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

Re: [XTalk] Peter talk

Expand Messages
  • Mark Goodacre
    Thanks for the plug and the comments, Bob. I have added some short programme notes over on my NT Blog at
    Message 1 of 13 , Jul 22, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks for the plug and the comments, Bob. I have added some short
      programme notes over on my NT Blog at
      http://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/nt-pod-5-simon-peter-in-mark-programme.html
      . I also already have an article on the topic which explores the
      portrayal of Peter in Mark and Matthew. It was published in 2006 in a
      Fs for Henry Wansbrough, but since Fs articles get little attention, I
      plan to make it available online. I also plan a future episode of the
      NT Pod on Peter in Matthew. Cheers, Mark.

      --
      Mark Goodacre Goodacre@...
      Associate Professor
      Duke University
      Department of Religion
      Gray Building / Box 90964
      Durham, NC 27708-0964 USA
      Phone: 919-660-3503 Fax: 919-660-3530

      http://www.markgoodacre.org
    • Gordon Raynal
      Hi Bob, ... It was an enjoyable chat. now cutting to one of your paragraphs... ... Interesting. Why say anticlimactic? How about considering the function
      Message 2 of 13 , Jul 22, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Bob,
        On Jul 22, 2009, at 5:06 AM, Bob Schacht wrote:

        >
        >
        > As you may recall, Gordon Raynal picked up my challenge and we had a
        > go at it for a couple of weeks, with welcome participation by a few
        > others. My questions were inspired by the description of Peter's role
        > in the beginning chapters of Acts.

        It was an enjoyable chat.

        now cutting to one of your paragraphs...
        >
        >>
        >
        > Also, his stress on the skandalon might also make it easier to
        > understand why Mark does not say all that much about the
        > resurrection. Mark doesn't say this, but the implication to me was
        > that if the skandalon is the main point of the gospel, then the
        > resurrection is, in a sense, anticlimactic.

        Interesting. Why say "anticlimactic?" How about considering the
        function of resurrection affirmation regarding the way the good news
        story is told/ the message is affirmed?

        For Paul (per Romans 1) Jesus is "declared Son of God with power
        according to the spirit of holiness by the resurrection from the
        dead..." (NRSV).

        For Mark God says in 1:11, "You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I
        am well pleased." (NRSV) and this is after John baptizes him.

        Doing theology Paul's way then per I Cor. 15 the authority of the
        apostles is lined up by Paul in terms of "opthe's" of the risen
        Jesus... and it, of course, is a decidedly male oriented listing.
        Doing theology Mark's way focuses attention on Jesus in ministry and
        it is most decidedly the nameless woman who anoints Jesus while he is
        quite alive who is the model for discerning faith and therefore a
        (the? for the Markan community???) key testifier for the future.
        (in Mark 14:9 Mark's Jesus says of her, "Truly I tell you, where the
        good news is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will be
        told in remembrance of her.") Resurrection announcement is part of
        both kinds of communication, but it functions differently. And then
        besides that, resurrection is just a necessary journey stage
        description. The proverbial end of the story until "THE END" is that
        Jesus has got to get up to that throne on "the right hand of the
        Father:)!" Resurrection is never the climax for any of the early
        materials that use this affirmation formula.

        Gordon Raynal
        Inman, SC



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.