How much is Mark distant from Peter?

[Peter Kirby]

I ask since Klinghardt says that Mark has replaced Simon Peter in Simon the Leper in the related episode, in order to rehabilitate the figure of the apostle, otherwise put in bad light in *Ev.

From the other hand, the writers à la Dykstra and Adamczewski have insisted again and again on Mark being strongly anti-petrine. Evidently, according to Klinghardt, they have not contemplated the possibility of a even more aggressive form of anti-petrinism in a gospel.

Seriously, though, this is possible. However, I cannot rule out that an "even more aggressive" Gospel (if it were such) came second. I have not been able to determine that the less "aggressive" form of this particular story shows any knowledge of the Gospel. It seems to be another case of using the conclusion that is supposed to come at the end of an argument (Evangelion priority as first) as a heuristic assumption that guides interpretation. Yes, if *Ev were the first, then Mark softened the blow here. Yet that was the very thing we need to prove.

It's a very difficult question. I'm really having a hard time understanding the fervor for this particular answer to it.

[Giuseppe]

My Case for *Ev being more anti-petrine than Mark stands all on the presence of Simon Peter where Mark has Simon Leper: this change of names is a pure apology of rehabilitation of Peter by Mark. Isn't it?

Just to clarify, is it your view that in GMark, the character Simon, whom Jesus dubs Peter (3:16) and who keeps a house in Capernaum with his brother Andrew (1:29), is the same character as the Simon called the Leper who has a home in Bethany (14:3)?

If so, then do you have some evidence or argument to support that view?

No, my point is that Mark 14:3–9 has "the Leper":

While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head.

4 Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, “Why this waste of perfume? 5 It could have been sold for more than a year’s wages[a] and the money given to the poor.” And they rebuked her harshly.

6 “Leave her alone,” said Jesus. “Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 7 The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me. 8 She did what she could. She poured perfume on my body beforehand to prepare for my burial. 9 Truly I tell you, wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her.”

...while the similar episode in *Ev has "Simon Peter":

But one of the Pharisees invited him to dine with him. And he went into the Pharisee's house and laid down. And see, a woman, a sinner in the city, stood behind him at his feet. She bathed his feet with her tears and salved him with ointment.

But when Simon Peter saw this, he said to himself, "If this man was a prophet, he would know who and of what kind the woman is who touches him, for she is a sinner". And Jesus answered, saying to Peter, "Simon, I have something to say to you". He said, "Teacher, speak". And he turned to the woman, saying to Simon, "Do you see this woman? She has washed my feet with her tears, she has anointed and kissed me. Therefore, I say to you, her many sins are forgiven, for she has loved much".

But to her he said, "Your sins are forgiven." And those lying at the table with him brgan to say among yhemselves, "Who is this one who even forgives sins?" But he said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you. Go in peace".

Klinghardt claims that Mark has replaced Simon Peter with anonymous people found there, as authors of the criticism read in them telepatically by Jesus. While in *Ev it is Simon Peter who doubts and is ipso facto reproached by Jesus.

[Giuseppe]

However, I cannot rule out that an "even more aggressive" Gospel (if it were such) came second.

the assumption that a such "even more aggressive" Gospel came second is equivalent to assume that Marcion introduced, by interpolation of "Simon Peter", his dualistic theology in a previous gospel, which is the exact thing denied a priori by the proponents of a proto-Luke that was only adopted, never corrupted, by Marcion.

I see a bit of double standard here:

• In case of Marcionite priority, Marcion can't have written *Ev because *Ev is too much Jewish for him;

• In case of Markan priority, the only person in the world who could be interested to change "Leper" in "Peter" is Marcion.

Detering thinks that "the Leper" is an attack against Simon Magus, often connected with the leprosy in anti-Simonian writings. Also this clue, if true, goes against the Markan priority.

[Peter Kirby]

However, I cannot rule out that an "even more aggressive" Gospel (if it were such) came second.

the assumption that a such "even more aggressive" Gospel came second is equivalent to assume that Marcion introduced, by interpolation of "Simon Peter", his dualistic theology in a previous gospel, which is the exact thing denied a priori by the proponents of a proto-Luke that was only adopted, never corrupted, by Marcion.

I see a bit of double standard here:

• In case of Marcionite priority, Marcion can't have written *Ev because *Ev is too much Jewish for him;

• In case of Markan priority, the only person in the world who could be interested to change "Leper" in "Peter" is Marcion.

Detering thinks that "the Leper" is an attack against Simon Magus, often connected with the leprosy in anti-Simonian writings. Also this clue, if true, goes against the Markan priority.

Nothing about what you are saying characterizes me:

(1) I do not assume Markan priority. I am interested in exploring that hypothesis, but I am not committed to it.

(2) I don't believe that a change here from Simon the leper to Simon Peter requires a "dualistic theology."

(3) I am also not committed to a hypothesis about the relationship of Marcion to the Gospel he used. It's possible that Marcion had a hand in it. I have seen no real evidence that this is true (other than the patrístic claims), but it's possible.

(4) I have not said that *Ev is too Jewish for Marcion. I also don't know about the three subclaims here: (a) that there is a scale of Judaism that admits of degrees, (b) where to place *Ev on that scale, and (c) where to place Marcion on that scale.

(5) I have no idea how someone would rightly conclude that only Marcion could make this change.

(6) I don't know if Simon Magus is in the background of this story.

You are boxing with shadows here.

And you haven't shown that *Ev was first.

I am starting to think you never will because you don't recognize how to construct a valid argument.

[Giuseppe]

I am starting to think you never will because you don't recognize how to construct a valid argument.

no, I do:

insofar the degree of anti-petrinism is recognized (at least by me) as a just criterion to measure the priority of a Gospel compared to another,

...since that, considering only the canonical synoptics, a trend can be already seen in action, one by which Peter is gradually rehabilitated, passing from Mark to Luke and Matthew...


...then my point still stands: *Ev is more anti-petrine than Mark therefore *Ev precedes Mark.


I have collected two Arguments supporting Marcionite priority over Mark, until now:

• The Argument from the Earliest Rivalry between Jesus and John the Baptist;

• The Argument from the Earliest Rivalry between Jesus and Simon Peter.

[Peter Kirby]

insofar the degree of anti-petrinism is recognized (at least by me) as a just criterion to measure the priority of a Gospel compared to another,

It is not. And "by you" is trivial and not very meaningful.

...since that, considering only the canonical synoptics, a trend can be already seen in action, one by which Peter is gradually rehabilitated, passing from Mark to Luke and Matthew...

I have seen no evidence of a simple linear development. One alternative is that both Mark and Ev* share some of the same themes. It's quite plausible that ideas that were present in Mark were intensified in a subsequent Gospel. We already agree that Matthew and Luke reacted to that Gospel. So a very plausible alternative is:

Mark (anti-Petrine themes)
Evangelion (some intensified anti-Petrine themes)
Backlash!
Matthew (strongly pro Peter)
Luke (also more pro Peter)

I would like some real evidence to be able to decide here.

[Giuseppe]

We already agree that Matthew and Luke reacted to that Gospel.

a strong reason to believe that Luke and Matthew come after Mark is that in the former Peter is put in a better light than he is in the latter.
In the moment itself that you give up to consider the presence of some intensified anti-Petrine themes in *Ev as evidence of *Ev's priority over Mark, you are going de facto to give up the acquired fact that the presence of anti-Petrine themes in Mark is evidence of Mark's priority over Matthew and Luke. It is a great renunciation, by you, of a powerful critical tool.

[Peter Kirby]

We already agree that Matthew and Luke reacted to that Gospel.

a strong reason to believe that Luke and Matthew come after Mark is that in the former Peter is put in a better light than he is in the latter.
In the moment itself that you give up to consider the presence of some intensified anti-Petrine themes in *Ev as evidence of *Ev's priority over Mark, you are going de facto to give up the acquired fact that the presence of anti-Petrine themes in Mark is evidence of Mark's priority over Matthew and Luke. It is a great renunciation, by you, of a powerful critical tool.

And I accept that. I never considered relative Petrine-ism as a criterion here. Only a nitty-gritty analysis of pericopes, maybe.

[Peter Kirby]

I wonder if the next exercise is to compare the relative Petrine-ism of Matthew and Luke to see which of those two came first.

And next we can put Thomas and *Ev side by side in their Petrine-ism so we can know which of those two came first (paging Martijn?).

Perhaps we can then also take the Gospel of Judas here and find out where it should be assigned in the grand scale of Petrine-ism.

Certainly John as well. Measure the Petrine-ism, insert the gospel. We have the order established by the keys of Peter.

It's all rather silly.

[Giuseppe]

I never considered relative Petrine-ism as a criterion here.

really? Then how do you explain the particular joy shown by Joe Wallack (a Markan prioritist) in proving the Markan priority by titling relative threads as "the Simontic Problem" etc?

I see the same joy in Dykstra and Adamczewski and RG Price, for that matter. The anti-petrinism in Mark has always been the great Battle Horse of the Markan prioritists. Kunigunde herself cannot deny this.