Comments on: Papacy in Scripture VII: Peter in the Gospel of Mark

By: Free Offer

Free Offer — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 23:17:15 +0000

Wow, marvelous weblog layout! How lengthy have you ever been blogging for? you make blogging glance easy. The total look of your site is wonderful, let alone the content material!

By: Victor

Victor — Sat, 05 Mar 2011 12:22:31 +0000

Hello Jeffrey,

Great job, but does the series end abruptly (ironically like the Gospel of Mark itself)? You keep on referring to “future posts” but more than a year has passed and they haven’t come. It feels anticlimactic.

Blessings,
Victor

By: Jeffrey L. Morrow

Jeffrey L. Morrow — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 21:34:33 +0000

Thanks Josh for all of your comments. Although you are correct that I never intended my comments to imply the Papias excerpt in Eusebius mentioned Mark’s Gospel as a summary of Peter’s preaching in Rome (which you are certainly correct the Papias excerpt never mentions), I have to concede that your instincts were good. I probably would have assumed (incorrectly and lazily) that Papias mentioned something like that in the Eusebius excerpt, which I actually had to double check in light of your comment, since it’s been so long since I’ve referred to Eusebius. Thanks for all of your comments, and your much appreciated attempts to keep us honest.

By: Josh Anderson

Josh Anderson — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 23:20:28 +0000

Jeff,

In rereading your article I see that your statements regarding Peter’s preaching in Rome were not attributed to Papias, but some other early tradition following him. Just wanted to point out my error. Sorry for the misread. Maybe I should take my own advice and not be so quick to read between the lines. Ha! All the best.

By: Josh Anderson

Josh Anderson — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 12:16:00 +0000

Jeff, truly lots of good stuff here – just a couple of critiques. When Papias speaks to origin of the gospels he says Mark is derived from the teachings of Peter, but nothing about “Peter’s preaching in Rome.” (Yes, I know they were together in Rome at one time.) A minor point, yes, but it bears noting. After all, seeing Rome behind every bush or reading Rome “between the lines” is not uncommon among RC writers. Indeed, it is the staple fodder.
Looking ahead, I offer this cautionary observation: Among RC apologists there a kind of irresistible mania that causes them to seize upon any statement about Peter in the Bible or early church and apply it directly to the Roman Bishop. Amazingly, this kind of automatic mental merging of Peter and his purported successors is seen as some kind of valid argument! (Look, he said something nice about Peter! Evidence of the Papacy!) Transferring statements about a known historical personage to a hypothetical to prove it’s existence and legitimacy – marvel of marvels! Read the literature and see if this is not absolutely rampant.
Again, I agree with much of the raw data, but not the overblown conclusions that are in the pipeline . We all agree Peter was the de facto leader and very vocal spokesman of the apostolic band – a kind of representative apostle. But does the NT really present him as the first Pope? In due course, we will find that it does not.
Gentle reader, ask yourself this: Are RC claims really conclusions derived naturally from the text? Or are we being asked to retroactively view all things through the prism of these grandiose claims (the soundness of which is assumed). Are we not being asked to do all interpretation through the lens of an already settled conclusion? Ah, never underestimate humanity’s willingness and knack for making any and all facts support pet paradigms.
Nevertheless, you make a lot of good observations in this article. I had never considered the Mark / Acts parallels. Nice.