Association of Mark with Peter and "John" with John Z

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
rgprice
Posts: 2062
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Association of Mark with Peter and "John" with John Z

Post by rgprice »

All of the patristic testimony attributes the Gospel of Mark to the "hearer" or "associate" of Peter. All of it. There is the supposed testimony of Papias, which I consider suspect. Justin Martyr seems to quote from Mark and then calls it an account from Peter. Irenaeus says Mark wrote Peter's account at the request of Peter's followers and that Peter approved the account before his death. Eusebius goes along with this, as does Jerome, etc.

At the same time, the patristic testimony also seems to indicate that no one was really reading Mark. There are very few texts of Mark. Almost no commentary is given regarding its content. Hardly anyone quotes from it. The main thing said about it is that its so similar to Matthew that one need not waste time reading it, just read Matthew instead, which seems to be what everyone did.

But, the Gospel of Mark paints by far the least flattering image of Peter. It is the only Gospel in which Peter is called Satan (by Jesus himself no less). Peter's abandonment of Jesus is absolute. Peter appears like a fool and idiot throughout.

So how possibly did this work, which appears by any objective reading, to be a story meant to discredit Peter, come to be universally accepted as a work written with Peter's approval? Is it possible that it got confused with the Gospel of Peter? Why did this designation originate and why did it persist for so long unchallenged?

And now for the "Gospel according to John". This Gospel may well have been written by someone named John. It may have gotten its title from the opening verses that focus on the "testimony of John". But whatever the case, it quickly became accepted that the Gospel was written by John Zebedee, and supposed disciple of Jesus.

Yet, apart from John 21, the work never mentions either James or John. It is the only canonical Gospel not to mention them. At the same time, the work is vehemently anti-Semitic. It is absolutely hostile to the Jews far beyond anything else in the entire New Testament. How did people square the fact that this work never mentions the two so-called Pillars of Jewish Christianity - James and John - and the fact that the work is vehemently anti-Jewish, treating Jews as some "other" group not even worthy of being in the presence of the Lord, with the attribution of this work to a supposed pro-Jewish Jerusalem pillar?

It seems quite obvious to me that the original work intentionally leaves out James and John in order to further distance Jesus from Judaism! It doesn't even include accounts of the two figures most strongly associated with Judaism, and yet, it ends up being attributed to the very people the story was meant to disparage?

This is quite peculiar indeed because this occurs two out of four books! It appears that Mark was written for the purpose of discrediting Peter, yet was then attributed effectively to Peter. And the writer of John indented to distance Jesus from Judaism in part by removing the Jerusalem pillars from his story, yet the story ended up being attributed to the very people he intended to discredit!

What's going on here?
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Association of Mark with Peter and "John" with John Z

Post by mlinssen »

Thorough observations.
Yet there is analysis, and then there is conclusion

John is vehemently anti-Judean, and the word Judaios is littered across his text, where every other gospel has merely a handful: viewtopic.php?p=134912#p134912

John comes before the Synoptics, yet by putting him at the end and "letting him close the (gospel) book, the Church establishes two pillars: they let the others precede him, and John testify to that.
John is the earliest and most abundant text found in the first two centuries - and Mark indeed nowhere to be found

The Patristics needed Peter to be the linking pin to Jesus: by faking the story that Peter related the story to John Mark they make sure that their first gospel has authority - while making clear that Mark indeed is their first gospel, something that they come to regret later when Matthew gets written

I'm not sure that I agree to your picture of Peter painted in Mark. There is the Satan scene, the transfiguration scene, and the denial - and the latter is part of the plan. Other than that, Peter is his BFF

Does John remove, or not contain yet? I think the latter, of course - and again, I see no other reason to include John but for the fact that he couldn't be excluded - because he was the very first
rgprice
Posts: 2062
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Association of Mark with Peter and "John" with John Z

Post by rgprice »

In addition to the obvious rebuking scene we have:

Mark 8:
34 And He summoned the crowd with His disciples, and said to them, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. 35 For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it. 36 For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul? 37 For what will a man give in exchange for his soul? 38 For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.


Mark 10:
2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon, who is called Peter...

28 Peter began to say to Him, “Behold, we have left everything and followed You.” 29 Jesus said, “Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or farms, for My sake and for the gospel’s sake, 30 but that he will receive a hundred times as much now in the present age, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and farms, along with persecutions; and in the age to come, eternal life. 31 But many who are first will be last, and the last, first.”

Who was first?... Peter.
Who is last? Paul.

Mark 14:
37 And He *came and *found them sleeping, and *said to Peter, “Simon, are you asleep? Could you not keep watch for one hour? 38 Keep watching and praying that you may not come into temptation; the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.” 39 Again He went away and prayed, saying the same words. 40 And again He came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were very heavy; and they did not know what to answer Him. 41 And He *came the third time, and *said to them, “Are you still sleeping and resting? It is enough; the hour has come; behold, the Son of Man is being betrayed into the hands of sinners. 42 Get up, let us be going; behold, the one who betrays Me is at hand!”


Mark 14:
66 As Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant-girls of the high priest *came, 67 and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked at him and *said, “You also were with Jesus the Nazarene.” 68 But he denied it, saying, “I neither know nor understand what you are talking about.” And he went out onto the porch. 69 The servant-girl saw him, and began once more to say to the bystanders, “This is one of them!” 70 But again he denied it. And after a little while the bystanders were again saying to Peter, “Surely you are one of them, for you are a Galilean too.” 71 But he began to curse and swear, “I do not know this man you are talking about!” 72 Immediately a rooster crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how Jesus had made the remark to him, “Before a rooster crows twice, you will deny Me three times.” And he began to weep.

Peter was, "ashamed of Me and My words".

Mark 15:
9 They kept beating His head with a reed, and spitting on Him, and kneeling and bowing before Him. 20 After they had mocked Him, they took the purple robe off Him and put His own garments on Him. And they *led Him out to crucify Him.

21 They *pressed into service a passer-by coming from the country, Simon of Cyrene (the father of Alexander and Rufus), to bear His cross.

Simon Peter failed to take up the cross of Jesus and follow him. He was instead Simon who was merely passing by did it.

Neither Simon Peter nor any disciple were present at the Crucifixion.

Pretty clear that peter is persona non grata.

Even if you don't think that this is straight up anti-Peter, how could anyone think that this was an account told by Peter or endorsed by Peter?
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Association of Mark with Peter and "John" with John Z

Post by mlinssen »

rgprice wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 1:42 pm Even if you don't think that this is straight up anti-Peter, how could anyone think that this was an account told by Peter or endorsed by Peter?
LOL. Sorry, I am very slow today

Yeah, that's a hilariously fun one. It would make this gospel not only the first thing to not squander the truth, but even to be frank, wait - blatantly honest

Surely there will be some tossers who will manage to bring up the alleged criterion of embarrassment, but those are sorry sillies anyway
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: Association of Mark with Peter and "John" with John Z

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

rgprice wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 1:42 pm Even if you don't think that this is straight up anti-Peter, how could anyone think that this was an account told by Peter or endorsed by Peter?
I suspect that there are many possible answers. We do have a ground fact to serve as foundation: somebody in ancient times actually did make the attribution, and so far as we are able to tell, the reception of the attribution was at least to tolerate it.

What was that person(s)'s hypothesis space? Let's assume that their goal was to promote Mark as authoritative and that the conventional modern pillar of canon formation is correct: authority is achieved by accepted attribution to an early apostle. Note further that for simplicity an early apostle is singular. That is a separate assumption since it doesn't follow from the force of the assumption of the canon-formation pillar.

Thirteen hypotheses, then: the Twelve and Paul. Although Paul is not a named character in Mark, there is a speaking character all of whose expressed opinions paraphrase passages in Paul's letters. That is, the anonymous scribe in verses 12:28-34, whose potential authority is acknowledged by Jesus personally in verse 34. Further discussion of this character appears here:

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/201 ... met-jesus/

So, with a hypothesis set in place, the question may be framed as who's the best fit among those 13? Note that the best fit isn't necessarily a good fit. We have assumed that the correct answer lies within the hypothesis set.

Note also that "fit" need be neither fulsome praise nor scathing condemnation, but only prominence within the narrative. Assuming that each of the candidate apostles was a historical person, then we would expect that he would do both good things and bad things during a crucial period in his career. Nor would we be much surprised that in maturity, such a person could be candid about his own shortcomings earlier in life. Paul, to name one contender, seems very self-critical of his "persecutor" phase.

Pride of place among the Twelve for value-free prominence is easily awarded to Peter, IMO. Little of importance happens after his recruitment that Peter isn't at least nearby, and often in the thick of it. The last time we see any of the Twelve in undisputed Mark, there is only Peter, and the last time any of the Twelve is mentioned by name, that, too, is Peter.

Paul's prominence is not as a character in the story, but as the cumulative weight of all those apparent allusions to his writings throughout the performance. The hypothesis space under consideration, then, has two conspicuous leaders.

I think that's enough to indicate a direction for answering your question, assuming that it wasn't intended as a statement.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Association of Mark with Peter and "John" with John Z

Post by John2 »

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 12:40 am
Pride of place among the Twelve for value-free prominence is easily awarded to Peter, IMO. Little of importance happens after his recruitment that Peter isn't at least nearby, and often in the thick of it. The last time we see any of the Twelve in undisputed Mark, there is only Peter, and the last time any of the Twelve is mentioned by name, that, too, is Peter.

This is in line with Bauckham's chapter about the Pertrine perspective in Mark in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (summarized here: https://biblicalscholarship.wordpress.c ... witnesses/):

Readers or hearers seem to be traveling with the group of Jesus and his disciples and arriving with them at a scene where they then observe Jesus from the perspective of the disciples. When Peter takes a role as a named individual in a scene, readers or hearers are given more specifically Peter’s perspective on events ... They see not only Jesus but also the other disciples from Peter’s point of view ...

Regarding Peter's character in Mark:

Mark’s distinctive characterization of Peter . . . does not employ direct character description, but constructs Peter’s character by means of his acts and words. Peter is a man of initiative (1:36?) and self-confidence, the one who speaks out when others do not (8:29, 32; 10:28), sometimes with insight (8:29), sometimes altogether too impulsively (8:32; 9:5-6). Even in these latter cases, Peter means well and shows his concern for Jesus even as he misunderstands him. In his enthusiastic and self-confident loyalty to Jesus he thinks himself second to none (14:29-31). He does display more courage in his loyalty to Jesus than the others do (14:50, 54), but loyalty and fear are at odds in his motivation. In his fearful, self-interested denial of Jesus he slips from a relatively mild dissociation from Jesus to the most extreme repudiation (14:68-71). But his loyalty and love for Jesus regain their primacy and express themselves in emotional remorse (14:72). The implication here of a moment of self-recognition, as his illusory self-confidence is destroyed, is also important in showing that Peter is not a static character, but one who acquires fresh self-awareness in a life-changing experience. (p. 175).


I think Bauckham makes a great case and I have no issue with the idea that Mark was written by a follower of Peter.


https://www.google.com/books/edition/Je ... frontcover
Last edited by John2 on Thu Feb 09, 2023 4:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
rgprice
Posts: 2062
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Association of Mark with Peter and "John" with John Z

Post by rgprice »

Lol, Bauckham, what a joke.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Association of Mark with Peter and "John" with John Z

Post by John2 »

rgprice wrote: Thu Feb 09, 2023 4:07 pm Lol, Bauckham, what a joke.

How so? I think he makes a great case here and I've gotten a lot of value from his books.
robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: Association of Mark with Peter and "John" with John Z

Post by robert j »

rgprice wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 9:53 am All of the patristic testimony attributes the Gospel of Mark to the "hearer" or "associate" of Peter. All of it. ...

... the Gospel of Mark paints by far the least flattering image of Peter. It is the only Gospel in which Peter is called Satan (by Jesus himself no less). Peter's abandonment of Jesus is absolute. Peter appears like a fool and idiot throughout....

So how possibly did this work, which appears by any objective reading, to be a story meant to discredit Peter, come to be universally accepted as a work written with Peter's approval? ...

What's going on here?
The emerging catholics selected Peter as their leading figure, perhaps based on the author of Matthew identifying Peter as the rock on which the church will be built via the words of Jesus.

I wonder if one need look no further than 1 Peter for the association of Mark with Peter. 1 Peter is an apparently Paulinist letter presented in a Petrine package. It’s not entirely clear if the intention of the author was to present Mark as a biological son or as a spiritual son of “Peter” ---

She in Babylon elected with you greets you, and my son Mark. (1 Peter 5:13)

Tertullian works hard to claim authoritative names for his four accepted Gospel narratives ---

We lay it down as our first position, that the evangelical Testament has apostles for its authors, to whom was assigned by the Lord Himself this office of publishing the gospel. Since, however, there are apostolic men also, they are yet not alone, but appear with apostles and after apostles; because the preaching of disciples might be open to the suspicion of an affectation of glory, if there did not accompany it the authority of the masters, which means that of Christ, for it was that which made the apostles their masters. Of the apostles, therefore, John and Matthew first instill faith into us; whilst of apostolic men, Luke and Mark renew it afterwards. These all start with the same principles of the faith … (Tertullian, Adv Marc, 4.2)

Elsewhere in Tertullian, and in the works of other Patristic authors, Mark is claimed to be the interpreter of the apostle Peter. Peter became the early catholic hero to counter the authority of Paul.

Perhaps Luke, the other “apostolic man”, became associated with the “subsequent apostle” Paul in a similar manner as Mark may have been associated with Peter --- from a name in a Paulinist text ---

Luke, the beloved physician, greets you … (Colossians 4:14)

Tertullian makes an effort to downplay the authority of Luke based his assumed association with Paul ---

Luke, however, was not an apostle, but only an apostolic man; not a master, but a disciple, and so inferior to a master--at least as far subsequent to him as the apostle whom he followed, and that, no doubt, was Paul, was subsequent to the others … (Tertullian, Adv Marc, 4.2)


rgprice wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 9:53 am
Peter's abandonment of Jesus is absolute. Peter appears like a fool and idiot throughout....
But, in Mark's tale, was Peter abandoned by Jesus?

I haven’t given this much thought, and am just thinking out-loud here. Certainly the author of GMark presented Peter as being the closest earthly companion of his Jesus figure, but often dense and often weak minded. But I wonder if your characterization is missing something here.

The Jesus in Mark is clearly represented as having the power and authority to forgive sins ----

And Jesus, having seen their faith, says to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” (Mark 2:5)

For even the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:45)

After Peter’s third denial of Jesus, Peter breaks down and weeps (Mark 14:72). Peter is clearly expressing contrition. Especially after the salvific death on the stake, how could Jesus NOT forgive a contrite Peter?

I think the author of GMark may have intended to imply the forgiveness of Peter with the mysterious young man at the empty tomb telling the women ---

He is not here! Behold the place where they laid Him. But go, say to His disciples and to Peter that He goes before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, as He said to you.” (Mark 16:6-7)

Of the disciples, only Peter is named here.
rgprice
Posts: 2062
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Association of Mark with Peter and "John" with John Z

Post by rgprice »

I've already outlined the narrative about Peter. I'm not sure what else to say about it. Peter is clearly used as a foil who is discredited while the writer points to Paul.

"If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me"

"“You also were with Jesus the Nazarene.” But he denied it, saying, “I neither know nor understand what you are talking about.”"

He denied Jesus instead of himself.

"Simon of Cyrene (the father of Alexander and Rufus), to bear His cross."

I mean how much more blatant can you get?

Peter is not fit to to "come after" Jesus.

Do you really think that Peter would endorse an account in which he is called Satan by Jesus?

"But turning and looking at his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, ‘Get behind me, Satan! For you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.’"

Consider this is one of the earliest accounts of what happened. Imagine that Jesus was actually real and Peter is actually around preaching about him and trying to establish a ministry. People don't know much about the events so a record is going to be made to establish the events of what happened. Now, Peter is going to have his associate write an account of his time spent with Jesus.

And in this, Peter is going to tell the associate to record that the Son of God, the Lord incarnate, called him Satan! Lol, yeah right! It's impossible.
Of the disciples, only Peter is named here.
I doubt very seriously that this is authentic and suspect that this originally said Paul. Peter is a disciple. Saying, "tell the disciples and Peter" is like saying "tell your family and your dad". It makes no sense. "Tell your family and you friend Billy," makes sense. "Tell your family and your dad," does not make sense.

"Tell the disciples and..." implies that the person after the and is going to be someone who is not a disciple.
Last edited by rgprice on Fri Feb 10, 2023 6:40 am, edited 2 times in total.
Post Reply