Vinnie

Depends when the tradition dates to, but I have no problem treating canonical and non-canonical works with exactly the same rigour. They are all early christian writings to me, some are just earlier and more useful than others. I personally like the Gospel of Thomas and would probably like Marcion's canon as an extremely extremely extremely liberal Christian.

In fact, I absolutely can't some of Jewish exclusivism in the canonical gospels. It doesn't cohere with my modern sensbilities. The worst part is that this material is probably historical as well.

It undermines the notion that Mark followed Peter around writing down what he wrote. It does not necessarily undermine the notion that Mark wrote a gospel and that he knew Peter. I am sure most all of Jesus' followers believed he could perform supernatural miracles. They were not atheists. Likewise, whatever attitude Mark took in writing his gospel, if this actually is John Mark, is his business. He does not need to follow your preconceived notions as an author. I doubt it comes from John Mark though, but I do not axiomatically rule it out. Whether or not there is truth behind the tradition needs to be discussed, not dismissed.

Mark can creatively shape things just as Peter and the original followers of Jesus probably did.

Vinnie

Vinnie

The interesting thing about Mark's gospel is that probably billions of Christians have read or heard it and have not noticed any problems with the treatment of the disciples. Yet scholars who nitpick at it and isolate it and complex the tradition have discovered all sorts of things the rest of the world seems to miss. One wonders if the author ever intended or thought this would be done to his or her work. Rather his story was probably to be told orally and possibly dramatically in public reading.

The foils are a testament to Mark's literary abilities. The problem of the disciples shows the blindness of pedantic scholars who miss the forest while looking at its trees. I say kudos to its author.

Vinnie

spamandham

Someone who is modern Christian has a strong bias to ignore idiosyncrasies that undermine apostolic tradition.

Suppose for a moment that apostolic tradition didn't exist in the early church. Would those early Christians then have had their faith shaken, or reinforced, by the 12 stooges?

GakuseiDon

The topic reminds me of the series of comedy shorts called "Sunday Heroes":

The Last Supper: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70IAwHTzrHI
Woman of sinful life: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDLWpIOm2yE

jakejonesiv

The reason the women fleeing at the end of the gospel (16:8) do not say anying is that the author of GMark is revealing the empty tomb for the first time, and the women's silence explains why no one had heard of it before.

You didn't get that from reading Mark. You are "upholding apostolic tradition" as spam noted in #73.
Jake

bacht

It's not impossible that the name Mark is a sly acknowledgment of Marcion (R Price notes this in The Pre-Nicene New Testament)

sugarhitman

"Can someone tell me why the writers of the gospels made the disciples out to be so dumb? I mean our resident apologists want us to believe that the contents of the gospels came mainly from memories of the disciples. These dullards just don't get the messages that Jesus tries to tell them, yet we, the readers, can see just how dumb they are. How many times does Jesus have to tell some people stuff before it sinks in?"


"The subject is about how the disciples themseves were supposed to have transmitted the story, though the gospels don't indicate such a transmission."


Sounds like the subject contains more than one question, so forgive me if I addressed only one. Are you saying because the disciples were ignorant of the meanings of Jesus' parables earlier, that they could not have written the Gospels later? I don't see any logic behind this theory especially in light of the fact that the disciples recorded both their ignorance and their enlightment via Jesus' later revelations. Perhaps it is due to honesty that the disciples admitted into the texts their own intellectual shortcomings.....which certainly do not prove or even hint at what you are suggesting.

Susan2

I think this is an excellent suggestion. I also have been of the mind that they entered into the text the shortcoming’s of Jesus, using your analogy but didn’t quite frame it in my mind that way. It seems to me that all the short comings, beg the question; this is who we were, is this what/who you want?


The gospels do indicate a transmission, the handkerchief (face cloth) in John. That they didn’t pick it up, does not indicate that they didn’t pick it up.

Stupid is as stupid does; makes mistakes. Cruelty is as cruelty does; defiles. Snobbery is as snobbery does; shames. Enlightenment is as enlightenment does; educates, uplifts, edifies, honors, establishes, loves, cherishes.

Perhaps these are all the things that Jesus needed, being without. To need, suggests being without. Iow’s I don’t need what I already have unless I am greedy. Is Jesus greedy? Is Peter greedy?

John, claims himself to be the favorite, which begs the question, is he greedy?

How do you choose to enlighten/educate?

That enlightenment exists, and that you have a choice as to how to enlighten, suggests that there is someone who needs to be enlighten. If there is someone who needs enlightenment, who is that someone, and if that someone exists do others? How do you choose to enlighten? If mistakes are possible it become a circular argument by necessity. Evolution of the mind, intellect, not static.............or static.

ETA, perhaps the ressurection can be said to be 'airborn'. Iow's there is more then one way to catch a virus, other then physical contact.

bacht

I guess Jesus explained everything after the resurrection:

In the first book, O The-oph'ilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. To them he presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days, and speaking of the kingdom of God.

Act 1.1-3

Vinnie

I don't think there was a unanimous "apostolic" tradition. Some common elements maybe.