Vorkosigan makes his case for Mark using/known Paul‘s letters here:
http://users2.ev1.net/%7Eturton/GMar...k10.html#items,
I addressed his creative case for the Pauline chiasm here
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...16#post2955701, concluding that the case as far as the chiasm is concerned is fairly weak, though at first look it seems like it is a strong connection.
The primary problem with the Paul-Mark connection that I see is that the connections are just not strong enough, and that what connections can be made can be explained by an actual historical Jesus. Here are a few comments along these lines to some of the narrative items Vork identifies as being in common between Mark and Paul.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vorkosigan
Historical Alternatives?
Assume for the nonce that the writer of Mark was familiar with Paul's letters, most probably Galatians, 1 Corinthians, Romans, and Philippians. What narrative items does that enable us to assign to the writer's knowledge of Paul? Here's a few:
|
Quote:
|
Jesus was designated, not born, the Son of God Philippians 2:6-11
|
Had Jesus been a myth Mark got from Philippians, one might expect a mythical account of his birth since Phillipians portrays him as coming down from being equal with God in the heavens to earth. I would suggest that Paul’s references elsewhere to becoming sons of God through baptism could have developed out of Jesus’ own spiritual awakening upon his own baptism by John the Baptist, a not-unlikely scenario. Note that Gjohn, which in part seems to have an inside knowledge of people and places, portrays Andrew as once having been a disciple of John the Baptist (1:40), and Jesus’ disciples as performing baptisms soon after Jesus’ own baptism (3:22,4:1)
Quote:
|
Jesus was of Davidic Descent Romans 1:3
|
The Messiah was expected to be of Davidic ascent, so Mark didn’t need Paul for this idea.
Quote:
|
Jesus was handed over (betrayed) 1 Cor 11:23Importance of Peter, James and John Galatians 2:9 James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars,.…Indeed, Peter only appears in Galatians and 1 Corinthians, the two most commonly echoed letters in Mark.
|
If Jesus was historical, Mark didn’t need Paul’s account for these, especially if Mark was Peter‘s translator, as Papias is quoted as saying (Peter was the principal player in Mark‘s account).. And yet, Mark gives no indication that James was the head of the church, as Paul says. Rather, he presents the OPPOSITE picture in 6:3, as being a skeptic.
Quote:
Pharisees hate Jesus Philippians 3:5-6
...circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.
|
Paul was talking about himself as a Pharisee and persecutor of the Church. He doesn’t say that other Pharisees persecuted the church, though they probably did. If that was the case, Mark didn’t need Paul for the idea. If the Pharisees hated Jesus, that would explain why Paul was inclined to persecute his followers.
Quote:
Peter = Cephas
Several places in the Paulines, including 1 Cor 9:5 in some manuscripts
Peter is married and has a mother-in-law
1 Cor 9: 5
Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas? (the Greek actually says "sister-wife")
|
If Peter was a follower of Jesus and Jesus stayed in his home as Mark says, Mark would have no need for Paul to have written these things.
Quote:
|
Abba, Father Galatians 4:6Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.�
|
The question is Why did Paul use an Aramaic expression--the language said to have been spoken by Jesus? Why didn’t Paul just say “Father�? Mark didn’t need Paul in order to repeat the actual word used by Jesus, had Jesus been historical.
Quote:
|
Divorce in Mark 10:12 1 Cor 7Extensive discussion on divorce
|
Paul attributes the charge to not divorce to “the Lord�, a designation he does use for Jesus as well as for God. He may have just been repeating the command of Jesus.
Quote:
|
Last Supper 1 Cor 11:23-5
|
If it happened, Mark surely didn’t need Paul’s version.
Quote:
|
Jesus Raised on the Third Day 1 Cor 15:4
|
Paul’s version is likely from a well-known Christian creed. Mark didn’t need Paul to know the creed.
Quote:
Interpretation
It is widely argued that the Gospel of Mark is about discipleship, and that an important aspect of it is imitating Jesus.. "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me."
Possible Source: 1 Cor 4:15-6
Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. Therefore I urge you to imitate me.
|
Mark could have had Jesus say “one will come after me and spread my gospel to the Gentiles�, (referring to Paul), yet he never does. Mark doesn’t let slip any reference to Paul as imitator.
Quote:
"Food" and "eating" as a metaphor for the message of Jesus and its reception.
1 Cor 10:1-4
1: I want you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea,
2: and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,
3: and all ate the same supernatural food
4: and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.
|
The issue of clean foods was important to Jews, and to new Christians, so it is not a surprising mention. I’m not sure what connection is being made here--is it to the Lord’s supper--referring to bread as his body and wine as his blood?
ted
12-14-2005, 01:06 PM
Did Mark use Paul's writings to create fiction?
