"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
MrMacSon
Posts: 6096
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

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

Post by MrMacSon » Fri Oct 23, 2015 12:16 am

JoeWallack wrote:JW:
Included in the locked up vault at FRDB (which is being handled by top women) is my Award winning Thread, "The Simontic Problem". "Mark's" Negative Casting of Peter, where I demonstrate, and than some, that a primary literary objective of "Mark" was to discredit Peter as supposed witness to Jesus.

Most Believers will start with the conclusion that "Mark" credited Peter with historical witness to Jesus (mainly relying consciously or unconsciously on what "Mark" did not write) so it makes no difference to them how much evidence I present the other Way. Non-believers are much more open to the question, and the trend is definitely moving towards my conclusion, but I think most are still not convinced.
Could aspects of these narratives be based on narratives about messiah claimants such as those listed in the works of Josephus? Principally, Jewish Antiquities and Jewish War?
One of the messiah claimants is Simon of Peraea (4 BCE) - Gabriel's Revelation is an atypical text about a messiah claimant from before the times that the Jesus narrative is set in.
Israel Knohl, an iconoclastic professor of Bible studies at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, thinks "the specific messianic figure embodied on the stone could be a man named Simon who was slain by a commander in the Herodian army, according to the first-century historian Josephus. The writers of the stone’s passages were probably Simon’s followers, Mr. Knohl contends.

"The slaying of Simon, or any case of the suffering messiah, is seen as a necessary step toward national salvation, he says, pointing to lines 19 through 21 of the tablet — “In three days you will know that evil will be defeated by justice” — and other lines that speak of blood and slaughter as pathways to justice."

Could Mark et al be discussing and comparing narratives such as these?

Josephus also narrates that Daniel prophesied that the Roman Government would make his country desolate -

Antiquities of the Jews 10.11.7
  • "In the very same manner Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should be made desolate by them. All these things did this man leave in writing, as God had showed them to him, insomuch that such as read his prophecies, and see how they have been fulfilled, would wonder at the honor wherewith God honored Daniel ..."
Last edited by MrMacSon on Fri Nov 18, 2016 11:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

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 » Fri Oct 23, 2015 12:44 pm

JoeWallack wrote: 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
I hope that you will create a new topic and present your case for dating gMark after 70 CE as I would find it interesting.

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

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

Post by Adam » Fri Oct 23, 2015 1:33 pm

Carefully define what one means by "dating gMark after 70 CE". Even I would not necessarily contest that the version of gMark we have through 16:8 is after 70AD. (I currently hold to external criticism and the '60's.) There are four cases: A date for (1) All of Mark written of a piece (unitary), (2) the sources underlying Mark, (3) our gMark as we have it, abstaining from dating earlier sources included within it, and (4) our current gMark and also for the sources.

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3313
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

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

Post by Bernard Muller » Fri Oct 23, 2015 3:02 pm

I hope that you will create a new topic and present your case for dating gMark after 70 CE as I would find it interesting.
I made my case about gMark being written soon after the fall of Jerusalem in the summer of 70:
http://historical-jesus.info/41.html

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

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 » Sat Oct 24, 2015 8:24 am

JW:
A summary of the Funky Hatina's argument that 9:1 is primarily intended to be taken as negative (threat):

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

Regarding the offending verse:

Mark 9:1

Strong's Transliteration Greek English Morphology
2532 [e] kai καὶ And Conj
3004 [e] elegen ἔλεγεν he said V-IIA-3S
846 [e] autois αὐτοῖς to them, PPro-DM3P
281 [e] Amēn Ἀμὴν Truly Heb
3004 [e] legō λέγω I say V-PIA-1S
4771 [e] hymin ὑμῖν to you, PPro-D2P
3754 [e] hoti ὅτι That Conj
1510 [e] eisin εἰσίν there are V-PIA-3P
5100 [e] tines τινες some IPro-NMP
5602 [e] hōde ὧδε ⇔ here Adv
3588 [e] tōn τῶν of those Art-GMP
2476 [e] hestēkotōn ἑστηκότων standing, V-RPA-GMP
3748 [e] hoitines οἵτινες who RelPro-NMP
3756 [e] ou οὐ no Adv
3361 [e] μὴ not Adv
1089 [e] geusōntai γεύσωνται shall taste V-ASM-3P
2288 [e] thanatou θανάτου of death, N-GMS
2193 [e] heōs ἕως until Conj
302 [e] an ἂν anyhow Prtcl
3708 [e]idōsin ἴδωσιν they see V-ASA-3P
3588 [e] tēn τὴν the Art-AFS
932 [e] basileian βασιλείαν kingdom N-AFS
3588 [e] tou τοῦ - Art-GMS
2316 [e] Theou Θεοῦof God N-GMS
2064 [e] elēlythuian ἐληλυθυῖαν having come V-RPA-AFS
1722 [e] en ἐν with Prep
1411 [e] dynamei δυνάμει. power. N-DFS

A summary of Hatina's argument:

The basic question Hatina asks is who is 9:1 directed to? Hatina gives two choices, Antagonists and Protagonists (of course I appreciate the Greek Tragedy terminology). The bulk of Hatina's article presents evidence that the Antagonists are being spoken to, and this is Hatina's conclusion of course. As has been noted here, to some extent 9:1 refers to both, but Hatina's argument is a one or the other.

Hatina's primary points:

1) In general, pre-existing belief is that Jesus' supposed predictions of return have a context of reward rather than judgment and therefore refer mainly to Protagonists (believers) rather than Antagonists (non-believers).

2) 9:1 connects structurally to the end of Chapter 8:
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.

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.

9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There are some here of them that stand [by], who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God come with power.
Support for this conclusion:
  • 1 – The wording in 9:1 is typical of Markan wording ending a pericope

    2 – The wording in 9:2 is typical of Markan wording beginning a pericope
The Legendary Vorkosigan also notes that 9:1 is a better chiastic fit with the end of Chapter 8.

3) The pericope is primarily about choosing/contrast between Antagonist and Protagonist but is more negative than positive.

4) The language indicates it is Jesus' supposed audience that is being addressed in 9:1 and not the author's audience (note especially "this adulterous and sinful generation" of 8:38).

5) The two other instances of apocalyptic language in GMark, 13:26 and 14:62, clearly refer to Antagonists.

6) Apocalyptic language in external contemporary writings is more likely to refer to Antagonists.

7) The context of the pericope as a whole is to followers/believers (rather than opponents) and what the broad definition of failure and success is. So the emphasis is on disloyalty to Jesus which is a negative and thus fits Antagonists. The clearer explanation of 9:1 is that Antagonists refuse to be martyrs so they can see the Kingdom come with power (thus the typical Markan irony that because they lived to see it, they will die seeing it).

8) “Taste death” in Jewish literature normally refers to dying rather than not dying.

9) The apocalyptic language of 9:1 is used 3 times in total (13:26 and 14:62, clearly refer to Antagonists) and 3 time repetition of the same theme is a common style of GMark.

Getting to the specific issue of this Thread, "Mark's" negative casting of Peter, Hatina concludes that 9:1 refers to the "Outsiders", opponents of Jesus rather than followers/believers, rather than the Insiders, because 13:26 and 14:62 refer to outsiders. This implies that he does not think 9:1 refers to Peter as an Antagonist. I think Hatina is proof-texting though because all of the other evidence that Hatina presents indicates that Peter is being referred to:
  • 1) The wording is clear that Peter is in the audience being addressed.

    2) Immediately before the pericope in question Peter has been used as the formulaic fulfillment of an antagonist definition in the pericope.

    3) The language indicates the audience is primarily followers/believers and not opponents.

    4) The largest emphasis is on disloyalty of followers/believers.

    5) Peter explicitly opposes Jesus' suffering and death in what precedes.
Perhaps Hatina just suffered Goodacre fatigue by finishing up with proof-texting to avoid presenting the evidence that Peter was intended to be referred to in 9:1 or was just afraid to go where some are standing with Gundry.


Joseph

ErrancyWki

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

Remember, remember, the fiction of never

Post by JoeWallack » Fri Nov 18, 2016 6:44 am

KK: "1) Just a little question: What did Mark thought about memory?"

JW:
I find KK's come on irresistible. "Mark" (author) uses the offending word exactly twice:

14:72

Strong'sTransliteration Greek English Morphology
2532 [e] kai καὶ And Conj
2112 [e] euthys εὐθὺς immediately Adv
1537 [e] ek ἐκ for Prep
1208 [e] deuterou δευτέρου the second time Adj-GNS
220 [e] alektōr ἀλέκτωρ a rooster N-NMS
5455 [e] ephōnēsen ἐφώνησεν. crowed. V-AIA-3S
2532 [e] kai καὶ And Conj
363 [e] anemnēsthē ἀνεμνήσθη remembered V-AIP-3S
3588 [e] ho - Art-NMS
4074 [e] Petros Πέτρος Peter N-NMS
3588 [e] to τὸ the Art-ANS
4487 [e] rhēma ῥῆμα word N-ANS
5613 [e] hōs ὡς that Adv
3004 [e] eipen εἶπεν had said V-AIA-3S
846 [e] autō αὐτῷ to him PPro-DM3S
3588 [e] ho - Art-NMS
2424 [e] Iēsous Ἰησοῦς Jesus, N-NMS
3754 [e] hoti ὅτι - Conj
4250 [e] Prin Πρὶν Before Adv
220 [e] alektora ἀλέκτορα [the] rooster N-AMS
1364 [e] dis δὶς ⇔ twice Adv
5455 [e] phōnēsai φωνῆσαι crows, V-ANA
5151 [e] tris τρίς three times Adv
1473 [e] me με me PPro-A1S
533 [e] aparnēsē ἀπαρνήσῃ· you will deny; V-FIM-2S
2532 [e] kai καὶ and Conj
1911 [e] epibalōn ἐπιβαλὼν having broken down, V-APA-NMS
2799 [e] eklaien ἔκλαιεν. he wept. V-IIA-3S

JW:
Personally, I find it reMarkable that in a work that has a primary theme of Jesus trying to get Peter/The Disciples to remember that after Jesus dies he will be resurrected, which the author claims was told clearly and repeatedly to them (no tricks), literally/figuratively the only things Peter remembers are the prediction of his failure by Jesus and what else? Someone, anyone, Bultmeur? Sounds like Literary Intentional Emphasis (LIE) to me.

Bonus material for Solo = Peter remembers twice. How does "Mark" mark this above?


Joseph

You Might Be An Antisemite[If the Jew fits...]

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

A Dried Up Peter

Post by JoeWallack » Sat Nov 19, 2016 8:32 am

JW:
The other use of the offending word:

11:21

V
Strong's Transliteration Greek English Morphology
2532 [e] kai καὶ And Conj
363 [e] anamnēstheis ἀναμνησθεὶς having remembered, V-APP-NMS
3588 [e] ho - Art-NMS
4074 [e] Petros Πέτρος Peter N-NMS
3004 [e] legei λέγει says V-PIA-3S
846 [e] autō αὐτῷ to him, PPro-DM3S
4461 [e] Rhabbi Ῥαββί*, Rabbi, N-VMS
3708 [e] ide ἴδε look, V-AMA-2S
3588 [e] the Art-NFS
4808 [e] sykē συκῆ fig tree N-NFS
3739 [e] hēn ἣν that RelPro-AFS
2672 [e] katērasō κατηράσω you cursed-AIM-2S
3583 [e] exērantai [1]ἐξήρανται. [1]is dried up. V-RIM/P-3S

JW:
So in a Gospel where Peter receives more things worth remembering than anyone else, Jesus teachings and miracles, testimonies from everyone and instructions from God herself, the only things that Peter does remember are Jesus' predictions of failure. A specific prediction of Peter's own failure and a prediction of the Fig Trees failure.

[1] = The Way of crumbs for the Wordmeister (KK)

Bonus material for Solo = What does the Fig Tree represent in GMark?


Joseph

You Might Be An Antisemite

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

Withering Literary Heights

Post by JoeWallack » Sun Nov 20, 2016 9:10 pm

Withering Literary Heights

JW:
"Mark's" (author) use of the offending word:

http://biblehub.com/greek/3583.htm
xérainó: to dry up, waste away
Original Word: ξηραίνω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: xérainó
Phonetic Spelling: (xay-rah'-ee-no)
Short Definition: I dry up, parch, ripen
Definition: I dry up, parch, am ripened, wither, waste away.

Verse Section Relation to Peter Commentary
3
1 And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there who had his hand withered.
2 And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him.
3 And he saith unto the man that had his hand withered, Stand forth.
4 And he saith unto them, Is it lawful on the sabbath day to do good, or to do harm? to save a life, or to kill? But they held their peace.
5 And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved at the hardening of their heart, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thy hand. And he stretched it forth; and his hand was restored
Teaching & Healing Ministry Peter witnesses but target audience is The Pharisees Change from sickness to healing
4
1 And again he began to teach by the sea side. And there is gathered unto him a very great multitude, so that he entered into a boat, and sat in the sea; and all the multitude were by the sea on the land.
2 And he taught them many things in parables, and said unto them in his teaching,
3 Hearken: Behold, the sower went forth to sow:
4 and it came to pass, as he sowed, some [seed] fell by the way side, and the birds came and devoured it.
5 And other fell on the rocky [ground], where it had not much earth; and straightway it sprang up, because it had no deepness of earth:
6 and when the sun was risen, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away.
Teaching & Healing Ministry It's generally thought that the seed that falls on "rocky" ground and immediately rises but eventually falls because of lack of depth refers specifically to Peter and in general to failed disciples Given within the Teaching Ministry this is a formula for specifically a prediction of Peter's failure and a general formula for disciple failure. Note how Peter's failure is combined with general failure.
5
28 For she said, If I touch but his garments, I shall be made whole.
29 And straightway the fountain of her blood was dried up; and she felt in her body that she was healed of her plague.
Teaching & Healing Ministry Peter is part of a general audience. Change from sickness to healing again but reverse use of the offending word. Here it is the cure rather than the affliction. The offending word is normally used in a negative context but here it is used in a positive. Clever author. The "withering" definition is the one used with Peter. "Dried up" in the context of blood and a resurrection is a contra parallel to Eucharist context. In the Healing Ministry Jesus stops their blood flow to heal them. In the Passion Ministry Jesus starts his blood flow to save them.
9
17 And one of the multitude answered him, Teacher, I brought unto thee my son, who hath a dumb spirit;
18 and wheresoever it taketh him, it dasheth him down: and he foameth, and grindeth his teeth, and pineth away: and I spake to thy disciples that they should cast it out; and they were not able.
19 And he answereth them and saith, O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I bear with you? bring him unto me.
20 And they brought him unto him: and when he saw him, straightway the spirit tare him grievously; and he fell on the ground, and wallowed foaming.
21 And he asked his father, How long time is it since this hath come unto him? And he said, From a child.
22 And oft-times it hath cast him both into the fire and into the waters, to destroy him: but if thou canst do anything, have compassion on us, and help us.
23 And Jesus said unto him, If thou canst! All things are possible to him that believeth.
24 Straightway the father of the child cried out, and said, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.
25 And when Jesus saw that a multitude came running together, he rebuked the unclean spirit, saying unto him, Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I command thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him.
26 And having cried out, and torn him much, he came out: and [the boy] became as one dead; insomuch that the more part said, He is dead.
27 But Jesus took him by the hand, and raised him up; and he arose.
Transition from Teaching & Healing Ministry to Passion Ministry Peter is part of a general audience. Change from sickness to healing. Now "Mark" goes beyond the range of meaning of the word ("withered", "dried up"). The action is a Teaching/Healing but foreshadows the Passion Ministry (resurrection).
11
20 And as they passed by in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered away from the roots.
21 And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him, Rabbi, behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away.
22 And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.
23 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou taken up and cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that what he saith cometh to pass; he shall have it.
24 Therefore I say unto you, All things whatsoever ye pray and ask for, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.
The Passion Ministry Peter is directly involved. Change from healthy to sick (dead). Message is that the Temple is no longer needed to communicate with God. While the offending word is used multiple times, the two times it is used in the context of religious failure both involve Peter. The first time includes specifically referring to Peter and the second time it is Peter who discovers the word.


Joseph

PRAY, v. To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy.

You Might Be An Antisemite

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

Let She Who Has Eyes Hear

Post by JoeWallack » Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:23 am

JW:

Verse "Mark's" Historical Commentary Story (Fiction) Which Explains The History Commentary
9
2 And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and bringeth them up into a high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them;
3 and his garments became glistering, exceeding white, so as no fuller on earth can whiten them.
4 And there appeared unto them Elijah with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.
5 And Peter answereth and saith to Jesus, Rabbi, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah.
6 For he knew not what to answer; for they became sore afraid.
7 And there came a cloud overshadowing them: and there came a voice out of the cloud, This is my beloved Son: hear ye him.
8 And suddenly looking round about, they saw no one any more, save Jesus only with themselves.
9 And as they were coming down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, save when the Son of man should have risen again from the dead.
10 And they kept the saying, questioning among themselves what the rising again from the dead should mean.
11 And they asked him, saying, [How is it] that the scribes say that Elijah must first come?
12 And he said unto them, Elijah indeed cometh first, and restoreth all things: and how is it written of the Son of man, that he should suffer many things and be set at nought?
13 But I say unto you, that Elijah is come, and they have also done unto him whatsoever they would, even as it is written of him.
The Outsides of the Intercalation are "Mark's" historical commentary on The Disciples. They received Revelation and instruction regarding Jesus' supposed Passion but did not believe in it. - -
    • 9
      14 And when they came to the disciples, they saw a great multitude about them, and scribes questioning with them.
      15 And straightway all the multitude, when they saw him, were greatly amazed, and running to him saluted him.
      16 And he asked them, What question ye with them?
      17 And one of the multitude answered him, Teacher, I brought unto thee my son, who hath a dumb spirit;
      18 and wheresoever it taketh him, it dasheth him down: and he foameth, and grindeth his teeth, and pineth away: and I spake to thy disciples that they should cast it out; and they were not able.
      19 And he answereth them and saith, O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I bear with you? bring him unto me.
      20 And they brought him unto him: and when he saw him, straightway the spirit tare him grievously; and he fell on the ground, and wallowed foaming.
      21 And he asked his father, How long time is it since this hath come unto him? And he said, From a child.
      22 And oft-times it hath cast him both into the fire and into the waters, to destroy him: but if thou canst do anything, have compassion on us, and help us.
      23 And Jesus said unto him, If thou canst! All things are possible to him that believeth.
      24 Straightway the father of the child cried out, and said, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.
      25 And when Jesus saw that a multitude came running together, he rebuked the unclean spirit, saying unto him, Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I command thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him.
      26 And having cried out, and torn him much, he came out: and [the boy] became as one dead; insomuch that the more part said, He is dead.
      27 But Jesus took him by the hand, and raised him up; and he arose.
      28 And when he was come into the house, his disciples asked him privately, [How is it] that we could not cast it out?
      29 And he said unto them, This kind can come out by nothing, save by prayer.
- The Inside of the Intercalation is a story which is complete fiction whose purpose is to explain the historical commentary before and after it. The story problem is how to exorcise a dumb/mute spirit. The answer the story gives is Belief. In order to exorcise a dumb/mute spirit the beneficiary must believe. -
9
30 And they went forth from thence, and passed through Galilee; and he would not that any man should know it.
31 For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered up into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and when he is killed, after three days he shall rise again.
32 But they understood not the saying, and were afraid to ask him.
33 And they came to Capernaum: and when he was in the house he asked them, What were ye reasoning on the way?
34 But they held their peace: for they had disputed one with another on the way, who [was] the greatest.
The Inside story has explained that The Way to exorcise a dumb/mute spirit is with Belief. Applying this key to the ending of the Intercalation explains that the supposed historical disciples did not believe in the Passion because of dumb/mute spirits. - There are many comments to make here besides the obvious authorial explanation that The Disciples wanted to believe in fame and fortune (greatness) and not pain and suffering. My favorite is that the story says a son with a dumb/mute spirit was brought to Jesus [irony]but who really brought "son(s)" with dumb/mute spirits to whom?[/irony].


Joseph

The New Porphyry

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3313
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

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

Post by Bernard Muller » Tue Nov 07, 2017 9:26 am

The simpler way to explain why essentially "Mark" treated Peter (& disciples) as a hostile witness is because, for a variety of reasons (most invented by the author), Peter did not declare, see or understand the extraordinary, supernatural stuff which support the Christian faith. Therefore Peter looks subject of negative casting, as against the new Christian beliefs.
http://historical-jesus.info/28.html
http://historical-jesus.info/108.html

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

Post Reply