Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

gmark - Re: Denigration of Peter et al. (was: Peter's Denial)

gmark AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Kata Markon

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Ted Weeden" <weedent AT atw.earthreach.com>
  • To: "Kata Markon" <gmark AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Denigration of Peter et al. (was: Peter's Denial)
  • Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 08:32:43 -0600


Thanks, Ron. Oversight and correction noted.
By the way I just sent the same message but my response was missing when it
appeared in my "in box."

Ted
----- Original Message -----
From: Ted Weeden <weedent AT atw.earthreach.com>
To: Kata Markon <gmark AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 8:28 AM
Subject: [gmark] Re: Denigration of Peter et al. (was: Peter's Denial)


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ron Price <ron.price AT virgin.net>
> To: Kata Markon <gmark AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 7:52 AM
> Subject: [gmark] Denigration of Peter et al. (was: Peter's Denial)
>
>
> > I wrote:
> >
> > >> A more consistent hypothesis is that all the original
> > >>leading followers of Jesus were being deliberately denigrated, as
> > >>(first?) pointed out by E.Trocme in _The Formation of the Gospel
> > >>according to Mark_.
> >
> > Ted Weeden replied:
> > >The denigration, according to Trocme ....... is of the Jerusalen
church,
> not
> > >as far as I can see against " all leading followers of Jesus," which
> would
> > >include Peter and the disciples. Have I missed something????
> >
> > Ted,
> > Yes.
> > One key feature you may have missed is Trocme's unorthodox view that
> > there were two editions of Mark, the first comprising chs.1-13,
> > supposedly written ca. 50CE. On that basis James would have been the
> > leader of the Jerusalem Church at the time when chs. 1-13 were written
> > and it would have been impossible to criticize the Jerusalem Church
> > without implying criticism of James (and for that matter, of Peter, c.f.
> > Gal 2:9). Although I have great admiration for the first part of
> > Trocme's book, I think his idea of two editions is quite untenable.
> > (By the way I also had missed something, for because Peter's Denial is
> > in ch.14 in the 'Second Edition', Trocme does not seem to count it as
> > part of the evidence of an anti-Peter slant in Mark.)
> >
> > The relevant sub-sections are "Implied criticisms of Christians" and
> > "Explicit criticisms of Christians". These are pages 107-137 in the
> > English translation (London, SPCK, 1975).
> > Here are a few gems from these pages.
> > "Once again the author of Mark is directing sharp thrusts at certain
> > leaders of the Church ....... The church leaders thus attacked are easy
> > to identify ....... Peter ....... James ....... and Andrew." p.125
> > "The author of Mark is accordingly practically as reserved towards the
> > sons of Zebedee as towards Peter." p.130
> > "We must therefore consider the author of Mark ....... as the avowed
> > enemy of James, the Lord's brother, sole head of the church of Jerusalem
> > for many years ......." p.136
> >
> > Incidentally I was also very favourably impressed by your _Mark -
> > Traditions in Conflict_ when I read it some years ago, and it wasn't
> > lumbered with an untenable hypothesis about Mark's composition!
> >
> > Ron Price
> >
> > Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK
> >
> > e-mail: ron.price AT virgin.net
> >
> > Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
> >
> >
> > ---
> > You are currently subscribed to gmark as: weedent AT atw.earthreach.com
> > To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> $subst('Email.Unsub')
> >
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to gmark as: weedent AT atw.earthreach.com
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
>





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page