JoeWallack

JW:
Toto, we need a Thread which is simply an Inventory of all of "Mark's" Negative comments regarding Peter which can be used as a Reference tool. Is it okay if I start one?

I have Faith that public communication to Christians of just how Negative "Mark" was towards "Peter" will be the biggest problem for Christianity since the acceptance of Markan priority. We can label it "The Simontic Problem" and the inevitable book can be "Hooray Simonticuss".



Joseph

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

Clouseau

Do the same for the other gospellers, and of course don't forget to add in the positive statements of each.

Unless this is all a prank, of course.

Julian

I didn't think it necessary to quote from Mark's gospel as I assumed that people were familiar with it. If not, then there is little reason for them to be reading this thread, OR they could go and read it, it being rather short and all.

Mark repeatedly attacks the disciples who never really get anything right. In a later post you use synoptic parallels. The synoptics are not particularly relevant here since Mark didn't know them and the question before us relates specifically to the gospel of Mark. But to take your first example, it is true that the episode appears in Mt. 16:23, but it is also true that Matthew is far kinder to Peter than Mark was. Let's take a look.

In Mark we have Peter rebuking Jesus which is obviously a bad thing for a disciple to do. Matthew must soften this, so he adds some speech to Peter where it becomes clear that Peter is merely concerned for Jesus' life. Much more tolerable than the direct and unmitigated rebuke by Peter in Mark. Jesus then rebukes Peter right back and tells him off. In Matthew we have another softening that happens by removing the descriptive phrase. To summarize, in Mark we have Peter rebuking Jesus for no good reason and Jesus rebuking Peter and telling him off. In Matthew Peter is rebuking out of concern but Jesus tells him off, a much milder presentation. This is how it goes in Mark, always denigrating the disciples, one way or another. You must learn to read it as a standalone work. The other gospels should be forgotten while reading Mark, just like all the gospels must be abandoned when reading Paul.

So, the obvious question was 'why does Mark put down the disciples?' Well, the most reasonable grounds for that, in my mind, would be to show that those who appeal to apostolic tradition for legitimacy are wrong and that Mark (and his community) has the answers. If you have a different explanation, feel free to present it. My explanation fits and seems to me the best one, but I doubt it is the only one and it may not end up being the best one. Try your luck.

Julian

Julian

I did start this thread quite a while back: Mark's view of the disciples In the first post I list several examples of disciple bashing.

Julian

Clivedurdle

I think we are looking at a play.

http://www.nazarenus.com/0-5-prologue.htm

Clivedurdle

Has anyone asked is Q a play?

Roger Pearse

I think there is certainly enough to show a relation, tho.

What the data says is that Mark wrote down material from Peter's preaching. Since both he and Luke were in Rome in 61, there seems no real reason why Luke would be unwilling to use his notes if Mark was willing to pass them around; he tells us himself that he went to those who knew, and if Mark was working with Peter, why would he ignore that source?

We know almost nothing about the origins of the Greek text of Matthew; if we did, we might find that some similar process took place.

None of which should be taken as inferring that therefore the accounts we have are not eye-witness; merely that we have people writing down what the apostles said, doubtless because the latter were busy people. Apostolic endorsement of these is also part of the data.

Sometimes it does. But we should not therefore dismiss all scholarship; rather we should demand better scholarship. And we should not defer to authority on matters of controversy.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ray Moscow

Isn't that just a tradition, supposedly from Papias and passing to us only (as far as I know) through Eusebius (that not-very-reliable historian)?

I don't think biblical scholarship supports that idea.

Ray

Ray Moscow

Sure we do. For one thing, he copied about half of it from Mark -- much of it verbatim.

The supposed "Hebrew" version of Matthew is a mix-up based on something that Irenaeus wrote. I don't see any link to a Hebrew version in the version(s) we have.

Clouseau

People are familiar with it, but they are not familiar with an attack by Mark on Peter. In fact, to be frank, I think most who are familiar with Scripture, who have read whole gospels at a time, would find the idea somewhat strange.

Can we re-phrase? Mark repeatedly attacks the disciples, who never really get anything right. Before Pentecost, so does everyone. That's the point of the cross, the resurrection, and Pentecost, to get things right, or at least, better.

We don't know that. But in any case, Mark would have been familiar with all the variant ideas going around among orthodox believers, if indeed there were any variations. What is not taken into consideration is that the gospel material was, at first, entirely orally transmitted, in the 'twelve' who had witnessed the whole of Jesus' ministry, and oral transmission would have been continued after their demise, though diminishing, probably for another four hundred years. Written gospels are therefore of relatively minor importance in the early years. They are all we have left now, of course.

Surely it is obvious that this was Peter's concern even in Mark's account. Mark is simply more brief about almost everything.

Who wrote this?

'But Peter declared, "Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you." And all the other disciples said the same.'

Not Mark, but Matthew (Matt 26:35 NIV).

All the synoptic authors put down the disciples, and so indeed does John, in his own, rather more devastating way, imv. Luke certainly puts them down in Acts, warts and all. Paul wrote in what Catholics find a somewhat seditious manner, referring to James, Peter and John as 'those who seemed to be important'!

This is because they were all disciples, under discipline, not great heroes in their own right. That is what Christianity is about, or at least, what the disciples themselves believed Christianity to be about- Christ, not mere, feeble, unstable men. No doubt the disciples, unlike many who called themselves Christians who were to follow, were only too pleased to be put down, if it showed that their power was from God, not of themselves. That is still the claim of certain people who claim to be Christians.

What evidence is there that Mark had a community? What evidence is there that there was, in his time, any appeal to apostolic tradition for legitimacy? It seems to me that we have here a non-existent bias against a non-existent phenomenon.