"The Simontic Problem". "Mark's" Negative Casting of Peter

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1223
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: "The Simontic Problem". "Mark's" Negative Casting of Pet

Post by JoeWallack » Wed Oct 21, 2015 10:31 am

iskander wrote:Moses was not a drifter, but a fleeing murderer. It is true that he came back to murder a few more, but we have forgiven him and his conquering tribe.
JW:
And according to the Gospels he (Moses) was the model for Jesus.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: "The Simontic Problem". "Mark's" Negative Casting of Pet

Post by iskander » Wed Oct 21, 2015 10:46 am

It is only an opinion held by some. Jesus was circumcised while Moses was an alerim.

Besides Hashem loved Jesus , but He wanted to murder Moses. (Exodus 4:18-31)

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1223
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: "The Simontic Problem". "Mark's" Negative Casting of Pet

Post by JoeWallack » Wed Oct 21, 2015 10:50 am

iskander wrote:It is only an opinion held by some. Jesus was circumcised while Moses was an alerim.

Besides Hashem loved Jesus , but He wanted to murder Moses. (Exodus 4:18-31)
JW:
And than he (God) lets Moses live a full life and murders Jesus.

If anyone is starting to become suspicious about how this is turning out, let me just state for the record that I do not know iskander and have never worked with him/her/they/it before.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Michael BG
Posts: 644
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: "The Simontic Problem". "Mark's" Negative Casting of Pet

Post by Michael BG » Wed Oct 21, 2015 3:58 pm

JoeWallack wrote:
v1: Price argues (2003) that this verse indicates a much later period when most of the disciples had died. While that is reasonable, there is no reason that Jesus could not have uttered this during his own life time.

v1: the chiastic structure of the previous pericope indicates that Mark 9:1 does not belong here, but to the previous pericope. Perrin (1999) noted its affinities to Mk 8:30 and 8:38. He argues that Mark produced this saying to serve its current function in the pericope that runs from 8:27-91.

v1: Hatina (2005) argues that the 9:1 is not a promise to followers but a threat against those who reject Jesus:

"In contrast to this conventional approach, the reading proposed in this essay begins with the group(s) which will experience ("see") "the kingdom of God coming with power", first in 9,1 and then in 13,26 and 14,62. When prior attention is given to these groups in the context of the narrative, Jesus’ prediction in Mark 9,1 emerges not as a blessing promised to the protagonists, but as a threat of judgment aimed at antagonists."
But boy, does he have the quality:
v1: Hatina (2005) argues that the 9:1 is not a promise to followers but a threat against those who reject Jesus:
Thomas R. Hatina, «Who Will See "The Kingdom of God Coming with Power" in Mark 9,1 — Protagonists or Antagonists?», Vol. 86 (2005) 20-34

Joseph
In the article Thomas R. Hatina makes a logical case, but I didn’t see Mk 9.1 as a problem as my synoptic parallels includes 9.1 in with 8.34ff. The coming of the Kingdom of God and the final judgement should be seen as a threat to those who are not living their life according to what God wants. As well as a promise to those who do. Within the Wisdom tradition it is also seen as a vindication for the messenger and those who live their life according to what God wants.

I don’t understand why you posted it here rather than create a separate topic, as I can’t see it as relevant to Mark’s casting of Peter.

outhouse
Posts: 3573
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: "The Simontic Problem". "Mark's" Negative Casting of Pet

Post by outhouse » Wed Oct 21, 2015 4:06 pm

JoeWallack wrote: And according to the Gospels he (Moses) was the model for Jesus.
Your only a fraction correct here.


Only is some places was jesus rhetorically used as allegory for moses, and only by certain authors.


He mirrors the Emperor much more then moses.

outhouse
Posts: 3573
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: "The Simontic Problem". "Mark's" Negative Casting of Pet

Post by outhouse » Wed Oct 21, 2015 4:08 pm

JoeWallack wrote: let me just state for the record that I do not know iskander and have never worked with him/her/they/it before.
Wasn't he in our last forum joe?

Adam
Posts: 641
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:28 pm

Re: "The Simontic Problem". "Mark's" Negative Casting of Pet

Post by Adam » Wed Oct 21, 2015 8:47 pm

iskander wrote:This article is about the Old Testament canon of the Christian Bible. For the related Jewish canon, see Tanakh. For its Hebrew and Aramaic text, see Hebrew Bible. For the major textual tradition of that text, see Masoretic Text. For ancient Greek version, see Septuagint.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament
"This article" being the "Old Testament" entry in Wiki? Here's a key paragraph:
The disputed books, included in one canon but not in others, are often called the Biblical apocrypha, a term that is sometimes used specifically to describe the books in the Catholic and Orthodox canons that are absent from the Jewish Masoretic Text and most modern Protestant Bibles. Catholics, following the Canon of Trent (1546), describe these books as deuterocanonical, while Greek Orthodox Christians, following the Synod of Jerusalem (1672), use the traditional name of anagignoskomena, meaning "that which is to be read." They are present in a few historic Protestant versions; the German Luther Bible included such books, as did the English 1611 King James Version.

As this section of Peter Kirby's website is "Christian Texts and History", passing it off as equivalent to "Tanakh" is bad form, appropriate for the section for Jewish Texts. Not you, but other Protestants pass off the Council of Jamnia (if such there was) in 90 AD as canonizing the OT. As this was just an offshoot group of Pharisees, not even Judaism as a whole, this of course (and you don't try) does not, could not mean when Christians canonized the Old Testament (itself a term no self-respecting Jew would accept). It turns out that the main Christian body, the Roman Catholic, did not canonize the OT until the 1546 Century Council of Trent, but including seven deuterocanonical books generally called The Apocrypha. A most excellent chart later in the Wiki article shows the comparison of Tanakh (Jewish), Tridentine (with the seven and extra chapters in Daniel and Esther), Greek Orthodox (includes some others in its 1672 formulation), but neglects other formulation. The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Anglican Church adds a Fourth Book of Esdras not shown (nor mentioned in the article). The Oriental Orthodox have yet a larger canon, particularly in the Ethiopian version. In contrast the Nestorians (Assyrian Church of the East) have a narrower canon.
My point is that an adequate canon of the OT is yet unachieved.

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1223
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: "The Simontic Problem". "Mark's" Negative Casting of Pet

Post by JoeWallack » Thu Oct 22, 2015 7:06 am

Michael BG wrote:
JoeWallack wrote:
v1: Price argues (2003) that this verse indicates a much later period when most of the disciples had died. While that is reasonable, there is no reason that Jesus could not have uttered this during his own life time.

v1: the chiastic structure of the previous pericope indicates that Mark 9:1 does not belong here, but to the previous pericope. Perrin (1999) noted its affinities to Mk 8:30 and 8:38. He argues that Mark produced this saying to serve its current function in the pericope that runs from 8:27-91.

v1: Hatina (2005) argues that the 9:1 is not a promise to followers but a threat against those who reject Jesus:

"In contrast to this conventional approach, the reading proposed in this essay begins with the group(s) which will experience ("see") "the kingdom of God coming with power", first in 9,1 and then in 13,26 and 14,62. When prior attention is given to these groups in the context of the narrative, Jesus’ prediction in Mark 9,1 emerges not as a blessing promised to the protagonists, but as a threat of judgment aimed at antagonists."
But boy, does he have the quality:
v1: Hatina (2005) argues that the 9:1 is not a promise to followers but a threat against those who reject Jesus:
Thomas R. Hatina, «Who Will See "The Kingdom of God Coming with Power" in Mark 9,1 — Protagonists or Antagonists?», Vol. 86 (2005) 20-34

Joseph
In the article Thomas R. Hatina makes a logical case, but I didn’t see Mk 9.1 as a problem as my synoptic parallels includes 9.1 in with 8.34ff. The coming of the Kingdom of God and the final judgement should be seen as a threat to those who are not living their life according to what God wants. As well as a promise to those who do. Within the Wisdom tradition it is also seen as a vindication for the messenger and those who live their life according to what God wants.

I don’t understand why you posted it here rather than create a separate topic, as I can’t see it as relevant to Mark’s casting of Peter.
JW:
You say you read Hatina's article and you accept his argument that 9:1 is a negative (in part) and a threat and that 9:1 is the end of the pericope at the end of Chapter 8:

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.
Who is it in the same writing who:
  • 1) Denies Jesus the formulaic three times

    2) Has someone else with his name take up the cross

    3) Stopped following Jesus

    4) Saved his life in this world

    5) Was ashamed of Jesus and his words
So regarding your question of why I would include this subject in a Thread about "Mark's" negative casting of Peter, a better question is have you also read the Gospel of Mark.

I have faith that Gundry also notes the above.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Michael BG
Posts: 644
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: "The Simontic Problem". "Mark's" Negative Casting of Pet

Post by Michael BG » Thu Oct 22, 2015 8:24 pm

JoeWallack wrote: You say you read Hatina's article and you accept his argument that 9:1 is a negative (in part) and a threat and that 9:1 is the end of the pericope at the end of Chapter 8:

Mark 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.
Who is it in the same writing who:
  • 1) Denies Jesus the formulaic three times

    2) Has someone else with his name take up the cross

    3) Stopped following Jesus

    4) Saved his life in this world

    5) Was ashamed of Jesus and his words
So regarding your question of why I would include this subject in a Thread about "Mark's" negative casting of Peter, a better question is have you also read the Gospel of Mark.

I have faith that Gundry also notes the above.

Joseph
Thank you for actually making your point and not leaving us trying to guess what it is. I am not very good at guessing games. :)
I am not sure that 9:1 is needed for your case as the coming Son of Man in verse 38 implies the final judgement and would therefore include the negative judgement of Peter with your analysis.

User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1223
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: "The Simontic Problem". "Mark's" Negative Casting of Pet

Post by JoeWallack » Thu Oct 22, 2015 8:52 pm

Michael BG wrote:
JoeWallack wrote: You say you read Hatina's article and you accept his argument that 9:1 is a negative (in part) and a threat and that 9:1 is the end of the pericope at the end of Chapter 8:

Mark 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.
Who is it in the same writing who:
  • 1) Denies Jesus the formulaic three times

    2) Has someone else with his name take up the cross

    3) Stopped following Jesus

    4) Saved his life in this world

    5) Was ashamed of Jesus and his words
So regarding your question of why I would include this subject in a Thread about "Mark's" negative casting of Peter, a better question is have you also read the Gospel of Mark.

I have faith that Gundry also notes the above.

Joseph
Thank you for actually making your point and not leaving us trying to guess what it is. I am not very good at guessing games. :)
I am not sure that 9:1 is needed for your case as the coming Son of Man in verse 38 implies the final judgement and would therefore include the negative judgement of Peter with your analysis.
JW:
ThankQ!
Oh, I think it's even more than that. The multiple anachronisms of GMark securely date it to well after the destruction of the Temple. By that time I have faith that Peter is being promoted by some as a martyr. In addition to the original Gospel narrative predicting that Peter would finally get it in the end, "not taste death" was intended to communicate that Peter was not a martyr. As you may have noticed by now, this phrase is on the wrong side of 8:38.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Post Reply