Vorkosigan

Whoever cut up GMark this way simply doesn't understand GMark at all. Just one example: 14:55-60 is part of a whole.

Vorkosigan

Adam

I don't see your point. Mark 14:55-60 intrudes upon Peter's story as in the other three gospels, and it makes dubious claims.

Stringbean

Most likely he knows it will be chopped up if he does.

Sheshbazzar

A Christian's profile displays that his last visit to FRDB was on Nov 4th, there is no way of determining however, whether he deigned to revisit this particular thread.

I tend to believe we have been victims of a fly-by shitting.

Adam

Let me take this one again. Yes, 14:55-60 as it appears in Mark is part of the 14:55-64 pericope. However, the 14:61-64 segment is paralleled in Luke 22:66-71, so Mark 14:55-60 stands on its own as an addition. The Mark 14:61-64 source could be from any one of the preceding three layers, so it's not listed in my 6-way breakdown.

Vorkosigan

It's not Peter's story; it is the writer of Mark's. The writer of Mark is abusing Peter, whom he detests and never misses a chance to make fun of. Earlier Jesus has prophesied that Peter will deny him. The writer then sandwiches Jesus' affirmation of his own godhood and torment between the tale of Peter's denial of his followership. The writer of Mark has a low taste for high irony and the habit of sandwiching stories inside one another. To argue that the intercalations are separate tales is to miss what the writer is saying.

Vorkosigan

Solo

You can say that again, Michael. Apropos, how do you read 9:5 ? Why would Peter think Jesus was talking to him ? Any ideas ?

Best,
Jiri

Vorkosigan

I read that as the writer of Mark portraying Peter as a stammering idiot who intrudes on the conversation between J, M, and E. I don't think Jesus is talking to him, it looks more like the writer of Mark is trying to show what a suck-up Peter is. When you read that passage forward into Peter's denial it makes Peter even more idiotic and spineless. Didn't Peter see Jesus with Moses? Didn't Peter receive Jesus' donation of his powers in Chap. 6?

From the narrative point of view, it is interesting that in both chaps 9 and 14 the writer gets inside Peter's head to inform us that he is a wuss and a coward -- Peter had "forgotten" that the Son of God and the Messiah who hung with Moses and had power over demons had said that he would betray Jesus on the most important day of Jesus' life. In chap 9 he is afraid. Any way you slice it, Mark hacks on Peter. I mean, how ironic is it that a chap named ROCK falls apart at the end?

Vorkosigan

Adam

By your exegesis.
And you are saying that you don't acknowledge any sources or stages in gMark? Maybe I'm over-doing it with six layers, but I thereby deal with the comparison with gJohn, the contrasting translations comparison with Luke, and the minor differences with Matthew.
At an earlier stage the Passion Narrative was by and about Mark and Peter, but Mark 14:61-64 interrupts the flow, so could stem from another source for the Marcan text mutually underlying gMark and gLuke. Yet it echoes the self-aggrandizing claims of Jesus in gJohn, so could be from the original first layer of my Post #230. Further, there is some verbal exactitude between Mark 14:62 and Luke 22:69, so the second layer also fits. However, the verbal exactitude is not extensive, so the case is not proven. John Mark would have been in the best position to recount this, however, so I'll say Mark 14:61-64 (=Luke 22:66-71) is the original pericope, to which the Qumraner in layer 5 (at second or third hand) added Mark 14:55-60.

Vorkosigan

Nope, it's pretty mainstream to point out how badly Mark treats Jesus' disciples.

Yes, there are two major sources in Mark, the major authentic Pauline letters, and the Old Testament. The narrative conventions used in Mark are drawn from a third source, the ancient Hellenistic historical romances like The Ephesian Tale. There are some other sources for Mark's material -- Roman myth, Jewish stories like Tobit, and Jewish religious knowledge and myth. There's a fellow who has been arguing for years that the Passion scenery is structured based on the sets and arrangements for a Roman play, but I've forgotten his name.

John Mark is a fiction and cannot be a source.

You're definitely overdoing it; you interpret any perceived change in narrative flow as a new source, but fail to recognize the larger literary structures. Your analytical strategy of chopping up Mark into bite-sized sources means that you'll never see its complexities and depths -- you've dumbed Mark down when actually what you need to do is rise to the writer's level. For example 14:60+ doesn't "interrupt the flow"; it is doublet structure typical in Mark, doubling the Pilate trial. It is not sourced but rather is integral.

Vorkosigan