evanpowell said

Robert said

Evan, do you think that the same person who supposedly added these apocalyptic interpolations to an originally non-apocalyptic proto-gospel was also the same person who removed the original ending of the proto-gospel and added it to John’s gospel?

Do you also think the gospel of John (minus Chapter 21) was written prior to your proto-gospel of Mark? Or merely prior to our current apocalyptic gospel of Mark?

And how do you square this early non-apocalyptic form of Christianity apparent from two non-apocalyptic proto-gospels with the earlier apocalyptic writings of Paul? 

  

 

Robert,

No, the insertion of the apocalyptic material into Mark and the truncation of its ending appear to be separate editing events at different times motivated by quite different concerns. There is no reason to assume they were done by the same editor.

Re the “gospel of John…” I think we do ourselves a disservice by imagining the Gospel of John was an integrated composition by a “fourth evangelist” or “final redactor.” It is more accurate to view John as consisting of an original primitive document that was extensively annotated, expanded, and corrected over a period of 50 years or more by at least several redactors. It clearly never went through a final edit for coherence by anyone who had editorial control of the final product. This “composition in stages” over time, and the lack of coherent editing, is why we have two completely different portraits of Jesus in John — the calm, serene man from heaven, and the aggressive, confrontational self-promoter. And it is the latter Jesus that is in the primitive layer of the text.

There is a common assumption that ch. 21 must have been the final addition to an otherwise complete John 1-20. I think this is false. The material in ch 21 is quite primitive compared to the advanced visions in, say, the prologue or chs 14-17, which seem to be added much later. So I think ch. 21 was added to a primitive edition of John early in its evolution. It seems most likely that the truncation of Mark at 16:8 and the addition of ch. 21 to a primitive edition of John were associated literary events. There is an aggressive hostility between Mark and the narrative portions of John that becomes quite apparent once the basic storyline in John 21 is appended to Mark 16:8. The transfer of the ending effectively masks this hostility, so I suspect this may have been the motive for the transfer.

Probably enough unconventional comment for one post!

  

Evan, what do you think about the rehabilitation of Peter in John 21.  It seems incompatible with Mark’s narrative and something John 21’s author came up with.

I’d appreciate your thoughts.

You may have addressed it in your book, but it’s been about 15 years since I read it and don’t recollect anymore.

Robert said

CEJ said  

Its not complicated.  Secret Mark, according to some of the brightest bulbs out there, is a predecessor to canonical Mark.

See.  That was pretty simple, eh?

  

Helmut Koester, the scholar you ‘sided with’, when we first discussed Secret Mark, has a rather complicated history of the composition of the gospel of Mark in five stages: 1) proto-Mark used by Luke, 2) a second version used by Matthew, 3) Secret Mark, 4) the Carpocratian version, and finally 5) our version of the gospel of Mark….

  

I still side with Koester, Bob.

He claimed Secret Mark preceded canonical Mark.

He’s right.

OK.  Was right.  He’s dead.

You seem angry, Bob.

Have you considered counseling?

evanpowell said

CEJ said

evanpowell said

Robert said

Evan, do you think that the same person who supposedly added these apocalyptic interpolations to an originally non-apocalyptic proto-gospel was also the same person who removed the original ending of the proto-gospel and added it to John’s gospel?

Do you also think the gospel of John (minus Chapter 21) was written prior to your proto-gospel of Mark? Or merely prior to our current apocalyptic gospel of Mark?

And how do you square this early non-apocalyptic form of Christianity apparent from two non-apocalyptic proto-gospels with the earlier apocalyptic writings of Paul? 

  

 

Robert,

No, the insertion of the apocalyptic material into Mark and the truncation of its ending appear to be separate editing events at different times motivated by quite different concerns. There is no reason to assume they were done by the same editor.

Re the “gospel of John…” I think we do ourselves a disservice by imagining the Gospel of John was an integrated composition by a “fourth evangelist” or “final redactor.” It is more accurate to view John as consisting of an original primitive document that was extensively annotated, expanded, and corrected over a period of 50 years or more by at least several redactors. It clearly never went through a final edit for coherence by anyone who had editorial control of the final product. This “composition in stages” over time, and the lack of coherent editing, is why we have two completely different portraits of Jesus in John — the calm, serene man from heaven, and the aggressive, confrontational self-promoter. And it is the latter Jesus that is in the primitive layer of the text.

There is a common assumption that ch. 21 must have been the final addition to an otherwise complete John 1-20. I think this is false. The material in ch 21 is quite primitive compared to the advanced visions in, say, the prologue or chs 14-17, which seem to be added much later. So I think ch. 21 was added to a primitive edition of John early in its evolution. It seems most likely that the truncation of Mark at 16:8 and the addition of ch. 21 to a primitive edition of John were associated literary events. There is an aggressive hostility between Mark and the narrative portions of John that becomes quite apparent once the basic storyline in John 21 is appended to Mark 16:8. The transfer of the ending effectively masks this hostility, so I suspect this may have been the motive for the transfer.

Probably enough unconventional comment for one post!

  

Evan, what do you think about the rehabilitation of Peter in John 21.  It seems incompatible with Mark’s narrative and something John 21’s author came up with.

I’d appreciate your thoughts.

You may have addressed it in your book, but it’s been about 15 years since I read it and don’t recollect anymore.

  

 

Good question, CEJ. And right on point. This is the essential point of the story in John 21…Peter is at once forgiven for his denials AND anointed as the unrivaled leader of the movement. Does this fit better on Mark or John? This is, in my view, how Mark intended to finish the gospel…using the three denial story as the literary device by which Peter is established as the new shepherd to replace the shepherd struck down in Mark 14:27-30.

Several observations … first, in Mark it is not Peter alone but all the disciples who scatter, all of them fail to comprehend, etc. And when Peter recognizes he has denied Jesus the third time, he weeps…a sign of grief and contrition that foreshadows the ultimate forgiveness. We do not see this in John 1-20. Here there are two shady characters, Judas and Peter. And the author of John repeatedly associates them. Each of the first three times Peter speaks it is sandwiched between references to impending betrayal, and Judas is also there. At the Last Supper, Peter asks who it is that will betray Jesus–this is intended irony, the author wants the reader to infer that it is Peter himself who will betray Jesus along with Judas. In the arrest scene it is Peter and Judas who each do in fact betray Jesus, each in their own way. Once Peter denies Jesus three times he disappears without any sign of grief. In the interrogation scene, Peter is sandwiched between two references to him warming himself by the fire while Jesus is being abused, and at precisely the time Jesus is asking for the testimony of people who knew him, Peter denies him a third time. The author is condemning Peter for his spinelessness and untrustworthiness. In John 20, Peter disappears and is not present in the resurrection appearances.

In short, the condemnation of Peter in John 1-20 is methodical, relentless, and clearly deliberate. The author is out to destroy Peter’s reputation, presumably to show that he is unfit for leadership in the movement–the author wants believers to abandon Peter and follow the beloved disciple. All of this is in the primitive narrative layer of John. It appears to have been composed prior to Peter’s death, at a time that there was an actual struggle between prominent figures in the movement for ultimate authority. It seems quite unlikely that anyone would have been motivated to pen such an unsavory attack on Peter’s character after his death, especially if he had died a martyr. Thus, we have an early narrative in circulation that condemns Peter and uses the triple denial story as the literary device to accomplish it.

Now consider Mark. Mark was indeed an associate of Peter, and his gospel was written in part as a rebuttal of this narrative — Mark seized upon the triple denial story and turns it on its head, using it as the mechanism by which Jesus forgives Peter and anoints him as the single, unrivaled leader of the movement. Once Mark appeared with this conclusion beyond 16:8 it became immediately obvious that the movement had produced two hostile and countervailing gospels. This was regarded as counterproductive. The solution was to transfer the ending of Mark to John’s narrative, a move which swept the main point of contention between primitive John and Mark under the rug. It also served to neutralize the vicious denigration of Peter in John’s narrative. 

In order to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt, one needs to establish that there was indeed an anti-Petrine narrative in circulation prior to Mark, and that Mark was composed as a rebuttal of it. This can be done, the data are there to support this observation, but laying out the evidence requires a great deal more time and space than a forum like this will accommodate.

  

Thanks, Evan.

I’m going to take some time to digest your post but greatly appreciate your thoughts.

Robert said

CEJ said

I think we’ve been over this, Robert. 

No, I don’t think so, CEJ; it seems to me you’re still evading some difficulties with your position, or perhaps not even fully articulating what your position is. That’s OK. You’re under no obligation to do so. But I am nonetheless interested in seeking clarity and erudition wherever it may be found. I guess I’m just generous and accommodating in that regard.

  

Yes.  I think we are done. 

But if you find my exegesis lacking in this area, please refer to the many scholars who argue in Secret Mark’s favor.

You realize there’s gonna be a test at the end of the semester, right?

JAS said

Robert said

I still have dreams about having a final exam for a class I never attended, foolishly thinking I could cram for it the night before and realizing only then that the subject matter was completely out of my reach. Even after I wake up it takes me a while to realize that this was only a dream, and dreams are not real. Right?

Somehow I didn’t have that dream last night. 😴

  

For years, my standard stress dream (that is, a dream that I had when my life was consumed by some highly pressing matter) was that I was in German class and there was a pop exam. When it was handed out, it was in French!

  

Mine too.

And I always woke up screaming, “Scheiße!”