What Are the Implications that Peter Taught in 'Anecdotes'?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12131
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: What Are the Implications that Peter Taught in 'Anecdotes'?

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Mar 16, 2020 6:18 am

I think it is natural to develop a history through the use of anecdotes. Nevertheless it does seem troubling that there is little in the way of connective 'tissue' to make the gospels appear 'historical' - i.e. for three days they did this. To be certain there are references to the numbers of days this or that took but they often don't make sense. For instance Jesus rose after three days all of which make it impossible for the resurrection to have occurred on a Sunday. Consider also Clement's (not in to Theodore but Stromata 6) approach to the reference to 'six days' in the transfiguration. It is not thought as a historical marker at all but an attempt by Mark to put something 'mystical' into his text. Clement's repeated notion of 'mysticism' or allegory being put into the gospel narrative challenges Papias's notion that all Mark did was assemble the anecdotes - and as many of them as possible - into his narrative to make a complete narrative. He must have had other considerations too.

Also consider Freeman's point here:
Around many famous men there gathers a mass of tales and anecdotes, the evidence for which is insufficient. Sometimes all that we can say is that the evidence is insufficient. The story may be neither improbable in itself, nor inconsistent with the recorded actions and character of the person spoken of. Of this kind is a largo proportion of the personal anecdotes handed down to us by Plutarch. They may have happened, but we cannot feel certain that they did happen. We know that anecdotes are often invented, and that they are often improved. We know that the fact of an anecdote being probable and characteristic is no proof of its historical truth. For clever anecdote-mongers always take care that their anecdotes shall be probable and characteristic. Many a living man has heard stories about himself, some of which are pure invention, some of which contain a kernel of truth, but which in both cases illustrate, if only by caricature, some real feature in his character. Stories of this sort, where a distinct play of fancy is at work, set us down within the borders of the land of romance. In pseudo-historical statements, the narrator is either himself deceived or he intentionally seeks to deceive others; in purely romantic statements deception hardly comes in either way. The teller and the hearer have no set purpose to contradict historical truth; they are simply careless about historical truth. They tell an attractive story, heedless whether it be true or false; the tale may be coloured by the narrator's passions or opinions, but it is not a direct pleading on the side of those passions or opinions, as are the statements which I have called pseudo-historical. If the teller and the hearer have knowledge and tact enough, they will take care that the story, if not true, shall be at least characteristic. But in more careless hands no such propriety is aimed at. The tale may, in such a case, be utterly improbable from the beginning, or, though it may have been characteristic at starting, it may, in process of telling, get encrusted with circumstances which make it no longer even characteristic. Every detail is exaggerated, improved, or corrupted; and circumstances are brought in from other stories about other people. In this last process we come across one of the most fertile sources of legendary matter.https://books.google.com/books?id=0LVNA ... 22&f=false
I think sometimes because our culture has considered the gospel truth - even truer than the truth - that we lose sight of the fact that the story is simply incredible and unbelievable. Surely it strong ancient ears the same way. And the fact that the 'history' is built around anecdotes adds to this implausibility.

Was Mark really trying to construct a 'history'? This is what we gain from Papias. This is his claim. But I find it implausible. No one develops history purely from anecdotes. If we look at the most 'historical' of events in the gospel - let's say the crucifixion. There is no clear attestation to anyone who actually witnessed it. You'd expect that wouldn't you? I mean, that so and so - someone famous, someone reliable was there. That this so and so was said to have remarked such and such. Nothing at all. I don't know. If the gospel was intended as history you might have a declaration - Jesus Christ who died on such and such a day for this or that reason and then some anecdotes yes. But the anecdotes are highly polished and essentially the point of the narrative. They are highly polished - almost too polished for a historical narrative. I am not advocating mythicism here. Merely noting that the gospel isn't what Papias pretends it is. It's reliance on anecdotes can't be entirely attributable to a certain Simon Peter the witness to the historical Jesus teaching in 'anecdotes' and Mark writing them down and assigning them a certain order which was corrected by Matthew. Mark had a hand in shaping the anecdotes. I don't care what Papias says. Take the story of Jesus passing through Jericho. The lesson was clearly what the Marcionites said it was - that the blind see Jesus as the messiah but when their eyes are open they see the Lord. This is Paul's lesson in 2 Corinthians chapters 2 and 3. This can't be coincidence. Mark wrote this narrative not as a 'capture' of a historical teaching of Jesus but by constructing a pseudo-historical narrative which leads to this theological conclusion. The symbolism was undoubtedly invented by Mark not by Peter or Jesus.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12131
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: What Are the Implications that Peter Taught in 'Anecdotes'?

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Mar 16, 2020 9:20 am

Something else to consider from Moeser:
Finally, if one considers the mechanics of an oral performance of Mark's Gospel, one can hear a natural break before 8.27 and another after 10.45. The pericope that precedes 8.27, that is, 8.22-26, closes with the command of Jesus, 'Do not even enter the village!" In 8.27, on the other hand, the narrator begins a new scene with, 'And Jesus went out with his disciples...' In a similar way, 10.45 closes with the Markan Jesus' comment on the meaning of his approaching death, 'For the Son of Man also came not to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.' The next pericope switches the scene with the narrative comment, 'And they came to Jericho...' To be effective in his or her reading for an audience, a narrator would have to pause, at least momentarily, and alter her or his voice in some manner to change from speaking the words of Jesus to the words of a narrator. While this pause and voice change would occur also between other verses in the material from 8.27 to 10.45, for example, between 9.1 and 9.2, the presence of this vocal mechanic both before 8.27 and after 10.45 adds weight to the previous arguments that 8.27—10.45 can be considered a section of the Markan Gospel.https://books.google.com/books?id=6kbUA ... AHoECAAQAg
Moeser's proposed 'section of Mark':
27 Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, “Who do people say I am?” 28 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.” 29 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Peter answered, “You are the Messiah.” 30 Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him.

31 He then began to teach them that 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. 32 He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. 33 But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. “Get behind me, Satan!” he said. “You do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.” 34 Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. 35 For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me and for the gospel will save it. 36 What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? 37 Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? 38 If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.” 9 And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”

2 After six days Jesus took Peter, James and John with him and led them up a high mountain, where they were all alone. There he was transfigured before them. 3 His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than anyone in the world could bleach them. 4 And there appeared before them Elijah and Moses, who were talking with Jesus. 5 Peter said to Jesus, “Rabbi, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.” 6 (He did not know what to say, they were so frightened.) 7 Then a cloud appeared and covered them, and a voice came from the cloud: “This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to him!” 8 Suddenly, when they looked around, they no longer saw anyone with them except Jesus. 9 As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus gave them orders not to tell anyone what they had seen until the Son of Man had risen from the dead. 10 They kept the matter to themselves, discussing what “rising from the dead” meant.

11 And they asked him, “Why do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?” 12 Jesus replied, “To be sure, Elijah does come first, and restores all things. Why then is it written that the Son of Man must suffer much and be rejected? 13 But I tell you, Elijah has come, and they have done to him everything they wished, just as it is written about him.”

14 When they came to the other disciples, they saw a large crowd around them and the teachers of the law arguing with them. 15 As soon as all the people saw Jesus, they were overwhelmed with wonder and ran to greet him. 16 “What are you arguing with them about?” he asked. 17 A man in the crowd answered, “Teacher, I brought you my son, who is possessed by a spirit that has robbed him of speech. 18 Whenever it seizes him, it throws him to the ground. He foams at the mouth, gnashes his teeth and becomes rigid. I asked your disciples to drive out the spirit, but they could not.” 19 “You unbelieving generation,” Jesus replied, “how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy to me.” 20 So they brought him. When the spirit saw Jesus, it immediately threw the boy into a convulsion. He fell to the ground and rolled around, foaming at the mouth. 21 Jesus asked the boy’s father, “How long has he been like this?” “From childhood,” he answered. 22 “It has often thrown him into fire or water to kill him. But if you can do anything, take pity on us and help us.” 23 “‘If you can’?” said Jesus. “Everything is possible for one who believes.” 24 Immediately the boy’s father exclaimed, “I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!” 25 When Jesus saw that a crowd was running to the scene, he rebuked the impure spirit. “You deaf and mute spirit,” he said, “I command you, come out of him and never enter him again.” 26 The spirit shrieked, convulsed him violently and came out. The boy looked so much like a corpse that many said, “He’s dead.” 27 But Jesus took him by the hand and lifted him to his feet, and he stood up.

28 After Jesus had gone indoors, his disciples asked him privately, “Why couldn’t we drive it out?” 29 He replied, “This kind can come out only by prayer."

30 They left that place and passed through Galilee. Jesus did not want anyone to know where they were, 31 because he was teaching his disciples. He said to them, “The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men. They will kill him, and after three days he will rise.” 32 But they did not understand what he meant and were afraid to ask him about it. 33 They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, “What were you arguing about on the road?” 34 But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest. 35 Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, “Anyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all.” 36 He took a little child whom he placed among them. Taking the child in his arms, he said to them, 37 “Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me.”


38 “Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.” 39 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us. 41 Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward.

42 “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea. 43 If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. 45 And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. [46] [c] 47 And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, 48 where “‘the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched.’[d] 49 Everyone will be salted with fire. 50 “Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt among yourselves, and be at peace with each other.”

10 Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them. 2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” 3 “What did Moses command you?” he replied. 4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.” 5 “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. 6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’[a] 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.’[c] So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11 He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”

13 People were bringing little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them, but the disciples rebuked them. 14 When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 15 Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” 16 And he took the children in his arms, placed his hands on them and blessed them.

17 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 19 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.’[d]” 20 “Teacher,” he declared, “all these I have kept since I was a boy.” 21 Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” 22 At this the man’s face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth. 23 Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!” 24 The disciples were amazed at his words.

But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is[e] to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” 26 The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, “Who then can be saved?” 27 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.” 28 Then Peter spoke up, “We have left everything to follow you!” 29 “Truly I tell you,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel 30 will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—along with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life. 31 But many who are first will be last, and the last first.”

32 They were on their way up to Jerusalem, with Jesus leading the way, and the disciples were astonished, while those who followed were afraid. Again he took the Twelve aside and told them what was going to happen to him. 33 “We are going up to Jerusalem,” he said, “and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, 34 who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise. 35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. “Teacher,” they said, “we want you to do for us whatever we ask.” 36 “What do you want me to do for you?” he asked. 37 They replied, “Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory.” 38 “You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said. “Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?” 39 “We can,” they answered. Jesus said to them, “You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, 40 but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared.”

41 When the ten heard about this, they became indignant with James and John. 42 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 43 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3320
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: What Are the Implications that Peter Taught in 'Anecdotes'?

Post by Bernard Muller » Mon Mar 16, 2020 8:24 pm

to Secret Alias,
1. Peter teaches with anecdotes
Papias never wrote Peter TAUGHT (with anecdotes).
2. Mark arranges the anecdotes incorrectly
3. Matthew corrected Mark's arrangement
Where did you find in Matthew corrections of Mark's arrangement?

Cordially Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12131
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: What Are the Implications that Peter Taught in 'Anecdotes'?

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Mar 16, 2020 8:26 pm

1. What verb would you use when the noun is teaching
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12131
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: What Are the Implications that Peter Taught in 'Anecdotes'?

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Mar 16, 2020 8:30 pm

3.
A. Logia of the Lord
B Peter heard the logia and developed anecdotes about Jesus
C Mark arranged the anecdotes
D By implication Papias introduces Matthew's gospel as a correction of Mark's ordering of Peter's anecdotes. Its implicit not explicit (cf Watson's Gospel Writing)
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12131
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: What Are the Implications that Peter Taught in 'Anecdotes'?

Post by Secret Alias » Tue Mar 17, 2020 7:07 am

Examples of χρεία not meaning anecdote in the Church Fathers:
We must lop, dig, bind, and perform the other operations. The pruning-knife, I should think, and the pick-axe, and the other agricultural implements, are necessary (χρεία) for the culture of the vine, so that it may produce eatable fruit. [1.9.43.3 ]
Clement also makes reference to the saying of the apostle:
θεοῦ δὲ <σοφίαν> εἴρηκεν ὁ ἀπόστολος τὴν κατὰ τὸν κύριον διδασκαλίαν, σοφίαν ἵνα 1.18.90.2 δείξῃ τὴν ἀληθῆ φιλοσοφίαν δι' υἱοῦ παραδιδομένην. ἀλλὰ γὰρ καὶ ὁ δοκησίσοφος παραινέσεις ἔχει τινὰς τὰς παρὰ τῷ ἀποστόλῳ κελευούσας ἐνδύσασθαι τὸν καινὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸν κατὰ θεὸν κτισθέντα ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ ὁσιότητι τῆς ἀληθείας. διὸ ἀποθέμενοι τὸ ψεῦδος λαλεῖτε ἀλήθειαν· μὴ δίδοτε τόπον τῷ διαβόλῳ. ὁ κλέπτων μηκέτι κλεπτέτω, μᾶλλον δὲ κοπιάτω ἐργαζόμενος τὸ ἀγαθόν. ἐργάζεσθαι δέ ἐστι τὸ προσεκπονεῖν ζητοῦντα τὴν ἀλήθειαν, σὺν γὰρ τῇ λογικῇ εὐποιίᾳ, ἵνα ἔχητε μεταδοῦναι τῷ χρείαν ἔχοντι [1.18.90.3, 4]

The apostle designates the doctrine which is according to the Lord, "the wisdom of God," in order to show that the true philosophy has been communicated by the Son. Further, he, who has a show of wisdom, has certain exhortations enjoined on him by the apostle: "That ye put on the new man, which after God is renewed in righteousness and true holiness. Wherefore, putting away lying, speak every man truth. Neither give place to the devil. Let him that stole, steal no more; but rather let him labour, working that which is good" (and to work is to labour in seeking the truth; for it is accompanied with rational well-doing), "that ye may have to give to him that has need," "ἵνα ἔχητε μεταδοῦναι τῷ χρείαν ἔχοντι" [Ephesians 4:28] both of worldly wealth and of divine wisdom.
Compare our surviving text of Ephesians with its additions:
that you put on the new man, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness. Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truth to your neighbor, for we are all members of one body. 26 “In your anger do not sin”[d]: Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, 27 and do not give the devil a foothold. 28 Anyone who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing goodwith their own hands, that they may have something to share with those in need.

καὶ ἐνδύσασθαι τὸν καινὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸν κατὰ Θεὸν κτισθέντα ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ ὁσιότητι τῆς ἀληθείας 25 Διὸ ἀποθέμενοι τὸ ψεῦδος λαλεῖτε ἀλήθειαν ἕκαστος μετὰ τοῦ πλησίον αὐτοῦ ὅτι ἐσμὲν ἀλλήλων μέλη 26 Ὀργίζεσθε καὶ μὴ ἁμαρτάνετε ὁ ἥλιος μὴ ἐπιδυέτω ἐπὶ [τῷ] παροργισμῷ ὑμῶν 27 μηδὲ δίδοτε τόπον τῷ διαβόλῳ 28 Ὁ κλέπτων μηκέτι κλεπτέτω μᾶλλον δὲ κοπιάτω ἐργαζόμενος ταῖς ἰδίαις χερσὶν τὸ ἀγαθόν ἵνα ἔχῃ μεταδιδόναι τῷ χρείαν ἔχοντι
Is Paul describing what Peter was doing giving the 'anecdotes' of Jesus continuing as a practice into his own age? I know this is sloppy. But I am wondering if the oracles of the women associated with the gnostic Mark in Irenaeus is somehow connected to this.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12131
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: What Are the Implications that Peter Taught in 'Anecdotes'?

Post by Secret Alias » Tue Mar 17, 2020 1:19 pm

Let's consider what Clement is talking about in Stromata 1.18. Does Clement Paul to be describing the process by which Peter gave 'chreiai'? At the end of the previous chapter he says:
There is then in philosophy, though stolen as the fire by Prometheus, a slender spark, capable of being fanned into flame, a trace of wisdom and an impulse from God. Well, be it so that "the thieves and robbers" are the philosophers among the Greeks, who from the Hebrew prophets before the coming of the Lord received fragments of the truth, not with full knowledge, and claimed these as their own teachings, disguising some points, treating others sophistically by their ingenuity, and discovering other things, for perchance they had "the spirit of perception." Aristotle, too, assented to Scripture, and declared sophistry to have stolen wisdom, as we intimated before. And the apostle says, "Which things we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth." [1 Cor 2:13] For of the prophets it is said, "We have all received of His fulness," [John 1:16] that is, of Christ's. So that the prophets are not thieves. "And my doctrine is not Mine," saith the Lord, "but the Father's which sent me." [John 14:26] And of those who steal He says: "But he that speaketh of himself, seeketh his own glory." [John 7:17] Such are the Greeks, "lovers of their own selves, and boasters." [2 Timothy 3: 1] Scripture, when it speaks of these as wise, does not brand those who are really wise, but those who are wise in appearance.

And of such it is said, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise: I will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent." The apostle accordingly adds, "Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world?" setting in contradistinction to the scribes, the disputers of this world, the philosophers of the Gentiles. "Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" which is equivalent to, showed it to be foolish, and not true, as they thought. And if you ask the cause of their seeming wisdom, he will say, "because of the blindness of their heart;" since "in the wisdom of God," that is, as proclaimed by the prophets, "the world knew not," in the wisdom "which spake by the prophets," "Him," that is, God, -- "it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching" -- what seemed to the Greeks foolishness -- "to save them that believe. For the Jews require signs," in order to faith; "and the Greeks seek after wisdom," plainly those reasonings styled "irresistible," and those others, namely, syllogisms. "But we preach Jesus Christ crucified; to the Jews a stumbling-block," because, though knowing prophecy, they did not believe the event: "to the Greeks, foolishness;" for those who in their own estimation are wise, consider it fabulous that the Son of God should speak by man and that God should have a Son, and especially that that Son should have suffered. Whence their preconceived idea inclines them to disbelieve.

For the advent of the Saviour did not make people foolish, and hard of heart, and unbelieving, but made them understanding, amenable to persuasion, and believing. But those that would not believe, by separating themselves from the voluntary adherence of those who obeyed, were proved to be without understanding, unbelievers and fools. "But to them who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God, and the wisdom of God." Should we not understand (as is better) the words rendered, "Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" negatively: "God hath not made foolish the wisdom of the world?" -- so that the cause of their hardness of heart may not appear to have proceeded from God, "making foolish the wisdom of the world." For on all accounts, being wise, they incur greater blame in not believing the proclamation. For the preference and choice of truth is voluntary. But that declaration, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise," declares Him to have sent forth light, by bringing forth in opposition the despised and contemned barbarian philosophy; as the lamp, when shone upon by the sun, is said to be extinguished, on account of its not then exerting the same power.

All having been therefore called, those who are willing to obey have been named "called." For there is no unrighteousness with God. Those of either race who have believed, are "a peculiar people." And in the Acts of the Apostles you will find this, word for word, "Those then who received his word were baptized;" but those who would not obey kept themselves aloof. To these prophecy says, "If ye be willing and hear me, ye shall eat the good things of the land;" [Isaiah 1:19] proving that choice or refusal depends on ourselves. The apostle designates the doctrine which is according to the Lord, "the wisdom of God," in order to show that the true philosophy has been communicated by the Son. Further, he, who has a show of wisdom, has certain exhortations enjoined on him by the apostle: "That ye put on the new man, which after God is renewed in righteousness and true holiness. Wherefore, putting away lying, speak every man truth. Neither give place to the devil. Let him that stole, steal no more; but rather let him labour, working that which is good" (and to work is to labour in seeking the truth; for it is accompanied with rational well-doing), "that ye may have to give to him that has need (ἵνα ἔχητε μεταδοῦναι τῷ χρείαν ἔχοντι)" both of worldly wealth and of divine wisdom. For he wishes both that the word be taught, and that the money be put into the bank, accurately tested, to accumulate interest. Whence he adds, "Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth," -- that is "corrupt communication" which proceeds out of conceit, -- "but that which is good for the use of edifying (ἀλλ' εἴ τις ἀγαθὸς πρὸς οἰκοδομὴν τῆς χρείας), that it may minister grace to the hearers." And the word of the good God must needs be good. And how is it possible that he who saves shall not be good?
The way Clement writes its hard to know exactly what he is getting at but clearly at the core is the idea of:

1. someone who has taken on Jesus (= the new man)
2. becomes a spokesperson for him

It is about the communication of chreiai. It has to be. Not merely Peter but clearly individual teachers living not only at the time of the apostle but down through to the age of Clement by definition.

I think that Peter's use of chreiai was not just limited to Peter (at least in certain communities). I think the man of God spoke in divine way. Peter was one such person. But maybe Mark thought he was too.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3320
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: What Are the Implications that Peter Taught in 'Anecdotes'?

Post by Bernard Muller » Tue Mar 17, 2020 2:08 pm

to Secret Alias,
1. What verb would you use when the noun is teaching
OK
Let's consider "For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses,",
You may not agree that "who" stand for Peter, but I go along with Ben & Ken it is about Peter. In that case, my question is: does "Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs" has to involve sayings and deed of Jesus? It can be totally separate and this teaching of Peter have nothing to do with anecdotal material.

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

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12131
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: What Are the Implications that Peter Taught in 'Anecdotes'?

Post by Secret Alias » Tue Mar 17, 2020 2:14 pm

Right but that's not how the passage is translated by experts any longer. It is rendered thusly:
For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied him, but later, as I said, Peter, who used to give his teachings in the form of anecdotes - https://books.google.com/books?id=qYfMD ... 2C&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=09dhC ... 2C&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=U-YcB ... 2C&f=false
For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, followed Peter, who adapted his teachings as anecdotes [pros tas chreiasl but had no intention of giving an ordered account [ouch ... suntaxin] of the Lord's sayings. https://books.google.com/books?id=pAZxC ... es&f=false
For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching in the form of chreiai [anecdotal stories], but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses https://books.google.com/books?id=4lKGD ... es&f=false
For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterwards, as I said, he followed Peter who composed his teachings in anecdotes and not as a complete work of the Lord's sayings. https://books.google.com/books?id=StasA ... AnoECAYQAg
That is the accepted way of rendering chreiai in the passage. That's the point of this discussion. Understanding what the implications of that are.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12131
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: What Are the Implications that Peter Taught in 'Anecdotes'?

Post by Secret Alias » Tue Mar 17, 2020 2:33 pm

This is also interesting in Clement:
But, as appears, I have, in my eagerness to establish my point, insensibly gone beyond what is requisite. For life would fail me to adduce the multitude of those who philosophize in a symbolical manner. For the sake, then, of memory and brevity, and of attracting to the truth, such are the Scriptures of the Barbarian philosophy. For only to those who often approach them, and have given them a trial by faith and in their whole life, will they supply the real philosophy and the true theology. They also wish us to require an interpreter and guide [ναὶ μὴν ἐξηγητοῦ τινος καὶ καθηγητοῦ χρείαν ἔχειν ἡμᾶς βούλονται]. For so they considered, that, receiving truth at the hands of those who knew it well, we would be more earnest and less liable to deception, and those worthy of them would profit. Besides, all things that shine through a veil show the truth grander and more imposing; as fruits shining through water, and figures through veils, which give added reflections to them. For, in addition to the fact that things unconcealed are perceived in one way, the rays of light shining round reveal defects. Since, then, we may draw several meanings, as we do from what is expressed in veiled form, such being the case, the ignorant and unlearned man fails. But the Gnostior apprehends. Now, then, it is not wished that all things should be exposed indiscriminately to all and sundry, or the benefits of wisdom communicated to those who have not even in a dream been purified in soul, (for it is not allowed to hand to every chance comer what has been procured with such laborious efforts); nor are the mysteries of the word to be expounded to the profane.
Is Mark the interpreter and guide here for Clement? It should be noted that 'exegete' seems to have been a title of rank in Alexandria. Commenting on The Outlines of the blessed Theognostus, the exegete of Alexandria. Dodwell and others are of opinion that by this term exegete, is meant the presidency of the Catechetical school and the privilege of public teaching; and that the title, Outlines, was taken from Clement, his predecessor in office. Irenaeus was also given this title.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

Post Reply