Re-Mark-able study! I’ve always felt that the Gospel of Mark had dark quality to it–shrouded and sometimes fearful, so this explanation of its tone reflecting/speaking to the traumatized Roman audience makes sense. Kathy, Joyce and I were intrigued by the parallel language of the “young man” at Gethsemane and the empty tomb–seems like that in the resurrection there is a “new creation” of the young man (even though they are not the same person)–but a new creation of understanding.
Question–Mark’s up-and down relationship with Paul, compared to his advocacy for the witness of Peter–do you think this reflects any conflict/divergence in the early Church between those who followed Peter and those who followed Paul?
Re-Mark-able study! I’ve always felt that the Gospel of Mark had dark quality to it–shrouded and sometimes fearful, so this explanation of its tone reflecting/speaking to the traumatized Roman audience makes sense. Kathy, Joyce and I were intrigued by the parallel language of the “young man” at Gethsemane and the empty tomb–seems like that in the resurrection there is a “new creation” of the young man (even though they are not the same person)–but a new creation of understanding.
Question–Mark’s up-and down relationship with Paul, compared to his advocacy for the witness of Peter–do you think this reflects any conflict/divergence in the early Church between those who followed Peter and those who followed Paul?