Establishing communicative behaviors that foster trust in intercultural teams can not only help to overcome such challenges, but to establish higher levels of team performance. Handling culturally diverse teams entails a host of challenges, including misunderstandings and differing behavioral expectations. Kok describes the story of Mark’s Petrine origins as a second-century move to assert ownership of the Gospel on the part of the emerging Orthodox Church. Kok surveys the second-century reception of Mark, from Papias of Hierapolis to Clement of Alexandria, and finds that the patristic writers were hesitant to embrace Mark because they perceived it to be too easily adapted to rival Christian factions. Not only is the text of Mark the least represented of the canonical Gospels in patristic citations, commentaries, and manuscripts, but the explicit comments about the Evangelist reveal ambivalence about Mark’s literary or theological value.
But while the question of the Gospel’s historical origins draws attention, no one has asked why, despite virtually unanimous patristic association of the Gospel with Peter, one of the most prestigious apostolic founding figures in Christian memory, Mark’s Gospel was mostly neglected by those same writers. Scholars of the Gospel of Mark usually discuss the merits of patristic references to the Gospel’s origin and Mark’s identity as the “interpreter” of Peter. Finally, Bauckham's appeal to Gerhardsson's model of a Jerusalem school from which Paul learned to memorize Jesus traditions exposes him to all the objections raised against that earlier argument, for which Bauckham offers no remedy. And the shift from plural to singular third person voices would be more convincing if any of our Gospels used a consistent first person voice, singular or plural.
The theory of an inclusio of eyewitness testimony falters against the fact that Bauckham's eyewitnesses (Peter for Mark and the Beloved Disciple for John) are not actually present for the crucial events they are to have witnessed. The pattern of naming names in the synoptics offers no peculiarities necessitating Bauckham's assertion that they are actually the names of eye-witnesses. Bauckham's arguments that would convince one that at least Mark and John rely upon eye-witnesses ultimately succumb to strong counter indications. If one assumes the two-source hypothesis, as Bauckham does, there is no point in arguing over Matthew and Luke: their sources (Mark and Q) are clear, and clearly not living eye-witnesses but written sources.
In spite of the fact that Richard Bauckham has produced a very learned and well-stated argument, his case for the Gospels as eye-witness testimony is unconvincing.
0 kommentar(er)
