Vorkosigan

But Andrew, why wouldn't he be? Psalm 110 has Simon's name written as an acrostic in it. Mark cites Psalm 118 in 11:9-10. Granted the Psalm refers to an entrance into the city, but still the connection is there. Mark also has other references to the Maccabees -- the names of Jesus' brothers recall them, there are five sons in Jesus' family, and the reference to the vessels in the Temple recalls Onias III and his adventure with the Temple vessels, as does Jesus' Temple Tantrum recall the cleansing of the Temple in 2 Macc. The Hallel Psalms were recited in the Second Temple period during Passover, Shavuot, and Sukkot. Proving it is probably not possible, but the writer of Mark knows some jewish lore and tradition, so it isn't completely out of bounds.

This point is cogent, though. I need to think about how to demonstrate more clearly Mark's knowledge of this link. But it does seem a lot to ask of coincidence that Mark brackets this with two citations of Psalms that are concerned with Simon Maccabaeus. Further, Mark does not need to now that Psalm 118 was written for Simon M. He only needs to know that they are connected (a much weaker position) as celebratory psalms for an entrance into Jerusalem.

That's possible. But then you have to attribute the following to coincidence:

1 Cor 15 discussion of resurrection/discussion of angel bodies +cite of Psalm 110 between them

Mark 12 discussion of resurrection/discussion of angel bodies/same cite of Ps 110

Mark is treating Paul like scripture, using Psalm 110 to point to 1 Cor 15 where he is getting his discussion of these ideas, the same as he might do with any biblical text.

You also then have to attribute Mark's explicit pointer to the Sadduccee's belief that there was no Resurrection to coincidence. In other words, Mark highlights the concept of Resurrection there. Note that he doesn't do this with the Pharisees -- in fact, the basic beliefs of the chief priests, herodians, pharisees, and scribes are never explained in Mark -- only the Sadduccees have their beliefs explained. Why? Mark wants to point again.

Another reason I don't like /b is that it smacks of an unsupported auxiliary hypothesis created to bolster the idea that Mark did not know Paul, which seems to be more of a foundational axiom than a well-supported case. Now I've raised some pretty serious evidence against that here.

Vorkosigan

Ted Hoffman

Thanks Vork. That does help make things clearer.

andrewcriddle

Part of my reason for suggesting b/ (ie common use of same Scriptures) is that there is a long-standing, well-known but not generally accepted claim in NT studies that early Christians had a standard (probably written) list of a dozen or so OT Scriptural passages regrded as testimonies about Christ and that the frequent occurrence of these passages in the NT comes from different writers using the same list.

Obviously the idea that the NT writers knew each others work is an alternative explanation.

(If anyone is interested I could find the references for the 'testimonia' hypothesis but probably not for a day or so.)

Andrew Criddle

Amaleq13

I would be interested in both the reference and the list.

badger3k

Interesting reading, if completely confusing (never studied any of this), but I do have one question.

Citing the use of "scripture" by Jesus, what is the source of that? What is the earliest known version of that and what words were used? Are we sure that this isn't a translation that changed the wording to "scripture" rather than some other term?

Dave Roberts

You may be onto something here.

Is it your theory that Mark was aware of the writings of Paul, knew Paul directly, or just the preachings of Paul.

How about the connection with:

Mark 7:18-19 and Romans 14:14

Vorkosigan

At the moment, I think Mark knew Paul directly, and when Mark wrote "Let the scriptures be fulfilled" without stating what Scripture, he meant Paul.

Romans 14:14 and 7:18-9? I think there is probably a connection.

Michael

andrewcriddle

Sorry for the delay in getting back on this.

The standard reference is apparently two books by J Rendel Harris published in 1916 and 1920 Testimonies I and II

I haven't been able to find a full list which would probably be rather long but examples are the following quotations in Matthew which allegedly have special stylistic features (Matthew: 1:23; 2:15, 18, 23; 4:15f; 8:17; 12:18ff; 13:35; 21:5; 27:9) and the following quotations in 1 Peter chapter 2 referring to the Messiah as a stone which are also found in other NT passages (Isaiah 28:16, Isaiah 8:14, Psalms 118:22).

Andrew Criddle

Amaleq13

Thanks, Andrew

TedM

Michael, you have mentioned Mark’s use of Paul to me several times, and I finally decided to check out what you have to say about it. I found your post here through an archive search. If you have found other support or further refined this argument please let me know.

I have to hand it to you. You are quite gifted at being able to find patterns and link things together that have relationships overlooked by the vast majority of people. From what I’ve seen though from some of our past discussions your ability brings to mind John Nash of a Beautiful Mind--a brilliant man whose ability to piece together information was exceptional, but who unfortunately sometimes could not distinguish between a real connection and one that wasn’t real. Maybe this one will be able to convince me.

Here are the questions I intend to look at:

1. Do any of the Mark issues allegedly found Paul have sufficient detail to conclude such irrespective of any pattern in Mark?
2. Is there a pattern of Paul’s use in Mark?
3. Is there a reasonable alternative explanation for a pattern to not have come from Paul?
4. Is the claim regarding the use of scriptures a sign of knowledge of Paul?
5. If Mark did use Paul, what are the implications?


Here’s your argument:




1. Do any of the Mark issues allegedly found Paul have sufficient detail to conclude such irrespective of any pattern in Mark?

Let’s take a look:


Nothing in Mark 12:10-11 shows knowledge of Paul’s 8:31. The citing in Mark 12:10-11 is for Psalm 118:22-23, and is clearly quoting it. The verse in Romans 8:31 is not citing 118:22-23 at all, as the contents are very different. Therefore the only possible connection is that of the chapter.

Paul doesn’t ascribe 8:31 to Psalms 118:6 either. Nor is it an exact quote--though it is similar:

Psalm 118:6 “The LORD is for me; I will not fear; What can man do to me?�
Romans 8:31 “What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us?�

However, is this an unusual kind of thing for Paul to have expressed? I don’t think so. IMO it is not at all established that Paul was citing Psalms 118:6.

So, in order for you to be correct, it would seem that Mark THOUGHT that Paul was citing Psalm 118 (assuming he was even familiar with that verse), and so he decided to use two OTHER verses from that chapter to put in his gospel. Is this making much sense? Paul wasn’t even writing about enemies of Christ in 8:31--he was referring to those who might bring a charge against him and other believers.

Sure, it is possible, but consider this: If I’m counting correctly, Paul alludes to passages in the Psalms different 25 times in the 16 chapters of Romans, clearly citing them 11 times. And that’s just in Romans alone. The odds that a quote by Mark of a psalm verse that happens to be in the same psalm chapter alluded to by Paul aren’t that slim. Randomly in Romans alone it is perhaps around 25/150, but of course this factor goes up when you include in the rest of Paul’s epistles. And it goes up further when you consider that Mark and Paul both were more likely to focus in on the Psalms that were at the time considered to have Messiac passages (such as is the case with Psalms 118). And it goes up further when you consider that Mark may have used material from 8 different Psalms chapters. And, it goes up further when you consider that in just the prior chapter Psalms 118 is invoked when Jesus made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem and the people shouted “Blessed his he who comes in the name of the Lord�, and laid branches before him! IOW there is little need for Mark to have been prompted to use 118:22-23 from reading Romans 8:31. When all of these factors are considered, the odds for Mark using 118:22-23 from Romans 8:31 are slim.

Overall it takes quite a few leaps to conclude that Mark was inspired by Romans 8:31 to write Mark 12:10-11. Mark shows no sign of needing Paul for what he wrote, he shows signs of already having 118 in mind, Paul may not even be quoting from 118, the subject is different. In short there are no telltale signs that Mark relied on Paul for his use of 118:22-23 at all.


Mark doesn’t quote anything from Romans 13:1-7. Paul says nothing about Caesar or giving God what is His due. The closest he comes is in an allusion to verse 7: “Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due..� However, that is not an unusual way for someone to tell someone else to pay their taxes. Also, the issue of Roman occupation and the proper role of a Jew toward the Roman government was a huge matter of concern for people. So, the subject matter is not unusual at all either. From the content of the story itself there is no specific telltale sign that Mark has used Paul for his passage at all.


Again, Mark doesn’t quote anything from Paul. Paul says nothing of the Sadducee question about marriage after death, nor God’s use of the present tense in “I am the God of Abraham, etc� as a response to the question. Mark could have borrowed from Paul’s analogy of the dead seed coming to life or his arguments that if death is the end we might as well “eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.“ But he didn’t. The subject matter again is not unusual at all. This was a big debate among the top religious leaders--the Pharisees and the Sadducees--of the time. So again, the subject matter is not unusual and there is no telltale sign from Mark that he used Paul’s passage to support the idea that there is such a thing as resurrection.


Mark again doesn’t quote anything from Paul. Paul doesn’t mention angels at all in his response. However, “like angels in heaven� is close to Paul’s “It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body�, so the answer is pretty much the same in concept. However, is that really very surprising? Given that anyone can see that the physical body just corrodes upon death, and the conception of what an angel is like, would we really expect any different kind of answer? I don’t think so. The question is not unusual--as it is a normal one those who say there is no resurrection might ask of those who say there is--and the answer is probably the most common one a Jewish believer in resurrection at the time would have given. Once again, there is no unusual subject, no telltale sign of use of Paul.



Mark doesn’t quote Paul. Mark had a great opportunity to quote him by having Jesus say “he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.� Instead he only has Jesus agree with the scribe who says that the TWO greatest commandments (Paul doesn’t mention #1), is “much more than� sacrifices. The question posed to Jesus wasn’t whether love fulfilled the law, but was “which commandment is first of all�, to which Jesus‘ reply was a commandment Paul didn‘t mention. The subject of the greatest commandment was surely not unusual, and would have been a big topic among religious leaders of the day. While the “law� connection is in both passages, it isn’t a surprising answer. So again the subject isn’t unusual and there is no telltale sign that Mark was relying on Paul at all from the two passages.



It isn’t even clear that Paul had Psalm 110 in mind when he wrote this verse, since in verse 27 he clearly is quoting Psalms 8:6. Nevertheless, Mark could have assumed Paul was writing that. However, again, Mark doesn’t quote Paul. Neither is the focus of his passage the same as Paul’s focus. Rather, Mark is having Jesus test those who had been testing him by asking him about a passage that at the time was considered Messianic. So, the subject matter isn’t the same as Paul’s, nor is it unusual. Jesus‘ test for them was a passage that at the time may have been the subject of great speculation for the very reason that it appeared Messianic to some. So, it was most appropriate for Jesus, who was claimed to be David’s son (10:46) to point out a connection between that passage and himself, and at the same time to turn the table on his questioners. The subject is neither unusual nor is there any telltale sign in the two passages that Mark was borrowing from Paul


In every case above, there is at best only a very weak connection between Mark’s passage and Paul’s.



2. Is there a pattern of Paul’s use in Mark?

Ah, here’s the rub. If it can be shown that Mark’s passages which do have SOME things in common with Paul’s show signs of a pattern of some kind, then we might have some evidence that he used Paul. For example, if all 6 of the above alleged connections were from the same chapter of Paul, I’d say the evidence becomes pretty compelling. On the other hand, if all 6 were from 6 different epistles, I’d say the evidence is very weak. Let’s take a look:

There are 3 chapters involved, spanning two of Paul’s works. Romans 8, Romans 13, and 1 Corinthians 15. And, there are 6 topics. That, on the surface, doesn’t seem likely to be due to chance:

Romans 8:31
Romans 13:1-7
Romans 13:8-10
1 Cor 15:12-14
1 Cor 15:35-50
1 Cor 15:25-26

If these were all unrelated topics with strong similarities to what Mark wrote, I’d say Vorkosigan has a powerful case on the basis of the close proximity within Paul.

First, I reject Rom 8:31 for reasons above. The only relation it has to the other 5 is that it is in the same book as 2 of them, but given that roughly 57% of Paul’s words are found in Romans or 1 Cor in total, this isn’t very meaningful.

Regarding Romans 13, Paul wrote about obeying the govt, and immediately followed that with a discussion of the commandment to love your neighbor. Mark did much the same, except that the resurrection issue is sandwiched between. I agree that there is a pattern here that is beyond random, but I don’t think they provide strong evidence that Mark used Paul or even knew Paul’s works. I’ll explain further under the next section.

Had Romans 13 included a discussion about whether there was no resurrection or what the resurrected body is like, then we would have enough specificity to say that the connection is a lot stronger. Instead, Vorkosigan has to move to another book entirely for that one. Let’s take a look….

Obviously 1 Cor isn’t connected to Romans 13, so the only possible way it is meaningful is if the three passages in 1 Cor are tied to Mark in an unlikely way. First, I want to make the point that a chiasm in Mark which actually places 1 Cor 15 in the center surrounded by two passages from Romans 13 does NOT provide strong evidence that the passage in the middle is somehow special, because it from an entirely different book! IF the middle part were also from Romans or even better-also from Romans 13, THEN we would have something, but as it stands the middle part of the alleged chiasm (B,C,C’,B’) does not provide a strong case for reliance on Paul from the pattern alone. It wouldn’t be too hard to find a passage from Paul to stick in the middle-giving the appearance of an ABB’A pattern.

Ok, back to the issue. As stated before I see nothing unusual about taking a topic of great interest to religious-minded people--the resurrection, and after asking about whether it can happen asking about what the body is like upon resurrection. It is a perfectly normal follow-up question. As such, I don’t see a need to claim that there are 2 separate topics in C and C’. They are one and the same. SO, I’m merging C and C’ into just C.


As for the “citation� of Psalm 110 in 1 Cor 15:25-26, I agree again that there is a pattern. Resurrection talk followed by enemies at feet. I’ll address this further in the next section also.

So, in summary, there are really only two potential cases of a unrelated subjects in Paul within a close proximity being used in Mark within a close proximity. For simplicity, I will call these “patterns�.


So, based on what we are left with, I see this as a possible chiasm based on Paul:
A ROMANS 13:1-7 Obey your government = (Mk 12:13-17 Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's)
B 1 CORINTHIANS 15 12-14, 35-50 (What if there is no resurrection?/what is body like) = (Mk 12:18-23 Sadduccees deny resurrection, Mk 12:25-27, Like angels in heaven)
A' ROMANS 13:8-10 (Love is fulfillment of the Law) = (Mk 12:28-34 Commandment to Love)
C' 1 CORINTHIANS 15:25-26 cites Psalm 110 same as (Mk12:35-7 Citation of Psalm 110 and warning to beware of scribes)

ABA’C doesn’t look like much of a chiasm to me, though in terms of Chapters From Paul it is a chiasm of ABAB. That’s better, though still a fairly small chiasm.


3. Is there a reasonable alternative explanation for a pattern to not have come from Paul?


Regarding the pattern of the command to obey the government and the commandment to love one’s neighbor, I find two ways in which the themes are potentially related, and not to be taken as isolated issues that could not have been put so closely together by Mark by mere chance.

First, the phrase “duty to God, country and fellow man� is well known. It is not unusual to lump these major topics together when talking about character. Romans 12-15 are discussing Christian conduct--how to behave, issues of character. Mark 12 is a series of tests to try and trip up Jesus. As such, it is reasonable that the issues would pertain to the major topics that would measure Jesus’ character as both a religious and political threat. This combined with the points above that show little evidence that Mark was quoting Paul are to me reasons to consider this pattern of 2 as nothing more than a coincidence with a reasonable explanation. Both address the major issues that people bring up when the issue of character is being examined. The close proximity is a natural occurance.


Second, it is possible that there was a sayings list that pre-dated Mark, which both Mark and Paul had in their possession. These two teachings could have been close in proximity. Mark could have fleshed out the saying from oral tradition, and Paul could have relied on it for his calls to ethical conduct in Romans. I personally prefer the first explanation to this one though.


With regard to second pattern of the resurrection discussion with the idea of Christ putting his enemies under his feet, I see the following alternative explanation: Paul, in verses 20-28 gives an explanation for why the resurrection had to occur: to overcome death and all evil. He does this by starting with Adam, and ending with the destruction of the last enemy: death. Psalms 110 was likely a very well-known Messianic psalm. The whole concept of a Messiah was that of a ruler who eventually enables Jerusalem to overcome its enemies and rule the world. While I argue above that Paul didn’t have 110 in mind, these verses show that he was well aware of the relationship between resurrection and God’s subjecting all things under his feet. So, for Paul this was a natural way to explain the meaning of the resurrection. We find this also in Ephesians, and in Peter’s first speech in Acts. It was common in the thinking of the time.

In Mark, Jesus doesn’t segue from discussing the resurrection to the eventual destruction of the enemy, but the theme was thick in the air. He was being challenged by his enemies from all sides. They had just tried to arrest him in Mark 12:12 after he told the parable about the wicked tenants, which included a reference to their future destruction. So, following the great commandment discussion, and the verse ending “and after that no one dared to ask him any question�, it was Jesus’ turn. His own destruction and the destruction of his enemies was ever present in his mind. With all of these things going on, he brought up a very appropriate test for them with the popular Messianic passage found in Psalms 110. The purpose wasn’t in order to discuss the destruction of the enemy, but to confound the enemy (scribes). However, it also included a warning to them of their own destruction! Was this inspired by Paul? I see no need for it to have been. I consider it a likely coincidence given the reasonable alternative explanation provided by the environment present at the time. It is reasonable that his thoughts about his enemies and testing his enemies converged with a test using a known Messianic passage that happened to refer to their destruction!


4. Is the claim regarding the use of scriptures a sign of knowledge of Paul?

You say that the centerpiece of the chiasm is Mark 12:24 and that it can be tied to Paul because the author of Mark “uses the “Scriptures� in a way that does not seem to refer to the Old Testament�, and that “he is referring to the Pauline Corpus�. I really just don’t understand that at all. Where does Mark refer to Scriptures that aren’t in the Old Testament? He was asked a question based on a teaching of Moses, and he gave an answer based on the “book of Moses�. How much clearer need it be that Jesus WAS referring to the Old Testament, and not Paul’s only vaguely connection writings? I don’t think this holds water at all. Plus, Jesus refers to their ignorance of the scriptures in 12:10, yet you don't appear to take that into consideration when calling 12:24 the center of the chiasm. As such, the “joke� or whatever it is you are speculating Mark was making on his readers and which in 2000 years since then only you have figured out IMO is a just another product of your overly creative imagination.



5. If Mark did use Paul, what are the implications?


Let’s just say you are correct in your assessment of the likelihood that Mark used Paul. What does that imply?

First, I think it implies that Mark was one very weird dude. To get a kick out of constructing such an elaborate chiasm connected to Paul without anyone being able to figure it out until now, would indeed be something that only a literary genius who is also very strange would do. I think this is very unlikely.

In the event of this unlikelihood, however, knowledge of Paul still need not require fiction inspired by Paul. If Mark was such a genius, he well could have just picked out the references in Paul that reminded him of things he had heard about Jesus, and so instead of writing 30 conversations Jesus had within a few days, he wrote 3 or 4 which Paul’s writings prompted.



Conclusion

For us to conclude that Mark used Paul we would need to see unusual connections and patterns with Paul’s material to Mark’s. Mark doesn’t quote anything unusual from any of the alleged 6 passages from Paul. The connections are either non-existent (Rom 8:31) or very weak given the subject matter and lack of telltale signs. However, there are two patterns that I do find, but IMO with better alternative explanations: The connection between obeying the govt and loving one’s neighbor can easily be explained by the contexts in which they were written as general topics regarding character. The connection between the resurrection and the destruction of the enemy is a natural one which we see Jesus had plenty of reasons to make without any need for a reminder from Paul. Finally, the centerpiece verse which is supposed to tie it all together is most likely a reference to the Old Testament and not to Paul’s “scriptures�.

Michael, I think this is yet another example of your very creative imagination at work to find things that aren’t there by stressing any connections that might exist as much as possible and ignoring the missing links and more reasonable explanations for the connections you find. With the thousands of possible chiasm combinations one can come up with it isn’t surprising that you can find some things that look like real chiasms, but that simply aren’t. Of course, I may not be as insightful as you and Mark, and you could be right but it looks to me like your efforts to save us from the deception of communistic fundamentalism only in your own Beautiful Mind.

ted