Kata Markon

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

Kata Markon digest wrote:

> Kata Markon Digest for Friday, May 26, 2000.
>
> "1. Markan Fabrications-the Petrine Denial, I. Introduction, II. Lack of 
> Evidence
>  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".=20
>
> 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

> Dear Ted,

>  These are no doubt the conclusions of your long and exhaustive research.In 
> my contribution to Kata M
> arkon of April 24 I expressed my appreciation for your research. I also 
> thoroughly disagreed on some
> basic points. You donot make clear what the genre is of Mark's Gospel. I 
> take it to be a Passover
> Haggadah written by a Christian Judean. He is the John Mark of the Second 
> Testament. Do you take GMark
> to be a Vita of a theios aner written by a Gentile?  It is a vital 
> preliminary question. But turning
> to your 'conclusions' mentioned above.  Mark portrays in reality two sets 
> of opponents (- not the
> pillars in Jerusalem, as you claim-) : the Pharisees and Herodians (3,6) 
> and the high priests, elders
> and scribes. You ignore, I think, the fact that the ecclesia soon fell out 
> with the synagogue and that
> the above opposition is better explained if Mark himself was a Judean 
> (Jew). Simon, with his nickname
> Peter (a Greek translation of an original Aramaic Cephas) gets the most 
> prominent place in the Gospel
> as he is the first one called near the thalassa to start fishing for people 
> and he is the last
> disciple named in the Gospel. Granted the last act of Simon is his denial. 
> Granted from there on the
> women take over as the bearers of tradition. But Peter's weeping  redeems 
> his role in the gospel.
> Thefore, at the Last Supper, all ask :"Is it I"? but Jesus does not select 
> Peter as his opponent but
> Judas. If you were right, I think, that there, at the table,  would be the 
> place to expose Peter as a
> disciple who would be  leading people astray.

>  In my own extensive exegesis of the 'open tomb'  in terms of a midrash on 
> LXX Isa 22,16 and 33,16
> this role is given to the women because in LXX Isa 32,9ff fulfill a similar 
> role.  It seems to me that
> in your commentary you should make clear why Mark would  have referred to 
> Isaiah (a tomb hewn from the
> rock - a hapax legomenon)  and why this climactic ending (15,42-16,8) 
> should not be interpreted in
> terms of a midrash. For as midrash on LXX Isa 22,16 Joseph of Arimathea (Mk 
> 15, 43 lit. "having come
> from Rama") fills the role of Somnas in LXX Isa 22 and Peter (Mk 16,7) the 
> role of Eljakim.

 Therefore, I believe Mark puts Simon Peter in a favorable light in spite of 
his weakness. This also
explains why Mark gained its rightful place in the canon. The interpreter, it 
seems to me, should begin
assuming that first century authors like Mark and Matthew were in a better 
position to understand and
appreciate each other than 20th century exegetes.  Matthew evidently took 
over Mark's passion story.
That means that he must have  read Mark's portrayal of Peter in a positive 
way.

yours cordially,    Karel

>