Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I would say that your suggestion requires a too much modern background, something as the Nietszche's constructivist aphorisma ''there are not facts, but only interpretations'' : agreed that Mark is a genius, but not so much to anticipate the modern constructivism :mrgreen: Yes, I had a similar thou...

I am not so sure ... Thanks. I'm completely sure that all are not so sure. :mrgreen: But I’m really interested in the kind of argument against my suggestion. - Is it only inconceivable that Mark could have written such a story - or is it inconceivable that he could have portrayed the disciples in s...

. My suggestion is simple - Jesus did not curse the fig tree - the fig tree did not wither - all that happens only in the ears and in the eyes of the disciples - because they did not bring forth “fruit” 1) Unlike in GMatthew in Mark’s story everything happens not objectively, but only subjectively. ...

. My impression is that a few Markan pericopes point to a different understanding of the story as in Matthew or Luke, but their understanding is completely dominated by the understanding of the Matthean or Lukan pericope. I do not mean a secret or allegorical understanding, but more or less on the s...

I also think of Sinaiticus at this very locus; see below Also an interesting witness is P.Oxy. 76.5073. The wording is beginning (of) the gospel (of) Jesus the Christ Hurtado wrote P.Oxy. 76.5073 is a Christian amulet (palaeographically dated to late 3rd or early 4th century CE), containing Mark 1:...

Personally it seems that high Christology is expressly stated in the letters of Paul, but only implied in the gospel of Mark. In other words, Mark can assume that the reader/hearer of his gospel knows some high Christology and can put it in perspective. He is using the rhetorical technique of "...

Okay, but do you see Mark as disagreeing with Paul on this matter, taking something away from Christ that Paul's Christology would grant him? (Another way of asking: why would Mark draw from Paul so much if he disagrees with Paul on something so fundamental? Is he deliberately correcting Paul? Does...

I want your opinions on a matter that I have been thinking of for some time. Paul appears to regard Jesus as the preexistent son of God; that is, Jesus was already the son of God before he was made manifest in the likeness of flesh (Romans 8.3, for instance). But Mark is pretty easy to read as sepa...

Ben C. Smith wrote:That is a pretty stunning suggestion, Kunigunde.

Thanks

btw I find it interesting that the Didache placed David on the side of the wine, but Mark placed him on the side of the bread. Both seems to be a bit "surprising"

Jesus is not a mere earthly man possessed by Sathan (the Pharisees interpretation) it's the interpretation of the scribes Who is then Jesus Nazarene (for the insiders)? He, as mere unworthy recipient of a Christ who is ALREADY risen (and has therefore no need of a second resurrection) is simply a f...