How much is Mark distant from Peter?

[Paul the Uncertain]

I should check personally in Klinghardt and in Gramaglia, if really, as Kunigunde insists, there is not even the slightest bit of evidence supporting "Simon Peter".

In whiletime I see with pleasure that a lot of people here fears the implications of a presumed presence of "Simon Peter" in *Ev. It is a fact, and the harmonizations by Peter (not Cephas) vanish in comparison with the only possible rational objection (that raised by Kunigunde)

"It ain't there" is a pretty rational objection.

You should indeed check (not in Klinghardt, that's the source whose reliability KK disputed). If you do find it, then we can (1) figure out who these "lot of people here" are who fear and (2) pick up with our own conversation. You can answer my question: how is Simon Peter being depicted as a competent critical thinker a criticism of him?

If Jesus voices no objection to Simon's question (whichever Simon it turns out to be), then why would anybody else object?

[Giuseppe]

not in Klinghardt, that's the source whose reliability KK disputed)

without offence, but with a tone of reproach: never seen a more .... objection!

I don't even comment the rest of your 'comment': you are essentially unable to argue with a proponent of a priority different from your damned gospel of Mark.

KK's claim, i.e. Ben C. Smith's claim, that Peter doesn't figure in the episode in *Ev, is totally unfounded!
(No wonder, since I have always thought that Ben is a poorly disguised Christian apologist, despite of all his claims of the contrary!)

So Klinghardt (The Oldest Gospel and the Formation of the Canonical Gospels, p. 659, my bold):

Another decisive peculiarity is exhibited in two Old Latin manuscripts. In the introduction of the concluding speech by Jesus (Luke 7,40a), e and f allued to the name of the addressee. Irritatingly, Jesus's answer is directed to Peter. [9] Since an identification of the hosting Pharisee with Peter must be categorically ruled out, these manuscripts exhibit a tradition that places the event at an unnamed Pharisee's house but understands the decisive Jesus logion as an instruction for Peter. Since the allusion to Peter cannot be derived from the canonical text, it clearly indicates the original form of the pericope and awards insights into the tradition history.

Important note 9 reads:

et respondens (e: respondit) Iesus dixit (om e) ad P e t r u m: Simon ... (cf. c: ... dixit Simoni)

Now I will translate the (probably highly stupid) objection by the catholic priest Gramaglia.

[Giuseppe]

Hahahaha, the Gramaglia's objection is worthy of being quoted since it makes perfectly the point of a colossal earliest rivalry between Jesus and Peter:

The pros ton Petron of Lk 7:40 in the Codex Vetus Latina of Brescia and in the Codex Palatinus (Afra) is totally isolated, because one codex of the Vetus Latina has pros ton Simona and refers to the Pharisee, taking the name of that personage from Mk 14:3, while all the other codices of the Itala and Greek texts (including D) have pros auton and refer to the Pharisee; the two Latin codices, which refer to Peter, have simply misinterpreted the 'Simon' of the banquet, which was attended by a sinful woman in Mt 26:6 and Mk 14:3, creating a paradoxical and comical situation of a Peter, who inwardly mocks Jesus himself, which is unthinkable for Luke. Obviously to attribute the Codex Palatinus (Afra) gimmick to Marcion's text belongs to science fiction; after all, by what criterion do we exclude the Codex Vercellensis or Codex Veronensis? Is it conceivable that Peter would be accused of wrongness in hospitality by Jesus, a fellow traveller of pauperism?

(source, p. 158, note 177)

'unthinkable in Luke!", evidently the Catholic priest Gramaglia is totally unable in thinking about Marcion, or a radical gentilizer in his place, as the original author of the episode.

Note then the stupid final objection:" by what criterion do we exclude" orthodox readings on behalf of a more 'heretical' reading?

The answer should be obvious: the more irritating reading from a Catholic/Petrine point of view, especially when we are dealing with false accusations of forgery thrown against Marcion, has to be surely privileged and eo ipso considered the original reading.

[Paul the Uncertain]

Slowly, Giuseppe. Two instances of a variant in Latin translations of Luke don't rebut Kunigunde's remark:

"Simon Peter" is nowhere attested for Marcion's pericope.

(Moving what was an edit here to a new post below)

[Giuseppe]

Slowly, Giuseppe. Two instances of a variant in Latin translations of Luke don't rebut Kunigunde's remark:

"Simon Peter" is nowhere attested for Marcion's pericope.

sorry, but I don't think absolutely that these two instances come out of nowhere for the stupidity (sic) of two different (sic) scribes precisely (sic) in that fatidic point. Too much impossibilities. Occam prohibits.

It is too much clear that traces of a different version of proto-Luke aka the Evangelion are survived.

[Paul the Uncertain]

Slowly, Giuseppe. Two instances of a variant in Latin translations of Luke don't rebut Kunigunde's remark:

"Simon Peter" is nowhere attested for Marcion's pericope.

sorry, but I don't think absolutely that these two instances come out of nowhere for the stupidity (sic) of two different (sic) scribes precisely (sic) in that fatidic point. Too much impossibilities. Occam prohibites.

It is too much clear that traces of a different version of proto-Luke aka the Evangelion are survived.

I agree with you that Gramaglia's analysis as you quoted it could stand some improvement, but that doesn't affect the lack of attestation for Jesus responding to an apt question asked by Peter in *Ev.

I don't see any Occam issue. Two different translators aren't two independent translators. They're working from the same text. Luke in Greek introduces Simon without only implicit linkage by context to the Pharisee host. Whoever this Simon is, he addresses Jesus as teacher (didaskale), and Jesus treats him as a teacher might plausibly lead a student to understand a theoretical point. Calling this Simon Peter is an accident waiting to happen.

FWIW, I don't see Luke's Simon to be mocking Jesus. The anomaly of a reputable prophet accepting the ministrations of a notorious sinner without any explanation is worthy of note. Jesus doesn't dispute the good-will of his host in making note of the obvious, and he furnishes an explanation which extinguishes the anomaly.

Changing Simon the Pharisee to Simon the Rock as the two translators seem to have done doesn't change the character of the question or of the response. The whole affair is uninformative as to the content of *Ev, and uninformative about any relationship between Simon the Leper in GMark and Simon Peter in some Latin translations of GLuke.

[Giuseppe]

I agree with you that Gramaglia's analysis as you quoted it could stand some improvement,

Frankly, I would use Gramaglia's quote against your view ("I don't see Luke's Simon to be mocking Jesus") since he at least concedes that the presence of Peter in the episode leads to the conclusion that Peter is an enemy of Jesus. It is the reason I have quoted Gramaglia, afterall.

Calling this Simon Peter is an accident waiting to happen.

Your hypothetical inadvertent scribe would have not written 'Simon Peter', but only 'Peter': it is very improbable, as error, isn't it? To ignore totally what would be written in the previous manuscript (i.e. Simon), and replace entirely it with ad Petrum.

Occam prohibits that well two scribes in two different places have done the same error in the same point and in addition to all this, by a pure coincidence!, an entire new anti-petrine polemic is read as effect of the error. Too much improbable to be a coincidence, therefore it is not a coincidence, sorry.

[Peter Kirby]

In whiletime I see with pleasure that a lot of people here fears the implications of a presumed presence of "Simon Peter" in *Ev. It is a fact, and the harmonizations by Peter (not Cephas) vanish in comparison with the only possible rational objection (that raised by Kunigunde)

You once again neglect to recognize that which is completely rational here, i.e.:

It's impossible to show that Mark's story here rehabilitates Peter unless you're already assuming *Ev was first.

It's impossible to show that Mark's story here rehabilitates Peter unless you're already assuming *Ev was first.

It's impossible to show that Mark's story here rehabilitates Peter unless you're already assuming *Ev was first.

It's impossible to show that Mark's story here rehabilitates Peter unless you're already assuming *Ev was first.

But, yes, Kunigunde and Paul make good points too. So you've failed to show either premise of your argument.

And what I see is nothing more than a fanatical belief of yours that precedes all argument. It's an awkward thing for everyone involved when somebody tries to argue for something that they weren't argued into.

[Giuseppe]

It's impossible to show that Mark's story here rehabilitates Peter unless you're already assuming *Ev was first.

A rehabilitation is done by Mark by making anonymous and plural the people who question the Jesus's telepathy.

But, yes, Kunigunde and Paul make good points too. So you've failed to show either premise of your argument

to be honest, Kunigunde's objection is not the same as the Paul the Uncertain's objection. So what is your point here? Are you agreeing really with the Catholic priest Gramaglia that two manuscripts have the same rights as to claim to originality? Not even when one of them gives so perfectly an anti-petrine point?

[Peter Kirby]

It's impossible to show that Mark's story here rehabilitates Peter unless you're already assuming *Ev was first.

A rehabilitation is done by Mark by making anonymous and plural the people who question the Jesus's telepathy.

But, yes, Kunigunde and Paul make good points too. So you've failed to show either premise of your argument

to be honest, Kunigunde's objection is not the same as the Paul the Uncertain's objection. So what is your point here? Are you agreeing really with the Catholic priest Gramaglia that two manuscripts have the same rights as to claim to originality? Not even when one of them gives so perfectly an anti-petrine point?

I'm just waiting for a good argument here to come along.