Does Mark use Josephus & Paul’s Letters?

Hypertextuality and Pauline trad w/ gMark

German scholar supported the idea that gMark was used for the apology of Paul.

• Coming down to the linguistic level, Wolfgang Schenk has argued that numerous Pauline words and phrases were used in the Marcan Gospel. The German scholar has noted that a number of them (ἀββά, ἀδημονέω, ἀκυρόω, ἀλαλάζω, ἁμάρτημα, ἀσύνετος, ἄτιμος, ἀφροσύνη, etc.) can be found, as concerns the New Testament, exclusively in Paul’s letters and in the Gospel of Mark (and at times also in the parallel texts of Luke and Matthew), a fact which strongly suggests Mark’s indebtedness to Paul’s literary heritage.

• Likewise, William R. Telford has argued that Mark and Paul share a number of ideas and literary motifs: a tension with the Jerusalem church; a similar attitude to the Law, table fellowship, and the food laws; a common strategy in regard to dealings with the Roman state; the rejection of ‘Son of David’ christology; regarding the title ‘Son of God’ as of supreme importance; the theology of the cross, the salvific death of Jesus, and the universality of salvation engendered by it; the importance of faith in Jesus for appropriating his divine power; the distinction between the ‘flesh’ and the ‘spirit’; similar catalogues of vices; the motif of ‘hardness of heart’; the use of the word ‘gospel’ (εὐαγγέλιον) to denote the proclamation of the message of salvation; etc.

• In his introductory commentary on the Gospel of Mark, Paul Nadim Tarazi has interpreted the Marcan ‘gospel story’ as a reflection of the ‘gospel story’ which was earlier presented in Paul’s letters (especially in the letters to the Galatians and to the Philippians) and which followed the major contours of Paul’s life and activity as an apostle.
• Likewise in opposition to Werner’s conclusions, Joel Marcus has argued for a Pauline influence on Mark in a number of ideas: the centrality of the term εὐαγγέλιον in his theology, the significance of Jesus’ crucifixion as the apocalyptic turning point of the ages, Jesus’ victory over demonic powers, Jesus’ advent as the dawn of the age of divine blessing prophesied in the Scriptures, the portrayal of Jesus as a new Adam, the importance of faith in Jesus and in God, negative views about Peter and about members of Jesus’ family, the inclusion of ungodly sinners and the Gentiles in the sphere of Jesus’ salvific activity and atoning death, an abrogation of the Old Testament food laws, etc.
• Jesper Svartvik has similarly argued that Mark shares with Paul the interest in the importance of the cross, a profound critique of the twelve disciples, and the problem of Christian commensality.44 The Swedish scholar has summarized his conclusions in the simple statement, ‘Mk may be understood as a Pauline Gospel’.45 More precisely, ‘the Gospel of Mark may best be described as a narrative presentation of the Pauline Gospel’.

• In a more cautious and general manner, John R. Donahue and Daniel J. Harrington have noted intriguing contacts between Mark and Paul or the Pauline tradition, especially as they are present in the Letter to the Romans. According to these American scholars, there are striking similarities between Mark and Paul in terminology and theology, community concerns, and the structures of the community.
• Troels Engberg-Pedersen has interpreted the paraenesis which is contained in the Marcan Gospel as an indirect, narrativized, in fact biographized version of the paraenesis which can be found in the Pauline letters.
• On the other hand, Tom Dykstra has recently argued that the primary purpose for writing the Gospel of Mark was to defend the vision of Christianity championed by Paul the Apostle against his ‘Judaizing’ opponents.
• Somewhat similarly, Petr Pokorný has recently argued that the Pauline influence on Mark can be detected in Mark’s use of the Pauline soteriological concepts of the death of Jesus on the cross, the relativization of all the dietary regulations of the Jewish tradition, the solution to the problem of the common Table of the Lord for Christians of Jewish origin and Christians of non-Jewish origin, and the use of the term εὐαγγέλιον as denoting the content of the post-Easter salvific proclamation, especially Jesus’ death on the cross and resurrection.

gMark using Paul’s letters

Mk 1:9 (cf. Gal 1:13-14):

• It can be argued that in his allusive reference to the prophetic-messianic text Is 11:1, which was used according to the logic of Rom 1:3 in order to illustrate Jesus’ Davidic identity (Mk 1:9), Mark was influenced by Paul, who in the same Letter to the Romans quoted a related Isaian text concerning ‘the root of Jesse’ (Is 11:10) as prophetically referring to Jesus (Rom 15:12). The apparently superfluous remark that Nazareth was located in Galilee (Mk 1:9b) illustrates the fact that Paul’s Jewish origins (Gal 1:13) could be found in the diaspora (Gal 1:17c).30 Accordingly, by means of the hypertextual procedure of spatial translation the Marcan Galilee generally represents the territory of the Gentiles, especially those among whom Jews live in a diaspora. The subsequent, quite surprising image of Jesus coming alone from the distant Galilee with the sole aim of receiving the Jewish-style immersion in water (Mk 1:9bc; diff. 1:5) by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s subsequent statement that he advanced in Judaism beyond many of his contemporaries in his people, being far more zealous for the Jewish traditions (Gal 1:14).

Mk 8:1-21 (cf. 1 Cor 1:1-31):

Mk 14:1-25 (cf. Phlp 1:1-18):

• The story about the Jewish Christian intrigue to betray Jesus (Mk 14:17-21) illustrates the main ideas of the thematically corresponding Pauline text Phlp 1:17. The opening temporal remark that Jesus’ eucharistic meal with his disciples (cf. Mk 14:18ab.22-25) took place when evening came (Mk 14:17) reflects Paul’s statement that Jesus had his last supper at night (1 Cor 11:23c; cf. 11:23d-25).
• Likewise, the thought that Jesus was betrayed (παραδίδωμι: Mk 14:18e.21; cf. 14:10-11.41-42.44) was borrowed from 1 Cor 11:23c.
• On the other hand, the thought that Jesus was betrayed by one of his Jewish Christian disciples (Mk 14:17b.18e.20b) by means of the hypertextual procedure of interfigurality illustrates Paul’s idea that he was betrayed by some of the Jewish Christians, who wanted to add affliction to his chains in Rome (Phlp 1:17).
• The thought that Jesus was betrayed by one of the Twelve who ate together with him (Mk 14:17b-20) also alludes to the statements concerning Peter’s betrayal of Paul and his idea of table fellowship in Antioch (Gal 2:12; cf. 2:13). Moreover, the particular description of the intended Jewish Christian betrayal, namely as committed by the disciple who not only ate with Jesus (Mk 14:18f), but also insincerely tried to conceal his guilt (‘Certainly, not I?’: Mk 14:19), and went on to dip with Jesus into the bowl (Mk 14:20c), so that the betrayal turned out to be an outcome of a very insincere intrigue, illustrates Paul’s idea that he was betrayed by the Jewish Christians who engaged in an intrigue (ἐριθεία) against him, and who were not sincere towards him (Phlp 1:17ab).
• The idea that the death of Jesus occurred according to what had been written of him (Mk 14:21) evidently illustrates the Pauline idea that Christ died according to the Scriptures (1 Cor 15:3). The particular formula ‘as it has been written’ (καθὼς γέγραπται: Mk 14:21b) was also evidently borrowed from Paul’s letters (1 Cor 1:31 etc.).

gMark using Josephus

• In particular, the structural literary and conceptual parallels between the references to the destruction of Jerusalem in Mk 13:14-27 and in Jos. B.J. 6.271-315, which have been noticed by Becker, do not necessarily prove the historical value of the Marcan Gospel in the modern sense of this word, for it seems that the Gospel of Mark is literarily dependent on the works of Flavius Josephus.

• The historical data concerning John the ‘immerser’21 can be deduced from the relatively credible remark of Josephus, which was almost certainly not influenced by early Christianity (Jos. Ant. 18.116-119). According to this text, a certain John, who lived somewhere in Peraea (in the borderland between the territories of Herod Antipas and Aretas: cf. Jos. Ant. 18.109-116, 119), was nicknamed ‘immerser’/’baptizer’ because he was a very effective preacher of Jewish purity, which was presented by him as resulting from both moral purity (achieved beforehand through practising righteousness) and ritual cleanness (achieved now through immersing bodies in water).

Moreover, in order to present a specifically Jewish Christian, that is presumably merely messianic version of the gospel (Gal 1:6; cf. Rom 1:3), the evangelist conflated Josephus’ account concerning John the ‘immerser’ (Ant. 18.116-119) with those concerning Theudas (Ἰορδάνης ποταμός, prophet: Ant. 20.97) and anonymous pretenders who led the crowd into the wilderness (ἔρημ: B.J. 2.259; Ant. 20.167, 188). Each of these accounts, taken separately, well suits its original context in Josephus’ work: –* (a)** John the ‘immerser’ as a preacher of moral righteousness and ritual cleanness who was active in the region of Machaerus by the time of Herod Antipas’ war against Aretas in that region (c. ad 36),

• (b) Theudas as a new Joshua dividing the Jordan River, and
• (c) the Egyptian pretender as both a new Moses in the wilderness and a new Joshua conquering the land of Israel. Mark conflated all these accounts into the artificial, unhistorical image of John the ‘baptizer’ as a preacher of repentance who was active in the wilderness in Judaea by the Jordan River before the activity of Jesus Christ (Mk 1:4-6). The probably unhistorical presentation of John’s immersing activity (βαπτ*: Mk 1:5; cf. Jos. Ant. 18.117-118) as taking place in the Jordan (ἐν τῷ ΙορδάνMk 1:5) could also be influenced by 2 Kgs 5:14 LXX.

**The use of Mark 1.1-8 w/ Josephus:**
> – Accordingly, in comparison to the relatively credible, ideologically neutral image of John as a ritual ‘immerser’ in Jos. Ant. 18.116-119, with the use of the hypertextual procedures of transpragmatization, transmotivation, and transvalorization, Mark created in Mk 1:2-8 a highly artificial image of John as a prophetic, Judaean precursor of Jesus Christ. This image consists of various elements which were taken from the opening section of Paul’s letters to the Galatians, **from various accounts of Josephus**, and from the Jewish Scriptures. Using his vivid literary imagination, Mark combined these elements to form a persuasive image of a quasi-scriptural prophet, who lived a distinctively Jewish version of the gospel, but who in effect subordinated himself to the true version of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Thought this was interesting, Nazareth as an artificial name?

Mark 1.21-28 w/ Josephus:

• The evangelist most probably used precisely this toponym because of its prominence in Josephus’ description of the Galilean country of Gennesaret (Jos. B.J. 3.516-521).

• Mark conflated the Pauline motifs taken from Gal 2:11-13 with those borrowed from Josephus’ set of stories about Herod’s brother (ἀδελφός) Philip; Herod’s not lawful marriage (γαμ) with Herodias (Ἡρωδιάς), who was the wife (γυνή) of his brother (ἀδελφός); and putting to death the bound (δέσμ) and imprisoned moral preacher John the Baptist (Ἰωάννης ὁ […] βαπτιστής), who was widely regarded as a good and righteous (δίκαιο*) man (ἀνήρ: Jos. Ant. 18.106-119, 136)

• The motifs which are contained in Mk 6:14-29 were also borrowed from Herodotus’ well-known story about the oriental king (βασιλεύς) Xerxes, who fell in love with the wife (γυνή) of his brother (ἀδελφός); the woman’s daughter (θυγάτηρ) as pleasing the king; the king’s swearing (ὀμνύω) that he would give (δίδωμι) her whatever (ὅ τι) she would ask for (αἰτέω), even a part of his kingdom; the daughter’s request as completely different from the king’s expectations; the king’s reluctant fulfilment of the oath; the queen’s vengeance; the queen’s waiting till the royal banquet (δεῖπνον) on the day (ἡμέρα) of the king’s birthday (γενε*); a tradition that the king should give (δίδωμι) something valuable to the participants of the banquet, etc.