The Quest for Mark’s Sources: An Exploration of the Case for Mark’s Use of First Corinthians by Thomas P. Nelligan

Abstract

Reviewed by: The Quest for Mark’s Sources: An Exploration of the Case for Mark’s Use of First Corinthians by Thomas P. Nelligan Laura Sweat Holmes thomas p. nelligan, The Quest for Mark’s Sources: An Exploration of the Case for Mark’s Use of First Corinthians (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2015). Pp. xvi + 169. Paper $22. This revision of Nelligan’s dissertation (Mary Immaculate College, University of Limerick, 2011) seeks to reopen the question of the Gospel of Mark’s relationship to the Pauline letters, examining whether there is any literary relationship between the two. This slim volume begins by surveying Greco-Roman and Jewish rhetorical patterns of using sources, adopting those developed by Dennis R. MacDonald (chap. 1), and it establishes a newly revised set of criteria for determining literary dependence after analyzing those of Richard B. Hays, Thomas L. Brodie, MacDonald, Dale C. Allison, and Outi Leppä (chap. 2). Through this overview, N. determines three types of criteria that must be assessed in considering source texts. First, external criteria must be satisfied; essentially, the text must be from a particular setting that makes its use a reasonable possibility. Second, N. highlights internal criteria, which include basic similarities (context, theme, plot, order, completeness), vocabulary, literary conventions, and the intelligibility or “interpretability” of the differences between the texts. Third, N. considers “probing criteria” that are used to determine if the overlap in material might be explained a different way. In chap. 3, N. briefly surveys scholarship that has described the relationship between Mark’s Gospel and Paul’s letters, from Gustav Volkmar (1857 and 1870) to a two-volume collection of essays published in 2014 (Mark and Paul: Comparative Essays Part II: For and Against Pauline Influence on Mark [ed. Eve-Marie Becker, Troels Engberg Pedersen, and Mogens Müller; BZNW 199; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014]). This overview of the field indicates a scholarly lacuna (considering Paul’s letters a literary source for Mark’s Gospel) and notes recent scholarly interest in the topic. In order to limit his study, N. chooses to focus on 1 Corinthians among the Pauline corpus primarily on account of its early date and its undisputed authorship, as well as some sympathy between themes (e.g., food, ethics, and the Eucharist). In chaps. 4–7, N. concentrates on three case studies, comparing 1 Corinthians 1–2 to Mark 1:1–28 (chap. 5), 1 Corinthians 5 to Mark 6:14–29 (chap. 6), and 1 Cor 11:2–34 to Mark 14:1–25 (chap. 7). These texts move from the not-obviously-related (chap. 5) to those that share at least a common tradition (chap. 7). In each chapter, N. proceeds through the criteria listed in chap. 2 in order to determine whether Mark used 1 Corinthians as source [End Page 149] material in writing his Gospel. In addition to the internal criteria examined for every several verses, N. also covers other sources (usually OT/NT, sometimes classical) that might account for Mark’s information. Nelligan’s diagnosis of this lacuna in Marcan scholarship seems wise: for the past few decades (and more), scholars have talked of affinities between Mark’s Gospel and Paul’s letters, but few have gone further. At the same time, filling that scholarly gap seems to be the only motivating feature of this study. Assuming that 1 Corinthians is proven to be a source for Mark, what does this tell us? Indeed, N. does not let his audience know the value of this search for sources. This omission seems important particularly in Marcan studies, which, overall, has been fairly resistant to hypothesizing sources for the past two or three decades. Furthermore, although N. is careful with the evidence to ensure that he follows the criteria he has established, one wonders if by working with such small sections of text he loses sight of how the context of the whole shapes interpretation. For example, N. seems intrigued by the fact that a moderately rare Greek verb, katartizō, occurs in both 1 Cor 1:10 (Paul asks the factions to “mend themselves”) and Mark 1:19 (mending nets), and that the term adelphos is used in both contexts. These lexical...