Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I might add, that I also suggest that Mark generally intends the itenerant Jesus to be symbolic of the missionary Church all the way through. His healing and teaching and preaching activities are a symbol of the Church (at Mark's time). And as such, the correlation of language that we find between t...

So there is no historical problem or narratological problem in that the women fail to convey the message, because the message they fail to convey is not a message as such, but merely a confirmation of a message they have already been given. So with the silence of the women it is up to the disciples...

Is this what the silence of the women is all about? That the women collapse is straightforward realism: they are exhausted and probably in clinical shock. That's why Mark put the detail there: that's what would happen to real people in the characters' situation. John does a lot more with the idea, ...

I just had an idea concerning the woman at the tomb and the reason they don't convey the message they're told. Firstly, my theory is based on the premise that it's a literary device, something put in there by Mark for some specific reason. I've always wondered why interpreters and preachers and bibl...

Some interesting stuff. Mark Goodacre has a paper against 'Matthean Posteriority', i.e. the theory that Matthew used gLuke (instead of the other way around, according to the Farrer Hypothesis). Why not Matthew's use of Luke? A recent resurgence in support for Matthean Posteriority (Alan Garrow; Rob...

The key is this: the four kinds of soil are four kinds of insiders. The "outsiders" are not part of this parable. And the insiders, i.e. the four kinds of soil, are to be understood as Christians that have been baptized and gotten the spirit. I can agree with this. Who receives the ''seed...

Some interesting stuff. Mark Goodacre has a paper against 'Matthean Posteriority', i.e. the theory that Matthew used gLuke (instead of the other way around, according to the Farrer Hypothesis). Why not Matthew's use of Luke? A recent resurgence in support for Matthean Posteriority (Alan Garrow; Rob ...

I love and hate Mark 4:1-34, the discourse of Jesus with the Sower and the "secret of the kingdom of God" and the light and measure and mustard seed etc. There are so many interpretive options it drives you nuts, and just when you think you have found a way that it all makes sense, then th...

As apologies go, I think this is a genuine one. If it is true the things he writes in this blogpost (concerning the non-disclosure agreement etc), then I dont see how he can apologize more than this. I think you're right, the sin committed should be regarded as partisanship. Whether or not evangelic...

It's a good question, moses. I think it's all theological storytelling by Mark, and my guess goes something like this. First, John is saying that he himself is also powerful, but Jesus is more powerful (much more!) And I think it has to do with the ability to wield God's 'force' or 'power'. They are...