Doubts about some Mark's passages being really of a pauline Mark

[Giuseppe]

• The episode of Syro-Phoenician woman: could a pauline Mark accept that the gentiles were called little dogs? Please don't talk me about "little dogs" being less offensive than "dogs".

• The episode of the Possessed Gerasene: he is clearly a Judaizing parody of Paul. Not even of the historical Paul. But of the mere 100% legend of Paul the Persecutor (the related passages in Galatians 1 are clearly interpolated beyond any reasonable doubt).
  Could a pauline Mark accept that legend?

• The episode of the mother of the wife of Peter: could a pauline Mark accept that only Peter had a woman serving him at table? When there are no marriages at all in heaven?

Conclusion:
I doubt more and more about an absolute textual integrity of our Mark.

[neilgodfrey]

• The episode of Syro-Phoenician woman: could a pauline Mark accept that the gentiles were called little dogs? Please don't talk me about "little dogs" being less offensive than "dogs".

. . . .

Conclusion:
I doubt more and more about an absolute textual integrity of our Mark.

Paul Nadim Tarazi in The New Testament: An Introduction: Paul and Mark.( 1999) writes, page 104 ...

The Final Break with Jerusalem

Romans contained an open invitation to James and Jerusalem to endorse the sole gospel of salvation, Paul’s gospel, in order to avoid being cut off from the olive tree of the fathers and remain instead part of the “remnant, himself grace” of which Paul himself is the prototype.15 Negative remarks about Jews in Philippians constitute clear signs that the offer was declined. They are addressed as “dogs” (3:2), a term used in Judaism to refer to Gentiles as outsiders.16 By not accepting the gospel, which is God’s word, James and his followers have been cut off from the olive tree;18 they are the “enemies of God”19 because they are “enemies of the cross of Christ” (3:18). On the other hand, Gentiles who accepted the gospel have been grafted into the same olive tree and thus are “the true circumcision, who worship God in spirit, and glory in Christ Jesus, and put no confidence in the flesh” (3:3). They are the true citizens of the “heavenly” city of God (3:20).

15 See comments on Rom 11.
16 See Mk 7:27-28//Mt 15:26-27; Mt 7:6; Rev 22:15.
17 See Rom 1:1-4.
18 Nowadays many Christians as well as Jews are scandalized by this terminology. The reason is that both, each in their own way, consider that they are God’s Israel by the mere fact that they are Jews or Christians. This was not how people thought in the first century and it does not reflect the viewpoint expressed in scripture (see, e.g., Ezek 20:33-40). The Essenes and the Pharisees did not consider other first century Jews to be members of God’s Israel; hence Paul’s expression “the Israel of God” in Gal 6:16 (see Gal 326-7).
19 Rom 11:28.
20 See also Gal 4:24-27.

[Giuseppe]

The fact that in Phil 3:2 the gentiles are addressed as dogs, see also 1 Cor 15:32:

What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”

...frankly, only moves me to consider the Syro-Phoenician episode as even more anti-gentile and anti-pauline.

[Giuseppe]

Paul Nadim Tarazi in The New Testament: An Introduction: Paul and Mark.( 1999) writes, page 104 ...

Do you suggest the reading of this book to one like me having already read Dykstra and Adamczewski about Mark as pauline gospel?

[neilgodfrey]

Paul Nadim Tarazi in The New Testament: An Introduction: Paul and Mark.( 1999) writes, page 104 ...

Do you suggest the reading of this book to one like me having already read Dykstra and Adamczewski about Mark as pauline gospel?

I am sure you are very well read. I was simply attempting to post a note that the use of "dogs" to refer to gentiles is understood as not necessarily inconsistent with Mark being a Pauline gospel.

I myself have no dog in the fight.

I thought if you were aware of that Pauline interpretation you would be better prepared to strengthen your own argument.