Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Several scholars argued that Mark and Matthew not only knew but also reworked the letters of Paul. Bartosz Adamczewski, Polish biblical scholar and Catholic Priest, holds that “contrary to the widespread opinion, which is in fact based only on the post-Lukan patristic text termed the ‘testimony of Papias’ (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.39.15; cf. Lk 1:1-4),1 this narrative [the Gospel of Mark] is not based on oral traditions concerning the activity of the historical Jesus.“ One of the reason he gives is that Mark “presents a narrativized version of the contents of the most important letters of Paul the Apostle.”

In this post I want to discuss one example brought by Adamczewski - a comparison of 1 Thess 5:1-10 with Mk 13:32-37. He briefly talks about several examples, so I created tables with both pericopes myself and colored them in Google Docs. I don't know how to reproduce this here, so I took screen shots.



Paul writes “you yourselves know very well that the day of the Lord (kyriou) will come (erchetai)” Mark preserves this terminology in his parable of Jesus “you do not know when the master (kyrios) of the house will come(erchetai).”
Let's look at Matthew's account, who in my opinion, has recognized Mark's effort and emphasized it.



The reason why I highlight the differences as parallels is because I view this as as an example of creative literary-rhetorical reworking technique, wildly used in antiquity. What do you guys think? Did Mark and Matthew reworked 1 Thess, or... parallelomania?

Thanks for remember me the Adamczweski's book. Indeed, his book is better appreciated if it had shown the parallelisms in the form of tables, as you have just done.

I wonder: assuming Adamczerski (or whoever postulates Paul--->Mark parallelisms) is correct, does this say us that the Pauline epistles had to be, before Mark midrashized them, in a form such to allow Mark to derive what he derived ?

For example, if Mark has the Eucharist episode, then it was derived from Paul's story of the Eucharist. Does this imply that the Eucharist was not interpolated in Paul against Marcion ?

Are there scholars who argue that the Eucharist was interpolated in Paul?
I think the Eucharist is a good example of Mark creating a "narrativized version of the contents of the most important letters of Paul the Apostle".
Paul attributes his knowledge of the "Lord's Supper" to revelation. It's interesting that his account lacks a specific set of details when compared to Mark's account of the "Last Supper". It seems that in Paul, the Eucharist is something that Paul has learned from the heavenly Christ and Mark is creating a history out of it. The kind of details highlighted in bold are missing from Paul's account.
So in Mark, Jesus is clearly speaking to people who are present with him

Remember that the Catholic tradition wanted to diminish Paul. This is evident from Irenaeus and his consistent reference to those who 'exaggerate' Paul. So there is this new 'right belief' about Paul, that he was part of a 'team.' Which led to the understanding he didn't write a gospel (the Marcionites said he did). Which led to the false creation of Luke (to be a Pauline gospel not-written by Paul if you can believe something so stupid). Which leads to 'no direct evidence' of the gospel being cited by Paul and vice versa. Which ultimately leads to the obvious conclusion our gospels are fakes, forgeries.

Because you can't have it both ways.

Either you believe that Paul was 'over-rated' by the Marcionites.

Or you accept that Paul was reduced by the orthodox.

What evidence do we have for the definitive existence of any letters purported to be from Paul prior to Marcion?

lsayre wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 2:47 pm What evidence do we have for the definitive existence of any letters purported to be from Paul prior to Marcion?

On traditional dating of the Apostolic fathers 1 Clement Ignatius and Polycarp. Also statements attributed to early Gnostics that seem to be exegesis of Paul (e.g. Basilides according to Hippolytus When, therefore, he [Basilides] says, the entire Sonship shall have come, and shall be above the conterminous spirit, then the creature will become the object of mercy. For (the creature) groans until now,(Romans 8:19-22) and is tormented, and waits for the manifestation of the sons of God, in order that all who are men of the Sonship may ascend from thence. )

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Mon Nov 15, 2021 10:50 pm On traditional dating of the Apostolic fathers 1 Clement Ignatius and Polycarp. Also statements attributed to early Gnostics that seem to be exegesis of Paul (e.g. Basilides according to Hippolytus When, therefore, he [Basilides] says, the entire Sonship shall have come, and shall be above the conterminous spirit, then the creature will become the object of mercy. For (the creature) groans until now,(Romans 8:19-22) and is tormented, and waits for the manifestation of the sons of God, in order that all who are men of the Sonship may ascend from thence. )

Andrew Criddle

Is there any potential for bias within the traditional dating?

It's all above board, only the finest unbiased minds developed that dating timeline for Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp.

Is it Markus Vinzent who believes that Ignatius is a dogma filled polemic against Marcionism?

The Pastoral Epistles appear to be similarly anti-Marcionite, and may have been penned by Polycarp.