Since it is relevant to a discussion of authorship, this is a repost from the “Golden Rule” Blog that looked specifically at Joel Marcus’s case to put Mark in the Pauline sphere. Marcus makes a good summary and defense of the evangelist as a (later) interpreter of Paul rather than Peter; others advocating Mark as Pauline include Alfred Loisy, G. Volkmar, BW Bacon, JC Fenton, Michael Goulder, William Telford, DC Sim and Michael Bird (though he sees both Pauline and Petrine influences). Again, I’m withholding judgment until conclusion of the series.
I want to look at an article by Joel Marcus, “Mark – interpreter of Paul,” New Testament Studies 46 (2000): 473-487. Marcus sets out to challenge the older consensus since Martin Werner’s 1923 monograph Der Einfluss paulinischer Theologie im Markusevangelium that denied the relationship between Mark and Paul. He looks at how Paul’s opinions on the Law or theology of the cross may have been a great deal more controversial among the early Jesus groups and “If Paul was a lonely and contentious figure rather than a universally approved one, it is more remakable than it would otherwise be that Mark frequently agrees with him” (474). He notes a number of similarities between Mark and Paul on pages 475-476:
- The dominant use of the noun euangelion (Note how often the singular noun euangelion (gospel) is in Mark and Paul and how rare it is prior to and in the rest of the NT (cf. Steve Mason, “Methods and Categories: Judaism and Gospel“).
- The significance of the cross as the apocalyptic turning point of history. Also, the view of the crucifixion as an atoning death (Mark 10:45; Rom 3:25; 5:8).
- Jesus victory over demonic powers (Markan exorcisms; Rom 8:38-39; 1 Cor 15:24).
- The advent of the age of divine blessings in fulfillment of prophecy (Mark 1:1-14; Rom 3:21-22). Jesus as the New Adam (Rom 5:12-19; 1 Cor 15:45; the temptation narrative in Mark and Jesus’ dazzling clothes in the transfiguration).
- Importance of faith in Jesus or God and the dualism between the elect who can truly see versus the blind outsiders (Mark 4:10-12; Rom 11:7-10; 1 Cor 2:6-16). Dualism can lead to a universalistic perspective (Mark 10:45; Rom 11:35-42).
- The mission to the Jew first and then to the Gentile (Syrophoenician woman in Mark 7:27-29; Rom 1:16).
- Jesus came to redeem sinners (Mark 2:17; Rom 4:15; 5:18-19).
- Negative views of Peter with the rest of the twelve (e.g. hardnesss of heart, calling Peter Satan or 3 denials) and Jesus’ family (Mark 3:20-21, 31-35; 8:31-33; Gal 2).
- The widening of the divine purpose to incorporate Gentiles was accomplished by an apocalyptic change in the Law (e.g., see the very similar language in Mark 7:19 and Rom 14:20 about the abrogation of the food laws).
So what do you think? Is this enough evidence to put the Gospel of Mark (along with other later Paulinists = Colossians/Ephesians, Luke-Acts, Pastorals, Ignatius) in the Pauline sphere of influence or are these alleged parallels simply generally held more widely in the early Christian movement?
Yes, GMk often reads like an exegesis of Paul. Mark is not exactly pro-Pauline, but he knows Paul and thinks Paul understood the resurrection in ways that Peter did not. Sorry to sound like a broken record here
If I may be slightly provocative, I might even argue that Paul is a model for Mark’s Jesus. Or at least Paul, re-imagined as a Q-prophet. Mark’s gospel envisions a union of the Pauline community and the earliest Q-community, which was finding success in the diaspora, and stood opposed to the Jerusalem-based organization, which Mark thought was still preoccupied with what the Law was and how to observe it. It’s true that there are some verses in Mark that contradict this, but those are the result of a later, proto-orthodox redactor of the second century, who tried to “fix” GMk into a document that everyone could be happy with.
Yes, this evidence is enough to demonstrate the Pauline influence on Mark. However I would argue that the early Christian movement (as opposed to the early Jesus movement led by James) was founded by Paul and owed both its theology and its church practice to Paul. So every part of the early Christian movement was influenced by Paul.
Thanks both Mike Z. and Ron Price for the good comments (and Mike, don’t worry about sounding like a “broken record” here as I like the conversation
). Since you are both fairly convinced that Mark is Pauline, I will just share some of my reservations. From some of the creedal or hymnic fragments in Paul (Rom 1:2-4; 1 Cor 15:3-5; Phil 2:6-11; etc), I do not think Paul was the originator of the atoning death, resurrection or understanding of Jesus as “Christ”, “Son of God” or “Lord”. Where I do think Paul made his distinctive contribution is in his elaborate scriptural argumentation and focus on the cross to argue for how Gentiles can be justified by faith without proselytization to Judaizing customs (e.g., circumcision, sabbath, food and table fellowship, etc), and I am not sure this latter concern is on Mark’s radar (he has his own emphases on the way of the cross). For Mike, it is possible that Paul combined the passion narrative with traditions of other communities such as “Q”, but not sure what we can know of the “Q” community and I think the references to the Twelve in Q are pretty positive (e.g., the Twelve sitting on twelve thrones) and you will have to show me which passages where you find the 2nd century proto-orthodox redaction.
I guess I’m thinking of 3:29, about the unforgivable sin (IMO a later development in Q), and also the “worm doesn’t die” repetitions in 9:43-48 (and maybe the entire set of verses, though I’m not sure). Possibly also 10:10-11 on adultery, though there is a case to be made that it follows naturally after 10:1-9.
I’ll at least agree that Paul seems to be trying to take credit for ideas that some protested weren’t his. The evidence you raise is interesting.
Your comments about Mark’s avoidance of Paul’s anti-Judaizing theology are also interesting, but I’m a little confused: Mark’s Jesus seems pretty dismissive of the Law. Or are you just addressing the mission to the Gentiles?
As for the Q community, I think we can catch a glimpse of it, at an early stage, in the Didache. I guess I’m not arguing that Peter had nothing to do with it, but it seems to have begun evolving in ways that were beyond his control, arguably under the influence of Paul. One trajectory did go in the pro-Petrine direction of GMt, but another went in the direction of the more ambiguous GMk. I say this because I think GMk includes many references to an early layer of Q. However, I admit I am being a little speculative here and don’t have the space to back this argument up.
I get that in a comment section you may not have the space to make the case about those Markan passages as later additions or the Q-Didache argument, so if you want to post a link to any books/articles/extended blog posts backing it up feel free. To just replyon Mark and the Law, I find myself becoming more convinced by my advisor James Crossley and a minority of other scholars that the Markan Jesus doesn’t reject the Law itself (cf. 1:44, 7:5-13,10:19) but oral traditions designed to put a hedge around the Torah (halakhic debates about what constitutes “work” on the Sabbath, can unwashed hands render food unclean, etc), but even on the majority view that the Markan Jesus supersedes biblical law the point seems to me christological (the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath, Jesus declares “cleansing all foods”) rather than Paul’s argument about how Gentiles can become members of Israel without proselytism to Jewish customs such as circumcision, food laws or Sabbath (thus Mark lacks Pauline terminology on righteousness, justification, etc). So, as I will say in next post, I could agree with scholars such as Marcus that there are some striking similarities (though I would contest some items on his list), I am not entirely convinced to classify Mark as strictly “Pauline.”
Your comments covers a lot of ground, but I will venture a brief response.
Perceiving Jesus as “Christ” was certainly pre-Paul, as even Mark admits (8:29). Yet Mark presents the label as inadequate (8:30-33). It does not appear as one of your nine points based on Joel Marcus.
1 Cor 15:3-5 may be creedal in form, but I think it was a deliberate (and if modern commentators are anything to go by, highly successful) attempt by Paul to portray his newly-framed “gospel” as if it had been derived from tradition, and thus to give his ideas greater authority. Rom 1:2-4 is no ordinary creed, but rather Paul’s own composition, a grand introduction the major exposition of his gospel.
Atoning death, resurrection, Jesus as “Son of God”, and Jesus as “Lord” (as opposed to “master”) were all, it seems to me, originated by Paul. For instance, Jesus as “Son of God” was the most memorable and characteristic aspect of Paul’s early preaching (Acts 9:20). There is no reliable evidence of anyone prior to Paul using this label for Jesus.
The origin of Phil 2:6-11 is more difficult to trace. I suspect it may have been written by a convert of Paul or perhaps a member of one of his churches.
Fair point about the title “Christ” not being fully accurate – I don’t think Mark rejects the title (cf. 1:1), but like the partial healing of the blind man sees it as a partial truth. The reason I would tend to see 1 Cor 15:3-5 as a pre-Pauline creed is the technical language of passing on and receiving and that he simply adds himself (“as one untimely born) to a pre-existing list of authoritative witnesses (Cephas, the Twelve, James, etc) and quotes it only because he wants to go on to discuss the nature of the resurrection body. Also, it makes sense that Paul would quote a familiar creed like Rom 1:2-4 to establish some common ground with a Roman church he did not found (and may have had some conservative Jewish Christian influence) before launching into his own distinctives, but I will have to check the commentaries on what they think on this one. “Son of God” may have been influenced by Jesus (his familial understanding of God as Abba, his consciousness of being a child of god as in a holy person or possibly the Messiah, the implicit use in the parable of the tenants) and is found in the Q material (e.g., Temptation narratives, “no one knows the Son..”) as well. The Aramaic prayer quoted by Paul in 1 Cor 16:22b (cf. Rev 22:20; Did 10:6) address Jesus as Lord. So I hesitate to say Paul initiated the use of these titles, though he seems to have a clear preference for them and may have developed them christologically much more than Mark (e.g., Paul envisions the pre-existent sending of the Son from heaven).