Jeffrey Gibson has already alerted you that you would be receiving the
following essay, "Markan Fabrications: the Petrine Denial," from
me. It is an essay that I developed as my contribution to a discussion
that has been taking place on Xtalk regarding whether or not Mark was "anti
Peter." Jeffrey invited me to share the same essay with
you. I look forward to your critical responses. I am
in hopes of eventually publishing this essay with others in a book on Mark
which will be something of a scholarly companion to a commentary which I have
been asked to write on Mark. So your responses will be very beneficial
to me as I continue my work in this area. I will send the essay in
sections over six posts.
I look foward to hearing from you.
Markan Fabrications: the Denial of Peter
I. Introduction
The past weeks’ posts have gone back and forth on the Markan position on
Peter, James, etc., at a dizzying pace. It has been difficult to keep up with
them. But after a period of silence, as I am preparing my response to Mahlon
on the gospel’s Galilean provenance, let me contribute my own perspective.
Many of you know from my _Mark-Traditions in Conflict_ (1971,1979) that I am
convinced that Mark is dramatizing his own vendetta against opponents in his
community who advocate a christology radically different from Mark’s own
suffering-servant christology.
Mark’s opponents claim their view on christology is grounded in the
tradition passed down by Peter and the Twelve. Thus Peter and the Twelve are
the opponents’ authorities. Since Mark does not possess the apostolic stature
that Peter and the Twelve do, the only way that he can "out trump" his
opponents is to compose a drama in which (1) Jesus, the most revered and
exalted authority of all, is presented as advocating Mark’s christology and
(2) Peter and the Twelve are portrayed as advocating the christology of Mark’s
opponents. Thus in the course of the narrative, Mark presents the disciples,
dramatic surrogates for Mark’s opponents, as dense, non-comprehending
"insiders" who, when they finally "get" the true christological view
proclaimed by Jesus at Caesarea Philippi (8:31) and thereafter (9:31;
10:33f.), oppose Jesus’ christology and finally betray, forsake and deny him.
Moreover, as a finishing touch on the devastating vendetta against his
opponents’ authorities, Mark in his final coup de grace narratively deprives
the disciples of any possible rehabilitation by having the women flee the
empty tomb in silence, saying nothing to anyone (16:8). The dramatic force and
effect of their sealed lips is that they never deliver the parousia message
(16:7) to the disciples as they were charged to do by the young man in the
empty tomb. The drama closes with the disciples having exited the stage as
fallen apostates and not faithful apostles. (I have more recently restated and
enlarged upon my Markan thesis in an article, "The Markan Mystery and Mark’s
Messiah for Faith,"in _Chicago Studies_, 1995:17-31.).
In this post, which will be sent in sections, I want to expand upon my
Markan thesis and contribute the following to the Xtalk discussion, as well as
test some of my theses with those who are interested. I am now convinced that
not only did Mark create the denigrating portrayal of the disciples, but Mark
also, and Mark alone, invented both the denial of Peter (so also Burton Mack,
_The Myth of Innocence_, 306; Robert Funk and the Jesus Seminar, _The Acts of
Jesus_,149, 430) and the betrayal of Judas. Peter never denied Jesus, and
Judas never betrayed Jesus. The denial and betrayal are Markan fictions
created in the service of his polemic against his opponents who use Peter and
the Twelve as their authorities. What is my evidence for making these claims?
First, let me address Mark’s fabrication of the Petrine denial in this post,
and then shortly follow with a future post addressing the Markan fabrication
of Judas’ betrayal.
II. Lack of Evidence of Petrine Denial Prior to Mark
I can find no evidence anywhere in the Jesus movements, prior to Mark’s
creation of his gospel drama, that Peter did in fact deny Jesus. Nowhere in
early Christian sources prior to Mark is there any reference, allusion or even
hint that there was such a Petrine denial. Paul makes no mention of it. I find
it strange, if the denial did occur, that Paul would not have drawn attention
to such a Petrine lapse in Antioch when Paul castigates Peter for his
duplicity in first eating with the uncircumcised at Antioch and then refusing
to do so when the James party arrives in town (Gal. 2:11-14). What better way
could Paul have had to drive home his point about Peter’s hypocritical
reversal of behavior than to remind Peter, and those before whom he castigated
Peter, that he has had a habit of being duplicitous, a habit which began with
his denial of Jesus in the moment when Jesus most needed someone to stand by
him? If Paul really knew that Peter denied Jesus, then his total silence with
respect to it is deafening,
Likewise, there is no reference or allusion to a Petrine denial in any
other pre-Markan tradition. Not a trace of it can be found in Q. And nothing
in the Gospel of Thomas would lead one to believe that any of the traditions
behind that gospel knew of Peter denying Jesus. Had the author of Thomas known
of the denial, he could have used it as sufficient cause alone for the
elevation of Thomas over Peter in GTh. 13. For in that saying it is clear that
what is at stake is that the author is trying to prove that Thomas, rather
than Peter or Matthew, is Jesus’ most trusted confidant and most favored
disciple.
Stephen Patterson observes with respect to this point (_The Fifth Gospel_,
42): " In Thom. 13, Thomas is exalted but Peter and Matthew must play the
fool, unable to understand the real significance and identity of Jesus. This
suggests a time in early Christianity when local communities had begun to
appeal to the authority of particular well-known leaders from the past to
guarantee the reliability of their claims, even while rejecting the rival
claims of others and their apostolic heroes." (Parenthetically, that is
precisely what I see Mark doing, namely, appealing to the authority of Jesus
as support for Mark’s christology, "while rejecting the rival [christological]
claims of others [Mark’s opponents] and their apostolic heroes [Peter and the
Twelve]."). The fact that the Gospel of Thomas fails to produce a reference or
allusion to the Petrine denial as ammunition to support the primacy of Thomas
over Peter, in the rivalry between their respective followers, suggests to me
that Thomas did not know of the Petrine denial. Given the high stakes involved
in such rivalry, I cannot imagine that the author of Thomas knew of the denial
and chose not use it.
To pursue support for my position further: if such a Petrine denial is
historical, then I find it quite strange that nowhere in the NT is there any
reference to Peter ever offering a *mea culpa* and receiving forgiveness for
his denial. It is particularly striking that in none of the resurrection-
appearance stories is there any suggestion that Peter offers or has offered a
*mea culpa* and is forgiven by the risen Jesus. The appearance story that
comes closest to supplying a possible allusion to a Petrine *mea culpa* is the
story found in John 21:15-21, part of the later redaction of the original text
of the Gospel of John. But even here one has to strain to extrapolate from
that passage such a *mea culpa.* In that story the risen Jesus asks Peter
three times whether Peter loves him. It is obvious to me, as it is to others
(e.g. Funk and the Jesus Seminar, 491), that the narrator has Jesus ask the
question three times to parallel Peter’s denial of Jesus three times in Mark.
Yet, even here I do not find any suggestion that Peter regrets his denial and
asks Jesus for forgiveness. Rather, the point of the story is more about Jesus
needing assurance of Peter’s love than of Peter’s need for forgiveness. And
the reason that Jesus requires assurance that Peter loves him is that he needs
to know that Peter loves him despite the fact that Peter will be crucified for
following Jesus (21:18f.). Funk and fellows of the Jesus Seminar saw this
story as a rehabilitation of Peter after his denial ( 491), but even that is
not self-evident, as I read the flow of the narrative.
It is clear to me that the story of Peter’s denial entered the early
Christian tradition as a result of Mark’s fabrication of the denial. It is
also clear to me that Mark very carefully composed and staged the denial to
underscore Peter’s rejection of the Markan Jesus’ proclaimed and self-defined
christological identity. What evidence do I have to support that? The evidence
that supports my claim lies in the way Mark uses his leitmotiv as a tour de
force to denigrate Peter and the rest of the twelve disciples throughout the
drama, including employing his leitmotiv to debase Peter totally in the
fabrication of the Petrine denial. And what do I mean by Mark’s leitmotiv?
