Review of Paul and the Gospels – Nick Norelli on Paul and Mark

Over at Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth, Nick Norelli begins his review of Paul and the Gospels (edited by myself and my co-blogger Joel Willitts).  Nick kicks off with a review of the first two essays on Paul and Mark by Michael Bird and James Crossley. Its fairly comprehensive and Norelli sides with Crossley in terms of non-Pauline influence on Mark.  He writes:

It seems to me that Bird’s essay operates according to the assumption of Pauline influence and then concludes with Pauline influence. This can be seen when Bird says that “Crossley’s objections still do not eliminate the Pauline perspective in Mk 7.19c” (50) but this begs the very question that needs to be answered. It is possible that if Mark wrote as early as Crossley thinks (ca. 40 CE) that he could have influenced Paul (of course Bird doesn’t accept such an early date for Mark; he says, “the attempt to synthesize Petrine and Pauline perspectives was first undertaken by Mark sometime around 70 CE” [52-53]). Bird also says that the connection between the cross and Jesus as Son of God is a “distinctly Pauline idea” (43), but one wonders how this is so when it’s in Mark as well. If one doesn’t assume Pauline influence then would once conclude that this idea was distinctly Pauline?

I think Mark 7:19c is very Pauline, not by assumption, but by comparison with Rom 14:14! Moreover, as I’ve told James before, the number of scholars who would date Mark to the 40’s CE could probably fit into a Volvo!! If Mark is post-70, pro-Gentile, bit emphasis on apocalyptic interpretation of cross, then there has to be a pretty good chance that he’s got some Pauline influence in there somewhere.