Yes, you are right. My use of the term was a bit squishy.robert j wrote:Ben, an interesting analysis throughout the thread, thanks.
Other than a minor quibble or two, I agree with most of your “overall impression of the course of events” here.That is, except for what seems to me a squishy use of “the church”.
I think that the term "church" at this stage of the Christian history is probably best reserved for individual communities in individual cities and towns. Only later would a clear sense of "the church catholic" arise. So my usage was anachronistic even by my own standards. But I am leaving open the possibility that stories about Peter circulated amongst Christians apart from our extant texts. We have enough examples of Christians in one locality gleaning information from Christians in other localities to leave the possibility open.In item #1, what “church” are you referring to?
No, there is no need for it. But someone who was for some reason convinced that Mark did not possess the epistles of Paul could easily make the other claim, that there was no need for Mark to know the epistles, that information about Peter passed from church to church by Christian travelers would be enough. It is not about need, then, in my judgment; it is about demonstrating which of the two scenarios is more likely (if any), or about demonstrating that both scenarios contributed to the final outcome.In item #3, is there really any need for “church memory” here? Did Mark, other than his fertile imagination, need any more than Paul’s letters for the triumvirate?
If I have understood you aright in other threads, you belong to the "camp" (not an organized entity, but an overall position) which tends to hold that texts were the main, if not only, means of transmitting information from church to church and from generation to generation. The other "camp" is, of course, that which holds that the churches were alive with vibrant information and tradition passed on from person to person apart from texts. My own sensibilities on this issue are still developing, and in this thread I was leaving open either option. (I have long felt attracted to a position somewhere between the extremes that I used those "camps" to express, but one closer to the "texts" side than to the "traditions" side — without, however, leaving the "traditions" side blank. But I am still making up my mind on this issue. What I refuse to do, however, is to default to one side or the other and then force the other side to prove itself.)
What would Mark's message or point or end game be here?As for Andrew, I’m just spit-balling here. But with Mark prone to cleverness, and Andrew as the next most important disciple after the triumvirate --- I wonder if it’s just a coincidence that the name can be seen as meaning a generic “men”?