Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

META and SUV thread response to J. Gibson

Expand Messages
  • Richard Richmond
    Jeffrey wrote: Curious isn t it, that anyone from a pro Petrine camp would interpolate Mk. 1:13b allegedly to make Mark more pro Petrine, but leave untouched
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 3 7:42 AM
      Jeffrey wrote:

      Curious isn't it, that anyone from a pro Petrine camp
      would interpolate
      Mk. 1:13b allegedly to make Mark more pro Petrine, but
      leave untouched
      the rather scathing rebuke of Peter in Mk. 8:33 and
      the other material
      later on in the Gospel that is embarrassing to Peter.

      It's also curious that in order to maintain your
      theses that Mark was
      edited at Mk. 1:13b by a pro petrine editor AND that
      the point of the
      editing would be clear to all who read the edited
      version of GMark, you
      not only have to assume that the audience of the
      edited GMark would
      already know GMatthew and the references in GMatthew
      that you appeal to
      for your case (otherwise how would they -- or for that
      matter **you** --
      get the point that Mk. 1:13b somehow makes GMark pro
      petrine?), you have
      to posit a rather clumsy and thoroughly incompetent

      Don't buy it at all.


      My response:

      You are predictable Jeffrey.

      I could say that you obviously did not read any of my
      posts regarding the copy protection scheme that kept
      the text of Mark from being severely altered by the
      opposing factions, ultimately leading to the
      production of the other two Synoptics. However I do
      believe you read them at some point and just moved on
      to another credential agenda.

      Your references are not properly cited perhaps
      intentionally, so you can say that someone one does
      not know of them and did not read them. Which is in
      and of itself, lacking scholarly form. The references
      I did read are irrelevant for the most part. They do
      not address the unity demonstrated within the Gospel
      of Mark or his style, nor do they demonstrate a
      connection in themes consistent with those mentioned
      in my post and found in the text of Mark.

      You simply attempt to tie his thought to your agenda
      by citing other sources. And frankly I have not read
      all of your sources because I know what you are about.
      Your goal is to discredit not honest inquiry. You did
      cite Psalm 91 for which I gave you credit as it
      reflects a connection to the interpolation and the
      thinking of the opposition. Greek scholar that you
      are, you missed the reference in LXX Psalm 73:19
      which used the SAME GREEK WORD (how strange you made
      no comment about that oversight). This is yet another
      indication that you were following an agenda not a
      scholarly inquiry. Perhaps you spent too much time
      searching your coded references to bother looking in
      the Septuagint for the subject word in the Greek text.

      As to your second paragraph above:

      Not curious at all Jeffery: Anyone that has read my
      posts will tell you that I have maintained that
      editing Mark was a problem for the opposition for
      several reasons including his copy protection
      technique. It is clear as far back as 1Corinthians
      that the opposing thought patterns demonstrated in
      Matthew, pro Law, pro Jewish, Pro Twelve, and pro
      Peter are anti Pauline and confrontational. These
      opposing views would have been well established in the
      minds of Mark’s readers. This consistent opposition to
      Paul and subsequently to the Gospel of Mark is
      precisely why Mark makes use of the parables which he
      explains through Jesus in the Narrative. Awareness of
      potential opposition also accounts for his warning in
      chapter eight. Outsiders are to be kept outside and
      Beware of the leaven of Pharisees and of Herod. Do you
      remember these words? You might want to observe that
      Paul apparently practiced the same kind of
      communication obscurity himself 2Corinthians 4:

      2 We have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways; we
      refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God's
      word, but by the open statement of the truth we would
      commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the
      sight of God. 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it
      is veiled only to those who are perishing. 4 In their
      case the god of this world has blinded the minds of
      the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of
      the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the likeness
      of God.

      Compare to Mark 4:
      10 And when he was alone, those who were about him
      with the twelve asked him concerning the parables. 11
      And he said to them, "To you has been given the secret
      of the kingdom of God, but for those outside
      everything is in parables; 12 so that they may indeed
      see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not
      understand; lest they should turn again, and be


      Rick Richmond rickr2889@...

      Do You Yahoo!?
      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.