Vinnie

Mark was Anti-Twelve and Peter to an extent.

http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/markmary1.html

Vinnie

Amaleq13

Vinnie,


Excellent work!

Doesn't this mean that Mark is arguing against the Jewish Christianity that Peter, James, and John are said by Paul to represent? The specific example of the food laws seems to require that conclusion.

I think if you give Paul's letters a similar treatment you will find that he, too, is not exactly positive in his references to them despite feeling compelled to recognize that they were men "of reputation". In fact, IIRC, he immediately follows that admission up by saying that he, personally, wasn't all that impressed by their alleged reputations. After reading your study, it seems to me that Mark is continuing this view of Paul's but making it more explicitly negative.

Vinnie

If I was going for sensationalism I'd say YES YES YES!

Unfortunately we have no direct writings from the Jerusalem school. It is very difficult to get the exact nuance of their Christology//theology or Jesus beliefs--which may have differed slightly between various members.

But on that issue Mark certainly seemed to be disagreeing with everyone--including and especially the Jerusalem school on this. I think he must have had other disagreements as well by his treatment. In fact, I wondered if the "secret parables" line wasn't rhetorically poking fun at the authority of these apostles. Jesus is said to speak to others in parables so they cannot understand In Mark (altered by Mt and Lk! but his disciples are given the keys yet they are constantly portrayed as not understanding and Jesus repeatedly asks them how they can be so stupid for not understanding them.

I wonder if it wasn't over predominantly Gentile related material that Mark strongly disagreed with. I have to do more work on Mark and other early Christian cells before I can answer this one though.

Vinnie

P.S. Put in a disclaimer or something when you agree with me. It is rather shocking

Vinnie

From Christian Forums

:notworthy :notworthy

offa

Q. This is about Peter, right. The unlearned fisherman?
A. Well learned and an evangelist. (fisherman of men)

Q. Well, Peter was well learned. He was a Herod and a free man.
Peter had the rights of a citizen of Rome. A close investigation
of who Peter was will result in his being Herodias' 1st husband.

Q. Could Peter have been Didymus?
A. Yes, you will never find them together and they have the same traits.

Q.The cock that crew was not a chicken.
A. Look up "cockcrowing".

Q. Peter was a fiherman of men.
A. His net was not designed for perch.

Q. Who was the "fisher king"? (Holy Blood Holy Grail)
A. Archelaus was banished to Gaul, as was Antipas and Herodias.

WinAce

Methinks you made a boo-boo there, Vinnie...

Religious jews, maybe?

Otherwise great article. I can see why people reject Mark's traditional authorship. I just wonder how Papias managed to ignore all that when he attributed it to John Mark. :banghead:

Amaleq13

Because they were destroyed by the eventual orthodoxy or because the Jewish Christians were too eschatological to think that written works were necessary?

Except on the specific issue of establishing, rather than assuming, an historical Jesus (a "minor point", obviously), I seem to be agreeing with you more often than not.

I'm not sure which of us should be more disturbed.


PS I'm currently reading Pagel's Beyond Belief. Given your views on GTh, I assume you've read it. Feel free to PM your thoughts if it constitutes too much of a tangent.

Vinnie

Thganks for pointing that out. Yes, its definately "Jews", not "Jesus".

Yeah, and this is only one problem with Papias' attribution. There are many more.

Vinnie

Kosh

Yeah! I tend to think the disagreement was more like:

(Jeruselem School): You idiot, he DID NOT raise from the dead. How many times do we have to tell you that?

Vinnie

That Jesus appeared to James and Peter and others was apparently claimed during their lives. It would be rather difficult to show that the Jerusalem school rejected these. The only possible route would be to argue that they were entirely about authority and nothing more. Another thing that is difficult to show.

Vinnie