Mark, a Pauline Theologian: A Re-reading of the Traditions of Jesus in the Light of Paul’s Theology.

Abstract

The traditional view that Mark’s Gospel was written by John Mark, who transmitted Peter’s memories of Jesus of Nazareth, continues to find scholarly proponents. Some, however, see the traditional view as resting on slender evidence and are instead impressed by its similarities with distinctive aspects of the theology of the Apostle Paul. Díaz is one among many recent voices who argues that Mark wants to “interpret Jesus through a Pauline lens” (p. 5). Mark’s Gospel bear testimony, according to Díaz, to a compositional process whereby the author “reworked and changed the sources he received so that they are in agreement with Paul” (p. 4). The author’s methodology emphasizes the importance of demonstrating a cumulative case of an abundance of similar and distinctive elements between Mark and Paul.Chapter 1 (“History of Research: Status quaestionis”) reviews the works that deny a significant connection between Mark and Paul, often by accounting for the supposed distinctive similarities by their general commonality among early Christians. Díaz also notes the long line of interpreters who have supported a Mark and Paul connection and those who defend both Petrine and Pauline influences on Mark. Chapter 2 (“The Structure of Mark’s Narrative”) sets forth the structure of the Gospel in a way that emphasizes how the Markan “the shadow of the cross” provides “a clearly Pauline flavour to the entire exposition” (p. 29).The heart of the book is set forth in the next two chapters. Chapter 3 (“Pauline Theological Elements within the Gospel of Mark”) examines nine topics searching “for similarities and agreements with the texts of the Pauline letters, in an attempt to verify the trace of the apostle’s influence on the evangelist” (p. 45). First, both Mark and Paul share the term gospel (singular/neuter) and use it to speak of an oral proclamation that centers on Jesus’s messianic identity. Second, Mark narrativizes Paul’s supposed conflict with James by presenting Jesus as earlier having challenges with his biological family (Mark 3:21–35). Díaz argues that Mark’s portrait of Jesus’s conflict with his disciples, including Peter, lends support to Paul’s conflict and challenges with Peter and the Jerusalem apostles as well. Third, with respect to law observance, both Mark and Paul are united in their concern “to deliver man from the Law, that is, to deliver him from the punishment he would have to pay, to deliver him from death, to deliver him from the obligation of having to fulfil the Law with his own resources” (p. 119). Fourth, Mark’s inclusion of two stories about the multiplication of the loaves symbolizes Paul’s own concern to show the unity and communion between Jewish and pagan Christians with respect to table fellowship. Fifth, Paul’s mission to the Gentiles is taken up by Mark, who devotes significant narrative episodes to Jesus’s engaging, healing, and affirming pagans who believe in him. Sixth, Mark’s depiction of Jesus symbolizing the temple’s destruction and calling for his disciples to pray and have faith (Mark 11:11–25) is in “total harmony with the Pauline idea that faith and prayer are the fruit of all those who truly believe in God” (p. 158). Seventh, Díaz argues that Jesus’s enigmatic response to the riddle posed to him about paying taxes to Caesar in Mark 12:13–17 fits with Paul’s exhortations to submit respectfully to the governing authorities in Rom 13. Eighth, both share a similar theology of the cross. Díaz argues that “Mark is the one most attuned to Paul’s Gospel since he presents Jesus as the one who is strong and weak, glorious and humiliated” (p. 169). Ninth, as Paul’s ministry included women, so does Mark portray Jesus as following him and as examples of discipleship.Chapter 4 (“Christology”) claims that, to understand Mark’s Christology, “one must look at Paul” (p. 191). Some of this covers similar ground in that the author sees Paul and Mark distinctly unified in their Christological emphases on a power/weakness paradox, a theology of the cross, Christological titles, fulfillment of the OT, and victory over the demonic powers.I will conclude with two evaluative comments. First, the author has successfully shown that there are some significant parallels between Mark’s Gospel and Paul. But the thematic connections do not strike me as uniquely and distinctively shared between only Mark and Paul to justify the direct relationship. Some of the arguments, furthermore, are weaker than others. The emphasis on the shared theology of the cross, the use of the term gospel, and the logia on declaring all things clean (Mark 7 and Rom 14) are much stronger in my view than the similarities pertaining to the role of women, misunderstanding on the behalf of Jesus’s family, and victory over the demons.Second, I confess that I was disturbed by the author’s consistent anti-Jewish readings of Mark and Paul. I will give only two (among many) examples: “By the will and decision of the God of the Law, women in Israel were second-class creatures, subordinate in all things to men, and their existence justified solely by the fact of motherhood” (p. 178). And the author speaks of Jesus as “wounding the bowels of Judaism” (p. 88). More examples of the Markan Jesus and Paul seeming to unite in their rejection of torah and temple could be given. I am surprised that the editors accepted for publication a work that smells so strongly of Marcionite anti-Judaism in its portrait of both Mark and Paul.