jjramsey

Not all of them. Some of them, though, are so loose that they look analogous to someone familiar with the KJV offhandly using KJV language without thinking about it, simply because they are so familiar with it. Also, it isn't necessarily Mark's subconscious that we are talking about. There would have been plenty of other Jewish Christians making up oral traditions who were also familiar with the OT. In other words, some of the allusions look like they come from someone who isn't really trying to make allusions but just perenially has the OT in the back of one's head.

If one is constructing a gospel from the OT, then one can tailor the events in the gospels so that they are a good fit to the OT.

The fundamental problem that I see is that you are trying to go from Mark reflecting the OT in his text to Mark intentionally deriving his text from the OT, but some of the ways that the OT gets reflected are not very well explained by intentional derivation.

See above.

You are presuming that the primary way that second-generation Christians would have learned their doctrines would have been via Paul's letters, rather that through the community tradition of the previous generation of Christians.

That is a description, not a deprecation, and in fact, that is a description that reputable Bible scholars would find apt. They are letters; that is why they are called "epistles." They are addressed to local churches: the church at Corinth, the church in Galatia, etc. Notice that in 1 Corinthians 7:1, Paul writes, "Now concerning the matters about which you wrote ...." The Corinthians broached an issue, and his answer to it follows. The letter to the Galatians deals with the problem of the Galatians turning to a "different gospel" (1:6). In 1 Thessalonians, there is another "Now concerning" (5:1).

Obviously, it isn't showing respect. I think I see why you have the smiley, though. If I read you right, you seem to think that Paul's obvious disrespect for Peter implies that Peter was not a follower of Jesus in the flesh, because Paul would never have give a follower of Jesus in the flesh such treatment. :huh:

Sparrow

If the writer(s) of GMark are using KJV language then I'll have to modify my assumptions about when GMark was written.

jjramsey

Nice strawman. It was clear enough that I was not saying that Mark was written in KJV English. What part of the word "analogous" do you not understand?

Sparrow

I understand it perfectly well, especially the first four letters. :Cheeky:

post tenebras lux

But Cephas is not meant to be a simple 'follower of Jesus', he's meant to be the guy that Jesus renamed, and said he would build his church upon.

Unless Simon picked up his nickname elsewhere (is there anyone famous alive today called 'The Rock'? ) and it was only later - after 'Paul' - than a gospel writer came up with the nifty idea of making Jesus be the one who gives him this nickname.

Edit due to the fact that gospels don't write themselves, they need a writer

Clivedurdle

Welcome Driver8!

Of these myriad messiahs one takes off and becomes the alleged leader of the true messianic religion.

This one is a classic hero figure though.

Maybe the innovation is giving up on these human fallible messiahs and inventing a Christ in the heavens to sort everything - no problem of human fallibility - but that doesn't quite work either - too like a god to be much earthly use - therefore develop the human side of this god - give him a mum, place him in recent history!

Result!

jjramsey

That wouldn't stop someone with a big ego and a fanatical drive from opposing Cephas, especially if Christianity was just starting and the power structures were not yet cast in stone, so to speak.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least that Simon got nicknamed "Rocky" for mundane reasons (maybe his size, maybe he acted like he had rocks in his head ) and then someone retconned a "holier" explanation for the name.

The Bishop

Not exactly off topic, or on it, but perhaps a discussion point - I watched Quo Vadis this week, and at one point there was an excellent scene in which Peter preached to an assembly of Christians and proto-Christians, and during which Peter (played by ancient Scotsman, Finlay Currie) gave what might have well been a reasonable facsimile of "the Gospel" as transmitted orally by the original Apostles.

Incidentally, I seem to remember he only mentioned raising Lazarus from the dead, miracle-wise.

Sparrow

Well you've certainly made it a a discussion point. I'd love to know how you think a motion picture fits into the evidence for or against a historical Jesus. :huh:

The Bishop

It's not evidence, it's a model. Quite a lot of MJ questions arise about Paul's silences and other silences on this, that or the other matter. And without even trying, given that the broad stroke story has to be told in a few minutes, there it was - Jesus, orally, by someone who met him. No Mary, no Pilate. And, interestingly, since it was done in 1951, long before the current crop of no-Jesus theories, no twisting of the model to fit any pre-conceived argument in favour of a Historical Jesus against a theory that denies one.

(PS when I said "no miracles" before, I wasn't including the Resurrection narrative the QV Peter gave)

I'm afraid I don't have it on tape to make a transcription from it, but I may obtain one and do it later on.