Re: [Synoptic-L] Mark and Pauline Teaching
- Rick Hubbard wrote:
Jeffery-Claremont skepticism run wild -- or at least that was my impression when I looked at it years ago.
Could you be a little more explicit about your opinion of Mack:
"A bit too edgy for my taste...."
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
- At 03:07 PM 7/8/2005 -0500, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:
>Chuck Jones wrote:See also Joel Marcus, "Mark--Interpreter of Paul," NTS 46 (2000): 473-487.
>> Rick, If you think you'd be interested in exposing yourself to
>> another view, again, I'd recommend Mack's _Who Wrote the New
>A bit too edgy for my taste and tainted by some question begging
>assumptions about Paul and his theology. Better I think is the
>consideration of the question that can now be found in the Introduction
>of Joel Marcus' Anchor Commentary on Mark.
Here's the abstract:
|Claiming that Mark is a Paulinist does not require that he agree with
|Paul about everything, and plausible reasons can be advanced for a later
|Paulinist wanting to write the story of the earthly Jesus. Martin Werner's
|assertion that the agreements between Mark and Paul reflect general early
|Christian viewpoints is not valid with regard to the theology of the cross,
|which was a controversial Pauline emphasis and a stress that the later
|Gospels attenuated in editing Mark. Contrary to Werner, Mark and Paul
|agree in ascribing Jesus' death to a combination of human and demonic
See also M. D. Goulder, "A Pauline in a Jacobite Church" in THE FOUR GOSPELS:
1992 (Van Segbroeck et al., eds.; BETL 100; Leuven: University Press, 1992):
Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35