Ted Hoffman

He makes the above claim in p.63 of The Historical Figure of Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk). What is the evidence for this claim? Anybody knows?

darstec

The pseudo-Pauline epistle Philemon has Paul calling Mark and Luke co-workers. Slaughter that passage and Mark becomes a follower.

Steven Avery

Hi Ted,

This is in synch with the view that Paul's references to Mark are in
2 Timothy 4:11, Philemon 1:24, and Colossians 4:10. Peter's is in
1 Peter 5:13 and Mark is mentioned by Luke in Acts in chapter 12, 13, 15.

(The Philemon reference is actually the most 'en passant',
Mark is simply mentioned along with other fellowlabourers.)

John Gill gives references for the traditional understanding from
Papias (through Eusebius), Tertullian and Hieron.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

DCHindley

Some academics think that the Gospel of Mark shows evidence the author knew Pauline theology. While this is possible, the Gospel of Mark and the Pauline letters may also have drawn from the same theological well.

Dave

Ted Hoffman

Is it in order for Sanders to declare that Mark was a follower of Paul without providing his basis for that claim or indicating that it is a tenuous suggestion?
Is this scholarly? Or is it true that this book is a popular book and not a scholarly one as some have claimed?

jakejonesiv

Why did Jesus have to die according to:

1. The Gospel of Mark
2. The Pauline Epistles

These guys had no idea what the other one was doing.

spin

Bingo! praxeus is bringing up John Gill again. (Got a paper bag?)

jakejonesiv

If you will read page 63, you will see that Sanders clearly says that the gospels are anonymous. While he believes that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John actually lived, Sanders does not know that they wrote the gospels ascribed to them.

Since even Sanders concedes that the gospels are anonymous, the alleged connection between Paul and Mark is of no use in determining the sources used by the unknown author of Mark.

Jake Jones IV

Steven Avery

Thanks for the LOL.

"Vaticanus .. is directly derived from the Hebrew" spin

rants against the excellent scholarship of John Gill.
Are we <shocked, shocked> ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Malachi151

Exactly. The idea that the author of Mark knew Paul is quite different from the claim that Paul knew of someone called Mark. The names of the gospels are ascribed based on the traditions, so of course there had to be some basis for choosing the name Mark to ascribe to the gospel in the first place.

To me this is a pretty much void claim, and again as well, none of these things were actually written by Paul anyway, but whatever.