I'll take that as an honest reply, RMF. Either your view is prejudiced toward these unnamed experts; or they have created it; only you know.
Paul of Tsarsis was the MOST important figure in the history of Christianity.
You would get a lot of agreement from Christians on that, for he states his apostleship was to us Gentile believers; and not to the Jews as was Peter's. So, there is a natural affinity in us toward him (but not to the point of denigrating the other writers).
Paul wrote his letters before Mark wrote his Gospel,
Paul came in later to Christianity than Mark, so even if he writes first, his experience lags that of Mark's (and Peter's, who is held to be Mark's source)
As to your assertion about Mark's Gospel: I agree it is chronologically first of the four canonical accounts. What I cannot agree with is that it necessarily follows that the other Gospel writers, had to take their cues from him, especially the eyewitnesses John and Matthew. They would not have needed others to do their speaking for them. They would not have even needed each other. Luke, who wrote as an investigative journalist did use eyewitnesses, for he was not one himself.
Mark did not write as an eyewitness, that we know of. If his account does indeed come from Peter, then his Gospel is closer to Luke's than to Matthew or John's because of being an interview/dictation form.
But another issue within Mark's account disturbs the notion that the resurrection comes from some revisionist plot to make something of Jesus that was not so: Mark quotes Jesus four times saying that He would rise again: Chapter 8:31; 9:9-10; 9:31 and 10:34. These quotes then, give a context to the "Empty Tomb" ending: (if, for the sake of argument, those experts are right, which I do not personally accept) that he means just what the others all claim - a physical resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. |
