Kata Markon

["Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000 AT home.com>]

I am pleased to announce that
Ted Weeden, author of _Mark: Traditions in Conflict_,  will
be sending us, for List Member's consideration and perusal,  an extended
essay, long in the making, entitled  "Markan Fabrications: the Petrine
Denial" -- an abstract of which is enclosed below.

Beccause Ted's work has probably been seminal for many of us, decided
that what he has to send us should be shared directly with the List
rather than being placed on our "articles for review" page.

But the essay is long. So Ted has agreed to send it sent in
"chunks" rather than all at once. This, we hope, will not only
facilitate List Member's comprehension of what Ted has to say (since you
wouldn't have to swallow it in one go); it will also allow the greatest
possible amount of feedback (which Ted dearly desires) since subsequent
discussion can be focused on each of the essay's individual sections
rather than on the essay as a whole.

So that you may have in advance some idea of what you''ll be
receiving, here are  the essay's subheadings and divisions.

I. Introduction
II. Lack of Evidence for Petrine Denial Prior to Mark
III. Mark's Leitmotiv and Human Lack of  Awareness
IV. The Outsiders' Breakthrough, Disciples Still "Missing the Boat"
V. The Disciples Breakthrough: the Petrine Revelation
VI. The "Snake in the Grass:" Christology
VII. The Petrine Denial and the Fall of Peter

And here is the abstract:

****
This essay is written as a contribution to the recent discussions on the
Markan portrayal of Peter and the question as to whether Mark is
"anti-Peter."
The essay takes the position that Mark is not only "anti-Peter," but
Mark alone created the denigrating picture of Peter, including the
fabrication of the Petrine denial, the Petrine confession and Jesus’
denouncing of Peter as Satan. Mark created these fictitious
stories about Peter, along with the denigrating picture of the rest of
the disciples, in an effort to defend his own christological view of
Jesus against his opponents’ christology and the authority of their
tradition. The essay begins by mounting support for the
position that there was no Petrine denial tradition prior to Mark. The
essay then builds a case to show how Mark carefully and skillfully
composed his gospel, using his leitmotiv (a christological identity
motif), to create a parabolic drama that finally leads to an ad hoc
"trial" of Peter. At the peak moment of Peter’s ad hoc trial, with
Jesus’ affirmation of his own christology before the high priest still
echoing, Peter denies Jesus and in so doing rejects both Jesus and
Jesus’ self-defined christology. As the curtain falls on Peter’s trial,
a fallen Peter awaits the judgment of the Son of the Human
One in the eschatological court of the end-time. Of course, none of this
is true of the historical Peter. But it is true of Mark’s narrative
Peter, who with the rest of the Twelve, serves dramatically as the
surrogate for Mark’s opponents and their authorities whom Mark’s drama
discredits.

*******

List Members who might wish to see the "undivided" version of the essay
should note that it  will also be uploaded in its entirety to our
"articles for review" section.

My thanks to Ted for his contribution. I think it will stimulate a good
deal of interesting and profitable discussion.

Yours,

Jeffrey
--
Jeffrey B. Gibson
7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
Chicago, Illinois 60626
e-mail jgibson000 AT ameritech.net
       jgibson000 AT home.com