Mark and Paul.

[Ben C. Smith]

As several on this forum have pointed out, Mark seems to know and use Paul at various points. I know there are arguments and opinions to the contrary, and I know that some of the perceived parallels are quite strained, but others appear to me to be stronger.

I want your opinions on a matter that I have been thinking of for some time. Paul appears to regard Jesus as the preexistent son of God; that is, Jesus was already the son of God before he was made manifest in the likeness of flesh (Romans 8.3, for instance). But Mark is pretty easy to read as separationist or adoptionist, by which logic Jesus would be an ordinary man who was invested with filial and divine power at his baptism, and I do not think Mark hints at preexistence (if he does, please let me know what I have missed). This seems to be a step backward, Christologically speaking, does it not? My question is, if Mark respected Paul enough to use his works as often laid out on this forum, why does he seem to disagree on so basic a topic as the very nature of Jesus Christ?

I have been experimenting with answers to this question, but I want all the input I can get. Thanks in advance.

Ben.

[Secret Alias]

The first point to make is to abide by the earliest statement of (heretical) exgesis of the gospel of Mark. Does Paul really say that Jesus was the pre-existent son of God or rather (as I would have it) Christ (or Chrestos however you read the nomen sacrum)? One should be careful not to make unforced errors right out of the starting gate. If you are going to compare exegeses abide by the proper terminologies and distinctions.

[Charles Wilson]

...but I want all the input I can get. Thanks in advance.

Be careful what you ask for.

1. I want to apologize a bit for pressing a little stronger than I usually do in an adjacent Thread. The response you gave, however, was most interesting:

I for one am not for treating the narrative as historical, even in kernal. It is literary, it is theological, and it is storytelling.

If the Time Line is "Paul" and then the Gospels, you have a difficult problem. What Criteria do you use to distinguish between Theological Story Telling and, for lack of a better term, a Real Event? "Revelation Trumps Experience". Any "Story" in Mark must conform in the end with "Paul". The End.

You have already determined that what I have to offer is a Non-Starter. That's OK. What Criteria do you use here?

2. Mark 1: 8 (RSV):

[8] I have baptized you with water; but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

Whatever is going on, the Holy Spirit is Pre-Existent. Another huge problem. Remember Acts. "We didn't even know that there WAS a Baptism of the Holy Spirit... YIKES!"

I have offered a solution but it doesn't rise to the level of a Truth to you.

3. Ben: I appreciate where you are going. Keep up the good work.

CW

[Nathan]

... Mark is pretty easy to read as separationist or adoptionist, by which logic Jesus would be an ordinary man who was invested with filial and divine power at his baptism, and I do not think Mark hints at preexistence (if he does, please let me know what I have missed).

I tend not to read Mark as adoptionist, but instead supporting (albeit minimally) the notion of Jesus' preexistence.

For one thing, the demons in Mark seem to be well aware of Jesus' identity long before anyone else, such as the demon of Mark 1:24, who says: "I know who you are—the Holy one of God!" or the one(s) at 5:7: "What business do we have with each other, Jesus, son of the Most High God?"

Then there's Jesus' statement at 3:27: "But no one can enter the strong man's house and plunder his property unless he first binds the strong man, and then he will plunder his house." Of course, the strong man of the parable is Satan, and the house, apparently, the world. If it is Jesus, then, who is "enter[ing] the strong man's house," logically he would be doing so from outside the house—that is to say, from outside the world, suggesting (to me) his preexistence.

[maryhelena]

As several on this forum have pointed out, Mark seems to know and use Paul at various points. I know there are arguments and opinions to the contrary, and I know that some of the perceived parallels are quite strained, but others appear to me to be stronger.

I want your opinions on a matter that I have been thinking of for some time. Paul appears to regard Jesus as the preexistent son of God; that is, Jesus was already the son of God before he was made manifest in the likeness of flesh (Romans 8.3, for instance). But Mark is pretty easy to read as separationist or adoptionist, by which logic Jesus would be an ordinary man who was invested with filial and divine power at his baptism, and I do not think Mark hints at preexistence (if he does, please let me know what I have missed). This seems to be a step backward, Christologically speaking, does it not? My question is, if Mark respected Paul enough to use his works as often laid out on this forum, why does he seem to disagree on so basic a topic as the very nature of Jesus Christ?

I have been experimenting with answers to this question, but I want all the input I can get. Thanks in advance.

Ben.

From an ahistoricist perspective: It's an issue of focus. Paul's Jesus and Mark's Jesus focus on completely different aspects of human nature. Mark's adoptionist Jesus is focused on flesh, on the physical reality of our fleshly bodies. That focus is on community, society and history. Paul's Jesus is a christological construct. His Jesus is focused on intellectual reality, theology, philosophy etc. Yes, both aspects of our human nature interact. Thus, aspects of Mark's Jesus appear in Paul (Jesus had flesh) and aspects of Paul's writings appear in Mark*.The primary focus of both Paul and Mark remains - i.e. one is earthly and the other is spiritual/philosophical. Context matters. In this case not one but two very different contexts. Interaction but also tension. Adoption vs preexistence require two contexts in order for the contradiction to be resolved. Two Jesus figures, as it were, to depict, to reflect the two aspects of our human nature.

Therefore, two messiah figures in the NT. The main focus of the gospel messiah, the Joseph type messiah, is that this figure will bring benefits, healing and social upliftment to society. The main focus of the Pauline messiah figure, a Davidic type messiah, is that this figure will fight the spiritual fight against intellectual enslavement (i.e.ideas enslave as well as liberate.) 2 Cor.10: 3-5. Overlapping at times but clear focus retained within the two contexts.

If a connection between Mark and Paul is sustainable - then, perhaps, it is Matthew rather than Mark that is the first of the canonical gospels.....or............... the Paul figure is very early. NT Paul re Thomas Brodie is a literary construct. Perhaps, historically, a pre 70 and a post 70 'Paul' fused into the NT Paul figure...)


* Mark Canonizer of Paul: A New Look at Intertextuality in Mark's Gospel: Tom Dykstra

[Giuseppe]

Mark was introducing "another Jesus" (see 2 Cor 11:4) knowing that it was not precisely stricto sensu the same Jesus of Paul (a celestial Jesus) because his goal was to show that the Pillars met "another" Jesus and were therefore unworthy of claiming knowledge of the TRUE Jesus (a privilege now only of Paul). Therefore the apparent oddity between the pre-existent Jesus of Paul and the adoptionistic Jesus of the Pauline Mark is expected when seen basically as an anti-Pillars move by Mark.
This hypothesis explains also the (otherwise strange) absence of a character named Paul in Mark (apart from the presence of Paul behind the mustard seed).

The point of Mark is: who met an earthly Jesus is condemned to not-knowledge of the celestial Jesus.

[Bernard Muller]

My question is, if Mark respected Paul enough to use his works as often laid out on this forum, why does he seem to disagree on so basic a topic as the very nature of Jesus Christ?

I think "Mark" wrote his gospel for a community which had been subjected to many apostles, some of them rejecting the pre-existence of Jesus. "Mark" had to take that in account. His gospel seems to be adoptionist but it does not close the door to the possibility of pre-existence.
Later gLuke & GMatthew (but not gMarcion) also do not claim pre-existence but rather deny it through the godly conception. I think that godly conception was a compromise between "Son of God" as just a title and a pre-existent Deity (as for Paul).
At the end of the 1st century, the pre-existence was also rejected by Ebionites & Cerinthus, and probably by most Jewish Christians.

Cordially, Bernard

[andrewcriddle]

It partly depends on which Pauline letters Mark knew.

If he only knew the early Paulines (Galatians Corinthians Romans Thessalonians) he may not have seen Paul as teaching preexistence.

Andrew Criddle

[Ben C. Smith]

Good point. Which epistles Mark knew might well make a difference.

[Secret Alias]

I don't know if that is such a brilliant point Andrew. Is there any solid evidence that the individual letters existed "unbundled" anywhere in the world at any time? The Ignatian canon is artificially bound. The letters never existed independent of the bound canon. Same for Paul I suspect.