Mark as an introduction to Galatians...

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
rgprice
Posts: 1281
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Mark as an introduction to Galatians...

Post by rgprice »

Despite all manner of claims about other Gospels being the first, I'm increasingly convinced that Mark, or rather proto-Mark, was the first.

Most notably, I think that the ending of Mark was meant to lead directly into Galatians.

Mark 16:
6 And he *said to them, “Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him. 7 But go, tell His disciples and PeterPaul, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’” 8 They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

From BeDuhn with my modifications:
1 Paul, an emissary, not from human beings nor
through a human being, but through Jesus Christos . . .
2 [. . . to the assemblies of Galatia—]
3 (May there be) favor and peace for you from God our
Father and Master Jesus. . . .
6 I am amazed that you are deserting so quickly from
the one who called you with favor (over) to a different
proclamation. 7 There is no other in accord with my proclamation,
except there are certain people who are disturbing
you and wishing to change (it) into a different proclamation
of the Christos. 8 But even if we or an angel from (the)
celestial sphere were to proclaim to you (something) else
than what we have proclaimed to you, may that one be
damned. 9. . . If one of you proclaims (something) else
than [that which you received, may that one be damned.]
[11For I inform you, (my) colleagues, that the proclamation
which was proclaimed by me is not according to
a human being; 12 for neither did I receive it at the hands
of a human being, nor was I taught (it), except through
a revelation from Jesus Christos. 13 For you heard about
my conduct formerly in Judaism, that I excessively] persecuted
[the assembly of God and sought to destroy it
, fervently perused the assembly of God
14 and I was exceeding in Judaism many of my peers among
my people, being overly zealous for the traditions of my
ancestors.

15 But when God, who had separated me from my
mother’s womb and called (me) through his favor,
thought (it) good 16 to reveal his child in me, so that I
might proclaim him among the nations, I did not present
myself immediately to flesh and blood, 17 neither did I go
up into Jerusalem to] those who were emissaries before
me,

The women run away scared, leaving Paul as the only figure who actually reveals the risen Jesus.

Mark is a Pesher on Kings and the Prophets, relating the fall of the First Temple to the fall of the Second Temple. The figure of Jesus is based on Paul, pre-figuring Paul's teachings, presenting Paul's teachings as the correct interpretation of the scriptures, against the Temple priesthood. That the Temple priesthood's understanding of the scriptures was wrong is evidenced by the fact that the Temple was destroyed.

Mark's Gospel is really the only Gospel that does this and it is really the only Gospel that directly interacts with the Pauline letter collection. That, again, is why it has to be the first.
dbz
Posts: 144
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:48 am

Re: Mark as an introduction to Galatians...

Post by dbz »

Then I expect the no-longer-extant autograph MS of Galatians to of touched on the coming END per first-god and the rescue mission of the redeemer second-god.

This would mean Paul is an apocalyptic thinker according to Martyn and de Boer contra:
  • Dunne, J. (2015). Suffering and covenantal hope in Galatians: A critique of the ‘apocalyptic reading’ and its proponents. Scottish Journal of Theology, 68(1), 1-15. doi:10.1017/S0036930614000866
Abstract

This article addresses the so-called ‘apocalyptic reading of Paul’, taking the representative work of J. Louis Martyn and Martinus C. de Boer as its primary focus. The chief contention is that the ‘apocalyptic reading’ does not resemble the historical phenomenon of Jewish apocalyptic literature, although the scope of this article has been intentionally limited to Galatians. The present study is composed of two halves. The first half offers a critique of what it means for Paul to be an apocalyptic thinker according to Martyn and de Boer. Their emphasis is on discontinuity, duality and dichotomy, which coheres neither with first-century apocalyptic literature and its antecedents, nor with the letter to the Galatians. Their nuanced notion of apocalyptic has led to an unnecessary bifurcation between apocalyptic and covenant (not to mention Heilsgeschichte) in the interpretation of Paul. However, this article suggests that the dichotomy has been misplaced, both in relation to the discontinuity that Paul does articulate (i.e. with the law), and the dichotomy reflected in apocalyptic literature, namely, the division between the present evil age and the glorious age to come. Thus, it is argued that Martyn and de Boer's focus on discontinuity hardly constitutes apocalyptic in a first-century historical sense. Rather, their specific emphasis owes its articulation to the theology of Karl Barth. After arguing that the ‘apocalyptic reading’ lacks historical precision (and possibly theological forthrightness), the second half of the study argues that some neglected features of Galatians, such as suffering and persecution, cohere with the apocalyptic character of the letter, and are common features of apocalyptic broadly. In fact, the division between apocalyptic and covenant in scholarship on Galatians is bridged by the themes of conflict and crisis. This is because apocalyptic hope often arises in the absence of the realisation of covenantal promises and expectations; a covenantal disconnect is created and aggravated by crises and hardships of various sorts, hence the need for apocalyptic hope. Suffering therefore ties together the strands of apocalyptic and covenant in Galatians. If Martyn and de Boer's ‘apocalyptic reading’ was truly apocalyptic in a first-century historical sense, it would have integrated the imagery of suffering and persecution found in the letter.
rgprice
Posts: 1281
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Mark as an introduction to Galatians...

Post by rgprice »

dbz wrote: Sun Jan 15, 2023 10:09 am Then I expect the no-longer-extant autograph MS of Galatians to of touched on the coming END per first-god and the rescue mission of the redeemer second-god.
No.

I think the understanding of Mark I laid out in the OP is decisive.

Mark is first.

Mark is the earliest witness to the Pauline letter collection.

Mark knows only the 7 authentic letters of Paul.

Mark's interpretation of the Pauline letter collection is original and correct.

Mark is written as an introduction of the 7 authentic letters of Paul, starting with Galatians.

Mark is not Gnostic or proto-Gnostic.

To the 7 authentic letters Colossians and Laodiceans were added by proto-Gnostics. Most likely Colossians and Laodiceans were written before Mark, but just held by a different Pauline community than the community in which Mark was produced.

The Gospel used by Marcion was produced by that proto-Gnostic sect, or actually I think it most likely that what was produced from Mark was actually proto-Luke and that Marcion redacted proto-Luke, which is Luke 3-23.5. The Marcionites did redact "Luke", just not canonical Luke, they redacted proto-Luke. They removed the genealogy from proto-Luke and a few minor things from Luke 3-6.

Proto-Luke adds material and teachings from the proto-Gnostic sect in accordance with Colossians and Laodiceans.

When you look at the material added to Mark by proto-Luke: the Sermon the Plain, the Beatitudes, the Lord's Prayer, etc., all of this corresponds to material in Colossians and Laodiceans.

Colossians and Laodiceans are sermons/prayer guides. The 7 authentic letters are not. The addition of forged sermons/prayer guides to the Pauline letter collection corresponds to the addition of new sermons/prayer guide material to Mark's original Gospel by the same community that produced Colossians and Laodiceans.

This shows #1 that Marcion's Pauline letter collection is the one that held the correct order of the Pauline letters, starting with Galatians. We know Galatians is supposed to be first because Mark depends on Galatians being first. We also know that Colossians and Laodiceans were added after the creation of Mark. Thus, we also know that the orthodox letter collection is derived from Marcion's because it contains Colossians and Laodiceans/Ephesians, the proto-Gnostic forgeries.

Importantly, the proto-Gnostics were not Gnostics. But they did have a different theology than Paul and the writer of Mark. #1 they viewed the kingdom of Christ as being present on earth now. They put a greater emphasis on the Spirit and on Jesus as a revealer of mysteries.

Proto-Luke was more suitable for Marcion's theology than Mark, because according to Marcion, Jesus had to reveal the presence of the true Father. As such, Jesus had to be a teacher and he had to reveal mysteries. This is why Marcion used the proto-Lukan collection instead of the Markan collection. In Mark Jesus can't possibly reveal the existence of the Father because Jesus is inscrutable. Mark's Jesus is totally unsuitable to Marcion because Mark's Jesus doesn't reveal anything. He's an opaque enigma that everyone misunderstood. But in proto-Luke Jesus teaches people about the Father, how to address him, how to live in his kingdom, etc. That's what Marcion needed - a Jesus that revealed the Father.

But, in proto-Luke the Father that is being revealed is the Jewish God, who is really primarily being revealed to Gentiles, at least to a Gentile readership. The Father in proto-Luke is being revealed to people who don't know him, but the people who don't know him are Gentiles. But Marcion interprets this as a Father who was unknown entirely to all of humanity, which was not the intention.

Marcion redacts proto-Luke, removing the genealogy to Adam, and largely accepts the rest, making minimal, if any, changes to the letters.

Also note that Luke is mentioned in Colossians, where he is called a Physician. Certainly the association of the Gospel with the name Luke was made by this community. Thus proto-Luke was probably known as having been written "Luke". Thus Marcion redacted "Luke", but it was proto-Luke, not canonical Luke.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 2777
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Mark as an introduction to Galatians...

Post by mlinssen »

rgprice wrote: Sat Jan 14, 2023 4:35 pm Despite all manner of claims about other Gospels being the first, I'm increasingly convinced that Mark, or rather proto-Mark, was the first.

Most notably, I think that the ending of Mark was meant to lead directly into Galatians.

Mark 16:
6 And he *said to them, “Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him. 7 But go, tell His disciples and PeterPaul, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’” 8 They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

From BeDuhn with my modifications:
1 Paul, an emissary, not from human beings nor
through a human being, but through Jesus Christos . . .
2 [. . . to the assemblies of Galatia—]
3 (May there be) favor and peace for you from God our
Father and Master Jesus. . . .
6 I am amazed that you are deserting so quickly from
the one who called you with favor (over) to a different
proclamation. 7 There is no other in accord with my proclamation,
except there are certain people who are disturbing
you and wishing to change (it) into a different proclamation
of the Christos. 8 But even if we or an angel from (the)
celestial sphere were to proclaim to you (something) else
than what we have proclaimed to you, may that one be
damned. 9. . . If one of you proclaims (something) else
than [that which you received, may that one be damned.]
[11For I inform you, (my) colleagues, that the proclamation
which was proclaimed by me is not according to
a human being; 12 for neither did I receive it at the hands
of a human being, nor was I taught (it), except through
a revelation from Jesus Christos. 13 For you heard about
my conduct formerly in Judaism, that I excessively] persecuted
[the assembly of God and sought to destroy it
, fervently perused the assembly of God
14 and I was exceeding in Judaism many of my peers among
my people, being overly zealous for the traditions of my
ancestors.

15 But when God, who had separated me from my
mother’s womb and called (me) through his favor,
thought (it) good 16 to reveal his child in me, so that I
might proclaim him among the nations, I did not present
myself immediately to flesh and blood, 17 neither did I go
up into Jerusalem to] those who were emissaries before
me,

The women run away scared, leaving Paul as the only figure who actually reveals the risen Jesus.

Mark is a Pesher on Kings and the Prophets, relating the fall of the First Temple to the fall of the Second Temple. The figure of Jesus is based on Paul, pre-figuring Paul's teachings, presenting Paul's teachings as the correct interpretation of the scriptures, against the Temple priesthood. That the Temple priesthood's understanding of the scriptures was wrong is evidenced by the fact that the Temple was destroyed.

Mark's Gospel is really the only Gospel that does this and it is really the only Gospel that directly interacts with the Pauline letter collection. That, again, is why it has to be the first.
I certainly don't object to Mark preceding Paul - Paul isn't attested to until very late by either the Patristics as well as manuscripts discovered.
But to assert that hence Mark precedes all other texts such as e.g. John, "Marcion" and Thomas, needs a little bit more argumentation
dbz
Posts: 144
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:48 am

Re: Mark as an introduction to Galatians...

Post by dbz »

rgprice wrote: Tue Jan 17, 2023 2:52 am
dbz wrote: Sun Jan 15, 2023 10:09 am Then I expect the no-longer-extant autograph MS of Galatians to of touched on the coming END per first-god and the rescue mission of the redeemer second-god.
No.

I think the understanding of Mark I laid out in the OP is decisive.

[...]

Mark is not Gnostic or proto-Gnostic.
Does that imply:
  • Mark is not .. Marcionite or middle platonic?
Mark redacts Marcion’s Gospel and gets rid of the antithesis of Christianity and Judaism, although he still shows and maintains a number of other Marcionite features.
Vinzent (17 November 2014). “What is the relation between Mark, ‘canonizer of Paul’, and Marcion’s Gospel?”. Markus Vinzent’s Blog.
Given that multiple chronologically disparate Pauls exist! Which is not noted by Walsh as far as I know:
  • Walsh also argues that Paul uses “middle platonic” philosophy.
Cf. Walsh, Robyn Faith (2021). The Origins of Early Christian Literature: Contextualizing the New Testament within Greco-Roman Literary Culture. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-83530-5. (Middle Platonism & Paul the Apostle: pp. 7, 126, 192)
schillingklaus
Posts: 583
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2021 11:17 pm

Re: Mark as an introduction to Galatians...

Post by schillingklaus »

Markan Prioritism is once more the broad way to error, and mainline schiolars like RG Price are irreversibly bound for it. The same goes for the ideology of a historical Paul writing authentic epistles.

Others know that Mk is late anti-gnostic piecemeal, as is everything in the new Testament. Further, many passages of Mt and Lk are logically earlier than their parallels or absence of these in Mk.

Paul did not use anything for he is a hallucination of patrists. Lots of middle-platonic stuff has found its way into what is falsely called Pauline epistles.
rgprice
Posts: 1281
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Mark as an introduction to Galatians...

Post by rgprice »

Once we realize that Mark was written as an introduction to the Pauline letters, meant to be followed directly by Galatians, so many things fall into place and make sense.

Firstly the title of the work: "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ"

This is the "beginning" of the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is the gospel that Paul preached. This is the beginning, Paul is the continuation. Galatians 1 opens with Paul's defense of his gospel.

In Galatians 1 we read:

6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

10 For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.

11 For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

This is why Mark works so hard to discredit Peter, James and John.

From BeDuhn:
Galatians 2:
9[And when they came to know the favor that
was given me], Peter and Jacob and John . . . gave me the
right hand [of partnership], so that we (were assigned) to
the nations, while they (were assigned) to those who are
circumcised—10(with) only (the condition) that we should
keep the poor in mind.

BeDuhn notes that the order of the names in Marcion's Galatians was "Peter, James, John", while in the orthodox it is "James, Peter, John".

Mark 5:
35 While He was still speaking, they *came from the house of the synagogue official, saying, “Your daughter has died; why trouble the Teacher anymore?” 36 But Jesus, overhearing what was being spoken, *said to the synagogue official, “Do not be afraid any longer, only believe.” 37 And He allowed no one to accompany Him, except Peter and James and John the brother of James.

But are Peter, James and John to be trusted? Not hardly. Despite knowing Jesus before Paul, they failed to understand Jesus.

Mark 8:
29 And He continued by questioning them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered and said to Him, “You are the Christ.” 30 And He warned them to tell no one about Him.

31 And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. 32 And He was stating the matter plainly. And Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. 33 But turning around and seeing His disciples, He rebuked Peter and said, “Get behind Me, Satan; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s.”

34 And He summoned the crowd with His disciples, and said to them, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. 35 For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it.


Galatians 2:
11 But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. 13 The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in the presence of all, “If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?


Galatians 6:
14 But may it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.


Philippians 1:
20 It is my eager expectation and hope that I will not be put to shame in any way, but that by my speaking with all boldness, Christ will be exalted now as always in my body, whether by life or by death. 21 For to me, living is Christ and dying is gain. 22 If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me; and I do not know which
I prefer.


Mark 10:
41 Hearing this, the ten began to feel indignant with James and John. 42 Calling them to Himself, Jesus said to them, “You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them. 43 But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; 44 and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”


1 Corinthians 9:
19 For though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them.

So in Mark we find that the "supposed" pillars really aren't so great after all. They abandoned the Lord Jesus Christ and were not witness to his crucifixion. They failed to understand the message of Christ. Paul, however, is the one to whom the risen Christ was revealed, no one else.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 12071
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Mark as an introduction to Galatians...

Post by Giuseppe »

How can the Pauline epistles explain the Mark's reverence for the figure of John the Baptist?

Paul didn't even know the man. How could a radical Paulinist (as "Mark" was, in your scenario), praise a such enigmatic figure?
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 866
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Mark as an introduction to Galatians...

Post by Irish1975 »

RGP—

I’m having a hard time following your reasons for the interpretation you propose. I hope the following comments can serve as constructive criticism.
rgprice wrote: Sat Jan 14, 2023 4:35 pm Despite all manner of claims about other Gospels being the first, I'm increasingly convinced that Mark, or rather proto-Mark, was the first.

Most notably, I think that the ending of Mark was meant to lead directly into Galatians.
Meant by whom? Are you hypothesizing, for example, an original but lost collection like that of Marcion, but with your proto-Mark instead of The Evangelion?

Mark 16:
6 And he *said to them, “Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him. 7 But go, tell His disciples and PeterPaul, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’” 8 They went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had gripped them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

From BeDuhn with my modifications:
1 Paul, an emissary, not from human beings nor
through a human being, but through Jesus Christos . . .
2 [. . . to the assemblies of Galatia—]
3 (May there be) favor and peace for you from God our
Father and Master Jesus. . . .
6 I am amazed that you are deserting so quickly from
the one who called you with favor (over) to a different
proclamation. 7 There is no other in accord with my proclamation,
except there are certain people who are disturbing
you and wishing to change (it) into a different proclamation
of the Christos. 8 But even if we or an angel from (the)
celestial sphere were to proclaim to you (something) else
than what we have proclaimed to you, may that one be
damned. 9. . . If one of you proclaims (something) else
than [that which you received, may that one be damned.]
[11For I inform you, (my) colleagues, that the proclamation
which was proclaimed by me is not according to
a human being; 12 for neither did I receive it at the hands
of a human being, nor was I taught (it), except through
a revelation from Jesus Christos. 13 For you heard about
my conduct formerly in Judaism, that I excessively] persecuted
[the assembly of God and sought to destroy it
, fervently perused the assembly of God
14 and I was exceeding in Judaism many of my peers among
my people, being overly zealous for the traditions of my
ancestors.

15 But when God, who had separated me from my
mother’s womb and called (me) through his favor,
thought (it) good 16 to reveal his child in me, so that I
might proclaim him among the nations, I did not present
myself immediately to flesh and blood, 17 neither did I go
up into Jerusalem to] those who were emissaries before
me,

The women run away scared, leaving Paul as the only figure who actually reveals the risen Jesus.

Mark is a Pesher on Kings and the Prophets, relating the fall of the First Temple to the fall of the Second Temple. The figure of Jesus is based on Paul, pre-figuring Paul's teachings, presenting Paul's teachings as the correct interpretation of the scriptures, against the Temple priesthood. That the Temple priesthood's understanding of the scriptures was wrong is evidenced by the fact that the Temple was destroyed.
I don’t understand what I am supposed to conclude from the juxtaposition of texts. Your interpolation of the name “Paul” into the text of Mark is baffling.
Mark's Gospel is really the only Gospel that does this and it is really the only Gospel that directly interacts with the Pauline letter collection. That, again, is why it has to be the first.
I grant that Mark shows a lot of Pauline themes, and likely influences. But I do not see that it “directly interacts with the Pauline letter collection,” or at least not any more than gMarcion or gLuke. One can easily find parallels or common themes there as well. For example, 10:21 (things hidden from the learned and intelligent, but revealed to little children) is a parallel with the Pauline discourse in 1 Cor 1:18ff of worldly wisdom as ignorance, while foolishness is the true spriritual wisdom.
rgprice wrote: Tue Jan 17, 2023 2:52 am
I think the understanding of Mark I laid out in the OP is decisive.

Mark is first.
First in what way? What you are suggesting in relation to Paul doesn’t warrant a blanket conclusion about Markan priority to other Gospels.
Mark is the earliest witness to the Pauline letter collection.
False, if taken literally.
Mark knows only the 7 authentic letters of Paul.

Mark's interpretation of the Pauline letter collection is original and correct.

Mark is written as an introduction of the 7 authentic letters of Paul, starting with Galatians.
“The 7 authentic letters” are a construct of modern criticism, analogous to “Q.” And I have no idea what would count as a “correct” interpretation of Paul’s letters. Again, I don’t see the connection to Mark.

So the suggestion that Mark was “written as an introduction” to Pauline writings is ungrounded, unsubstantiated, and generally puzzling. FWIW, if this proto-Mark is anything like as ambitious a text as canonical Mark, the notion of it as an actual “introduction” to some other texts, even to Pauline writings, is hard to take seriously.

The comments that followed did not clarify anything for me, because I’m already so disoriented.
rgprice
Posts: 1281
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Mark as an introduction to Galatians...

Post by rgprice »

Irish1975 wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 9:30 am Meant by whom? Are you hypothesizing, for example, an original but lost collection like that of Marcion, but with your proto-Mark instead of The Evangelion?
Yes, that what Marcion published was a secondary expansion/revision of the original collection, which was Mark followed by the (six or seven) authentic letters only.

This collection was received by a Pauline community that had additional letters in Paul's name - Colossians and Laodiceans. They added those letters to the collection and then also revised Mark's Gospel to reflect in the teachings of their community, reflected in Colossians and Laodiceans.
I don’t understand what I am supposed to conclude from the juxtaposition of texts. Your interpolation of the name “Paul” into the text of Mark is baffling.
Mark ends on a cliff-hanger. The women run away terrified and tell nothing to anyone. There is no resolution. What happens next? The story is clearly "To be continued...". Where is the continuation? It is Galatians. Galatians is what happens next.

As for the change of Peter to Paul, Peter makes no sense on multiple levels. Firstly, Peter is a member of the disciples, so saying "Tell the disciples and Peter" is like saying, "I'm going to the store, tell your family and your dad to meet me there." That makes no sense because your dad is a part of your family, you don't need to name him in addition to saying "tell your family".

Secondly, the whole story has been working to discredit Peter. Jesus rebukes Peter, he calls him Satan, he knows that Peter will abandon him, Peter does abandon him, and does not witness the Crucifixion. Why, at this point, would the writer, after having worked so hard to discredit Peter, call Peter out as if he eager for him? He wouldn't.
I grant that Mark shows a lot of Pauline themes, and likely influences. But I do not see that it “directly interacts with the Pauline letter collection,” or at least not any more than gMarcion or gLuke. One can easily find parallels or common themes there as well. For example, 10:21 (things hidden from the learned and intelligent, but revealed to little children) is a parallel with the Pauline discourse in 1 Cor 1:18ff of worldly wisdom as ignorance, while foolishness is the true spriritual wisdom.
Indeed, both Mark and Marcion's Gospel or proto-Luke, from which canonical Luke is derived, incorporate material from the Pauline letters. The Pauline letter collection is in fact the source of the teachings and character of Jesus, both in Mark and in the additions made to Mark.

But only Mark has an ending that is deigned to lead the reader directly into Galatians. Galatians is, essentially, the "next chapter" of Mark. It is also only in Mark that we see direct allusions to Paul, as in the statement that the first among you shall be "slave of all", which is an explicit reference to Paul who identifies himself as a "slave to all".
First in what way? What you are suggesting in relation to Paul doesn’t warrant a blanket conclusion about Markan priority to other Gospels.

False, if taken literally.

“The 7 authentic letters” are a construct of modern criticism, analogous to “Q.” And I have no idea what would count as a “correct” interpretation of Paul’s letters. Again, I don’t see the connection to Mark.

So the suggestion that Mark was “written as an introduction” to Pauline writings is ungrounded, unsubstantiated, and generally puzzling. FWIW, if this proto-Mark is anything like as ambitious a text as canonical Mark, the notion of it as an actual “introduction” to some other texts, even to Pauline writings, is hard to take seriously.

The comments that followed did not clarify anything for me, because I’m already so disoriented.
The Gospel of Mark only refers to, by my count, 6 of the Pauline letters, all ones that are considered to be "authentic". By my analysis Mark refers to:
Galatians
1 Thessalonians
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Philippians
Romans

Something I didn't realize when I first made this assessment is that the only supposed letter of the 7 authentic letters that mentions Luke is Philemon, yet I find no references to Philemon in Mark. Maybe I've just missed it.

But, what is also interesting is that Luke is mentioned in Colossians. So, by my count, Mark refers to 6 Pauline letters, none of which mention Luke.

Thus, I consider Mark is being our earliest witness to a collection that contains:
Galatians
1 Thessalonians
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Philippians
Romans

We know that Marcion "published" a collection with a Gospel that looked more like Luke, followed by a collection Pauline letters that started with Galatians but also included 2 or 3 letters (Colossians, Laodiceans and Philemon?) not referenced in the Gospel of Mark.

What sets Colossians and Laodiceans apart from the rest of the Pauline letters, among other things, is their focus on sermons and prayer guides.

What sets "Luke"/Marcion's Gospel apart from Mark is its addition of sermons and prayer guides, such as the Sermon on the Plain and the Lord's Prayer, both of which very closely resemble the language of Colossians and Laodiceans.

The logical explanation is that a collection existed which consisted of Mark followed by the 6 or 7 "authentic" letters. That collection was appropriated by another Pauline community, or the same community later in time, in which sermons like those we find in Colossians and Laodiceans were given in Paul's name. That community adopted the collection and revised it by both adding Colossians and Laodiceans to the letter collection and revising the Gospel to have Jesus say the types of things that were a part of the sermons given in this community, again, such as we find in Colossians and Laodiceans.

So there was a story that introduced a Pauline letter collection, we call that story "The Gospel of Mark". Another Pauline community had additional "Pauline" letters and a different theology. When they received the original collection they updated it to reflect the teachings of their community. They understood that the Jesus of the story was being used to expound the teachings of the Pauline letters, so very likely the person who added the new letters to the collection also modified the story to reflect the content of those letters and of the community sermons mor broadly.

I doubt at this point that such a person was Marcion, though it could have been. It could also be some pre-Marcionite community. I suspect this was pre-Marcionite and that the Gospel that was produced was actually known as the "Gospel of Luke". And I suspect that the "Gospel of Luke started with Canonical Luke 3 and included the genealogy. I suspect that Marcion then redacted this version of "The Gospel of Luke", removing the genealogy and other things.

The Canonical Gospel of Luke then is not actually based directly on Marcion's Gospel or Marcion's collection at all. The Canonical Gospel of Luke goes back to the original "Gospel of Luke" collection and moves forward from there in order to refute Marcion.

But nevertheless, the Pauline letters that Marcion possessed in his collection were virtually identical to the "Lukan collection". And the writer of Canonical Luke and Acts very likely did also modify the "Lukan collection" to add the Pastorals as well as make other changes to the letters.

Thus, what the fathers said was almost true. They said that Marcion had altered the "original collection" and claimed that their collection was actually the original. Well, this is sort of true, but not really.

They went back to the collection that Marcion had copied from, that's true, but Marcion's version of the letters was actually closer to his source than what ended up in the orthodox collection.

It never made sense to me that the other Gospels were derived from Marcion. But now this makes sense. So actually nothing derives from Marcion. What Klinghardt and Vinzent think are relationship to Marcion's Gospel are actually relationships to the original Luke and the letter collection that was associated with it, from which Marcion derived his collection.
Post Reply