Re: Cephas (Weeden)
But as to the question of the "Twelve" and
> Jerusalem, while "vendetta" may be a harsh term, that Mark trashes Jesus'
> family should be clear from the text. They try to grab him and take him home
> because he is being accused of being possessed and is bringing shame on the
> family. He disassociates himself from his biological family. He can't do
> miracle works in his hometown because of the unbelief there. And if the Mary
> of Mk6 is the Mary of Mk 15-16, then she is given one task by the youth, to
> tell Peter and the disciples, and she fails even in this. So, I'd like to know
> how an attack on Jesus' family is NOT found in Mark. And while the broad
> direction of "the church" was to try to associate with important leaders in
> the early movements, there's also a lot of Jockeying between different
> communities who derive their status from certain apostles over against others.
> An attack on the Jewish Christian leadership at such an early date is very
> Indeed, why would Acts be so concerned to make everyone good buddies and in
> great agreement (compared to what we find in Paul's letters, for example)?
> Steve Johnson
I find the words "attack" and "trashed" and the like to be rather tendentious,
and overstate the case I think. Mark does show that Jesus' mother and brothers
do not understand who he is and come to take him home. That Mark shows his family
did not know who Jesus *really* was is no more an "attack" than Acts showing
that initially Saul did not know Jesus *really* was. To me, it's not an attack
(to what end????) so much as lending authenticity to Mark's account and
adding to Mark's emphasis on Jesus' authority. His authority is such that he
can renounce or perhaps better, redefine, his family status because of a higher
or more significant status. That's not trashing. I think that Mary in Mark 16
(the end of which I am still 100% convinced was lost) refers, as the other
Gospels do, to Mary Magdalene. Even if it isn't, and is Jesus' mother, any
failures on her part are surely subordinate to the failures of the disciples in
mark's gospel, so unless you are ready to grant that Mark is deliberately attacking
the disciples, I think that such loaded, pejorative terms should not be applied
to Mark's intentions in selecting his material.
(hoping to soon be at GTU)