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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Peter in Matt

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    ... [Leonard again] On second thought, the final comment above is appropriate for c), but not for d). A case could be made for some syntagmatic parallel
    Message 1 of 6 , Feb 27, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 2/26/2003 5:46:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, Maluflen writes:

      > Larry
      > You persist in ignoring the evidence. The suggested
      > evidence consists of both verbal parallels and
      > narrative parallels. The verbal parallels are:
      > a) SKANDAL*
      > b) PETR*
      > c)LAMBANW and PROSLAMBANW
      > d) MAKARIOIOS/OI
      >
      > Leonard
      > To my knowledge, this is the first time you have laid out the above evidence. And it turns out to be padded, substantiating my intuition that there are no significant verbal links between the parable in Matt 13 and the Peter stories. c) and d) simply have no merit as links, because they do not occur in even remotely similar syntagmatic patterns in the two passages.

      [Leonard again]
      On second thought, the final comment above is appropriate for c), but not for d). A case could be made for some "syntagmatic" parallel between the MAKARIOI in Matt 13 and the MAKARIOS in Matt 16. The real problem lies in the supposed similarity between the following revelation by Jesus to the disciples of his impending suffering and death in Matt 16 and the sowing of the word in the sower parable of Matt 13. A better case could be made, however, that Mark does establish a link, through his use of the term LOGOS, or rather of the possibly technical hO LOGOS, in his two parallel passages.

      Dr. Leonard J. Maluf
      Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
      Tel.: 617-926-2387

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Mark Goodacre
      A couple of observations on the question of the naming of Simon Peter in relation to the Sower parable. First, in support of Leonard, it s worth pointing out
      Message 2 of 6 , Mar 2, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        A couple of observations on the question of the naming of Simon Peter
        in relation to the Sower parable. First, in support of Leonard, it's
        worth pointing out that Mary Ann Tolbert herself anticipates this
        point:

        "Although both Matthew and Luke refer to the second type of ground as
        rocky . . ., these references, in Matt. 13.5 and Luke 8.6,
        respectively, appear in the text so far removed from the first
        instance of Simon Peter's name that any possible connection is
        thoroughly discouraged." (_Sowing the Gospel_, p. 145, n. 28).

        She also says (p. 146, n. 32) that "Matthew develops his own
        etiological legend to support Peter's name" and suggests that this
        "might be taken as some evidence that the author of Matthew, at
        least, was clearly aware of the significance of the wordplay between
        Peter's name and the rocky ground in Mark and wished to counter it in
        a forthright and striking manner."

        Second, I should mention here that someone on the e-matthew list
        helped me out with my bibliography question. The thesis that
        Matthew's characterization of Peter is informed by the interpretation
        to the Parable of the Sower has been anticipated in the following:

        Wallace W. Bubar, "Killing Two Birds With One Stone: The Utter
        De(con)struction of Matthew and his Church", _Biblical
        Interpretation_ 3 (1995), pp. 144-57

        Somewhat surprisingly, though, Bubar does not develop the thesis in
        relationship to Tolbert's, of which he is unaware, and this deprives
        the discussion of some force.

        Mark
        -----------------------------
        Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
        Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
        University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 4381
        Birmingham B15 2TT UK

        http://www.theology.bham.ac.uk/goodacre
        http://NTGateway.com


        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      • LARRY SWAIN
        ... A point of clarification here. I think you mean that this supports my, Larry s, point. I have argued since this came up that there is a significant
        Message 3 of 6 , Mar 2, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          --- Mark Goodacre <M.S.Goodacre@...> wrote:
          > A couple of observations on the question of the
          > naming of Simon Peter
          > in relation to the Sower parable. First, in support
          > of Leonard, it's
          > worth pointing out that Mary Ann Tolbert herself
          > anticipates this
          > point:
          >
          > "Although both Matthew and Luke refer to the second
          > type of ground as
          > rocky . . ., these references, in Matt. 13.5 and
          > Luke 8.6,
          > respectively, appear in the text so far removed from
          > the first
          > instance of Simon Peter's name that any possible
          > connection is
          > thoroughly discouraged." (_Sowing the Gospel_, p.
          > 145, n. 28).

          A point of clarification here. I think you mean that
          this supports my, Larry's, point. I have argued since
          this came up that there is a significant difference in
          Matthew in a) naming convention and b) in character
          portrayal in the first 13 chapters of Matthew and in
          the second part. Thus, any connection between the
          first instance of Peter's name and the apostle list
          and the later instance's of Peter in the story is a
          fairly small and insignificant connection.

          Leonard's point has been the oppostite: Matthew's
          mention of Simon Peter in chaps. 4 and 10 is 1) for
          versimilitude and 2) has an exegetical purpose and 3)
          the community knows him as Peter (see #1) and 4) Peter
          "grows" in the gospel, so there is no difference in
          treatment of either the name or the character between
          chap 4 and chap 27. This seems to me to be
          diametrically opposed to what you are citing Tolbert
          as saying. Unless I'm misreading you and your point
          is that Tolbert anticipated Leonard's objection, but
          then I don't see how this would SUPPORT Leonard's
          position.

          I would also disagree with her apparent portrayal of
          Lk 8:6--Luke uses PETRAN, accusative, singular of
          PETRA, rock. Not "rocky." I know of no citation
          where PETRA can be said to be used adjectivally and
          not as a noun. This strengthens the identification
          between Luke's Parable of the Soils and Peter.

          >
          > She also says (p. 146, n. 32) that "Matthew develops
          > his own
          > etiological legend to support Peter's name" and
          > suggests that this
          > "might be taken as some evidence that the author of
          > Matthew, at
          > least, was clearly aware of the significance of the
          > wordplay between
          > Peter's name and the rocky ground in Mark and wished
          > to counter it in
          > a forthright and striking manner."

          Now this both supports and yet deconstructs Leonard's
          argument. It supports it in saying that Matthew
          wishes to distance the negative spin on Peter and so
          introduces the etiological story. But as I've been
          thinking about this the last few days and doing some
          research I think there are some very good reasons to
          take this etiology with the story following, not as
          separate stories, but as a single unit, thus
          strengthening the identification of the "rocky soil"
          in the parable with the Peter of the gospel.

          L. J. Swain
          Dept. of English
          University of Illinois, Chicago
          Medieval Institute
          Western Michigan University


          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
        • Mark Goodacre
          ... No, I meant Leonard. I was thinking that Tolbert s point (with which I happen to disagree) supported Leonard s contention about the pattern of Matthew s
          Message 4 of 6 , Mar 2, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            On 2 Mar 2003 at 10:09, LARRY SWAIN wrote:

            > A point of clarification here. I think you mean that
            > this supports my, Larry's, point. I have argued since
            > this came up that there is a significant difference in
            > Matthew in a) naming convention and b) in character
            > portrayal in the first 13 chapters of Matthew and in
            > the second part. Thus, any connection between the
            > first instance of Peter's name and the apostle list
            > and the later instance's of Peter in the story is a
            > fairly small and insignificant connection.

            No, I meant Leonard. I was thinking that Tolbert's point (with which
            I happen to disagree) supported Leonard's contention about the
            pattern of Matthew's naming of Peter. I find my own sympathies in
            this, as you will probably have gathered, to be closer to yours; I
            think Tolbert underestimates the case for Matthew following Mark's
            characterization of Peter but of course she is with the majority of
            scholars in that.

            > I would also disagree with her apparent portrayal of
            > Lk 8:6--Luke uses PETRAN, accusative, singular of
            > PETRA, rock. Not "rocky." I know of no citation
            > where PETRA can be said to be used adjectivally and
            > not as a noun. This strengthens the identification
            > between Luke's Parable of the Soils and Peter.

            That's an interesting point, thank you. Would you see Luke as
            carrying forward the Markan characterization of Peter in other ways?

            > Now this both supports and yet deconstructs Leonard's
            > argument. It supports it in saying that Matthew
            > wishes to distance the negative spin on Peter and so
            > introduces the etiological story. But as I've been
            > thinking about this the last few days and doing some
            > research I think there are some very good reasons to
            > take this etiology with the story following, not as
            > separate stories, but as a single unit, thus
            > strengthening the identification of the "rocky soil"
            > in the parable with the Peter of the gospel.

            I quite agree on this point. I think the error scholars of Matthew
            tend to make is to be over-indebted to redation-criticism's stress on
            what is distinctive in each Gospel, without paying careful attention
            to the narrative critic's stress on the order in which the narrative
            unfolds. So in many ways the "Get thee behind me Satan" material is
            all the more poignant following on from the previous commendation.
            Consider Fowler, _Let the Reader Understand_, p. 143, "In the radiant
            afterglow of such a scene, Jesus could next call Peter anything and
            it would not matter"; this is a reading far too indebted to
            redaction-criticism and it is typical of Fowler's treatment of
            Matthew as a palimpsest of Mark. To have a narrative in which Peter
            is addressed as Satan following on from the glowing condemnation is
            exactly what Matthew has led us to expect, from Chapter 13 onwards,
            and it's a reading that enhances and underlines what we have in Mark.
            Peter will be the enthusiastic hearer of the word only for him to
            fall away at the crucial moment.

            There is, of course, the question of whether Matthew sees Peter as
            rehabilitated by the end of the Gospel, though. I think yes, in the
            light of the eleven proceeding to Galilee in 28. In this, too,
            Matthew is working with Mark (16.7) but has taken him just a stage
            further and has developed his hint made there in a direction
            congenial to the tradition that Peter did indeed -- in the end --
            come good. Would you agree, Larry, or do you think Matthew retains
            something of Mark's uncertainty on the point?

            Thanks for your helpful engagement on this
            Mark
            -----------------------------
            Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
            Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
            University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 4381
            Birmingham B15 2TT UK

            http://www.theology.bham.ac.uk/goodacre
            http://NTGateway.com


            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • Maluflen@aol.com
            ... Before you two get too carried away here, let me just interpose for your edification that the Lukan EPI THN PETRAN text you should be looking at for its
            Message 5 of 6 , Mar 3, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 3/2/2003 7:17:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, M.S.Goodacre@... writes:

              > No, I meant Leonard. I was thinking that Tolbert's point (with which
              > I happen to disagree) supported Leonard's contention about the
              > pattern of Matthew's naming of Peter. I find my own sympathies in
              > this, as you will probably have gathered, to be closer to yours; I
              > think Tolbert underestimates the case for Matthew following Mark's
              > characterization of Peter but of course she is with the majority of
              > scholars in that.
              >
              > > I would also disagree with her apparent portrayal of
              > > Lk 8:6--Luke uses PETRAN, accusative, singular of
              > > PETRA, rock. Not "rocky." I know of no citation
              > > where PETRA can be said to be used adjectivally and
              > > not as a noun. This strengthens the identification
              > > between Luke's Parable of the Soils and Peter.
              >
              > That's an interesting point, thank you. Would you see Luke as
              > carrying forward the Markan characterization of Peter in other ways?

              Before you two get too carried away here, let me just interpose for your "edification" that the Lukan EPI THN PETRAN text you should be looking at for its connection to Peter is not Lk 8:6, but Lk 6:48, about the wise man who built his house on a foundation, upon a rock. My insistence on the connection here is not simply a matter of trading a Catholic Vorverstaendnis for a Protestant one, but it also has much to recommend it exegetically (unlike the above suggestion). In Luke's Gospel, the sermon on the plain has as its prelude the selection of the twelve by Jesus, at which time we are told that Jesus gave to Simon the name PETRON (6:14). Luke, who knows Matthew's Gospel, is aware that this name was given to Peter with the words of Jesus: "...upon this rock I will build (my church)". The calling and choosing of the apostles, which in Luke occurs after a whole night of prayer to God, takes place on a mountain (like the Matthean sermon itself), and Jesus thereafter descends WITH THEM (the twelve) to a level place where a large crowd of DISCIPLES and a huge crowd OF THE PEOPLE convene, not only from Judaea and Jerusalem, but also from the regions of Tyre and Sidon. These, in the narrator's idiom, represent the future believers, those who will come to HEAR Jesus (largely through the preaching of the Twelve) and to be cured of various diseases (cf. 6:17-18).

              At the conclusion of Jesus' sermon, echoing its prelude, Jesus utters the pointed words (6:46ff): "Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and do not do what I say? Everyone who comes to me and HEARS my words and DOES them is like the man building a house, who dug deep, laid a foundation UPON A ROCK (EPI THN PETRAN), and when a flood arose, the river broke against that house, and could not shake it, because it had been well built..". So in choosing the twelve as apostles, Jesus envisions them as future channels of his own word (Lk 10:16), and those that build on that word (by hearing it and doing it) are thus also built upon an apostolic, and specifically here a Petrine foundation, that makes them impervious to the floods. Jesus' church thereby comes to be built upon the rock -- Jesus' word, or Peter --, just as prophesied in Matt 16:18. What Luke has done here, like the good Jewish (?) scribe that he is, is to conflate the perspectives of the two -- and only two -- Matthean texts that spoke of building upon a rock (Matt 7:24 and 16:18). Luke has taken great pains to establish this connection, which he accomplishes by substantial displacements of material (both the choosing of the Twelve relative to the great sermon and the naming of Peter) with respect to their Matthean location.

              True, the twelve appear at the beginning of Lk 8 as well, but here they are WITH Jesus as he goes about preaching and evangelizing the kingdom of God. This suggests that they are envisioned by the narrator as on the sower side of the equation, in terms of the parable about to be told by Jesus. The apostles' participation in Jesus' missionary work in Lk 8:1 is confirmed by the more likely reading AUTOIS in 8:3. The women mentioned in these verses minister -- not to Jesus alone, but to Jesus and his fellow disseminators of the word (and cf. 1 Cor 9:5). Needless to say, there is no explicit mention of "Peter" here either (although numerous women are named in these verses), which would have been easy (and almost essential) for Luke to manage had he intended to suggest a link between "Peter" and the rocky soil of 8:6.

              Dr. Leonard J. Maluf
              Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
              Tel.: 617-926-2387
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.