Kata Markon

["K. Hanhart" <K.Hanhart AT net.HCC.nl>]

> Subject: Re: gmark digest: February 29, 2000
> From: "Ted Weeden" <weedent AT atw.earthreach.com>

Dear Ted,

Eusebius had written documents at his disposal and although a scholar
needs to question the reliability of such written ecclesiastical
statements, he should start out with testing whether such statements
make any sense. You concluded that they didnot. I on the other hand
started out my investigation by asking: what did Papias mean by 'ou
mentoi taxei' and concluded that he meant a 'liturgical order'. Since I
had concluded on structural grounds that Mark wrote the opening section
within the framework of Shabuot (Pentecost - seed and harvest) and
finished up with Passover (Pesach), I deduced that Papias had also
noticed this reversal of the normal 'order': Pesach - Shabuot. I am all
the more convinced of this because Luke (for his Gentile readers) wrote
two books - one ending with the Passion story and the first day of
Shabuot and continuing his Acts with the fiftieth day of Pentecost; thus
in the right 'order'. If indeed Mark wrote a Christian Passover Haggadah
Papias's statement is reliable on that point.
By the way Luke didnot write that Jesus was "bodily taken up into
heaven"; he stated that "a cloud took him". In Tenach the
absence/presence of God is sometimes symbolically represented by a
cloud, as of course you know. 

Let me briefly respond to your remarks on Eusebius and Papias: 
 
It is granted that the brief statement by Papias seems to respond to a
critique by others of Mark's Gospel. For Mark didnot tell us everything
Peter taught, of course. Papias (on the defence) affirms, however, Mark
hadnot omitted what he thought to be 'essential' in Peter's teaching.
Furthermore, Papias held that the remaining lessons (that were not from
Peter) were not 'false'. These other lessons, I think, refer in Papias'
cautious terms to Mark's assesment of the destruction of the temple. 
The imnportant characterization of Mark's Gospel is, however, the phrase
"not in the right order". 

> How would you develop a
> methodology that would assure me that I can trust the historical accuracy of
> Papias' understanding of Mark, an understanding penned 50 years after Mark

Alas, a hundred percent proof-methodology cannot be developed. However,
50 years isnot very much, compared to 2000 yrs we must span, when it
concerns deciphering the first post-70 document re. Jesus written in a
community (in Rome?, Alexandria) with roots, like that of Papias, going
back to the christian community in Jerusalem.

As you know, the Gospel authors wrote statements of faith - they had no
training in and werenot about writing historical "truth". In the
aftermath of the uprising against Rome they wrote re. a person charged
with 'pretending to be king of the Judeans', as the titulus indicated.
He was crucified by a Roman authority. Thus Mark's message was a coded
one, it must be deciphered.    
 
> I now want to push > that even further than in my earlier writings.   I 
> cannot find any evidence prior to Mark that the early Jesus movements had a 
> tradition > about the denial of Peter.

Peter's denial was woven (- via an ingenuous sandwich -) into the
narrative of Jesus' confession before Caiaphas. The denial may well
reflect Peter's assesment of himself. Mark dramatized it (the sandwich!)
for rhetorical effect. Moreover, one certainly cannot give historical
credence to the nightly "trial" before the Sanhedrin. The reasons are
well known; e.g. the Sanhedrin doesnot meet on Passover night and no
follower of Jesus would have been present had it taken place. 
What kind of historical 'denial' Mark had in mind can no longer be
traced. Historical fact is that Jesus was arrested and none of his
disciples were tried and punished ny Pilate. But the stirring story of
the cock and Peter's bursting into tears seems to me indicative of
empathy with Peter on the part of Mark. Not, as you seem to imply, a
deep and rancorous antipathy. 

> nor does Paul [refer to the denial] >

The 'denial' of Jesus may not at all be related to a historical incident
after the arrest of Jesus, but to this "duplicity" referred to in Gal 2.
For the "duplicity" contradicts Mark's overt claim that the Gospel must
be preached to the Gentiles (13,10). 

I am inclined to believe the notion of denial (in whatever form) came
from Peter himself. Fact is Peter plays a leading role in Mark; he was
the first one called and the last one named: "tell it to Peter" (16,7).
Granted, it is possible to interpret Peter's role in a negative, ironic
manner. But if so, why then would all four Gospels have maintained the
denial story.

   Citing Peter's denial of
> Jesus would have been a tour de force in Paul's argument that Peter is
> duplicitous.  Paul could have make a strong argument for the fact that Peter
> had a habit of being duplicitous >

This is true. But you appear to read Mark's Gospel as if it were a
fabricated biography abounding with false historical facts which Paul
therefore didnot know. It is in stead an artfully conceived Passover
Haggadah, based on certain highlights in Judean history. 

>...that there is no Petrine mea culpa...>

Peter wept.  
 
> that subsequent gospel writers (Matthew, Luke and John) had to give the 
> best apologetic spin. >

Again, I cannot combine a supposed Markan "vendetta against Peter and
the twelve",  with the adoption of this denial story of all four
evangelists, who support Peter and the apostles.
 
> I think that Mark invented the insider-betrayer Judas (a thinly veiled
> reference to Judea) as a part of his anti-Judean polemic. 

Here, I agree, but I believe - as the narrative indicates -, that in the
passion drama the Judas kiss symbolizes the role of the high priest and
his co-workers in the arrest of Jesus. Judas may be a "fabrication" but
it is difficult to deny that Pilate held a public trial in the presence
of priests,  without Caiaphas' approval of the proceedings.

> > > Your seven guidelines, it seems to me, are
> > > based mainly on your interpretation "he goes before you into > > > > > 
> > > >Galilee" (14,29; 16,7).
 
> What  do you see as the theological importance of Galilee to Mark, if it is 
> not for him the eschatological place where the kingdom is arriving/has 
> arrived 

Mark's geographical structure is a two layered one. Jesus' words and
deeds in Galilee around lake Kinnereth  would be followed by the
apostles in the ecclesia around the "the sea". The crucifixion of the
Messiah by the Romans in Judea would be followed by the destruction of
the temple by the Romans. Mark relates Jesus' words and deed but through
the spectrum of recent history. These Roman demonic deeds, will not
prevail, as Mark sees it.
I imagine, Mark believed thast the parousia would take place on Zion, as
other Judean apocalyptic literature has it (cf Mark 13,27).

 But then you say:
 
> > This would fit in with the idea that  John Mark was a youth in > > 
> > Jerusalem under Agrippa I and had worked with Paul and Peter in > > Rome.

>...what is the internal evidence of the gospel?..>

I meant to say : if Mark indeed was the youth living in Jerusalem at the
time of Agrippa's persecution and arrest of Peter, the riddlesome verse
Mk 3,6 could be explained.  

> ..."The Gospel According to Marcia" (for lack of a better female name)... >

The role of the women is arresting, indeed, as I explained before. It
cannot all be explained by the women of LXX Isa 32,9ff, although it
originated there. I realize these notes are too brief; one needs to read
and evaluate this new approach of reading Mark as a post-70 Christian
Judean Passover Haggadah    .

Our exchange of thought is an illustration of the abyss between our
knowledge of the real world in the 1st Cent. and of our own 20th (now
21st) Century. We know little or nothing of that 1st C world of Judaism
(- say between 30 - 72 CE -), except what Josephus wants us to know.
Because of the lack of objective, historical evidence, our
interpretations differ a great deal.
I for one have taken this note on the tomb by Montefiori seriously
because to me Mark does want his readers to read his text WITH REFERENCE
TO to Tenach which he often cites. Since Mark does this in his
crucifixion story he also does this in his epilog concerning the tomb
hewn from the rock. That is hard internal evidence and one may not
circumvent, as I see it. I have worked this out in my 'The Open Tomb',
just as your research was based on your interpretation of the denial and
of the saying "going before into Galilee". There is a world of
difference between these two approaches. What makes the debate between
exegetes so difficult is the abyss between the 21st and thre 1st C, as
you yourself are aware, of course.

yours cordially,
Karel