Amaleq13

I simply recognized that everything following the word "Mark" in the paragraph referred to things the author of Mark wrote in his Gospel.

On the contrary, everything after the word "Mark" is a reference to the contents of the Gospel. Toto has provided some specifics which, I gather, was the actual intent of your question.

Clouseau

Only Clouseau? It seems disappointing, to say the least, if others accept an OP premise without a word of justification. It's potentially a sly method of propaganda. But thank you. Better late than never.

This is found in Matthew also (16:23).

Similar is found in Luke (22:33) also, though not the comment that the others said the same. Luke also commented that Peter did not know what he was saying in 9:33.

Also in Mt. 26:40.

This incident is in all the synoptics.

How is this an attack on Peter? After all, the so-called Church makes the opposite construction, and people seem to accept its validity as the church.

It does not seem to me that there is any substance to the notion that Mark attacked Peter- or that anyone did, if one takes account of everything in the gospels and Acts.

The baneful effect of Romanism over the centuries has been to displace the true significance of Peter, which is not that he was the greatest of the disciples, and equally not that he was stupid, but that he was unstable, anything but rock-like. Jesus' naming of him as 'Cephas' must have seemed like a joke, but was prophetic of the stability that comes to those who made the confession that Peter later made. The moral is that, if mercurial Peter can be stabilised, so can everyone.

Ray Moscow

The rest of us are familiar with the gospel of Mark.

Matthew and Luke often changed the Mark material a bit to accomodate a different take. This is quite an interesting study if one is interested in such things.

Clouseau

You mean you think you are- some of you, that is. There have been two requests for reference support, ignored until now.

You were there, of course.

Ray Moscow

The point in form criticism is not to read everything in one lump and then try to harmonise everything (as in a evangelical Bible study), but rather to see what each passage says on its own and try to elucidate the source(s) and influences for each passage. This is especially important in the gospels.

Matthew and Luke "corrected" Mark in many places despite using his material heavily as a base.

chrisrkline

A lot of things are easy to explain if the other Gospels are taken into account. I think that it is clear, taken separate from the other Gospels, which would have been the state of things for many early Christian communities, that Mark did not completely respect Peter and expected his reader to feel the same. That Matthew and Luke repeated some of this (while also rehabilitating Peter to some extent) is not controversial. That the book of Acts would portray Peter in a positive light, tells us more about the post Marcionite church than it does about Mark.

Ray Moscow

Of course not. They weren't, either.

Mark was first, and Matthew and Luke use Mark heavily (as well as "Q", according to the most widely accepted theory). Copying someone else's material nearly verbatim is not the mark of an eyewitness.

One thing that one realises in studying Mark critically is that it is a compiliation of various traditions, too, as well as containing a lot that Mark apparently invented himself.

Ray

Clouseau

Then it is unjustified to make categoric claims.

That is not not known. These are all guesses of 'scholars' who are generally prejudiced. The worldly killed off or suppressed primary evidence, and now they have no recourse but to invent.

Clouseau

No-one disrespects Peter. To suppose so is to totally misunderstand the whole NT.

Ray Moscow

That's silly. We know all sorts of things about the gospels, just from studying them.

Using your reasoning, there would be no discussion of the gospels at all, nor about anything else older than living memory for that matter.


Actually, the fact that Luke and especially Matthew copied Mark is quite obvious upon examination of the texts.

The Q bit is the still-controversial part.