heaven'. It refers to the
                      authority to expound
                      the Scriptures, including the disputed exegesis of the dating of the 'first day' in
                      Lv 23,11.15
                      6. Peter receiving at Caesarea (!) Philippi in Gentile territory, a revelation from
                      heaven
                      (apekalupsen) concerning the sonship of Jesus.
                      7. Jesus building up his ecclesia, as his 'risen body'.
                      8. The 'gates of hell' is a code name for pagan Rome. 'The gates' of a city are in
                      Scripture a pars pro toto for the city itself (Joel Marcus). Thus pagan Rome will not
                      prevail against the 'ecclesia'

                      My conclusion was that the famous passage of Peter and "the keys" may well prove to be an
                      important argument in favor of understanding Mark 42-16,8 in terms of a midrash on Isa
                      22,15-25. in light of the destruction of the Temple. Hence: Matthew knew Mark. He inserted
                      the 'keys' of Peter into Mark's story. In my view he adopted Mark's Gospel, allegedly
                      written under the authority of Peter . With this insertion he approved of Peter's
                      prominent position in Mark's epilogue, and repeated Peter's failings in 16,23. But Matthew
                      also corrected Mark He was more hesitant about Mark's bold assertions re. the Law in a
                      Pauline sense (e.g. in Mark 7, cf Mt 5 - 7, the Sermon on the Mount). At any rate,
                      Matthew was commenting on Mark's epilogue, thus meeting the rigiorous test mentioned
                      above. Another passage supporting this new approach to Mark's ending is John 2,21: "he
                      spoke of the TEMPLE of his body". John combined the notion of resurrection, body of Christ
                      with the Temple,
                      just as Mark and Matthew implied.

                      Karel Hanhart K.Hanhart@....




                      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                    • Brian E. Wilson
                      Karel Hanhart writes -- ... Karel, It seems to me that you assume (with Montefiore and Loisy) that Mk 15.46 is a midrash on LXX Isa 22.16; 33.16. That is to
                      Message 10 of 15 , Jan 23, 2001
                        Karel Hanhart writes --
                        >
                        >Mt 16,17-19 is highly important for the synoptic quest. For it offers a
                        >prime argument in support of Markan priority, if indeed Mark 15,46 is,
                        >- as C Montefiore and Loisy suggested -, a midrash on LXX Isa 22,16;
                        >33,16
                        >
                        Karel,
                        It seems to me that you assume (with Montefiore and Loisy) that
                        Mk 15.46 is a midrash on LXX Isa 22.16; 33.16. That is to say, you
                        assume that the writer of the gospel of Mark at Mk 15.46 created a
                        midrash on the LXX material stated.

                        In this case, the parallel material in Mt 27.39-40, which is in
                        significantly similar wording, cannot have been a midrash created by the
                        writer of the gospel of Matthew on the basis of the same LXX material.
                        For the material in Mt 27.39-60 has many similarities of wording with
                        the parallel Mk 15.46, and it is very unlikely that the two writers
                        should independently have chosen to create a midrash on the same LXX
                        material in such similar wording.

                        It follows that if Mark originated the material found in Mk 15.46 by
                        himself creating a midrash at this point, then the gospel of Mark must
                        be the documentary ancestor of the gospel of Matthew. For only so can
                        the existence of the similarly-worded parallel in Matthew be explained.

                        In other words, your assumption that the writer of the gospel of Mark
                        created a midrash on LXX material at Mk 15.46, together with the
                        similarity of wording between Mk 15.46 and Mt 27.39-40, implies Markan
                        priority.

                        The conclusion to your long and involved argument that Mark is prior to
                        Matthew is therefore entailed in the assumption with which you started.
                        The long argument is superfluous.

                        The question which arises, of course, is whether you can justify your
                        initial assumption that the writer of the gospel of Mark himself created
                        a midrash from LXX material to produce Mk 15.46. Why should not the
                        wording of Mk 15.46 have been taken by Mark from his source material?
                        Could this source material have been the gospel of Matthew, even?

                        I think it is impossible to argue validly for the priority of Mark on
                        the basis of supposing there is midrash in the gospel of Mark. Even if
                        there is such midrash in Mark, it may well have been originated by
                        someone other than the writer of the gospel of Mark himself.

                        Best wishes,
                        BRIAN WILSON

                        E-mail; brian@... HOMEPAGE www.twonh.demon.co.uk

                        Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
                        > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
                        > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
                        _

                        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                      • Maluflen@aol.com
                        In a message dated 1/23/2001 3:50:49 AM Eastern Standard Time, brian@TwoNH.demon.co.uk writes:
                        Message 11 of 15 , Jan 23, 2001
                          In a message dated 1/23/2001 3:50:49 AM Eastern Standard Time,
                          brian@... writes:

                          << Why should not the
                          wording of Mk 15.46 have been taken by Mark from his source material?
                          Could this source material have been the gospel of Matthew, even?>>

                          Matt 16:18ff suggest that it very well could have been. It is most likely
                          that Matthew, who showed a midrashic interest in Is 22 LXX already in this
                          earlier chapter would likewise have been the one who invented, rather than
                          merely copied, the midrash on this same text in the burial scene. On the
                          other hand, it is not at all unlikely that Mark, like most subsequent readers
                          of Matt, was not sufficiently sophisticated to catch the allusion to the
                          Isaiah text in the burial scene midrash, and simply copied it, as though it
                          were a straightforward narrative, into his Gospel. Matthew is the "scribe
                          trained for the kingdom of heaven," not Mark. (I realize, Brian, that you are
                          more interested in a tertium quid position here, but I have written this
                          particularly for the edification of Karel.)

                          Leonard Maluf




                          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                        • Karel Hanhart
                          ... Agreed. ... Mark s epilogue (15,42 - 16,8 clearly is his own tightly knit composition as R. Pesch has convincingly shown. But Pesch didnot choose a Jewish
                          Message 12 of 15 , Jan 23, 2001
                            "Brian E. Wilson" wrote:

                            > Karel Hanhart writes --
                            > >
                            > >Mt 16,17-19 is highly important for the synoptic quest. For it offers a
                            > >prime argument in support of Markan priority, if indeed Mark 15,46 is,
                            > >- as C Montefiore and Loisy suggested -, a midrash on LXX Isa 22,16;
                            > >33,16
                            > >
                            > Karel,
                            > It seems to me that you assume (with Montefiore and Loisy) that
                            > Mk 15.46 is a midrash on LXX Isa 22.16; 33.16. That is to say, you
                            > assume that the writer of the gospel of Mark at Mk 15.46 created a
                            > midrash on the LXX material stated.
                            >
                            > In this case, the parallel material in Mt 27.39-40, which is in
                            > significantly similar wording, cannot have been a midrash created by the
                            > writer of the gospel of Matthew on the basis of the same LXX material.
                            > For the material in Mt 27.39-60 has many similarities of wording with
                            > the parallel Mk 15.46, and it is very unlikely that the two writers
                            > should independently have chosen to create a midrash on the same LXX
                            > material in such similar wording.
                            >
                            > It follows that if Mark originated the material found in Mk 15.46 by
                            > himself creating a midrash at this point, then the gospel of Mark must
                            > be the documentary ancestor of the gospel of Matthew. For only so can
                            > the existence of the similarly-worded parallel in Matthew be explained.
                            >
                            > In other words, your assumption that the writer of the gospel of Mark
                            > created a midrash on LXX material at Mk 15.46, together with the
                            > similarity of wording between Mk 15.46 and Mt 27.39-40, implies Markan
                            > priority.

                            Agreed.

                            > The conclusion to your long and involved argument that Mark is prior to
                            > Matthew is therefore entailed in the assumption with which you
                            > started....
                            > The question which arises, of course, is whether you can justify your
                            > initial assumption that the writer of the gospel of Mark himself created
                            > a midrash from LXX material to produce Mk 15.46. Why should not the
                            > wording of Mk 15.46 have been taken by Mark from his source material?

                            Mark's epilogue (15,42 - 16,8 clearly is his own tightly knit composition as
                            R. Pesch has convincingly shown. But Pesch didnot choose a Jewish approach
                            to unravel the riddle of Mark.
                            I believe John Mark was used to midrash and so was Matthew, both were first
                            century Jews. As I have argued all along Mark revised an earlier passover
                            haggadah written shortly after the destruction of the temple. In this case
                            his "source material" ccouldnot very well been other than LXX Isa 22,16
                            where the euphemism for the doomed temple occurs: a monumental grave hewn
                            from the rock..
                            A 'christian' source couldnot have existed very well for it would have to be
                            dated before 70, when the temple still stood.

                            kind regards,

                            Karel Hanhart K.Hanhart@...


                            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                          • Brian E. Wilson
                            Karel Hanhart writes -- ... Karel, How can anyone show that any section of the gospel of Mark was originated by the writer of the gospel of Mark? It is surely
                            Message 13 of 15 , Jan 24, 2001
                              Karel Hanhart writes --
                              >
                              >Mark's epilogue (15,42 - 16,8) clearly is his own tightly knit
                              >composition as R. Pesch has convincingly shown.
                              >
                              Karel,
                              How can anyone show that any section of the gospel of Mark was
                              originated by the writer of the gospel of Mark? It is surely possible
                              that what looks like such a section original to the writer of the gospel
                              of Mark may have been taken by him from his source material.

                              Even if Mk 15.24-16.8 is the tightly knit composition of one author,
                              that author was not necessarily the writer of the gospel of Mark.

                              It seems that Pesch's finding is not much help if we are trying to solve
                              the synoptic problem.

                              Best wishes,
                              BRIAN WILSON

                              E-mail; brian@... HOMEPAGE www.twonh.demon.co.uk

                              Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
                              > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
                              > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
                              _

                              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                            • Mark Goodacre
                              I haven t got a copy of this book yet, but I was just looking at an RBL review of it by David Gowler and it seems to have an interesting essay pertinent to our
                              Message 14 of 15 , Jan 24, 2001
                                I haven't got a copy of this book yet, but I was just looking at an RBL review of
                                it by David Gowler and it seems to have an interesting essay pertinent to our
                                recent discussion on the characterisation of Peter in Matthew, not least the
                                issue of the role played by narrative-criticism in our analysis:

                                Kari Syreeni, “Peter as Character and Symbol in the Gospel of Matthew,”
                                in David Rhoads and Kari Syreeni, _Characterisation in the Gospels:
                                Reconceiving Narrative Criticism_ (JSNTSup, 184; Sheffield: Sheffield
                                Academic Press, 1999), pp. 106-152

                                Gowler's review is at:
                                http://www.bookreviews.org/Reviews/1841270040.html
                                He speaks highly of Syreeni's contribution and says:

                                > Syreeni argues that Peter is a many-sided character in Matthew, but
                                > that he also is a dubious symbol: “a figure of authority and
                                > legitimization, a pan-Christian paradigm of discipleship, yet also a
                                > partisan figure, a scandal to the expanding church of Christ” (pp.
                                > 148, 152).

                                I'm going to chase up this article and book. Has anyone else had a chance to
                                look at it?

                                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
                                Homepage
                                http://www.ntgateway.com
                                The New Testament Gateway

                                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                              • Brian E. Wilson
                                Mark Goodacre writes -- ... Dear Mark, Yes. I have been looking at this. Syreeni writes lucidly, and is a joy to read. For me, the issue at stake is whether
                                Message 15 of 15 , Jan 25, 2001
                                  Mark Goodacre writes --
                                  >
                                  >I haven't got a copy of this book yet, but I was just looking at an RBL
                                  >review of it by David Gowler and it seems to have an interesting essay
                                  >pertinent to our recent discussion on the characterisation of Peter in
                                  >Matthew, not least the issue of the role played by narrative-criticism
                                  >in our analysis:
                                  >
                                  >Kari Syreeni, "Peter as Character and Symbol in the Gospel of Matthew"
                                  >in David Roads and Kari Syreeni, _ Characterisation in the Gospels:
                                  >Reconceiving Narrative Criticism_ (JSNTSup, 184; Sheffield: Sheffield
                                  >Academic Press, 1999), pp. 106-152
                                  >
                                  >Has anyone else had a chance to look at it?
                                  >
                                  Dear Mark,
                                  Yes. I have been looking at this. Syreeni writes lucidly, and
                                  is a joy to read.

                                  For me, the "issue" at stake is whether narrative-criticism can be used
                                  to help solve the synoptic problem. (I think this is at least part of
                                  what you refer to as "the issue of the role played by narrative-
                                  criticism in our analysis".) Syreeni actually considers this question
                                  briefly. His blunt answer is that no, narrative-criticism cannot be used
                                  to help solve the synoptic problem --

                                  "Even the most rigorous analysis of the ways Peter is characterized in
                                  Matthew's Gospel will not provide ready answers to questions concerning
                                  Matthew's use and evaluation of previous traditions." (page 107)

                                  Note that in this answer Syreeni is imnplicitly assuming the theory of
                                  Markan Priority. Elsewhere he makes this assumption explicit --

                                  "The text world of Matthew's Gospel has *intertextual* relations with
                                  its predecessor, Mark's Gospel. The same holds true for symbolic and
                                  real worlds respectively." (page 114)

                                  " ... Matthew reproduces and develops the 'paper-ideology' of the Markan
                                  character in order to make a better story ... Peter is made to represent
                                  Matthew's own ideology through the use and development of the Markan
                                  character." (page 118)

                                  In his non-theological language, Syreeni notes the difficulty of
                                  distinguishing between what we might refer to as "tradition" and
                                  "redaction" in the theology of the writer of the Gospel of Matthew (for
                                  "ideology" we may read "theology", for "authorial ideology" we may read
                                  "the theology of the writer of the Gospel of Matthew", and for "text-
                                  word ingredients" we may read "documentary source material")) --

                                  "Not all ideological elements plainly indicate authorial ideology. Some
                                  elements may be in literary use as text-word ingredients; other elements
                                  may convey the authorial stance by way of contradiction or modification;
                                  still other elements may reveal a genuine but optional use of a scheme;
                                  and ultimately some elements reflect the author's firm ideology."

                                  My view of the article is that Syreeni uses narrative-criticism to work
                                  out the implications of having previously accepted the idea that Mark
                                  was prior to Matthew. He is clear in his mind that you cannot use
                                  narrative-criticism to try and determine whether Mark is prior to
                                  Matthew. To me, therefore, the article is not going to be much use in
                                  helping us solve the synoptic problem. Rather, it assumes that the
                                  synoptic problem has already been solved in terms of the gospel of
                                  Matthew being a documentary descendant of the gospel of Mark.

                                  Best wishes,
                                  BRIAN WILSON

                                  E-mail; brian@... HOMEPAGE www.twonh.demon.co.uk

                                  Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
                                  > "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
                                  > speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
                                  _

                                  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.