"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.
hakeem
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

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

Post by hakeem » Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:04 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....
The so-called Peter could not have declared, seen or understood supernatural stuff which never happened.

gMark is not history but propaganda against the Jews to explain the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

The story of gMark is that God sent his Son to the Jews but he was rejected and killed by them and abandoned by his handpicked disciples and Peter who denied even knowing Jesus.

The parable in Mark 12.1-11 represents the propaganda of gMark
1 And he began to speak unto them by parables. A certain man planted a vineyard, and set an hedge about it, and digged a place for the winefat, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country.

2 And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant, that he might receive from the husbandmen of the fruit of the vineyard.

3 And they caught him, and beat him, and sent him away empty.

4 And again he sent unto them another servant; and at him they cast stones, and wounded him in the head, and sent him away shamefully handled.

5 And again he sent another; and him they killed, and many others; beating some, and killing some.

6 Having yet therefore one son, his wellbeloved, he sent him also last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son.

7 But those husbandmen said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours.'

8 And they took him, and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard.

9 What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others.

10 And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner

11 This was the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

The words of the Lord in the books of the Prophets were fulfilled-- the Jews killed the Son of God so Jerusalem, the Jewish Temple were destroyed and non-Jews accepted the story of Jesus as the son of God.

Mark 13:14
But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains.

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

Peter = False Apostle

Post by JoeWallack » Fri Dec 15, 2017 7:47 am

JW:
Intercalation = Two related stories with one story split in two, before and after the other story. Often in GMark the lesson/point of the inside story which is relatively clearer due to being more direct and rePeated is intended to be applied to the outside story:

Verse Commentary
14
54 And Peter had followed him afar off, even within, into the court of the high priest; and he was sitting with the officers, and warming himself in the light [of the fire].
1. Peter "followed" Jesus from a distance. A long distance.
2. Warmed himself in the "light". A strange (unique?) usage. Homework for Solo = look up "Mark's" other usage of the word and then Fake Paul's.
    • 14
      55 Now the chief priests and the whole council sought witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found it not.
      56 For many bare false witness against him, and their witness agreed not together.
      57 And there stood up certain, and bare false witness against him, saying,
      58 We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.
      59 And not even so did their witness agree together.
      60 And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?
      61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and saith unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
      62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.
      63 And the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What further need have we of witnesses?
      64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be worthy of death.
      65 And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the officers received him with blows of their hands.
1. The first half is dominated by False Witness which is given the formulaic 3 times.
2. The second half is dominated by False Judgment which is given the formulaic 3 times.
3. Note that "Mark", ever the Master of Irony, has The Jewish leaders not make false judgment based on false witness but make false judgment based on true witness.
14
66 And as Peter was beneath in the court, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest;
67 and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked upon him, and saith, Thou also wast with the Nazarene, [even] Jesus.
68 But he denied, saying, I neither know, nor understand what thou sayest: and he went out into the porch; and the cock crew.
69 And the maid saw him, and began again to say to them that stood by, This is [one] of them.
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.
71 But he began to curse, and to swear, I know not this man of whom ye speak.
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.
1. Peter is a false witness to Jesus the formulaic 3 times.
2. At the narrative level Peter is a false witness for saying in context that he does not know Jesus. At the reader/spiritual level though, Peter speaks the truth, he does not "know" Jesus. He was with him but not "with" him.
3. The ending with Peter weeping does not indicate repentance/rehabilitation. It is the fitting ending to the Intercalation with Peter being rightfully judged/convicted of being a False Apostle by the best possible witness. Himself. As always, interpret the ending of the Intercalation based on the Intercalation as a whole and not verses vice.

Thus the Inner story has a clear theme of False Witness. The Outer story is clearly about Peter as a witness leading to the inescapable conclusion that the Intercalation is intended to portray Peter as a False Apostle. Robert Gundry look out!

Hint for Solo = When researching "light" who/what is the false light?


Joseph

The New Porphyry

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

"Mark's" Sophisticated Use of "Immediately" to Identify The Opposition to the Passion

Post by JoeWallack » Sat Sep 15, 2018 7:05 pm

JW:
One of the few things about GMark that everyone agrees on is that the usage of "immediately" in 4:16 And these in like manner are they that are sown upon the rocky [places], who, when they have heard the word, straightway receive it with joy; is intended to be negative. Most, including Skeptics, think that in general "Mark" (author) passes out this word like Halloween candy or Trump tweets and that is evidence of simplicity. El contraire Peter. The superior Skeptic should be aware that "Mark" uses the word as a sophisticated literary Marker. In general consider the contrast between how many times "Mark" uses the word for the pre-Passion and how few times "Mark" uses the word for the Passion: https://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_2112.htm

Specifically, for this unholy Thread, note the specific usage during the Passion:

.
Verse Character Negative? Commentary
14:43 And straightway, while he yet spake, cometh Judas, one of the twelve, and with him a multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders.
14:45 And when he was come, straightway he came to him, and saith, Rabbi; and kissed him.
Judas Yes -
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 weptPeter Yes -
15:1 And straightway in the morning the chief priests with the elders and scribes, and the whole council, held a consultation, and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him up to Pilate. The Jewish Leaders Yes -

Mark my words well that the above are the only uses of the offending word in the Passion. As always, not that it's needed, this is yet another category of evidence that favors Markan priority as subsequent Gospels gradually undo the Literary Marker above.

Bonus material for Solo = "Mark" uses "immediately" profusely for the Teaching & Healing Ministry and sparingly for the Passion. The literary effect is that the Teaching & Healing Ministry is fast and less significant relative to the Passion Ministry. "Mark's" source?


Joseph

Book Review of Tareq Baconi's Hamas Contained: The Rise and Pacification of Palestinian Resistance - Preface Only

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7393
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: "Mark's" Sophisticated Use of "Immediately" to Identify The Opposition to the Passion

Post by Ben C. Smith » Sat Sep 15, 2018 7:32 pm

JoeWallack wrote:
Sat Sep 15, 2018 7:05 pm
JW:
One of the few things about GMark that everyone agrees on is that the usage of "immediately" in 4:16 And these in like manner are they that are sown upon the rocky [places], who, when they have heard the word, straightway receive it with joy; is intended to be negative. Most, including Skeptics, think that in general "Mark" (author) passes out this word like Halloween candy or Trump tweets and that is evidence of simplicity. El contraire Peter. The superior Skeptic should be aware that "Mark" uses the word as a sophisticated literary Marker. In general consider the contrast between how many times "Mark" uses the word for the pre-Passion and how few times "Mark" uses the word for the Passion: https://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_2112.htm
Here is a list which includes some manuscript variants: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3112.

And here is a count, chapter by chapter, using only the BibleHub list:

Chapter 1: 11 instances.
Chapter 2: 2 instances.
Chapter 3: 1 instance.
Chapter 4: 5 instances.
Chapter 5: 5 instances.
Chapter 6: 5 instances.

Chapter 7: 2 instances.
Chapter 8: 1 instance.
Chapter 9: 3 instances.
Chapter 10: 1 instance.
Chapter 11: 2 instances.
Chapter 12: 0 instances.
Chapter 13: 0 instances.
Chapter 14: 3 instances.
Chapter 15: 1 instance.
Chapter 16: 0 instances.

Chapter 1 is a major outlier; no other chapter even comes close. Chapters 4-6 are minor outliers. All other chapters have 0-3 instances. I think an explanation for the extravagance of chapter 1 (and possibly also even the paucity of instances in chapters 12-13) ought to stand before an explanation of the paucity of instances in chapters 14-16.
Specifically, for this unholy Thread, note the specific usage during the Passion:

.
Verse Character Negative? Commentary
14:43 And straightway, while he yet spake, cometh Judas, one of the twelve, and with him a multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders.
14:45 And when he was come, straightway he came to him, and saith, Rabbi; and kissed him.
Judas Yes -
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 weptPeter Yes -
15:1 And straightway in the morning the chief priests with the elders and scribes, and the whole council, held a consultation, and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him up to Pilate. The Jewish Leaders Yes -

The BibleHub list also includes 14.45. But it seems to be of a piece with 14.43.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

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

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

Post by JoeWallack » Sat Sep 15, 2018 7:48 pm

JW:
Thanks for the immediate response.

jude77
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 6:15 am
Location: The Beach

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

Post by jude77 » Sun Sep 16, 2018 5:24 pm

A very interesting idea. I think remember Crossan proposing something like this in his reading of John 20 where Simon and the Unnamed Disciple run to the tomb. Not sure I buy the idea, but it's a thought.

In terms of MK it seems to me that he is casting Simon in the most abysmal terms possible so that his "resurrection" and restoration (16:7 "Go and tell his disciples and Peter") will be all the more dramatic. I think that the Gospels have to read first and foremost as stories of the salvific power residing in Jesus as he manifests God's Rule, and, in that light, Simon's failure and restoration become instructive to all disciples that none of us, no matter how bitter our betrayal, are beyond redemption. Also, while it is true Simon comes off immensely poorly in MK, so do James and John (10:35-38/14:32-42) as do all the disciples ultimately (14:50).

Anyway. maybe that can be grist for the mill. All the best to you.

rgprice
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

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

Post by rgprice » Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:09 am

This is an interesting, if not old, thread. Hakeem's comments from 2017 were exactly right.

It's not just that GMark is contra Peter, GMark is contra the entire movement, especially Peter, James and John.

What I argue in my new book (Deciphering the Gospels Proves Jesus Never Existed) is that GMark is based on the letters of Paul and is pro-Paul, contra Peter, James, John. The real message of the story is as Hakeem said, it's a story meant to show that the Jews brought the war upon themselves and that the leaders of the early Christian movement, along with the Jews themselves, were failures.

The whole issue is made clear with Mark 10:44. Compare to 1 Cor 9:19.

GMark 10:44: "whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all."
1 Cor 9:19: "For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all"

GMark is based on the letters of Paul. The only people that really get any kind of good treatment in the story are gentiles, the audience of Paul's letters.

John2
Posts: 3242
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

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

Post by John2 » Mon Sep 17, 2018 7:43 am

rgprice wrote:
It's not just that GMark is contra Peter, GMark is contra the entire movement, especially Peter, James and John.

What I argue in my new book (Deciphering the Gospels Proves Jesus Never Existed) is that GMark is based on the letters of Paul and is pro-Paul, contra Peter, James, John. The real message of the story is as Hakeem said, it's a story meant to show that the Jews brought the war upon themselves and that the leaders of the early Christian movement, along with the Jews themselves, were failures.

The whole issue is made clear with Mark 10:44. Compare to 1 Cor 9:19.

GMark 10:44: "whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all."
1 Cor 9:19: "For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all"

GMark is based on the letters of Paul. The only people that really get any kind of good treatment in the story are gentiles, the audience of Paul's letters.
I'm not aware of anything in Mark that indicates that it is against Jewish Christians, at least beyond the extent that they had trouble understanding Jesus' idea that he (as the Son of Man) "must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again" (8:31, and said to be in accordance with "the Scriptures" in 14:49) and that they would "all fall away" in accordance with Zech. 13:7 (14:27). But even then Jesus goes on to say in 14:28, "But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee."

In my reading of Mark, the worst that can be said about Jewish Christians is that it took them some time to believe in Jesus' interpretation of the OT (i.e., that he must suffer, die, resurrect, go to heaven, and come back to earth on the clouds of heaven). And Paul himself says that Cephas (who I take to be Peter) and the Twelve were the first ones to see the resurrected Jesus (1 Cor. 15:5), and that Jesus also "appeared to James, then to all the apostles" (1 Cor. 15:7).

And I have the impression that Jewish Christians were the source of the information that Paul says he "received" and "passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures" in 1 Cor. 15:3-4, since he says in 15:11 that "Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed."

And Paul calls himself "the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God," with his distinction being only that he had "worked harder than all of them" (1 Cor. 15:9-10).

So if Mark is based on Paul (which I agree with in part, in the sense that Mark was a follower of Peter and knew Paul like Peter did), then wouldn't he know that Peter, the Twelve, James, and all the apostles (despite whatever they may have thought about Jesus during his life), were at least eventually (and sooner than anyone else) on board with the idea that "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures"? Is this not Mark's gospel in a nutshell, that Jesus died and was buried and resurrected?

In this respect at least (which Paul calls "of first importance"), Paul himself (the one you are suggesting was the inspiration for Mark) says he is in agreement with Jewish Christians.
The move about is all we do.

John2
Posts: 3242
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

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

Post by John2 » Mon Sep 17, 2018 8:06 am

And I think Jesus' view on Torah observance in Mark could not be more in line with Jewish Christianity (and contra Paul). As he says in 7:5-13:
So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?” He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.' You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”

And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”
The move about is all we do.

rgprice
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

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

Post by rgprice » Mon Sep 17, 2018 5:12 pm

John2 wrote:
Mon Sep 17, 2018 7:43 am
I'm not aware of anything in Mark that indicates that it is against Jewish Christians, at least beyond the extent that they had trouble understanding Jesus' idea that he (as the Son of Man) "must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again" (8:31, and said to be in accordance with "the Scriptures" in 14:49) and that they would "all fall away" in accordance with Zech. 13:7 (14:27). But even then Jesus goes on to say in 14:28, "But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee."

In my reading of Mark, the worst that can be said about Jewish Christians is that it took them some time to believe in Jesus' interpretation of the OT (i.e., that he must suffer, die, resurrect, go to heaven, and come back to earth on the clouds of heaven). And Paul himself says that Cephas (who I take to be Peter) and the Twelve were the first ones to see the resurrected Jesus (1 Cor. 15:5), and that Jesus also "appeared to James, then to all the apostles" (1 Cor. 15:7).

And I have the impression that Jewish Christians were the source of the information that Paul says he "received" and "passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures" in 1 Cor. 15:3-4, since he says in 15:11 that "Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed."

And Paul calls himself "the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God," with his distinction being only that he had "worked harder than all of them" (1 Cor. 15:9-10).

So if Mark is based on Paul (which I agree with in part, in the sense that Mark was a follower of Peter and knew Paul like Peter did), then wouldn't he know that Peter, the Twelve, James, and all the apostles (despite whatever they may have thought about Jesus during his life), were at least eventually (and sooner than anyone else) on board with the idea that "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures"? Is this not Mark's gospel in a nutshell, that Jesus died and was buried and resurrected?

In this respect at least (which Paul calls "of first importance"), Paul himself (the one you are suggesting was the inspiration for Mark) says he is in agreement with Jewish Christians.
It's not one thing, its a whole preponderance of evidence. I'm not going to paste hundreds of pages of analysis here though. You can read some of my book on my website: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/pdf/w ... pdf#page=1

More can be read via the preview on Amazon.

Post Reply