Every time Paul mentions Mark, he also mentions Luke

[MrMacSon]

Every time Paul mentions Luke, he also mentions Mark (and vice versa): see 2 Timothy 4:11,Colossians 4:10-14 and Philemon verse 24.

(dunno what to make of this)

2 Timothy 4:11:

Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, because he is helpful to me in my ministry.

• in the context of 2 Tim 4:6b-7f:
  
  
  "the time for my departure is near. 7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith." https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV
  
  

Colossians 4:10, 14:

10 My fellow prisoner Aristarchus sends you his greetings, as does Mark, the cousin of Barnabas. (You have received instructions about him; if he comes to you, welcome him.) 11 Jesus, who is called Justus, also sends greetings. These are the only ones of the circumcision group [Jews] among my co-workers for the kingdom of God, and they have proved a comfort to me ... 14 Our dear friend Luke, the doctor, and Demas send greetings.

Philemon end

19 I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand. I will pay it back—not to mention that you owe me your very self. 20 I do wish, brother, that I may have some benefit from you in the Lord; refresh my heart in Christ. 21 Confident of your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even more than I ask.

22 And one thing more: Prepare a guest room for me, because I hope to be restored to you in answer to your prayers.

23 Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends you greetings. 24 And so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas and Luke, my fellow workers.

25 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.

• Demas features in 2 Tim 4:10

• Aristarchus also features in Colossians 4:10 and in Acts 19:29, 20:4 and 27:2.

[MrMacSon]

Acts 12:12:

And when [Peter] had considered the thing, he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying.

Acts 12:25

And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, when they had fulfilled their ministry, and took with them John, whose surname was Mark.

Acts 15:37-39

37 Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, 38 but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. 39 They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, 40 but Paul chose Silas and left ...

[RandyHelzerman]

Every time Paul mentions Luke, he also mentions Mark (and vice versa): see 2 Timothy 4:11,Colossians 4:10-14 and Philemon verse 24.

(dunno what to make of this)

According to my hobbyhorse, these would have been put there by the redactor of the first recension of the canonical NT. They serve several purposes:

1. Mark and Luke are two gospels which don't bear the names of Apostles. So, to give them apostolic authority, they are both associated with THE apostle, Paul. Over and over. Repeatedly. So you are sure to get the point.

2. Intertexuality---it makes the NT look like a coherent whole instead of just a hodgepodge of books.

3. Its Anti-Marcionite. What you should be reading is Mark and Luke, not the nameless Evangelion. If it were really Paul's gospel, surely he would have mentioned it no?

EDIT: Oh yeah, and

4. Acts very embarrassingly leaves John Mark (the only guy who remotely could be identified with the eponymous evangelist) on the outs with Paul. So this validates the Gospel of Mark and gives us warm fuzzies about how all the christian brethren are reconciled with each other....

Side note: Interesting that Mark is associated with Paul, not Peter. I would interpret this as evidence that the final recension of the NT happened before Papias was able to write up that bit about Mark being Peter's translator and author of Peter's gospel.

[MrMacSon]

According to my hobbyhorse, these would have been put there by the redactor of the first recension of the canonical NT.

They serve several purposes:
1. they [Mark and Luke] are both associated with THE apostle, Paul. Over and over. Repeatedly.

• But they're not repeatedly associated with The Apostle, Paul. Just three times. Obscurely.
  
  And they're certainly not associated in The Gospels.

2. Intertexuality---it makes the NT look like a coherent whole instead of just a hodgepodge of books.

• Hardly.

3. Its Anti-Marcionite. What you should be reading is Mark and Luke, not the nameless Evangelion. If it were really Paul's gospel, surely he¹ would have mentioned it no?

1. What do you mean by this? Who's 'he' there?

[RandyHelzerman]

• But they're not repeatedly associated with The Apostle, Paul. Just three times. Obscurely.

"Just" 3 times?

1. What do you mean by this? Who's 'he' there?

Sorry to be obscure; "He" is Paul. Recall, Marcion is trying to claim the mantle of being the keeper of the flame of Paul. By mentioning Mark and Luke, the redactor is having Paul explicitly endorse the gospels of Mark and Luke, over against Marcion's gospel--which, as best as we can tell, really resembles Mark and Luke.

[RandyHelzerman]

P.S. this is a great observation. I knew about the reference in Timothy, but I never noticed the other two.

[Peter Kirby]

Possibly Mark and Luke were important in Christian circles, and they worked alongside one of the greats, Paul, before going on to do their own things literarily after Paul died.

Think of people like Steve Martin and Martin Short, Ben Affleck and Matt Damon. Famous people work with other famous people, are friends with other famous people, and would then mention other famous people. This applies to any niche in which someone can have a reputation. There's one or more small circles of friends and they're all known separately for their work as well, having no doubt helped each other in securing that reputation. Paul's coworkers would have benefited from the association at least as much as Paul was being aided by them.

Or maybe they're all just characters. That's basically catnip here.

[MrMacSon]

Side note: Interesting that Mark is associated with Paul, not Peter. I would interpret this as evidence that the final recension of the NT happened before Papias was able to write up that bit about Mark being Peter's translator and author of Peter's gospel.

We only have Eusebius's [and Irenaeus's]1 word for the proposal that Mark "became 'the interpreter' of Peter" (Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History 3.39.15).

Eusebius goes on to say:

" ... he had followed Peter, who adapted the [Lord's] teachings to the needs of the moment/his hearers, but not as though he were drawing up a connected account of the oracles of the Lord: so that Mark committed no error in writing certain matters as he remembered them. For he had only one object in view, namely to leave out nothing of the things which he had heard, and to include no false statement among them."

I agree this was to give the impression of 'warm and fuzzies,' so much so that Mark was said to have followed Peter when, in fact, it's as if the author of Mark would have been as likely, if not in fact more likely, to have 'following' Paul, ie. mining the Pauline epistles.

1 Irenaeus Against Heresies III.1.1

[MrMacSon]

3. Its Anti-Marcionite. What you should be reading is Mark and Luke, not the nameless Evangelion.[/color]
If it were really Paul's gospel, surely he¹ would have mentioned it no?

1 What do you mean by this? Who's 'he' there?

"He" is Paul. Recall, Marcion is trying to claim the mantle of being the keeper of the flame of Paul. By mentioning Mark and Luke, the redactor is having Paul explicitly endorse the gospels of Mark and Luke, over against Marcion's gospel--which, as best as we can tell, really resembles Mark and Luke.

• Cheers. Perhaps.

• I kinda like the idea that 'Mark'/Marc is a rehabilitated Marcion/Markion
  
  (and that the-gospel-attributed-to-'Mark' is Marcionite, too)

[Peter Kirby]

Alternatively, "Luke" was chosen as a pseudonym to counter the tradition of "Mark" being an associate of Paul and involved in writing his gospel (heretical associations). And "Mark" had the association with Paul obscured by an association with Peter.