Quote:
Originally Posted by Clouseau
People are familiar with it, but they are not familiar with an attack by Mark on Peter. In fact, to be frank, I think most who are familiar with Scripture, who have read whole gospels at a time, would find the idea somewhat strange.
|
So what? They make the same mistake that you keep making, talking about 'whole gospels.' The picture you have of the gospel story is based on four gospels, Mark's was not. His reader's was not. Look at Mark and only Mark, at least, if you are interested in trying to understand him. Interpreting Mark in light of what happen after his day is only useful if we can backproject the material, nearly impossible with most of the gospel material.
Quote:
|
Can we re-phrase? Mark repeatedly attacks the disciples, who never really get anything right. Before Pentecost, so does everyone. That's the point of the cross, the resurrection, and Pentecost, to get things right, or at least, better.
|
You are wandering away from the discussion again. We are talking about Mark and his attacks on the disciples in his gospel. What christians may have been like as the religion got established throughout the early centuries is entirely irrelevant. Again, look at Mark and ignore what happened after.
Quote:
|
We don't know that. But in any case, Mark would have been familiar with all the variant ideas going around among orthodox believers, if indeed there were any variations.
|
It is very questionable that there was anything like what we define as orthodox. There were probably the bare beginnings but not much more. Maybe Mark is attacking the christians who are pursuing a Jewish Christianity and base it upon the (putative) teachings of the disciples and Mark is connected with Paul's churches, some generations removed. That may fit well with Galatians.
Quote:
|
What is not taken into consideration is that the gospel material was, at first, entirely orally transmitted, in the 'twelve' who had witnessed the whole of Jesus' ministry, and oral transmission would have been continued after their demise, though diminishing, probably for another four hundred years. Written gospels are therefore of relatively minor importance in the early years. They are all we have left now, of course.
|
We have no way of determining to what extent oral tradition played a part, although it probably played some. Of course, oral traditions are quite unreliable and the stories would vary enormously, to provide some further evidence of this we have tens of gospels. So what you conveniently call '
the gospel material' was more likely a whole bunch of messy and contradictory anecdotes. Easy prey for someone with a pen and an agenda.
Quote:
|
Surely it is obvious that this was Peter's concern even in Mark's account. Mark is simply more brief about almost everything.
|
Not obvious at all, quite the contrary. It wouldn't be obvious to you either if you didn't have Matthew to influence your thinking. I suspect that Peter's motive was cowardice or, more likely, fear or, even more likely, a lack of faith. Concern never even makes my list.
Quote:
Who wrote this?
'But Peter declared, "Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you." And all the other disciples said the same.'
Not Mark, but Matthew (Matt 26:35 NIV).
|
What's your point? How does this relate to Mark and our discussion?
Quote:
|
All the synoptic authors put down the disciples, and so indeed does John, in his own, rather more devastating way, imv. Luke certainly puts them down in Acts, warts and all. Paul wrote in what Catholics find a somewhat seditious manner, referring to James, Peter and John as 'those who seemed to be important'!
|
Paul was no friend of the Jewish Christian movement which had given birth to the whole religion. This movement was exemplified/led/whatever by James and company. Mark wasn't their friend, either. I think that this may not be a coincidence. Just bear in mind that I don't think that Peter = Kephas in Galatians, but that is a bigger and different discussion.
Quote:
|
This is because they were all disciples, under discipline, not great heroes in their own right. That is what Christianity is about, or at least, what the disciples themselves believed Christianity to be about- Christ, not mere, feeble, unstable men. No doubt the disciples, unlike many who called themselves Christians who were to follow, were only too pleased to be put down, if it showed that their power was from God, not of themselves. That is still the claim of certain people who claim to be Christians.
|
Completely irrelevant again. We are discussing Mark, you are talking about some quaint Christian notion that I can't even follow. How do you know what the disciples believed themselves to be based on GMark?
Quote:
|
What evidence is there that Mark had a community?
|
It is exceedingly likely since he wrote the book for someone. While it could be a community of one, it is somewhat unlikely.
Quote:
|
What evidence is there that there was, in his time, any appeal to apostolic tradition for legitimacy?
|
It is a reasonable assumption since one of the earliest and strongest trends that we can verify in Christianity is the importance of, reliance upon, reverence for, and copying of, the apostolic fathers. To a large extent later on because of their mostly catholic views but even so. If people are arguing about what christianity is and you want to win, then what do you do? You show that your teachings are the best because they are truest to the founder and/or his immediate disciples.
Quote:
|
It seems to me that we have here a non-existent bias against a non-existent phenomenon.
|
I have shown you the biases and given plenty of reasons for the various phenomena. Would don't you present some good arguments based on Mark and/or earlier/contemporary materials that you have a better idea or that mine won't work.
Julian
09-06-2007, 11:39 AM
