"a kind of companion volume to Paul's epistles" might be a good way to describe the relationship.gryan wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 11:18 am Could this line of research suggest (or even "prove") something that I'm suspecting: That the author of Mark and his actual/intended readers were reading and rereading Paul's letters as scripture? And so also, that the Gospel of Mark was composed as a kind of companion volume to Paul's epistles, especially Galatians and 1 and 2 Corinthians which mention the lives of the 12 and James the Lord's brother?
Though I personally don't know about the relationship to Galatians and 1 and 2 Corinthians, their mention of the lives of the 12 and James the Lord's brother may be relevant to Mark's mention and elaboration of them, and it seems that Diaz has engaged with them ...
The webpage Sinouhe provided to Díaz's book, https://www.mohrsiebeck.com/en/book/mar ... no_cache=1, includes a link to a 'Table of Contents & Reading Sample', https://www.mohrsiebeck.com/uploads/tx_ ... 595059.pdf, which includes these excerpts:
1. Scope and rationale of the subject
For many centuries, the statement of the second century Bishop Papias of Hierapolis was decisive for the interpretation of the Gospel of Mark. It was generally accepted that the Gospel of Mark had been written by John Mark, a figure known from the Acts of the Apostles and the epistles. This John Mark was an aide to Paul and Barnabas (Acts 12.25; 13.5), only to Barnabas (Acts 15.36–41) or only to Paul (Phlm 1.24; Col 4.10; 2Tim 4.11). In addition, the apostle Peter and John Mark himself appear connected in 1Peter 5.13, where Peter calls Mark “my son”. Likewise, Luke’s description of the church in Jerusalem suggests that Peter visited John Mark’s house at least once (Acts 12.11–17).
As a result of Papias’ statements, it was accepted that the Gospel of Mark was a Petrine Gospel, that is, a Gospel in line with the church of Jerusalem and that, therefore, Mark, in his narrative, had interpreted Peter’s teaching as he remembered it. Today, however, many scholars believe that Papias’ arguments were apologetic in intent and aimed at consolidating the authority and prestige of the oldest Gospel, indirectly linking it to the apostle Peter. However, since the beginning of the last century, scholars have reconsidered these ideas transmitted by the early Church Fathers and, contrary to what was claimed, argued that the Gospel of Mark was a Gospel strongly influenced by the apostle Paul ...
.. < . . snip . . >
... More recently, a large group of scholars have identified three or, in some cases, four Pauline elements; however, we have not found any scholar who has argued for these Pauline elements as being important within the Gospel. Therefore, the task before us is arduous, wide-ranging and complex and the scope of the task must be narrowly defined in order to avoid the temptation to discuss related but tangential issues.
We will not be discussing issues of authorship, dating or genre of the Marcan narrative, as we believe that each one of these would, in itself, require an investigation as extensive as the one we are considering here ...
The objective of this study is to search for and analyse passages in Mark’s Gospel that are distinctly Pauline in theology, or are in harmony with Paul’s thought or those in which the evangelist has independently echoed Pauline ideas. Consequently, we intend to find out whether the evangelist, when composing, organising and writing his narrative, had in mind the theology of the apostle Paul as a key to interpreting the words and deeds of Jesus of Nazareth.
Furthermore, we must also make clear what we mean by Paulinisms or Pauline theology. First of all, we must note that the entire Pauline corpus has not been used in the search for elements of confluence between the apostle and the evangelist. We have strictly limited ourselves to the letters considered to be authentically Paul’s: the Epistle to the Romans, the First Epistle to the Corinthians, the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, the Epistle to the Galatians, the Epistle to the Philippians, the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, and the Letter to Philemon. Consequently, we have not engaged with the other letters attributed to the apostle ... the letters that are doubtful as to Paul’s authorship ...
Additionally, we must identify those elements of theology that are recognised as being distinctly Pauline: the importance of the theology of the cross, Christian freedom, criticism of the Law, love of neighbour, openness to pagans, non-patriarchalism, the relationship with Roman power, the concept of ‘Gospel’, Jesus portrayed as the New Adam, issues such as table fellowship and the food laws, justification by faith, the importance of the Temple, the relationship with the disciples and victory over demons, in order to contrast them with the Gospel and find the Pauline imprint.
Consequently, we have chosen the subject with the conviction that a comprehensive study of Pauline elements in the second Gospel is an interesting and worthwhile project. Furthermore, it will contribute to an understanding of the process of evangelisation and growth of the early Church, to an understanding of how the message of Jesus of Nazareth was communicated within different communities and the different emphases given in interpreting and understanding that message.
In order to carry out our purpose, we have tracked Paul’s imprint within the Gospel and what is of a specifically Pauline nature, with respect to the words and actions of Jesus, the characters and situations around him, and also the structure and theology that emerges from these. Knowing to what extent the apostle to the Gentiles influenced the writing of the first of the Gospels is of importance in order to understand the functioning, structure and development of Mark’s own Gospel, but also in knowing what was the first message proclaimed inside and outside of Israel.
Nevertheless, we do not intend to affirm that everything we read in Mark is Pauline, but rather we intend to show how the evangelist Mark reworked and changed the sources he received so that they are in agreement with Paul ...
... even though we believe that Mark’s narrative style is imbued with Paulinisms when it comes to making people understand who Jesus is, we do not want to argue that all the traditions that Mark embodies in his Gospel are influenced by Paul, because many of them come from sources that are common to the entire tradition of the Church ...
... we argue that it is the structure of the Gospel which is the cohesive element making the whole narrative Pauline in character, because Mark was the creator of both this new literary form and its structure.
... we believe that because each writer used different literary genres and because the letters were written in very different and specific
contexts...we should not expect to find typical Pauline words or expressions in the Marcan narrative. Mark does not want to present Paul, but rather to interpret Jesus through a Pauline lens. [continues]
https://www.mohrsiebeck.com/uploads/tx_ ... 595059.pdf