Kata Markon

["Ted Weeden" <weedent AT atw.earthreach.com>]

Karel Hanhart wrote in response to my post "Markan Fabrications: The Denial
of Peter:"


> > 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.

My response:

I am still trying to find a good definition of Mark's genre.   My
inclination now is to suggest that it is a mixed genre which draws upon
several known genres.   I see Mark composing a drama whose basic structure
and intent is parabolic.  As I indicated in my post, as I read Mark and I
read it basically inductively rather than deductively,  I find that Mark
develops a dramatic presentation of Jesus primarily as a great wonder or
miracle worker and teacher,  whose teachings often have a deeper meaning
than the surface content.  The deeper meaning of Jesus' teachings is
reserved for those who are the insiders, the disciples, and intended to be
largely inaccessible to outsiders (4:11f.).  Then at approximately the
mid-point of the drama, at Caesarea Philippi, Mark introduces an entirely
different presentation of Jesus, which the insiders, the disciples, do not
understand, repudiate and reject.   Thus I see Mark adopting Jesus' genre of
the parable and creating what is really a very lengthy parable, a parabolic
drama.   Second, with Vernon Robbins (_Jesus the Teacher_, ) I see Mark
appropriating or at least mimicing, the genre of the teacher
disciple-gatherer, as Robbins puts it, represented particularly by
Xenophon's _Memorabilia_.   This genre, with some modification in purpose,
served well Mark's polemical intent of debasing Jesus' disciples, as I have
described in my post.   This genre would have been known in the Greco-Roman
milieu of Caesarea Phippi, where I locate Mark's community per my
"Guidelines for Locating the Markan Community" (Kata Markon post, 2/28/00).
I do not see Mark writing a "Vita of a theios aner."   But the first half of
his gospel gives that appearance, as Mark intentionally  presents the theios
aner christological worldview of his opponents in order then to discredit it
in parabolic fashion from the "false" confession of Peter to his denial.
As I have thought about it recently, I think that Mark likely had access to
the Signs Source or a version of it.  There are close similarities between
certain miracles in Mark and the miracles in John attributed to the Signs
Source.  The Signs Source which John used closed with this evangelistic
appeal: "Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples,
which are not written in his book; but these are written that you may
believe hOTI INSOUS ESTIN hO CRISTOS hO hUIOS TOU QEOU" [that Jesus is the
Christ, the Son of God]...." (Jn 20:30-31).  I think it is likely that Mark,
in setting up the worldview of his theios aner opponents, took their source
material with its evangelistic conclusion and reversed the order of the
Signs Source, as he penned his gospel, using its conclusion in the service
of his beginning.   In other words, he began his drama with the introductory
"The beginning of the gospel of" and then added the christological
appellation of their conclusion INSOUS ...CRISTOS hO hUIOS TOU QEOU.  Then
Mark, to dramatize the theios aner worldview, subsequently and at  judicious
points incorporated his opponents' miracle material, along with other source
material, following his introduction (1:1-15) and the call of the three
principals disciples (1:16-20) who would serve as the disciple-antagonists
for his drama.


If I may digress for just a moment, before addressing your other points in
this post, you have noted in this post, as well in your earlier one of
4/24/00, which I discover I did not respond to and apologize for that, we
disagree in fundamental ways of interpreting Mark which I do not see can be
bridged.  They are, as I understand them:

(1) You have concluded that the author is John Mark, a Judean and the
companion of Paul, as Acts would have it.   You believe Mark is pro-Judean
but anti-Judean establishment   I do not think the author is John Mark.   I
can find no convincing evidence for making that link.  I do not know the
author's name.  But I am convinced, contra you and Mahlon Smith and others,
that he is a Galilean Jew, in distinction from a Judean_Jew, who resides in
one of the villages of Caesarea Philippi and that he is pro-Galilean and
against the Judean religious establishment, as well as the church at
Jerusalem.   I have been challenged for arguing that Mark is anti-Judean.
I do not think that he is against the common people of Judea, except as they
have bought into the Judean establishment.   I think that what I call Mark's
pro-Galilean/anti-Judean orientation is generated out of the historic
conflict between the Galileans and Judeans going back at least to the
Davidic dynasty and exacerbated as Judah took a different path of
understanding itself based upon the Josiah reform and the Deuteronomists who
engineered that  reform and its continued manifestion down into the
Hasmonean period and then to the last decades of the second temple.  I think
Mark's pro-Galilean/ant-Judean orientation reflects a somewhat similar
position of the historical Jesus, who shares the same Galilean heritage as
does Mark.  I shall provide support for my position in a lengthy post I have
been working at in reply to Mahlon Smith who has argued, contra to me that
Mark is a Judean.

(2) You see Mark writing from Rome and, as I understand, basically accept
the Papias account of the relationship between Peter and Mark.  I, as I
said, see Mark writing from Caesarea Philippi.   I distrust the accuracy of
Papias' reporting of the relationship between Mark and Peter, as I have
pointed out in the Xtalk discussions on Papias, John the presbyter and Mark
carried on amongst Stephen Carlson, Mahlon Smith and myself.

(3)  You argue for Mark writing a Haggadah.  I have not read your work on
this and would like to have the biblio information on it.   I have already
stated my understanding of Mark's genre.

You go on with respect to your current post, you state:

> > 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.

My response:

I see five sets of opponents in Mark, which Mark treats in vary degress of
antipathy.  They are the religious establishment (including the chief
priests, elders and their retainers the scribes and Pharisees), the
Herodians, the Roman authorities who executed Jesus, the family of Jesus and
the disciples.  In Mark's schema Jesus must be vindicated as the innocent
righteous one before all his adversaries.  It moves beyond the bounds of
this post to support fully the argument for this.   It is an argument I am
in the course of fully developing.

With respect to Peter, I do not see how you can say that his weeping redeems
him.   The text does not say that at all.  At best one can argue that the
text is ambivalent.  In TV news footage, I have seen a lot of criminals
break down and cry when the jury renders the verdict of "guilty" against
them.  I do not interpret that crying as redemptive, nor is it self-evident
that it is remorseful weeping.   I think, as I have said in my essay, that
Mark views Peter's weeping as weeping in the face of the pending, future
eschatological judgment against Peter for being ashamed of Jesus (8:38).

Jesus does not single out Peter at the last supper for two reasons.  Mark's
agenda at that point is the betrayal of Judas (14:10, 17-21.  He then sets
up dramatically the denial of Peter after the supper when Jesus announces
that they will "all fall away."  It is then that Peter swears he will not
and Jesus retorts that he will .   It is only Peter's avowal of faithfulness
that underscores the heinous deed of denial.  Mark chose to have Jesus deal
with that final coup de grace against Peter, after Judas had left and they
went to the Mt. of Olives (14:27-31).

You go on to state:

>  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.

My response:

I have looked closely at the Isaianic passages and for me it is too much of
a logical stretch to suggest that Mark had in mind those passages in
composing the burial story and the women's role in the denouement of Mark's
drama.  I would need to see  your argumentation to see how you see what you
claim.

You go on to say:

>  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.

My response:

I think that I have shown in my _Mark-Traditions in Conflict_ (23-51) that
Matthew and Luke consistently alter Mark's  denigrating portrayal of Peter
and the disciples to elevate them to a more positive status in their
relationship with Jesus.  I am convinced they saw what Mark was doing to
them and, incorporating Mark's gospel into their gospels, changed Mark's
story at significant places to portray the disciples in a more favorable
light.  Just note, as one prime example, how Matthew and Luke completely
reverse Mark's ending to provide Peter and the disciples whatever
rehabilitation required through resurrection appearances.

Ted