RE: Carlson post on Pauline Influence in Mark
- Stephen Carlson drew our attention to a quotation of
Joel Marcus as it appears in NTS 46 473-487. I was
able to find this online at
Claiming that Mark is a Paulinist does not require
that he agree with Paul about everything, and
plausible reasons can be advanced for a later
Paulinist wanting to write the story of the earthly
Jesus. Martin Werner's assertion that the agreements
between Mark and Paul reflect general early Christian
viewpoints is not valid with regard to the theology of
the cross, which was a controversial Pauline emphasis
and a stress that the later Gospels attenuated in
editing Mark. Contrary to Werner, Mark and Paul agree
in ascribing Jesus' death to a combination of human
and demonic opponents.
fn1 The title, of course, plays upon Papias's famous
description of Mark as the interpreter of Peter
(Eusebius, E.H. 3.39.15). There may be something to
the suggestion of Rudolf Pesch, Das Markusevangelium
(HTKNT 2; Freiburg: Herder, 1976) 1.89, that Papias's
description, like the pseudonymous ascription of 1
Peter to Peter, is an attempt to reconcile the Pauline
and Petrine wings of the church by attributing to
Peter a work that highlights Pauline theology.
I bring this article back to your attention because of
the note that went along with the quotation. Some time
ago I suggested that it was in the interest of the
dominant Cephas faction which had borrowed so heavily
from the text of Mark to claim that the Gospel of Mark
also came from Peter.
Thank you Stephen for bringing this article to our
attention. I was aware that long ago Gustav Volmar
made the claim that Mark was an allegorical
presentation of the teaching of Paul but did not no of
the work by Rudolf Pesch.
Rick Richmond rickr2889@...
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around