"Mark the Evangelist vs. the Apostles"
#3
(03-10-2018, 11:48 AM)GangGreen Wrote: These people discard tradition in order to write nonsense. Traditionally it's held that St. Mark Was a companion of St. Peter. So maybe, just maybe he had primary source information from Peter himself. Peter, being humbled after everything he went through and desiring to help other Christians to see that even the leader of the Apostles had faults and was rebuked by Our Lord for his imperfections and to turn them into teaching moments as Our Lord used them for Peter's benefit.

You bring up a good point, which exposes even an article that seems sympathetic like the one I posted.  The evidence and conclusion presented in the OP could easily be perceived as evidence supporting the tradition of Mark being a companion of Peter.  But the author does not draw that conclusion.  Why?  Maybe because of his own bias, or maybe because the article would not get published because of editorial bias.  

It's a very reasonable conclusion.  The emphasis on Peter as a secondary protagonist, access to his inner thoughts, and the strain of self-deprecation and growing humility (echoed in the autobiographical aspects of Paul's epistles), it all points to a validation of tradition.

If these academics don't want to acknowledge tradition, then that's on them, but what is grating is turning around and making up a story like Mark was writing to discredit Peter in favor of Paul.  If you're going to pull that out of thin air, the more intellectually honest construction would be the one that has a long tradition and history backing it that ALSO fits the evidence and textual criticism better.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: "Mark the Evangelist vs. the Apostles" - by Imperator Caesar Trump - 03-10-2018, 04:52 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)