In the most recent Misquoting Jesus podcast, Dr. Ehrman rejects the suggestion that any of the gospel writers were familiar with any of Paul’s epistles. I have to believe, though, that Mark must, at the very least, have had a copy of 1 Corinthians in hand when he was writing his gospel. Specifically, his account of the Last Supper in 14:22-25 tracks almost verbatim Paul’s account in 1 Cor 11:23-26. Unless a later redactor altered the Mark Gospel to incorporate the Pauline language, doesn’t it seem likely that Mark was drawing from the First Corinthian letter when he was composing his Gospel? How else can one explain how the language Mark uses so closely hews to Paul’s?
Well there are similarities but there are also differences in details. The traditional view is that Mark was composed around the time of the First revolt, 70ish. Paul’s letter was written to a specific community probably sometime in the 50s. Would there have been time enough for Paul’s letters to have been copied and distributed and be well known enough among the general Christian community? It’s possible that both writers are drawing on common traditions.
For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
-1 Cor 11:23-26
While they were eating, he took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, and all of them drank from it. He said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. Truly I tell you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”
-Mark 14:22-25
If Mark was following Paul why would he leave out the part about these acts being intended for “remembrance” which seems to be Paul’s main point?
χαιρειν
Welcome
οιδα ουκ
I don’t know
Claim:
My brain doesn’t allow me to have any beliefs about questions like this.
Counterargument:
The Gospels were written First and before the Epistles. 1 Corinthians 11:23,
23 says that Paul received the New Covenant mentioned in 25. What Paul received from the Lord was the New Covenant. Paul had received the same New Covenant that the 12 Apostles were given during the actual Last Supper.
And no, not the literal and material cup like the Holy Grail that was searched for during the Crusades along with other archeological things. Also, and no it is not saying that Paul had some kind of supernatural psychic vision into the past about what happened during the Last Supper and that explains how Paul knew about it all without the Gospel literature or being told about it from Peter or another apostle or that he learned it during his persecution of the church.
Counterargument:
The Epistles were written First and before the Gospels because none that is true and Paul invented the story and dialogue of the Last Supper and do Mark copied the idea of it from the Epistles.
χαιρειν
Goodbye
οιδα ουκ
I don’t know
Interestingly, James Tabor believes that Mark almost certainly relied on 1st Corinthians and perhaps other letters in the Pauline corpus. Moreover, he posits that concept of the Last Supper likely started with Paul and not with the Jesus movement. Of that I am less certain; I suspect Paul learned of that tradition from others in the movement. As far as what Livesey says, while her argument is interesting, I am unconvinced; I tend to agree with the vast majority of Biblical scholars who attribute to Paul the seven epistles ordinarily deemed authentic.
1 Romans
2 Corinthians (1)
3 Corinthians (2)
4 Galatians
5 Philippians
6 Thessalonians (1)
7 Philemon
There was no council that called these letters to one place for publication.
If so, when did it happen?
Did it happen when people got the news that Paul died?
No.
Were copies of the collection sent back to those locations?
What was the reaction of the Jerusalem Church? Copies were sent to Pella if Paul’s letters were gathered by AD 75?
Did Josephus receive a copy?
A vast majority of scholars answered these questions for you?
= = = =
While the Gospel of Mark is traditionally attributed to John Mark, there’s no definitive evidence suggesting he wrote it in Alexandria. Early church tradition, specifically from figures like Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria, indicates that Mark wrote his Gospel based on the preaching of the Apostle Peter, likely in Rome. Although Mark is known to have founded the Church in Alexandria and served as its first bishop, his Gospel is generally believed to have been written before his arrival there.
Mark’s copy was sent to Rome where he wrote his gospel or to Alexandria?
cc: @Robert, @Stephen
There are obviously hundreds of books, treatises and articles on the question of which of the Pauline epistles are authentic. Dr. Ehrman provides a succinct overview in his textbook The New Testament, 7th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2020), pp. 341-345, and James Tabor also walks the reader through the current scholarly thinking on the matter in his book Paul and Jesus (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2012), pp. 27 ff.
Investigation does not occur by democracy until my questions in Comment 6 are answered.
Are you holding your breath?
The earliest collection we have of Paul’s letters is P46 usually dated around 200ish CE. The thinking is that at some point the surviving letters and fragments were collected and edited and then copied as a collection. I imagine it was after the First Revolt before a copy of any collection began to be distributed so the Jerusalem community was no more. There is no evidence Josephus knew Paul at all.
Mark is anonymous. Internal evidence undermines the notion that it had anything to with Peter. Joel Marcus seriously questions a Roman provenance for Mark. Eusebius thought Papias was a goofball.
Now you can breathe.
Robert, your post was very useful. Frustrating to those of us greekless because a lot of these controversies can only be resolved textually.
Comments 11 & 12
Stephen:
There is no evidence Josephus knew Paul at all.
Steefen:
I disagree.
See:
Josephus translated by William Whiston, The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18,
Chapter 3: “Sedition of the Jews against Pontius Pilate; Concerning Christ, and What Befell Paulina
and the Jews at Home,” Section 5, Lines 81-84, p. 481.
Robert,
You do not accept this citation because you know of another historical character who fits this description other than Paul?
Probably NOT.
Second, the search is for a collection of the Pauline Letters BEFORE Marcion.
Livesey and Vinzent vs. the Orthodox Camp (those who rejected Marcion)
You and Stephen have not made the Orthodox Camp plausible.
Livesey and Vinzent are still winning.
2 Peter 3:16
Yes, the gospel writers knew Peter and they would have known about Paul’s letters through Peter.
No, 2 Peter is considered a forgery and was written after the gospels.
Conclusion,
I believe that there were authors of the books because books without authors is a terrifying thought. However, it more statistically possible that a book would evolve from dirt into existence without an author than for a human being to evolve from dirt into existence.
Commeent 12
Robert:
As for the various theories as to how the Pauline corpus was first collected, Stanley E. Porter’s chapter, “When and How was the Pauline Canon Compiled? An Assessment of Theories,” pp 95-129, in The Pauline Canon, Brill, 2004. is probably a good place to start. It’s expensive so I recommend a good academic or theology library.
Steefen:
Porter DOES NOT have an alternative to Marcion producing a collection of Pauline letters.
The early church, therefore, was prompted to define its own corpus.
Porter notes that debates persist over whether Marcion’s collection preceded or followed the church’s own canon formulation.
Ha!
What proof there was publishing race between Marcion and his competitors? What, the Muratorian fragment that comes out 30 or 35 years later ? ? ?
Mark is the first gospel but “probably” was listed in the Muratorian fragment but definitely listed in 230 CE with Origen’s list.
Marcionite canon: 130-140 CE
Muratorian fragment 170 CE
Origen 230 CE
All the talk about Q and Mark doesn’t indisputably make the list until the 3rd century ! ! !
Dr. Ehrman,
Scholar Nina Livesey proposed the Pauline Letters was a pseudonymous fictive collection of letters produced bu associates of Marcion. The ancient Roman literary context is such that pseudonymous fictive collections of letters were commonplace (correspondence between Seneca and Paul, Ovid’s Heroides). Irenaeus needed scripture and used the fictive letters of Paul as scripture. Opponents of Marcion edited the Pauline letters in his collection.
A rebuttal to this is: whereas Marcion “found” Galations, those against Marcion’s collection of Pauline letters “found” Pauline letters and published their own collection listed in the Muratorian fragment of 170 CE and listed by Origen in 230 CE.
QUESTION 1: Was Paul’s letter to the Romans found in Rome by opponents of Marcion and a search went out to the places of Paul’s travels to find other letters so they could be sent to Rome for editing and compilation in a collection to replace or compete with Marcion’s collection?
Josephus partially wrote if not fully wrote the Testimonium Flavianum. With Paul causing an uproar in Jerusalem then going to Rome; and, both Paul and Josephus being shipwrecked in Puteoli on the way to Rome,
QUESTION 2: do you think Josephus knew of Jesus but not Paul?
Comments 11 & 12
Stephen:
There is no evidence Josephus knew Paul at all.
Steefen:
I disagree.
See:
Josephus translated by William Whiston, The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18,
Chapter 3: “Sedition of the Jews against Pontius Pilate; Concerning Christ, and What Befell Paulina
and the Jews at Home,” Section 5, Lines 81-84, p. 481.
Whatsamatter, you can’t quote four lines?
However, it[sic] more statistically possible that a book would evolve from dirt into existence without an author than for a human being to evolve from dirt into existence.
Translation? You know nothing about evolution.
Comment 17 from Robert
1a
I already asked you who else fits the bill?
1b
Paul fits the bill.
You did not mention Lydia who made purple clothes. The person in the Josephus quote wanted to send gold and purple to Jerusalem.
2
You reject Livesey, it seems. To reject Livesey leaves the student with the belief that Paul wrote the letters and some church other than Marcion’s community collected these letters somehow. How, Robert? If there is no explanation, that is registered.
Llvesey and Vinzent are winning with the alternative explanation of the existence of the Pauline letters due to the LACK of the anti-Marcion camp having a plausible explanation of compiling the letters independent of Marcion.
YOU are the one who agreed that the majority of scholars did not come up or support the Livesey and Vinzent proposition.
Besides it’s a NEW book. What? The Society of Biblical Literature annual meeting is in November where they are jointly presenting?
You do not know how they will be received.
3
Debates persist over whether Marcion’s collection preceded or followed the church’s own canon formulation.
Ha!
There’s no contradiction here. I say “Ha!” because I have not heard of there being a collection of Paul’s letters for publication before Marcion. Ha: Marcion’s collection followed what church’s own formulation of canon before 140 CE?
4
Q and Mark was something that came up when looking at the list of books in the various NT canons.
Papias and Justin Martyr mention a standalone Gospel of Mark without being part of the Comparison between earliest biblical lists
** you do not have permission to see this link **
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)