Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JoeWallack · 11-04-2007, 10:44 AM

JW:
We previously saw how "Matthew" reacted to "Mark's" Negative casting of Peter by creating specific Praise for his Peter (not that there's anything wrong with that). Now let's see how "Luke" deals with "The Simontic Problem":

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Luke_22

31 "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan asked to have you, that he might sift you as wheat:

32 but I made supplication for thee, that thy faith fail not; and do thou, when once thou hast turned again, establish thy brethren."

JW:
Note that this is a direct Reaction to "Mark's" Peter. "Luke" receives the Peter/Satan tradition and provides her solution. Note that "Luke" moves from Jesus' Intervention here for Peter's Heroine problem to Explicit Rehabilitation:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Acts_1:15

"And in these days Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren, and said (and there was a multitude of persons [gathered] together, about a hundred and twenty),"

(ppst. Neal, I definitely think this 120 is figurative).

Thus we have it on good authority that "Luke", like "Matthew", saw "Mark's" lack of specific praise for Peter as a serious problem that needed to be corrected.

Joseph

SATIRE, n.
An obsolete kind of literary composition in which the vices and follies of the author's enemies were expounded with imperfect tenderness. In this country satire never had more than a sickly and uncertain existence, for the soul of it is wit, wherein we are dolefully deficient, the humor that we mistake for it, like all humor, being tolerant and sympathetic. Moreover, although Americans are "endowed by their Creator" with abundant vice and folly, it is not generally known that these are reprehensible qualities, wherefore the satirist is popularly regarded as a soul-spirited knave, and his ever victim's outcry for codefendants evokes a national assent.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

JoeWallack · 11-10-2007, 11:42 AM

JW:
For those who gladly hear the Truth, here is an Exxxcellent book outlining "Mark's" portrayal of Peter and the Disciples as Total Failures and the related Cookies:

Mark's Story of Jesus by Werner Kelber

which you can buy for less than The Chief Priests paid to get rid of Jesus once (and for all).

It's a Simple, Straight-forward, Honest account which Demonstrates Peter/Satan & Disciples/Demons as The Opposition to Jesus:

"Endowed with the Spirit, he is driven into a confrontation with Satan, because a defeat of the powers of evil is, negatively, the principal objective of his mission. In whatever form and person Satan appears, Jesus will be in opposition to him...

"Immediately" on a Sabbath Jesus enters the synagogue and teaches...

The evil spirit makes the kind of identification which no human being, with one exception, will make in Mark's gospel story. There exists a bond of mutual recognition between the demonic spirits and the Spirit-filled Son of God...

"Immediately" afterwards Jesus enters the house of Simon"

JW:
The Points Kelber makes:

1) Jesus, like The Blues Brothers, is on a Mission from God.

2) Jesus is filled with the Good Spirit at Baptism.

3) The Fight is between Jesus/GoodSpirit & Satan/BadSpirit

4) "Satan" is Opposition to Jesus.

5) Peter and The Disciples Oppose Jesus.

6) The Fight is over "Possession" of Men.

For those who have ears to see and already excellent web sites concerning "Mark", let them add Kelber to their references.

Joseph

X-Uh-Jesus. Verb. A shortcut to Scriptural interpretation whereby all reaonable explanations are considered and The One Orthodox Christianity is most afraid of is taken.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/

JoeWallack · 01-26-2008, 09:19 AM

JW:
For all the fellow Truth-speakers here, the Kuriobunga from downunda, Neal Godfree, has done it again with his latest blog:

Tracing the evolution of the Twelve Apostles from monkey rejects to angelic pillars.

explaining how son of men were descended from aping Jesus:

Quote:

The twelve failures — Mark’s gospel

This appears to be our earliest narrative involving the twelve disciples or twelve apostles and it presents the Twelve as disastrous failures. They are a negative lesson to readers: Don’t be like them! Peter’s name, meaning rocky, is more obviously associated with the rocky soil in the parable of the sower, than with any foundational stone (Talbert). Jesus called him Satan and in almost the same breath warned anyone who was too ashamed to admit to knowing Jesus would be a reject in the kingdom (Mark 8:33-38). This assigns Peter with his threefold denial to the same league as Judas. The disciples fled in fear from Jesus at his arrest and the women fled fearfully from Jesus’ tomb soon afterwards. The only resurrection appearance known to Mark will be at the second coming, although Jesus can be found before then in metaphorical Galilee.

JW:
Excursus, the Evolution of the Jesuspecies:

Mark:

Formula for Disciple Failure:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_8

Quote:

8:34 And he called unto him the multitude with his disciples, and said unto them, If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

8:35 For whosoever would save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel`s shall save it.

8:36 For what doth it profit a man, to gain the whole world, and forfeit his life?

8:37 For what should a man give in exchange for his life?

8:38 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of man also shall be ashamed of him, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

Fulfillment of Formula:

Quote:

14:66 And as Peter was beneath in the court, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest;

14:67 and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked upon him, and saith, Thou also wast with the Nazarene, [even] Jesus.

14:68 But he denied, saying, I neither know, nor understand what thou sayest: and he went out into the porch; and the cock crew.

14:69 And the maid saw him, and began again to say to them that stood by, This is [one] of them.

14:70 But he again denied it. And after a little while again they that stood by said to Peter, of a truth thou art [one] of them; for thou art a Galilaean.

14:71 But he began to curse, and to swear, I know not this man of whom ye speak.

14:72 And straightway the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word, how that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.

JW:
Note that "Mark's" Peter swears on oath that he does not know Jesus.

Matthew:

Formula for Disciple Failure:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Matthew_16

Quote:

16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

16:25 For whosoever would save his life shall lose it: and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake shall find it.

16:26 For what shall a man be profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and forfeit his life? or what shall a man give in exchange for his life?

16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then shall he render unto every man according to his deeds.

16:28 Verily I say unto you, there are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

JW:
Note that #2 has exorcised the following from "Mark's" Jesus:

"For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of man also shall be ashamed of him, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels."

"Matthew" elected to retain the Peter Denial story so he removed the portion of the Formula for Disciple Failure related to a Specific Act, Denying Jesus. He than Rehabilitates his Peter in Toto at the end. Thus "Matthew's" Peter does not meet the Formula for Disciple Failure nearly as clearly as "Mark's" Peter.

Luke:

"Luke" retains "Mark's" Jesus' Formula and Peter's Denial is:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Luke_22

Quote:

22:54 And they seized him, and led him [away], and brought him into the high priest`s house. But Peter followed afar off.

22:55 And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the court, and had sat down together, Peter sat in the midst of them.

22:56 And a certain maid seeing him as he sat in the light [of the fire], and looking stedfastly upon him, said, This man also was with him.

22:57 But he denied, saying, Woman, I know him not.

22:58 And after a little while another saw him, and said, Thou also art [one] of them. But Peter said, Man, I am not.

22:59 And after the space of about one hour another confidently affirmed, saying, Of a truth this man also was with him; for he is a Galilaean.

22:60 But Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew.

22:61 And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how that he said unto him, Before the cock crow this day thou shalt deny me thrice.

22:62 And he went out, and wept bitterly.

JW:
Note that "Luke's" Peter is less emphatic about Denial, it's just an opinion and not a statement. "Luke's" Peter can withstand the bad press here because the related Rehabilitation will be exponentially better than "Matthew's" Peter.

John:

Note that "Johnny" come Lately has completely exorcised "Mark's" Jesus' related Formula here for Disciple Failure. "Mark" in general emphasized Defining Disciple Failure and by the time we get to "John" the emphasis is flipped to defining Disciple success. Peter's Act of Denial is also Tonned down in "John":

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/John_18

Quote:

18:15 And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and [so did] another disciple. Now that disciple was known unto the high priest, and entered in with Jesus into the court of the high priest;

18:16 but Peter was standing at the door without. So the other disciple, who was known unto the high priest, went out and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter.

18:17 The maid therefore that kept the door saith unto Peter, Art thou also [one] of this man`s disciples? He saith, I am not.

18:18 Now the servants and the officers were standing [there], having made a fire of coals; for it was cold; and they were warming themselves: and Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself.

18:19 The high priest therefore asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his teaching.

18:20 Jesus answered him, I have spoken openly to the world; I ever taught in synagogues, and in the temple, where all the Jews come together; and in secret spake I nothing.

18:21 Why askest thou me? Ask them that have heard [me], what I spake unto them: behold, these know the things which I said.

18:22 And when he had said this, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so?

18:23 Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?

18:24 Annas therefore sent him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.

18:25 Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They said therefore unto him, Art thou also [one] of his disciples? He denied, and said, I am not.

18:26 One of the servants of the high priest, being a kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him?

18:27 Peter therefore denied again: and straightway the cock crew.

JW:
Note here that Peter now has company and only Denies that he is a Disciple of Jesus rather than even knowing Jesus. Also, the dramatic/climactic Confessional Cry of Jesus Failure has been circumcised. Again, "John's" Theology is a Positive one, Defining Disciple success, which as always, is a Reaction to "Mark" and his Negative Theology of Defining Disciple Failure:

Always Look On The Bright Side Of Eternal Life

Joseph

EDITOR, n.
A person who combines the judicial functions of Minos, Rhadamanthus and Aeacus, but is placable with an obolus; a severely virtuous censor, but so charitable withal that he tolerates the virtues of others and the vices of himself; who flings about him the splintering lightning and sturdy thunders of admonition till he resembles a bunch of firecrackers petulantly uttering his mind at the tail of a dog; then straightway murmurs a mild, melodious lay, soft as the cooing of a donkey intoning its prayer to the evening star. Master of mysteries and lord of law, high-pinnacled upon the throne of thought, his face suffused with the dim splendors of the Transfiguration, his legs intertwisted and his tongue a-cheek, the editor spills his will along the paper and cuts it off in lengths to suit. And at intervals from behind the veil of the temple is heard the voice of the foreman demanding three inches of wit and six lines of religious meditation, or bidding him turn off the wisdom and whack up some pathos.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

JoeWallack · 02-02-2008, 06:27 AM

I told you bout eH P (Epiphanius) yeah,
You know he's as corrupt as can be yeah.
Well here's another clue for you aalll:
The Walpurgis was Paul.

JW:
I will be demonstrating that Paul was a Primary source for "Mark" in the upcoming Thread:

Outsourcing Paul, A Contract Labor of Love. 12 + 72 + 12 Forms Ton 96.

In the meantime:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_16

Quote:

16:5 And entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, arrayed in a white robe; and they were amazed.

16:6 And he saith unto them, Be not amazed: ye seek Jesus, the Nazarene, who hath been crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold, the place where they laid him!

16:7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.

16:8 And they went out, and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them: and they said nothing to any one; for they were afraid.

JW:
Hmmm. Now who could this possibly be? A young man on [English]"the right side"[/English] who is the first to preach Christ crucified? The Last, who became the First. Someone who is telling Jesus' Historical Disciples that Jesus has been Crucified and Resurrected but is not believed. Someone who was there with Jesus and was Crucified and Resurrected with Jesus.

Joseph

EDITOR, n.
A person who combines the judicial functions of Minos, Rhadamanthus and Aeacus, but is placable with an obolus; a severely virtuous censor, but so charitable withal that he tolerates the virtues of others and the vices of himself; who flings about him the splintering lightning and sturdy thunders of admonition till he resembles a bunch of firecrackers petulantly uttering his mind at the tail of a dog; then straightway murmurs a mild, melodious lay, soft as the cooing of a donkey intoning its prayer to the evening star. Master of mysteries and lord of law, high-pinnacled upon the throne of thought, his face suffused with the dim splendors of the Transfiguration, his legs intertwisted and his tongue a-cheek, the editor spills his will along the paper and cuts it off in lengths to suit. And at intervals from behind the veil of the temple is heard the voice of the foreman demanding three inches of wit and six lines of religious meditation, or bidding him turn off the wisdom and whack up some pathos.

The Necronomicon Of Christianity, From Eldritch Church Elders. Epiphanius' Panarion.

I buried Yeshu

JoeWallack · 09-26-2008, 07:46 AM

JW:
"Mark" lays out 3 ("3 sir, 3") critical requirements for Discipleship in the Key Parable of the Sower:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_4

1) Avoid Satan.

2) Endure Persecutions.

3) Give up Material concerns.

Note that in "Mark's" snuff job of Peter's character "Mark" doesn't just use Peter as a Formula example of Disciple Failure but uses Peter as the Formula example of Disciple Failure:

1) Avoid Satan:

Quote:

Mark 8:31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, and the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

Mark 8:32 And he spake the saying openly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him.

Mark 8:33 But he turning about, and seeing his disciples, rebuked Peter, and saith, Get thee behind me, Satan; for thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men.

JW:
Note that Peter is the character in "Mark" explicitly identified as Satan.

2) Endure Persecutions.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_14

Quote:

Mark 14:66 And as Peter was beneath in the court, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest;

Mark 14:67 and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked upon him, and saith, Thou also wast with the Nazarene, [even] Jesus.

Mark 14:68 But he denied, saying, I neither know, nor understand what thou sayest: and he went out into the porch; and the cock crew.

Mark 14:69 And the maid saw him, and began again to say to them that stood by, This is [one] of them.

Mark 14:70 But he again denied it. And after a little while again they that stood by said to Peter, of a truth thou art [one] of them; for thou art a Galilaean.

Mark 14:71 But he began to curse, and to swear, I know not this man of whom ye speak.

Mark 14:72 And straightway the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word, how that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.

Peter endures the feature failure to endure persecution story in "Mark". Note that the Sower story even uses Peter's nick-name (Rocky) to connect to Peter ("rocky soil").

3) Give up Material concerns.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Mark_10

Quote:

Mark 10:21 And Jesus looking upon him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

Mark 10:22 But his countenance fell at the saying, and he went away sorrowful: for he was one that had great possessions.

Mark 10:23 And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!

Mark 10:24 And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!

Mark 10:25 It is easier for a camel to go through a needle`s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Mark 10:26 And they were astonished exceedingly, saying unto him, Then who can be saved?

Mark 10:27 Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for all things are possible with God.

Mark 10:28 Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee.

Mark 10:29 Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or mother, or father, or children, or lands, for my sake, and for the gospel`s sake,

Mark 10:30 but he shall receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.

Mark 10:31 But many [that are] first shall be last; and the last first.

JW:
This story is the feature explanation of the requirement to give up the material in "Mark". The defect is not explicit here but by Implication it is the Motivation of Peter and Co. They have given up the material to follow Jesus but they are looking for a payoff in this world and not the next. Note that Peter is the lead for the loyal opposition.

Thus we have it on good authority that the biggest sacrifice in "Mark" was not Jesus but Peter's credibility as a witness to Jesus.

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

bacht · 09-26-2008, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Thus we have it on good authority that the biggest sacrifice in "Mark" was not Jesus but Peter's credibility as a witness to Jesus.

So then the question becomes: who was this Cephas/Peter, and why did Mark see a need to discredit him? Was Peter always wrong in his teaching? Was Peter a bad person, spreading misinformation? Is he a symbol of Jewish Christianity, in confusion or retreat after the revolt? Is Mark showing us the passing of Christianity from the Jews to gentiles?

JoeWallack · 03-01-2009, 01:51 PM

JW:
In the Thread Mark's view of the disciples I demonstrated that a primary theme, if not the main theme of "Mark", was for the author to discredit the Disciples in general and specifically Peter. In this Thread I have demonstrated how "Mark" did this. I'd now like to look at the theory that "Mark" also used the genre of Greek Tragedy for this purpose.

A natural objection to this theory is that Jesus does not fit the description of the tragic hero especially with regard to making a mistake. I think though that Peter fits the definition of the tragic hero significantly better than Jesus and "Mark" is negatively defined as to instruction. Don't be like Peter and don't be like the Disciples. Throughout "Mark" the style is to have a feature story of negative disciple behavior framed by positive non-disciple behavior.

"Mark" also has a basic structure of contrasting positive Jesus behavior with negative disciple and especially Peter behavior. Is "Mark" more interested in showing Jesus' positive behavior or showing Peter/Disciple negative Peter? It's generally assumed that "Mark's" main interest is to promote Jesus, but I think it's an open question.

Considering Peter as the tragic hero let's look at Aristotle's definition of classic Greek Tragedy:

Tragedy

Quote:

Aristotle
Further information: Poetics (Aristotle)

The philosopher Aristotle said in his work Poetics that tragedy is characterized by seriousness and dignity and involving a great person who experiences a reversal of fortune (Peripeteia). Aristotle's definition can include a change of fortune from bad to good as in the Eumenides, but he says that the change from good to bad as in Oedipus Rex is preferable because this effects pity and fear within the spectators. Tragedy results in a catharsis (emotional cleansing) or healing for the audience through their experience of these emotions in response to the suffering of the characters in the drama.

According to Aristotle, "the structure of the best tragedy should be not simple but complex and one that represents incidents arousing fear and pity--for that is peculiar to this form of art."[13] This reversal of fortune must be caused by the tragic hero's hamartia, which is often mistranslated as a character flaw, but is more correctly translated as a mistake (since the original Greek etymology traces back to hamartanein, a sporting term that refers to an archer or spear-thrower missing his target).[14] According to Aristotle, "The change to bad fortune which he undergoes is not due to any moral defect or flaw, but a mistake of some kind."[15] The reversal is the inevitable but unforeseen result of some action taken by the hero. It is also a misconception that this reversal can be brought about by a higher power (e.g. the law, the gods, fate, or society), but if a character’s downfall is brought about by an external cause, Aristotle describes this as a misadventure and not a tragedy.[16]

In addition, the tragic hero may achieve some revelation or recognition (anagnorisis--"knowing again" or "knowing back" or "knowing throughout") about human fate, destiny, and the will of the gods. Aristotle terms this sort of recognition "a change from ignorance to awareness of a bond of love or hate."

In Poetics, Aristotle gave the following definition in ancient Greek of the word "tragedy" (τραγωδία):

Ἐστὶν οὖν τραγωδία μίμησις πράξεως σπουδαίας καὶ τελείας, μέγεθος ἐχούσης, ἡδυσμένῳ λόγῳ, χωρὶς ἑκάστῳ τῶν εἰδὼν ἐν τοῖς μορίοις, δρώντων καὶ οὐ δι'ἀπαγγελίας, δι' ἐλέου καὶ φόβου περαίνουσα τὴν τῶν τοιούτων παθημάτων κάθαρσιν.

which means Tragedy is an imitation of an action that is admirable, complete (composed of an introduction, a middle part and an ending), and possesses magnitude; in language made pleasurable, each of its species separated in different parts; performed by actors, not through narration; effecting through pity and fear the purification of such emotions.

Summary and my evaluation with Peter as tragic hero:

1) Serious in nature

Bingo!

2) Involves a great person

This is probably the biggest complaint about this theory since Jesus is
naturally considered the great person here and Peter via narrative starts
out as a nobody. But if "Mark's" audience was already familiar with the
background story than Peter is not a nobody but the leader of Christianity
who falls with the fall of Jerusalem.

3) Reversal of fortune

At the narrative level Peter goes "From first to last." (Bingo!)

4) Change in fortune should be bad

Bingo!

5) Effect of catharsis for audience in reaction to suffering of characters

Bingo!

6) Complex structure

Bingo!

7) Arousing fear and pity

Bingo!

8) Reversal of fortune caused by making a mistake

Peter's mistake is to deny Jesus

9) The hero achieves recognition

Peter's catharsis is when he cries

10) Tragedy is imitation of an action that is admirable

Peter's objective is to imitate Jesus' noble behavior (Bingo!)

11) Tragedy consists of an introduction, a middle part and an ending

Bingo!

12) In language made pleasurable

The narrative is very stylish with chiasms, framing, ironic contrast,
replacement themes and symbolic use of names

13) Performed by actors

No.

Joseph

STORY, n.
A narrative, commonly untrue. The truth of the stories here following has, however, not been successfully impeached.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

JoeWallack · 06-10-2009, 06:54 AM

JW:
Stage 1 of "The Simontic Problem" was an Inventory of "Mark's" Negative Casting of Peter:

Major Negative Casting:
1) 4:15 The Parable of the Sower specifically refers to Peter as in the category of Disciple Failure.

2) 8:32 Peter is presented as the Opposition to the Passion.

3) 14:30 Jesus predicts that Peter will Deny him Three times.

4) 14:53-72 Peter Denies Jesus Three times.

Minor Negative Casting:
1) 1:29-31 Sickness in Simon's house.

2) 3:16 Jesus gives Simon an extra name, "Peter".

3) 6:3 The name "Simon" is assigned to a brother of Jesus who is presented unfavorably.

4) 14:1-9 A Simon is presented as a Leper.

5) 14:37 Jesus demotes Peter by using his pre-Disciple name, "Simon" to address him.

6) 14:34-42 Peter Fails to Watch out for Jesus.

7) 14:72 Peter mourns the loss of his life for Denying Jesus.

8) 15:21 Peter Simon is figuratively replaced as Leader of Jesus' followers.

"Mark" has a literary device of using the same words to Mark-off related segments of his story (this is a long Way from a simple straight-forward apology for the cross).

The first house that Jesus enters during the Teaching & Healing Ministry is Simon's:

1:29-31

Quote:

29 And straightway, when they were come out of the synagogue, they came into the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John.

30 Now Simon`s wife`s mother lay sick of a fever; and straightway they tell him of her:

31 and he came and took her by the hand, and raised her up; and the fever left her, and she ministered unto them.

"Mark" equates illness = demons. Simon's house has illness. Note that Simon does not ask Jesus to heal.

The last house that Jesus enters during the Teaching & Healing Ministry is Simon's:

14:3

Quote:

14:3 And while he was in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster cruse of ointment of pure nard very costly; [and] she brake the cruse, and poured it over his head.

Now it's Simon who has illness. Again note that Simon does not ask Jesus to heal. The sinful woman anointing Jesus (inversion of the standard righteous male prophet) is anointing for his death which Marks the ending of the Teaching & Healing Ministry and the beginning of the Passion.

Simon has lost his status now as leader of the disciples and the next and only other time Jesus addresses him, he calls him "Simon". Tell Simon of Cyrene he has 5 minutes before he's on.

While I'm here, regarding the value of 14:28 as implication of a post-resurrection meeting for Simon:

14:28

Quote:

28 Howbeit, after I am raised up, I will go before you into Galilee.

As "Mark" stands it is supported by Paul, as it stands:

1 Corinthians 15:4-5

Quote:

1 Corinthians 15:4 and that he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures;

1 Corinthians 15:5 and that he appeared to Cephas; then to the twelve;

Per Paul, Cephas is the first to see Jesus again. If you take Mark 14:28 & 16:7 as predictive than it is compatible with Simon being the first to see Jesus again. "Mark" does not require this but "Mark" does not show or predict that anyone else would see Jesus first.

The problem though is that both 14:28 and 1 Corinthians 15:5 are textually suspect:

14:28

1) The Fayyum Fragment is Script evidence that 14:28 is Late. 16:7 is dependent on 14:28. So if 14:28 is Late, so is 16:7.

2) Peter's response of 14:29 is completely non-responsive to 14:28.

3) It's unlikely that any prophecy would be given by "Mark's" Jesus whose significance would be so reduced in the next line.

4) 14:28 breaks an otherwise Balanced Chiastic structure for the surrounding Verses.

5) 14:28 uses a Passive Form of "raised up" while the 3 Passion predictions use an Active form.

6) 14:28 completely Reverses the point of 14:27 with no apparent Motivation or Explanation for doing so which doesn't fit the Style of "Mark".

7) The Grammar of 14:28 is awkward compared to the Markan Narrative and suggests a different source.

1 Corinthians 15-5

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

according to the scriptures: Paul is fond of citing his sources when dealing with Hebrew bible material. The only place he instead uses this generic phrase, a creedal favorite, in all his writings is here, twice.
on the third day: the earliest gospel traces use the phrase "after three days" (see presentation in recent thread), so "on the third day" should be seen as later christian tradition.
Cephas: this figure is placed separately from the twelve and is privileged in such placement, suggesting a time when Cephas/Peter had a special position in the christian tradition.
the twelve: this is not the tradition that has come down to us for there were only eleven according to the gospel accounts at the time, so it wasn't part of the earliest tradition.
five hundred brethren: not part of the earliest tradition and not known by the gospels as they didn't take up such a phenomenal appearance.
some have fallen asleep: obviously post-Pauline coming to terms with the non-arrival of the eschaton. (Related to 15:18.)
James: this figure, not included among the twelve, reflects another non-gospel tradition which if known at the time of Paul, didn't survive into the gospel era.
the apostles: a group separate from the twelve and another non-gospel tradition
He appeared also to me: this is a sudden shift from resurrection appearances apparently to Paul's vision

There are two types of information here, dating issues and information problems. The dating issues are all transparent: 1) the ascendancy of Cephas/Peter, 2) the post-Marcan "on this day" and 3) those fallen asleep being the post-Pauline acknowledgment that the eschaton hadn't come. The non-gospel nature of the appearance to the whopping 500 makes the passage it is in clearly questionable.
spin

Joseph

SATIRE, n.
An obsolete kind of literary composition in which the vices and follies of the author's enemies were expounded with imperfect tenderness. In this country satire never had more than a sickly and uncertain existence, for the soul of it is wit, wherein we are dolefully deficient, the humor that we mistake for it, like all humor, being tolerant and sympathetic. Moreover, although Americans are "endowed by their Creator" with abundant vice and folly, it is not generally known that these are reprehensible qualities, wherefore the satirist is popularly regarded as a soul-spirited knave, and his ever victim's outcry for codefendants evokes a national assent.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Solo · 06-10-2009, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

The question here is who did she minister/serve? All of them, which would include Jesus or just the previous "them" reference which would be everyone but Jesus?

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_10

45 "For the Son of man also came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many."

The Key to "Mark's" Literary construction, Jesus came to Serve others and not be Served by others. The author is Consistent in his Narrative that Jesus is never Explicitly Served by the sons of men (after he has been prepared and Served by the Sons of God in 1:13). "Mark" can be Consistent with this Literary Style because he knows what it means. He knows what it means because it is his Creation. Consistency is what gives weight to evidence. "Mark" avoids stepping in his own shit.

But evidently you don't, and joewallop merrily into yet another one:

Quote:

Mar 14:3-7 And while he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at table, a woman came with an alabaster flask of ointment of pure nard, very costly, and she broke the flask and poured it over his head.

But there were some who said to themselves indignantly, "Why was the ointment thus wasted?

For this ointment might have been sold for more than three hundred denarii, and given to the poor." And they reproached her.

But Jesus said, "Let her alone; why do you trouble her? She has done a beautiful thing to me.

For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you will, you can do good to them; but you will not always have me.

He is the bridegroom, remember ? (Mk 2:19, 2 Cor 11:2). He will not refuse to be ministered to in the hour of joy !

Jiri

Solo · 06-10-2009, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
Stage 1 of "The Simontic Problem" was an Inventory of "Mark's" Negative Casting of Peter:

Major Negative Casting:
1) 4:15 The Parable of the Sower specifically refers to Peter as in the category of Disciple Failure.

2) 8:32 Peter is presented as the Opposition to the Passion.

3) 14:30 Jesus predicts that Peter will Deny him Three times.

4) 14:53-72 Peter Denies Jesus Three times.

Minor Negative Casting:
1) 1:29-31 Sickness in Simon's house.

2) 3:16 Jesus gives Simon an extra name, "Peter".

3) 6:3 The name "Simon" is assigned to a brother of Jesus who is presented unfavorably.

4) 14:1-9 A Simon is presented as a Leper.

5) 14:37 Jesus demotes Peter by using his pre-Disciple name, "Simon" to address him.

6) 14:34-42 Peter Fails to Watch out for Jesus.

7) 14:72 Peter mourns the loss of his life for Denying Jesus.

8) 15:21 Peter Simon is figuratively replaced as Leader of Jesus' followers.

"Mark" has a literary device of using the same words to Mark-off related segments of his story (this is a long Way from a simple straight-forward apology for the cross).

The first house that Jesus enters during the Teaching & Healing Ministry is Simon's:

1:29-31

Quote:

29 And straightway, when they were come out of the synagogue, they came into the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John.

30 Now Simon`s wife`s mother lay sick of a fever; and straightway they tell him of her:

31 and he came and took her by the hand, and raised her up; and the fever left her, and she ministered unto them.

"Mark" equates illness = demons. Simon's house has illness. Note that Simon does not ask Jesus to heal.

It's not his house but his mother-in-law that's sick. This is too loose an association for negativity. I think that Mark purposely chose Peter's house to perform the first healing because Peter did have a reputation as a spirit healer. So having Jesus displace the meister in his own house could be seen as gospel cutting Peter to size.

The rest looks fine.

I would also add in the minor negatives Jesus refusal to grant Peter an full access to the kingdom on account of his leaving his house and following him around. Jesus tells him that indeed all who leave their house and family for his sake, and for the sake of the gospel will receive many things but also persecutions (Gal 6:12) in this life and eternal life (kingdom) afterwards. Note the jab at Peter in 10:31 - But many who are first, will be last...etc.... and who did Jesus call on first as disciples ? (Matt 5:19, could be seen as the Petrine counterpunch to Mk 10:31 and Paul's authority).

Quote:

While I'm here, regarding the value of 14:28 as implication of a post-resurrection meeting for Simon:

14:28

As "Mark" stands it is supported by Paul, as it stands:

1 Corinthians 15:4-5

Per Paul, Cephas is the first to see Jesus again. If you take Mark 14:28 & 16:7 as predictive than it is compatible with Simon being the first to see Jesus again. "Mark" does not require this but "Mark" does not show or predict that anyone else would see Jesus first.

..... the big question here is this: if 14:28 & 16:7 are predictive then what is the purpose of 16:8, the women running away scared and not saying anything to anyone ?

Here is my solution which works either way: the women are evidently construed as a communication link between the supernatural annunciation and the leaderless followers of the earthly Jesus who do not accept the power of the cross (1 Cr 1:17-18). That communication link is said to be broken ! How then does the gospel get to those led by Peter ?

Can you see the recursive, self-referencing design of Mark ? It's a clever way of saying : you had a Jesus who is gone and the messiah he promised is not coming any time soon. We have a gospel ! How about it ? So Matt comes along says, ok since you guys are so insistent on suffering here on earth we'll make you a deal: how about Paul's cross AND Peter as the leader of your church ?! :devil1:

Quote:

The problem though is that both 14:28 and 1 Corinthians 15:5 are textually suspect:

14:28

1) The Fayyum Fragment is Script evidence that 14:28 is Late. 16:7 is dependent on 14:28. So if 14:28 is Late, so is 16:7.

2) Peter's response of 14:29 is completely non-responsive to 14:28.

3) It's unlikely that any prophecy would be given by "Mark's" Jesus whose significance would be so reduced in the next line.

4) 14:28 breaks an otherwise Balanced Chiastic structure for the surrounding Verses.

5) 14:28 uses a Passive Form of "raised up" while the 3 Passion predictions use an Active form.

6) 14:28 completely Reverses the point of 14:27 with no apparent Motivation or Explanation for doing so which doesn't fit the Style of "Mark".

7) The Grammar of 14:28 is awkward compared to the Markan Narrative and suggests a different source.

1 Corinthians 15-5

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

according to the scriptures: Paul is fond of citing his sources when dealing with Hebrew bible material. The only place he instead uses this generic phrase, a creedal favorite, in all his writings is here, twice.
on the third day: the earliest gospel traces use the phrase "after three days" (see presentation in recent thread), so "on the third day" should be seen as later christian tradition.
Cephas: this figure is placed separately from the twelve and is privileged in such placement, suggesting a time when Cephas/Peter had a special position in the christian tradition.
the twelve: this is not the tradition that has come down to us for there were only eleven according to the gospel accounts at the time, so it wasn't part of the earliest tradition.
five hundred brethren: not part of the earliest tradition and not known by the gospels as they didn't take up such a phenomenal appearance.
some have fallen asleep: obviously post-Pauline coming to terms with the non-arrival of the eschaton. (Related to 15:18.)
James: this figure, not included among the twelve, reflects another non-gospel tradition which if known at the time of Paul, didn't survive into the gospel era.
the apostles: a group separate from the twelve and another non-gospel tradition
He appeared also to me: this is a sudden shift from resurrection appearances apparently to Paul's vision

There are two types of information here, dating issues and information problems. The dating issues are all transparent: 1) the ascendancy of Cephas/Peter, 2) the post-Marcan "on this day" and 3) those fallen asleep being the post-Pauline acknowledgment that the eschaton hadn't come. The non-gospel nature of the appearance to the whopping 500 makes the passage it is in clearly questionable.
spin

Joseph

No problem that I can see ! All things are possible with God !

Jiri

11-04-2007, 10:44 AM	#31
JoeWallack Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Nazareth Posts: 2,357	Luukee! Ya Got Sum Splainin Ta Do. JW: We previously saw how "Matthew" reacted to "Mark's" Negative casting of Peter by creating specific Praise for his Peter (not that there's anything wrong with that). Now let's see how "Luke" deals with "The Simontic Problem": http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Luke_22 31 "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan asked to have you, that he might sift you as wheat: 32 but I made supplication for thee, that thy faith fail not; and do thou, when once thou hast turned again, establish thy brethren." JW: Note that this is a direct Reaction to "Mark's" Peter. "Luke" receives the Peter/Satan tradition and provides her solution. Note that "Luke" moves from Jesus' Intervention here for Peter's Heroine problem to Explicit Rehabilitation: http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Acts_1:15 "And in these days Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren, and said (and there was a multitude of persons [gathered] together, about a hundred and twenty)," (ppst. Neal, I definitely think this 120 is figurative). Thus we have it on good authority that "Luke", like "Matthew", saw "Mark's" lack of specific praise for Peter as a serious problem that needed to be corrected. Joseph SATIRE, n. An obsolete kind of literary composition in which the vices and follies of the author's enemies were expounded with imperfect tenderness. In this country satire never had more than a sickly and uncertain existence, for the soul of it is wit, wherein we are dolefully deficient, the humor that we mistake for it, like all humor, being tolerant and sympathetic. Moreover, although Americans are "endowed by their Creator" with abundant vice and folly, it is not generally known that these are reprehensible qualities, wherefore the satirist is popularly regarded as a soul-spirited knave, and his ever victim's outcry for codefendants evokes a national assent. http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

11-10-2007, 11:42 AM	#32
JoeWallack Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Nazareth Posts: 2,357	Kelber's Els JW: For those who gladly hear the Truth, here is an Exxxcellent book outlining "Mark's" portrayal of Peter and the Disciples as Total Failures and the related Cookies: Mark's Story of Jesus by Werner Kelber which you can buy for less than The Chief Priests paid to get rid of Jesus once (and for all). It's a Simple, Straight-forward, Honest account which Demonstrates Peter/Satan & Disciples/Demons as The Opposition to Jesus: "Endowed with the Spirit, he is driven into a confrontation with Satan, because a defeat of the powers of evil is, negatively, the principal objective of his mission. In whatever form and person Satan appears, Jesus will be in opposition to him... "Immediately" on a Sabbath Jesus enters the synagogue and teaches... The evil spirit makes the kind of identification which no human being, with one exception, will make in Mark's gospel story. There exists a bond of mutual recognition between the demonic spirits and the Spirit-filled Son of God... "Immediately" afterwards Jesus enters the house of Simon" JW: The Points Kelber makes: 1) Jesus, like The Blues Brothers, is on a Mission from God. 2) Jesus is filled with the Good Spirit at Baptism. 3) The Fight is between Jesus/GoodSpirit & Satan/BadSpirit 4) "Satan" is Opposition to Jesus. 5) Peter and The Disciples Oppose Jesus. 6) The Fight is over "Possession" of Men. For those who have ears to see and already excellent web sites concerning "Mark", let them add Kelber to their references. Joseph X-Uh-Jesus. Verb. A shortcut to Scriptural interpretation whereby all reaonable explanations are considered and The One Orthodox Christianity is most afraid of is taken. http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.