The ending of Mark (for Kunigunde).

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Michael BG
Posts: 531
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: The ending of Mark (for Kunigunde).

Post by Michael BG » Mon May 01, 2017 6:03 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Michael BG wrote:I have pointed out that Lk 5:8
But when Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus' knees, saying, "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord."
would look odd in Mark’s gospel as it is odd in Luke’s because of “Simon Peter”.
Does Simon Peter look odd in Matthew 16.16? Matthew did not get that double name from Mark 8.29, did he?
Yes indeed it looks odd. Especially as he removes Mark’s “Simon” at 26:40 (Mk 14:37). I am not aware of any textual differences over Simon Peter either at Mt 16:16 or Mk 8:29. However Matthew has some “M” tradition afterwards (Mt 16:17-19) where he has his fourth “Simon” (his fifth and last use is in another “M” tradition – Mt 17:24-27).
[16] Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
[17] And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
[18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
[19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
It is possible that the “M” tradition had Simon saying that Jesus is the Son of the living God. (Matthew used both names and both titles: one from each tradition.) I think this is the only place in the synoptics where Peter’s father is named so there is a parallel Jesus son of God; Simon son of Jona. In verse 18 Matthew is back using his more normal “Peter”.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Michael BG wrote:“Simon Peter” is not usual in Mark but it appears only once in Luke and 18 times in John.
And yet... Simon Peter's falling down and crying out that he is a sinful man forms no part of John 21. So what do you think is going on here? Why does Luke 5.8 have Simon Peter?
Verse 8 does not fit the story as presented by Luke. The story would make sense without it. It is possible it was a saying that Luke had without much of a context from what can be called the “L” tradition. John does not have Jesus rebuking Peter (Mk 8:32-33 Mt 16:22-23) and not having Lk 5:8 fits this.
Ben C. Smith wrote:If you want to know what I think, well, I think that authors who know the full name of the character in question can drop that full name any time they please, even if it is only one time in the entire text (as in Matthew and Luke) or none (as in Mark). In my judgment the name Simon Peter in Luke 5.8 is no more an indication of source than the name Simon Peter in Matthew 16.16 is.
I always want to know what you think.
A change in name is often seen as a change of source or something. The use of “Peter” instead of “Cephas" in Gal 2:7-8 is often cited as evidence that these verses were not written by Paul.
andrewcriddle wrote: (In John 21 it is implausibly unexpected given the previous appearances).
I don’t see any statement that the resurrection appearance in Jn 21 is particularly unexpected. I see the normal resurrection motif that the disciples do not recognise Jesus (Jn 21:4, cf. Lk 24:16, Jn 20:14) because the earliest traditions have a heavenly bodily resurrection as per 1 Cor. 15.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 3762
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The ending of Mark (for Kunigunde).

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon May 01, 2017 6:49 am

Michael BG wrote:Verse 8 does not fit the story as presented by Luke. The story would make sense without it.
Exactly. I think it makes much more sense as part of a resurrection appearance than in this current context. In fact, the full name Simon Peter might make more sense in a Marcan resurrection context, as explicitly recommissioning the fallen disciple. Using his full name in that context would make sense, just as using his full name (in a slightly different form) at his official first commissioning in Mark 3.16 makes sense.

I think you have just helped me turn the very name Simon Peter itself in Luke 5.8 into an argument for a postresurrectional Marcan origin. Mark would have, in this case, used the full name only twice in his gospel, both of those times being commissions. That makes so much sense.
It is possible it was a saying that Luke had without much of a context from what can be called the “L” tradition.
A change in name is often seen as a change of source or something. The use of “Peter” instead of “Cephas" in Gal 2:7-8 is often cited as evidence that these verses were not written by Paul.
Ah, but that is different, right? That is an actual change of name, from Peter to Cephas (or vice versa). What we are talking about is the use of the full name, not a name change. If an author writes Simon, Simon, Simon, Simon Peter, that is not the same thing as writing Cephas, Cephas, Cephas, Peter. The latter gives no clue that these are the same person; the former is a clue all to itself, since all that is happening is that the same name is being expanded.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 3762
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The ending of Mark (for Kunigunde).

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon May 01, 2017 6:57 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Michael BG wrote:Verse 8 does not fit the story as presented by Luke. The story would make sense without it.
Exactly. I think it makes much more sense as part of a resurrection appearance than in this current context. In fact, the full name Simon Peter might make more sense in a Marcan resurrection context, as explicitly recommissioning the fallen disciple. Using his full name in that context would make sense, just as using his full name (in a slightly different form) at his official first commissioning in Mark 3.16 makes sense.

I think you have just helped me turn the very name Simon Peter itself in Luke 5.8 into an argument for a postresurrectional Marcan origin. Mark would have, in this case, used the full name only twice in his gospel, both of those times being commissions. That makes so much sense.
I have added this (admittedly tentative) point to an ETA statement at the end of the OP.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Michael BG
Posts: 531
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: The ending of Mark (for Kunigunde).

Post by Michael BG » Mon May 01, 2017 8:22 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Michael BG wrote:Verse 8 does not fit the story as presented by Luke. The story would make sense without it.
Exactly. I think it makes much more sense as part of a resurrection appearance than in this current context. In fact, the full name Simon Peter might make more sense in a Marcan resurrection context, as explicitly recommissioning the fallen disciple. Using his full name in that context would make sense, just as using his full name (in a slightly different form) at his official first commissioning in Mark 3.16 makes sense.

I think you have just helped me turn the very name Simon Peter itself in Luke 5.8 into an argument for a postresurrectional Marcan origin. Mark would have, in this case, used the full name only twice in his gospel, both of those times being commissions. That makes so much sense.
I am not sure Mark ever refers to him as “Simon Peter” as a stand alone.

Mark introduces Peter as Simon and then continues to use Simon for some time
1:16 And passing along by the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon casting a net in the sea; for they were fishermen.

1:29-30 And immediately he left the synagogue, and entered the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John. Now Simon's mother-in-law lay sick with a fever, and immediately they told him of her.

1:36 And Simon and those who were with him pursued him
The renaming of Peter happens away from the calling. Perhaps your “commission” is εποιησεν appointing. For me the appointment of the disciples is when he calls them as disciples. The commissioning of them as apostles is a variant reading (A D λ etc.).
3:14 And he appointed twelve, to be with him, and to be sent out to preach

3:16 He surnamed Simon Peter
Mark is careful thereafter to always use “Peter” and then there is the only other place where Mark has Simon:
14:37 And he came and found them sleeping, and he said to Peter, "Simon, are you asleep? Could you not watch one hour?
I think there are some scholars who see this “Simon” as evidence that Mark is using a written source here.

Charles Wilson
Posts: 854
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: The ending of Mark (for Kunigunde).

Post by Charles Wilson » Mon May 01, 2017 8:58 am

John 13: 8 - 9 (RSV):

[8] Peter said to him, "You shall never wash my feet." Jesus answered him, "If I do not wash you, you have no part in me."
[9] Simon Peter said to him, "Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head!"

As clear an indicator that "Peter" and "Simon Peter" are different people - 'n this one is a bit hazy...

CW

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 3762
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The ending of Mark (for Kunigunde).

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon May 01, 2017 9:09 am

Michael BG wrote:I am not sure Mark ever refers to him as “Simon Peter” as a stand alone.
Correct. But he links both names together ("Simon, to whom he gave the name Peter") in Mark 3.16.
The renaming of Peter happens away from the calling. Perhaps your “commission” is εποιησεν appointing.
Correct, as noted in the ETA bit that I added to the OP.
For me the appointment of the disciples is when he calls them as disciples. The commissioning of them as apostles is a variant reading (A D λ etc.).
I seriously doubt that "apostles" is original in Mark 3.14 (incidentally, D is not one of the manuscripts which has "apostles" there).
3:14 And he appointed twelve, to be with him, and to be sent out to preach

3:16 He surnamed Simon Peter
Mark is careful thereafter to always use “Peter” and then there is the only other place where Mark has Simon
But you catch my point, right? How fitting it would be if "Simon" and "Peter" appeared together only twice in Mark, once at the commissioning as one of the twelve and again at the recommissioning after Jesus' resurrection?

Mark has always evinced two stages to discipleship. There is a calling to be a disciple, and then there is a calling to be one of the twelve. There are more disciples than 12 in the gospel. Since Simon/Peter belongs to both groups (general disciple, specific member of the twelve), his restoration would be to both groups.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 3762
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The ending of Mark (for Kunigunde).

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon May 01, 2017 9:10 am

Charles Wilson wrote:John 13: 8 - 9 (RSV):

[8] Peter said to him, "You shall never wash my feet." Jesus answered him, "If I do not wash you, you have no part in me."
[9] Simon Peter said to him, "Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head!"

As clear an indicator that "Peter" and "Simon Peter" are different people - 'n this one is a bit hazy...
I am sympathetic to Simon and Peter being two separate people: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2767#p61691. But this does not impact whether they are the same people for Mark.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1146
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: The ending of Mark (for Kunigunde).

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin » Mon May 01, 2017 9:24 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:Hi, Kunigunde. Better late than never, right?
:) Thanks again.

I think your OP is not only a nice present for me, but also a good introduction for all in the exegetical problems of the ending of Mark. Even someone is disagreeing with you, he would know on which exact point and why and what problems he has to consider in disagreeing with you and he could learn some new and some old scholarly opinions about Mark’s ending. All this is done very well.

The same applies to your own thinking about the ending of Mark. I think it’s very easy to follow your thoughts and the reasons of how and why you came to your view. Clearly, there is nothing wrong and all your arguments are reasonable.

In the next days I will make a few comments about some specific problems of Mark’s ending and your view, but that will not change my opinion about your excellent OP.

Charles Wilson
Posts: 854
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: The ending of Mark (for Kunigunde).

Post by Charles Wilson » Mon May 01, 2017 9:39 am

Ben --

You are correct, of course. I'll beg off bringing a lot of my stuff into this but there is one thing:

John 11: 15 - 16 (RSV):

[15] and for your sake I am glad that I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him."
[16] Thomas, called the Twin, said to his fellow disciples, "Let us also go, that we may die with him."

Luke 9: 54 - 55 (RSV):

[54] And when his disciples James and John saw it, they said, "Lord, do you want us to bid fire come down from heaven and consume them?"
[55] But he turned and rebuked them.

We assume that the Disciples are "Of Age" and able to reason (Even if they are presented as stupid...). What if these Passages are written of children? "Let us also go, that we may die with him": I hesitate to even call this naive but it might be a child-like statement. Same for "Lord, do you want us to bid fire come down from heaven and consume them?". This would be a marker for a child who literally believes that the Priest has just these powers.

"I call you Simon-Peter" may be a nick name for a child who is most like "Peter", which is itself a nick name for someone who is from a "Rocky" area (Meiron, for ex.). I believe that this is more likely than a "Mere Possibility" that gets thrown around here from time to time. There are many reasons for looking at a few of the Disciples as children.

CW

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 3762
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The ending of Mark (for Kunigunde).

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon May 01, 2017 10:12 am

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:I think your OP is not only a nice present for me, but also a good introduction for all in the exegetical problems of the ending of Mark. Even someone is disagreeing with you, he would know on which exact point and why and what problems he has to consider in disagreeing with you and he could learn some new and some old scholarly opinions about Mark’s ending. All this is done very well.

The same applies to your own thinking about the ending of Mark. I think it’s very easy to follow your thoughts and the reasons of how and why you came to your view. Clearly, there is nothing wrong and all your arguments are reasonable.

In the next days I will make a few comments about some specific problems of Mark’s ending and your view, but that will not change my opinion about your excellent OP.
Thank you very much. :) I look forward to reading your observations.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΕΘΕΙΑ

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Ben C. Smith, Giuseppe, John T and 39 guests